THE question "Does civilization civilize?" is a fine example of _petitio
principii_. and decides itself in the affirmative; for civilization must
needs do that from the doing of which it has its name. But it is not
necessary to suppose that he who propounds is either unconscious of his
lapse in logic or desirous of digging a pitfall for the feet of
those who discuss; I take it he simply wishes to put the matter in an
impressive way, and relies upon a certain degree of intelligence in the
interpretation.
Concerning uncivilized peoples we know but little except what we are
told by travelers--who, speaking generally, can know very little but the
fact of uncivilization as shown in externals and irrelevances, and are
moreover, greatly given to lying. From the savages we hear very little.
Judging them in all things by our own standards, in default of a
knowledge of theirs, we necessarily condemn, disparage and belittle. One
thing that civilization certainly has not done is to make us intelligent
enough to understand that the opposite of a virtue is not necessarily a
vice. Because we do not like the taste of one another it does not follow
that the cannibal is a person of depraved appetite. Because, as a rule,
we have but one wife and several mistresses each it is not certain that
polygamy is everywhere--nor, for that matter, anywhere--either wrong or
inexpedient. Our habit of wearing clothes does not prove that conscience
of the body, the sense of shame, is charged with a divine mandate; for
like the conscience of the spirit it is the creature of what it seems to
create: it comes to the habit of wearing clothes. And for those who hold
that the purpose of civilization is morality it may be said that peoples
which are the most nearly naked are, in our sense, the most nearly
moral. Because the brutality of the civilized slave owners and dealers
created a conquering sentiment against slavery it is not intelligent to
assume that slavery is a maleficent thing amongst Oriental peoples (for
example) where the slave is not oppressed.
Some of these same Orientals whom we are pleased to term half-civilized
have no regard for truth. "Takest thou me for a Christian dog," said
one of them, "that I should be the slave of my word?" So far as I can
perceive the "Christian dog" is no more the slave of his word than the
True Believer, and I think the savage--allowing for the fact that his
inveracity has dominion over fewer things--as great a liar as either of
them. For my part, I do not know what, in all circumstances, is right
or wrong; but I know, if right, it is at least stupid to judge an
uncivilized people by the standards of morality and intelligence set up
by civilized ones. An infinitesimal proportion of civilized men do not,
and there is much to be said for civilization if they are the product of
it.
Life in civilized countries is so complex that men there have more ways
to be good than savages have, and more to be bad; more to be happy, and
more to be miserable. And in each way to be good or bad, their generally
superior knowledge--their knowledge of more things--enables them to
commit greater excesses than the savage could widi the same opportunity.
The civilized philanthropist wreaks upon his fellow creatures a
ranker philanthropy, the civilized scoundrel a sturdier rascality.
And--splendid triumph of enlightenment!--the two characters are, in
civilisation, commonly combined in one person.
I know of no savage custom or habit of thought which has not its mate
in civilized countries. For every mischievous or absurd practice of
the natural man I can name you a dozen of the unnatural which are
essentially the same. And nearly every custom of our barbarian ancestors
in historic times survives in some form today. We make ourselves look
formidable in battle--for that matter, we fight. Our women paint their
faces. We feel it obligatory to dress more or less alike, inventing the
most ingenious reasons for it and actually despising and persecuting
those who do not care to conform. Within the memory of living persons
bearded men were stoned in the streets; and a clergyman in New York
who wore his beard as Christ wore his, was put into jail and variously
persecuted till he died. We bury our dead instead of burning them, yet
every cemetery is set thick with urns. As there are no ashes for the
urns we do not trouble ourselves to make them hollow, and we say
their use is "emblematic." When, following the bent of our ancestral
instincts, we go on, age after age, in the performance of some senseless
act which once had a use and meaning we excuse ourselves by calling
it symbolism. Our "symbols" are merely survivals. We have theology and
patriotism. We have all the savage's superstition. We propitiate and
ingratiate by means of gifts. We shake hands. All these and hundreds
of others of our practices are distinctly, in their nature and by their
origin, savage.
Civilization does not, I think, make the race any better. It makes men
know more: and if knowledge makes them happy it is useful and desirable.
The one purpose of every sane human being is to be happy. No one
can have any other motive than that. There is no such thing as
unselfishness. We perform the most "generous" and "self-sacrificing"
acts because we should be unhappy if we did not. We move on lines of
least reluctance. Whatever tends to increase the beggarly sum of human
happiness is worth having; nothing else has any value.
The cant of civilization fatigues. Civilization is a fine and beautiful
structure. It is as picturesque as a Gothic cathedral. But it is built
upon the bones and cemented with the blood of those whose part in all
its pomp is that and nothing more. It cannot be reared in the generous
tropics, for there the people will not contribute their blood and bones.
The proposition that the average American workingman or European peasant
is "better off" than the South Sea Islander, lolling under a palm and
drunk with over-eating, will not bear a moment's examination.
It is we scholars and gentlemen that are better off.
It is admitted that the South Sea Islander in a state of nature is
overmuch addicted to the practice of eating human flesh; but concerning
that I submit: first, that he likes it; second, that those who supply
it are mostly dead. It is upon his enemies that he feeds, and these
he would kill anyhow, as we do ours. In civilized, enlightened and
Christian countries, where cannibalism has not yet established itself,
wars are as frequent and destructive as among the maneaters. The
untitled savage knows at least why he goes killing, whereas the private
soldier is commonly in black ignorance of the apparent cause of
quarrel--of the actual cause, always. Their shares in the fruits of
victory are about equal: the Chief takes all the dead, the General all
the glory. Moreover it costs more human life to supply a Christian
gentleman with food than it does a cannibal--with food alone: "board;"
if you could figure out the number of lives that his lodging, clothing,
amusements and accomplishment cost the sum would startle. Happily _he_
does not pay it. Considering human lives as having value, cannibalism is
undoubtedly the more economical system.