student of history. Progressive peace in a nation is the result of
conflict; and conflict, such as is healthy, stimulating, and
progressive, is produced through the co-existence of radically opposing
or racially different elements. Bellamy’s ox-like men pictured in
_Looking Backward_, taking their daily modicum of provender from the
grandmotherly government, with nothing to struggle for, no wrong to put
down, no reform to push through, no rights to vindicate and uphold, are
nice folks to read about; but they are not natural; they are not
progressive. God’s world is not governed that way. The child can never
gain strength save by resistance, and there can be no resistance if all
movement is in one direction and all opposition made forever an
impossibility.
I confess I can see no deeper reason than this for the specializing of
racial types in the world. Whatever our theory with reference to the
origin of species and the unity of mankind, we cannot help admitting the
fact that no sooner does a family of the human race take up its abode in
some little nook between mountains, or on some plain walled in by their
own hands, no sooner do they begin in earnest to live their own life,
think their own thoughts, and trace out their own arts, than they begin
also to crystallize some idea different from and generally opposed to
that of other tribes or families.
Each race has its badge, its exponent, its message, branded in its
forehead by the great Master’s hand which is its own peculiar key-note,
and its contribution to the harmony of nations.
Left entirely alone,—out of contact, that is with other races and their
opposing ideas and conflicting tendencies, this cult is abnormally
developed and there is unity without variety, a predominance of one tone
at the expense of moderation and harmony, and finally a sameness, a
monotonous dullness which means stagnation,—death.
It is this of which M. Guizot complains in Asiatic types of
civilization; and in each case he mentions I note that there was but one
race, one free force predominating.
In Lect. II. Hist. of Civ. he says:
“In Egypt the theocratic principle took possession of society and showed
itself in its manners, its monuments and in all that has come down to us
of Egyptian civilization. In India the same phenomenon occurs—a
repetition of the almost exclusively prevailing influence of theocracy.
In other regions the domination of a conquering caste; where such is the
case the principle of force takes entire possession of society. In
another place we discover society under the entire influence of the
democratic principle. Such was the case in the commercial republics
which covered the coasts of Asia Minor and Syria, in Ionia and Phœnicia.
In a word whenever we contemplate the civilization of the ancients, we
find them all impressed with _one ever prevailing character of unity_,
visible in their institutions, their ideas and manners; _one sole
influence seems to govern and determine all things_.... In one nation,
as in Greece, the unity of the social principle led to a development of
wonderful rapidity; no other people ever ran so brilliant a career in so
short a time. But Greece had hardly become glorious before she appeared
worn out. Her decline was as sudden as her rise had been rapid. It seems
as if the principle which called Greek civilization into life was
exhausted. No other came to invigorate it or supply its place. In India
and Egypt where again only one principle of civilization prevailed (_one
race predominant you see_) society became stationary. Simplicity
produced monotony. Society continued to exist, but there was no
progression. It remained torpid and inactive.”
Now I beg you to note that in none of these systems was a RACE PROBLEM
possible. The dominant race had settled that matter forever. Asiatic
society was fixed in cast-iron molds. Virtually there was but one race
inspiring and molding the thought, the art, the literature, the
government. It was against this shrivelling caste prejudice and
intolerance that the zealous Buddha set his face like a flint. And I do
not think it was all blasphemy in Renan when he said Jesus Christ was
first of democrats, i. e., a believer in the royalty of the individual,
a preacher of the brotherhood of man through the fatherhood of God, a
teacher who proved that the lines on which worlds are said to revolve
are _imaginary_, that for all the distinctions of blue blood and black
blood and red blood—_a man’s a man for a’ that_. Buddha and the Christ,
each in his own way, wrought to rend asunder the clamps and bands of
caste, and to thaw out the ice of race tyranny and exclusiveness. The
Brahmin, who was Aryan, spurned a suggestion even, from the Sudra, who
belonged to the hated and proscribed Turanian race. With a Pariah he
could not eat or drink. They were to him outcasts and unclean.
Association with them meant contamination; the hint of their social
equality was blasphemous. Respectful consideration for their rights and
feelings was almost a physical no less than a moral impossibility.
No more could the Helots among the Greeks have been said to contribute
anything to the movement of their times. The dominant race had them
effectually under its heel. It was the tyranny and exclusiveness of
these nations, therefore, which brought about their immobility and
resulted finally in the barrenness of their one idea. From this came the
poverty and decay underlying their civilization, from this the
transitory, ephemeral character of its brilliancy.
To quote Guizot again: “Society belonged to _one exclusive_ power which
could bear with no other. Every principle of a different tendency was
proscribed. The governing principle would nowhere suffer by its side the
manifestation and influence of a rival principle. This character of
unity in their civilization is equally impressed upon their literature
and intellectual productions. Those monuments of Hindoo literature
lately introduced into Europe seem all struck from the same die. They
all seem the result of one same fact, the expression of one idea.
Religious and moral treatises, historical traditions, dramatic poetry,
epics, all bear the same physiognomy. The same character of unity and
monotony shines out in these works of mind and fancy, as we discover in
their life and institutions.” Not even Greece with all its classic
treasures is made an exception from these limitations produced by
exclusiveness.
But the course of empire moves one degree westward. Europe becomes the
theater of the leading exponents of civilization, and here we have a
_Race Problem_,—if, indeed, the confused jumble of races, the clash and
conflict, the din and devastation of those stormy years can be referred
to by so quiet and so dignified a term as “problem.” Complex and
appalling it surely was. Goths and Huns, Vandals and Danes, Angles,
Saxons, Jutes—could any prophet foresee that a vestige of law and order,
of civilization and refinement would remain after this clumsy horde of
wild barbarians had swept over Europe?
“Where is somebody’ll give me some white for all this yellow?” cries one
with his hands full of the gold from one of those magnificent monuments
of antiquity which he and his tribe had just pillaged and demolished.
Says the historian: “Their history is like a history of kites and
crows.” Tacitus writes: “To shout, to drink, to caper about, to feel
their veins heated and swollen with wine, to hear and see around them
the riot of the orgy, this was the first need of the barbarians. The
heavy human brute gluts himself with sensations and with noise.”
Taine describes them as follows:
“Huge white bodies, cool-blooded, with fierce blue eyes, reddish flaxen
hair; ravenous stomachs, filled with meat and cheese, heated by strong
drinks. Brutal drunken pirates and robbers, they dashed to sea in their
two-sailed barks, landed anywhere, killed everything; and, having
sacrificed in honor of their gods the tithe of all their prisoners,
leaving behind the red light of their burning, went farther on to begin
again.”
A certain litany of the time reads: “From the fury of the Jutes, Good
Lord deliver us.” “Elgiva, the wife of one of their kings,” says a
chronicler of the time, “they hamstrung and subjected to the death she
deserved;” and their heroes are frequently represented as tearing out
the heart of their human victim and eating it while it still quivered
with life.
A historian of the time, quoted by Taine, says it was the custom to buy
men and women in all parts of England and to carry them to Ireland for
sale. The buyers usually made the women pregnant and took them to market
in that condition to ensure a better price. “You might have seen,”
continues the historian, “long files of young people of both sexes and
of great beauty, bound with ropes and daily exposed for sale. They sold
as slaves in this manner, their nearest relatives and even their own
children.”
What could civilization hope to do with such a swarm of sensuous,
bloodthirsty vipers? Assimilation was horrible to contemplate. They will
drag us to their level, quoth the culture of the times. Deportation was
out of the question; and there was no need to talk of their emigrating.
The fact is, the barbarians were in no hurry about moving. They didn’t
even care to colonize. They had come to stay. And Europe had to grapple
with her race problem till time and God should solve it.
And how was it solved, and what kind of civilization resulted?
Once more let us go to Guizot. “Take ever so rapid a glance,” says he,
“at modern Europe and it strikes you at once as diversified, confused,
and stormy. All the principles of social organization are found existing
together within it; powers temporal, and powers spiritual, the
theocratic, monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements, all
classes of society _in a state of continual struggle_ without any one
having sufficient force to master the others and take sole possession of
society.” Then as to the result of this conflict of forces:
“Incomparably more rich and diversified than the ancient, European
civilization has within it the promise of _perpetual progress_. It has
now endured more than fifteen centuries and in all that time has been in
a state of progression, not so rapidly as the Greek nor yet so
ephemeral. While in other civilizations the exclusive domination of a
principle (_or race_) led to tyranny, in Europe the diversity of social
elements (_growing out of the contact of different races_) the
incapability of any one to exclude the rest, gave birth to the LIBERTY
which now prevails. This inability of the various principles to
exterminate one another compelled each to endure the others and made it
necessary for them in order to live in common to enter into a sort of
mutual understanding. Each consented to have only that part of
civilization which equitably fell to its share. Thus, while everywhere
else the predominance of one principle produced tyranny, the variety and
warfare of the elements of European civilization gave birth to
_reciprocity and liberty_.”
There is no need to quote further. This is enough to show that the law
holds good in sociology as in the world of matter, _that equilibrium,
not repression among conflicting forces is the condition of natural
harmony, of permanent progress, and of universal freedom_. That
exclusiveness and selfishness in a family, in a community, or in a
nation is suicidal to progress. Caste and prejudice mean immobility. One
race predominance means death. The community that closes its gates
against foreign talent can never hope to advance beyond a certain point.
Resolve to keep out foreigners and you keep out progress. Home talent
develops its one idea and then dies. Like the century plant it produces
its one flower, brilliant and beautiful it may be, but it lasts only for
a night. Its forces have exhausted themselves in that one effort.
Nothing remains but to wither and to rot.
It was the Chinese wall that made China in 1800 A. D. the same as China
in the days of Confucius. Its women have not even yet learned that they
need not bandage their feet if they do not relish it. The world has
rolled on, but within that wall the thoughts, the fashions, the art, the
tradition, and the beliefs are those of a thousand years ago. Until very
recently, the Chinese were wholly out of the current of human progress.
They were like gray headed infants—a man of eighty years with the
concepts and imaginings of a babe of eight months. A civilization
measured by thousands of years with a development that might be
comprised within as many days—arrested development due to exclusive
living.
But European civilization, rich as it was compared to Asiatic types, was
still not the consummation of the ideal of human possibilities. One more
degree westward the hand on the dial points. In Europe there was
conflict, but the elements crystallized out in isolated nodules, so to
speak. Italy has her dominant principle, Spain hers, France hers,
England hers, and so on. The proximity is close enough for interaction
and mutual restraint, though the acting forces are at different points.
To preserve the balance of power, which is nothing more than the
equilibrium of warring elements, England can be trusted to keep an eye
on her beloved step-relation-in-law, Russia,—and Germany no doubt can be
relied on to look after France and some others. It is not, however, till
the scene changes and America is made the theater of action, that the
interplay of forces narrowed down to a single platform.
Hither came Cavalier and Roundhead, Baptist and Papist, Quaker,
Ritualist, Freethinker and Mormon, the conservative Tory, the liberal
Whig, and the radical Independent,—the Spaniard, the Frenchman, the
Englishman, the Italian, the Chinaman, the African, Swedes, Russians,
Huns, Bohemians, Gypsies, Irish, Jews. Here surely was a seething
caldron of conflicting elements. Religious intolerance and political
hatred, race prejudice and caste pride—
“Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.”
Conflict, Conflict, Conflict.
America for Americans! This is the white man’s country! The Chinese must
go, shrieks the exclusionist. Exclude the Italians! Colonize the blacks
in Mexico or deport them to Africa. Lynch, suppress, drive out, kill
out! America for Americans!
“_Who are Americans?_” comes rolling back from ten million throats. Who
are to do the packing and delivering of the goods? Who are the
home-folks and who are the strangers? Who are the absolute and original
tenants in fee-simple?
The red men used to be owners of the soil,—but they are about to be
pushed over into the Pacific Ocean. They, perhaps, have the best right
to call themselves “Americans” by law of primogeniture. They are at
least the oldest inhabitants of whom we can at present identify any
traces. If early settlers from abroad merely are meant and it is only a
question of squatters’ rights—why, the Mayflower, a pretty venerable
institution, landed in the year of Grace 1620, and the first delegation
from Africa just one year ahead of that,—in 1619. The first settlers
seem to have been almost as much mixed as we are on this point; and it
does not seem at all easy to decide just what individuals we mean when
we yell “America for the Americans.” At least the cleavage cannot be
made by hues and noses, if we are to seek for the genuine F. F. V.’s as
the inhabitants best entitled to the honor of that name.
The fact is this nation was foreordained to conflict from its
incipiency. Its elements were predestined from their birth to an
irrepressible clash followed by the stable equilibrium of opposition.
Exclusive possession belongs to none. There never was a point in its
history when it did. There was never a time since America became a
nation when there were not more than one race, more than one party, more
than one belief contending for supremacy. Hence no one is or can be
supreme. All interests must be consulted, all claims conciliated. Where
a hundred free forces are lustily clamoring for recognition and each
wrestling mightily for the mastery, individual tyrannies must inevitably
be chiselled down, individual bigotries worn smooth and malleable,
individual prejudices either obliterated or concealed. America is not
from choice more than of necessity republic in form and democratic in
administration. The will of the majority must rule simply because no
class, no family, no individual has ever been able to prove sufficient
political legitimacy to impose their yoke on the country. All attempts
at establishing oligarchy must be made by wheedling and cajoling,
pretending that not supremacy but service is sought. The nearest
approach to outspoken self-assertion is in the conciliatory tones of
candid compromise. “I will let you enjoy that if you will not hinder me
in the pursuit of this” has been the American sovereign’s home policy
since his first Declaration of Independence was inscribed as his policy
abroad. Compromise and concession, liberality and toleration were the
conditions of the nation’s birth and are the _sine qua non_ of its
continued existence. A general amnesty and universal reciprocity are the
only _modus vivendi_ in a nation whose every citizen is his own king,
his own priest and his own pope.
De Tocqueville, years ago, predicted that republicanism must fail in
America. But if republicanism fails, America fails, and somehow I can
not think this colossal stage was erected for a tragedy. I must confess
to being an optimist on the subject of my country. It is true we are too
busy making history, and have been for some years past, to be able to
write history yet, or to understand and interpret it. Our range of
vision is too short for us to focus and image our conflicts. Indeed Von
Holtz, the clearest headed of calm spectators, says he doubts if the
history of American conflict can be written yet even by a disinterested
foreigner. The clashing of arms and the din of battle, the smoke of
cannon and the heat of combat, are not yet cleared away sufficiently for
us to have the judicial vision of historians. Our jottings are like
newspaper reports written in the saddle, mid prancing steeds and roaring
artillery.
But of one thing we may be sure: the God of battles is in the conflicts
of history. The evolution of civilization is His care, eternal progress
His delight. As the European was higher and grander than the Asiatic, so
will American civilization be broader and deeper and closer to the
purposes of the Eternal than any the world has yet seen. This the last
page is to mark the climax of history, the bright consummate flower
unfolding _charity toward all and malice toward none_,—the final triumph
of universal reciprocity born of universal conflict with forces that
cannot be exterminated. Here at last is an arena in which every agony
has a voice and free speech. Not a spot where no wrong can exist, but
where each feeblest interest can cry with Themistocles, “_Strike, but
hear me!_” Here you will not see as in Germany women hitched to a cart
with donkeys; not perhaps because men are more chivalrous here than
there, but because woman can speak. Here labor will not be starved and
ground to powder, because the laboring man can make himself heard. Here
races that are weakest can, _if they so elect_, make themselves felt.
The supremacy of one race,—the despotism of a class or the tyranny of an
individual can not ultimately prevail on a continent held in equilibrium
by such conflicting forces and by so many and such strong fibred races
as there are struggling on this soil. Never in America shall one man
dare to say as Germany’s somewhat bumptious emperor is fond of
proclaiming: “There is only one master in the country and I am he. I
shall suffer no other beside me. Only to God and my conscience am I
accountable.” The strength of the opposition tones down and polishes off
all such ugly excrescencies as that. “I am the State,” will never be
proclaimed above a whisper on a platform where there is within arm’s
length another just as strong, possibly stronger, who holds, or would
like to hold that identical proposition with reference to himself. In
this arena then is to be the last death struggle of political tyranny,
of religions bigotry, and intellectual intolerance, of caste
illiberality and class exclusiveness. And the last monster that shall be
throttled forever methinks is race prejudice. Men will here learn that a
race, as a family, may be true to itself without seeking to exterminate
all others. That for the note of the feeblest there is room, nay a
positive need, in the harmonies of God. That the principles of true
democracy are founded in universal reciprocity, and that “A man’s a man”
was written when God first stamped His own image and superscription on
His child and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And I
confess I can pray for no nobler destiny for my country than that it may
be the stage, however far distant in the future, whereon these ideas and
principles shall ultimately mature; and culminating here at whatever
cost of production shall go forth hence to dominate the world.
Methought I saw a mighty conflagration, plunging and heaving, surging
and seething, smoking and rolling over this American continent. Strong
men and wise men stand helpless in mute consternation. Empty headed
babblers add the din of their bray to the crashing and crackling of the
flames. But the hungry flood rolls on. The air is black with smoke and
cinders. The sky is red with lurid light. Forked tongues of fiery flame
dart up and lick the pale stars, and seem to laugh at men’s feebleness
and frenzy. As I look on I think of Schiller’s sublime characterization
of fire: “Frightful becomes this God-power, when it snatches itself free
from fetters and stalks majestically forth on its own career—the free
daughter of Nature.” Ingenuity is busy with newly patented snuffers all
warranted to extinguish the flame. The street gamin with a hooked wire
pulls out a few nuggets that chanced to be lying on the outskirts where
they were cooked by the heat; and gleefully cries “What a nice fire to
roast my chestnuts,” and like little Jack Horner, “what a nice boy am
I!”
Meantime this expedient, that expedient, the other expedient is
suggested by thinkers and theorizers hoping to stifle the angry,
roaring, devouring demon and allay the mad destruction.
“Wehe wenn sie losgelassen,
Wachsend ohne Widerstand,
Durch die volkbelebten Gassen
Walzt den ungeheuren Brand!”
But the strength of the Omnipotent is in it. The hand of God is leading
it on. It matters not whether you and I in mad desperation cast our
quivering bodies into it as our funeral pyre; or whether, like the
street urchins, we pull wires to secure the advantage of the passing
moment. We can neither help it nor hinder; only
“Let thy gold be cast in the furnace,
Thy red gold, precious and bright.
Do not fear the hungry fire
With its caverns of burning light.”
If it takes the dearest idol, the pet theory or the darling ‘ism’, the
pride, the selfishness, the prejudices, the exclusiveness, the bigotry
and intolerance, the conceit of self, of race, or of family
superiority,—nay, if it singe from thee thy personal gratifications in
thy distinction by birth, by blood, by sex—everything,—and leave thee
nothing but thy naked manhood, solitary and unadorned,—let them go—let
them go!
“And thy gold shall return more precious,
Free from every spot and stain,
For gold must be tried by fire.”
And the heart of nations must be tried by pain; and their polish, their
true culture must be wrought in through conflict.
Has America a Race Problem?
Yes.
What are you going to do about it?
Let it alone and mind my own business. It is God’s problem and He will
solve it in time. It is deeper than Gehenna. What can you or I do!
Are there then no duties and special lines of thought growing out of the
present conditions of this problem?