MUTUAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS
America's Bigness--A New Atlantis--The Effect of Expansion
on a People--A Family Estranged--Parsnips--An American
Woman in England--An Englishman in America--International
Caricatures--Shibboleths: dropped H's and a "twang"--Matthew
Arnold's Clothes--The Honourable S---- B----.
"John Bull with plenty of elbow-room" was the phrase. It does not
necessarily follow that the widest lands breed the finest people; and
there is worthless territory enough in the United States to cut up into
two or three Englands. Yet no patriotic American would wish one rod,
pole, or perch of it away, whether of the Bad Lands, the Florida Swamps,
the Alkali Plains of the Southwest, or the most sterile and inaccessible
regions of the Rockies. If of no other use, each, merely as an
instrument of discipline, has contributed something to the hardening of
the fibre of the people; and good and bad together the domain of the
United States is very large. Englishmen are aware of the fact, merely as
a fact; but they seldom seem to appreciate its full significance.
Let us consider for a minute what would be the effect on the British
people if it suddenly came into possession of such an estate. We are not
talking now of distant colonies: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South
Africa--these may be equal together to more than another United States,
and they are working out their own destiny. The inhabitants of each are
a band of British men and women just as were the early inhabitants of
the United States and as, essentially, the people of the United States
still remain to-day. Each of those bands will follow its own path and
work its own miracles--whether greater than that which the people of the
United States has wrought or not, only later generations will know. Each
of these, though British still and always, is launched on its individual
career; and it is not of them that we are speaking now, but of the
Englishmen who remain at home, of the present-day population of the
British Isles.
What would be the result if suddenly the limits of the British Isles
were to be miraculously expanded? What would happen if the floor of the
ocean heaved itself up and Great Britain awoke to find the coast of
Cornwall and Wales mysteriously reaching westward, the Irish Sea no more
than a Hudson River which barely kept the shores of Lancashire and
Cumberland from touching Ireland,--an Ireland of which the western
coast--the coast of Munster and Connaught--was prolonged a thousand
leagues towards the setting sun; while the west coast of the north of
Scotland, Ross and Sutherland, had absorbed the Hebrides and stretched
unbroken into two thousand miles of plain and mountain range--Britain no
longer but Atlantis come again and all British soil? It was to nothing
less miraculous that the thirteen original States fell heir. And what
would be the effect on the British race?
Coal and iron, silver and gold, rivers full of fish, forest and prairie
teeming with game, pasture for millions of cattle, wheat land and corn
land, cotton land and orchard for any man who chose to take them;--the
wretches struggling and stifling in the London slums having nothing to
do but grasp axe and rifle and go out to subdue the wilderness;--farms,
not by the half-acre, but by the hundred acres for every one of the
unemployed. Is it possible to doubt that the race would be strengthened,
not materially only, but in its moral qualities,--that Englishmen in
another generation would not only be a wealthier and a more powerful
people but a healthier, lustier, nobler? How then are we to suppose that
just such a change, such an uplifting, has not come about in that other
British people to whom all this has happened, who came into their
wonderful birthright four generations ago and for a century and a
quarter have been fashioning it to their will and being fashioned by it
after the will of Another? By what process of logic, English reader, are
you going to convince yourself that this race--your own with larger
opportunities--is not the finer race of the two?
I have not, be it observed, expressed the opinion that the American
national character is finer than the English; only that it is finer than
the European commonly supposes. Nor am I expressing such an opinion now
but only setting forth certain elementary considerations for the
reader's judgment. When the European sees in the individual American, or
in a dozen individual Americans, certain peculiarities, inelegancies,
and sometimes even impertinences--call them what you will,--he is too
prone to think that these are the essentials of the American character.
The essentials of the American character are the essentials of the
English character--with elbow-room. "While the outlook of the New
Yorker is wider than ours," says Mr. Archer, "his standpoint is the
same." In that elbow-room, with that wider outlook, it is likely that
new offshoots from the character will have developed--excrescences, not
perhaps in themselves always lovely--but if we remember what the trunk
is from which they spring, or what it was, we shall probably think
better, or less, of those excrescences, while remembering also the
likelihood that in the larger room and richer soil the trunk itself may
also have expanded and strengthened and solidified.
The English reader might decide for himself what justification there is
for supposing that the character of that offset from the British stock
which, a century and a quarter ago, was put in possession of this
magnificent estate should have deteriorated rather than improved as
compared with the character of that portion of the stock which remained
rooted in the old soil hemmed in between the ancient boundaries.
* * * * *
There have been, of course, many other influences at work in the
moulding of the American character, besides the mere vastness of his
continent; but the fact remains that this has been immensely the most
powerful of all the factors. English originally, the American is still
English in his essentials, modified chiefly by the circumstances of his
material environment, the magnificence of his estate, the width of his
horizons, the disciplining of his nature by the Titanic struggle with
the physical conditions of the wilderness and the necessary development
of those qualities of resourcefulness, buoyancy, and self-reliance which
the exigencies of that struggle have demanded. Moreover, what is almost
the most important item of all, his entire national life has been lived,
and that struggle conducted, in practical isolation from all contact
with other peoples. Immigrants, indeed, from all of them, the United
States has constantly been receiving; but as a nation the American
people has been singularly segregated from the rest of the earth,
blessedly free from friction with, and dependence on, other countries.
As we have seen, it has had no friction with any Power except Great
Britain; and with Great Britain itself so little that Englishmen hardly
recall that it has occurred.
It may be worth while to stop one minute to rehearse and to re-enforce
the points which so far it has been my aim to make.
* * * * *
For their own sakes, anything like conflict between the two nations is
not to be dreamed of; but, for the world's sake, an intimate alliance
between them in the cause of peace would be the most blessed conceivable
thing. There is every justification for such an alliance, not merely in
the incalculable benefits that would result, but in the original kinship
of the peoples, the permanent and fundamental sympathy of their natures,
and their community of ambitions and ways of thought. Unfortunately
these reasons for union have been obscured by a century of aloofness, so
that to-day neither people fully understands the other and they look,
one at the other, from widely different standpoints. By reason chiefly
of their isolation, in which they have had little contact with other
peoples, the Americans have come to think of Great Britain as little
less foreign (and by the accidents of their history as even more
hostile) than any other Power. Still acknowledging as an historical
fact the original kinship, they, like many a son who has gone out into
the world and prospered exceedingly, take pleasure chiefly in
contemplating how far they have travelled since they struck out for
themselves and how many characteristics they have developed which were
not part of the inheritance from the old stock. Dwelling on these they
have become blind to the essential family likeness to that old stock
which still remains their dominant trait. Moreover, seeing how during
all these years the old folk have let them go their own way, seemingly
indifferent to their future, at times, intentionally or not, making that
future none the easier of accomplishment, they have come to nurse a
resentment against those at home and will not believe that the family
still bears them an affectionate good-will quite other than it feels for
even the best-liked of the friends who are not of the same descent.
On England's part, she saw the younger ones go out into the world with
regret, strove to restrain them unwisely, obstinately, unfairly--and
failed. Since then she has been very busy, supremely occupied with her
own affairs. The young ones who had gone out into the world in, as
seemed to her, such headstrong fashion, for all that she knows now that
she was wrong, have been doing well, and she has always been glad to
hear it, but--well, they were a long way off. At times she has thought
that the young ones were somewhat too pushing--too anxious to get on
regardless of her or others' welfare,--and half-heartedly (not all
unintentionally, but certainly with no thought of alienating the
affection of the others) she has interfered or passively stood in the
young folk's way. At last the day came when she was horrified to find
that the younger branch--very prosperous and independent now--had not
only ceased to regard her as a mother but had come almost to the point
of holding her as an enemy. It was at first incredible and she strove as
best she could to put matters right and to explain how foreign to her
wishes it was and how unnatural it seemed to her that there should be
any approach to ill-feeling between them. But she does not convince the
other, partly because she herself has in her turn grown out of touch
with that other's ideas. At intervals she has met members of the younger
branch who have come home to visit and she has discovered all sorts of
new tricks of manner, new ways of speech, new points of view that they
have picked up in their new surroundings, and, like the members of the
younger branch themselves, she sees more of these little things than she
does of the character that is behind them. Her vision of the family
likeness is blurred by the intrusion of provoking little points of
difference. She sees the mannerisms, but the strength of the qualities
of which they are manifestations escapes her.
So it comes about that the two are at cross purposes. "We may call this
country Daughter," wrote G. W. Steevens, "she does not call us Mother."
The elder sincerely desires the affection of the younger--sincerely
feels affection herself; but is hampered in making the other realise her
sincerity by a constant desire to criticise those little foreign ways
that the other has acquired. Just so does a parent obscure her love for
a son by deploring the strange manners which he picks up at school; just
so is she blinded to his real qualities as a man, because he will insist
on giving his time to messing about with machinery instead of settling
down properly to study for the Church.
Burke (was it not?) spoke of his love for Ireland as "dearer than could
be justified to reason." Englishmen might well have difficulty in
justifying to their reason their affection for America; for to hear an
Englishman speak of American peculiarities and eccentricities, it would
often seem that to love such men would be pure unreason. But these
criticisms are no true index to the British national feeling for the
Americans as a people. Does a brother not love his sister because he
says rude things about her little failings? Americans hear the
criticisms and, their own hearts being alienated from Great Britain,
cannot believe that Britishers have any affection for them.
* * * * *
I am well aware that I make--and can make--no general statement from
which many readers, both in England and America, will not dissent.
Englishmen will arise to say that they do not love America; and
Americans--many Americans--will vow with their hands on their hearts
that they have the greatest affection for Great Britain. Vast numbers of
Americans will protest against being called a homogeneous people, and a
vast number more against the accusation of being still essentially
English; the fact being that it is no easier now than it was in the days
of Burke (I am sure of my author this time) to "draw up an indictment
against a whole people." A composite photograph is commonly only an
indifferent likeness of any of the individuals--least of all will the
individual be likely to recognise it as a portrait of himself. But the
type-character will stand out clearly--especially to the eyes of others
not of the type. Most of the notions of Englishmen about Americans are
drawn from the casual contact with individual Americans in England
(where from contrast with their surroundings the little peculiarities
stand out most conspicuously) or from the hasty "impressions" of
visitors who have looked only on the surface--and but a small portion of
that. Even, I am aware, after a lifetime spent in studying the two
peoples, in pondering on their likenesses and unlikenesses and striving
to measure the feeling of each for the other, there is always danger of
talking what I will ask to be permitted to call "parsnips."
* * * * *
When I first went to the United States I carried with me a commission
from certain highly reputable English papers to incorporate my
"impressions" in occasional letters. Among the earliest facts of any
moment which I was enabled to communicate to English readers was that
the middle classes in America (I was careful to explain what the "middle
classes" were in a country where none existed)--that the middle classes,
I say, lived almost entirely on parsnips. I had not arrived at this
important ethnological fact with any undue haste. I had already lived in
the United States for some three months, half of which time had been
spent in New York hotels and boarding houses and half in Northern New
York and rural New England, where, staying at farms or at the houses of
families in the smaller towns to which I bore letters of introduction, I
flattered myself that I had probed deep--Oh, ever so deep!--below the
surface and had come to understand the people as they lived in their own
homes. And my ripened judgment was that the bulk of the well-to-do
people of the country supported life chiefly by consumption of parsnips.
Some fifteen years later I was at supper at the Century Club in New
York and the small party at our table as we discussed the scalloped
oysters (which are one of the pillars of the Century) included a
well-known American author and journalist and an even better known and
much-loved artist. But why should I not mention their names? They were
Montgomery Schuyler and John La Farge. Both had been to Europe that
year--La Farge to pay his first visit to Italy, while Schuyler, whether
with or without La Farge I forget, had made a somewhat extensive trip
through rural England in, I think, a dog-cart. The conversation ran
chiefly on their experiences and suddenly Schuyler turned to me with:
"Here, you Englishman, why do the middle classes of England live chiefly
on parsnips?"
The thing is incredible--except that it happened. Schuyler, no less than
I fifteen years before, spoke in the fulness of conviction arising from
what he, no less than I, believed to have been wide and adequate
experience. The memory of that experience has made me tolerant of the
cocksure generalisations with which the Englishman who has visited
America, or the American who has been in England, for a few months
delights to regale his compatriots on his return. Quite recently a
charming American woman who is good enough to count me among her
friends, was in London for the first time in her life. She is perhaps as
typical a representative of Western American womanhood--distinctively
Western--as could be found; very good to look upon, warm-hearted,
fearless and earnest in her truth-loving, straightforward life. But in
voice, in manner, and in frankness of speech she is peculiarly and
essentially Western. She loved England and English people, so she told
me at the Carlton on the eve of her return to America,--just loved them,
but English women (and I can see her wrinkling her eyebrows at me to
give emphasis to what she said) were so _dreadfully_ outspoken: they did
say such _awful_ things! I thought I knew the one Englishwoman from
whose conversation she had derived this idea and remembering my own
parsnips, I forgave her. She has, since her return, I doubt not, dwelt
often to her friends on this amazing frankness of speech in
Englishwomen. And if she only knew what twenty Englishwomen thought of
her outspokenness!
Not long ago I heard an eminent member of the medical profession in
London, who had just returned from a trip to Canada and the United
States with representatives of the British Medical Association, telling
a ring of interested listeners all about the politics, geography,
manners, and customs of the people of America. Among other things he
explained that in America there was no such thing known as a _table d'
hote_; all your meals at hotels and restaurants had to be ordered _a la
carte_. "I should have thought," he said, "that a good _table d' hote_
at an hotel in New York and other towns would pay. It would be a
novelty." It may be well to explain to English readers who do not know
America, that fifteen years ago a meal _a la carte_ was, and over a
large part of the country still is, practically unknown in the United
States. The system of buying one's board and lodging in installments is
known in America as "the European plan."
If it would not be too long a digression, I would explain how this is a
cardinal principle of the American business mind. The disposition of
every American is to take over a whole contract _en bloc_, which in
England, where every man is a specialist, would be split into twenty
different transactions. The American thinks in round numbers: "What will
the whole thing come to?" he asks; while the Englishman wants to know
the items. This habit permeates American life in every department. It is
labour-saving. Few things amuse or irritate the American visitor to
England more than the having to pay individually for a number of small
conveniences which at home he is accustomed to have "thrown in"; and the
first time when he is presented with an English hotel bill (I am not
speaking of the modern semi-American hotels in London) with its infinite
list of items, is an experience that he never forgets.
All of which is only to explain that the distinguished physician, when
he spoke of the absence of _tables d'hote_ in America, was talking
parsnips. His experience had been limited to a few hotels and
restaurants in New York and one or two other large towns.
If only it were possible to catch in some great "receiver" or "coherer,"
or some similar instrument, all the things that were said in London in
the course of twenty-four hours about the United States by people who
had been there, and all the things that were said in New York in the
same period about England by people of equal experience, and set them
down side by side, it would make entertaining reading. The wonder is,
not that we misunderstand each other as much as we do, but that somehow
we escape a vast mutual, international contempt.
Several times in the course of my residence in the United States I have
had said to me: "What! Are you an Englishman? But you don't drop your
H's!"
Which is ridiculous, is it not, English reader? But before you smile at
it, permit me to explain that it is no whit worse than when you
say:--"What! Are you an American? But you don't speak with an accent!"
Or possibly you call it a "twang" or you say "speak through your nose."
You may be dining, English reader, at, let us say, the Carlton or Savoy
when a party of Americans comes into the room--Americans of the kind
that every one knows for Americans as soon as he sees or hears them. The
women are admirably dressed--perhaps a shade too admirably--and the
costumes of the men irreproachable. But there is that something of
manner, of walk, of voice which draws all eyes to them as they advance
to their table, and the room is hushed as they arrange their seats.
"Those horrid Americans!" says one of your party and no one protests.
But at the next table to you there is seated another party of delightful
people--low-voiced, well-mannered, excellently bred in every tone and
movement. You wonder dimly if you have not met them somewhere. At all
events you would very much like to meet them. They are infinitely more
distressed than you at the behaviour of the American party which has
just come in--because they are Americans also. And I may add that they
will not be in the least flattered, if you should be lucky enough to
meet them, by your telling them that you "never would have thought it."
Perhaps, English reader, you have lived long enough in some other
country than England to have learned what a loathsome thing the
travelling Englishman often appears. Possibly you have been privileged
to hear the frank and unofficial opinion of some native of that
country--an opinion not intended for your ears, but addressed to a
compatriot of the speaker--of English people in general, based upon his
experience of those whom he has seen. Such an experience is quite
illuminating. I know few things more offensive than the behaviour of a
certain class of German when he is in Paris. The noisy, nasal American
at the Carlton or Savoy is no more representative of America than the
loud-voiced, check-suited Englishman at Delmonico's or the
Waldorf-Astoria is the man by whom you wish your nation to be judged. It
may be a purposeful provision of a higher Power that the people of all
countries should appear unprepossessing when they are abroad, for the
fostering in each nation of the spirit of patriotism; for why should any
of us be patriots if all the foreigners who came to our shores were as
inoffensive as ourselves? The truth is that those who are inoffensive
pass unnoticed. It is the occasional caricature--the parody--of the
national type that catches our eye; and on him we too often base our
judgment of a whole people.
Those Englishmen who only England know are inclined to think that the
check-suited fellow countryman is a creation of the French and German
comic press. Those who have lived outside of England for some
considerable number of years have learned better. The late Senator Hoar
in his _Autobiography of Seventy Years_ has some very shrewd remarks
about Matthew Arnold. The Senator had a cordial regard for Matthew
Arnold--"a huge liking" he calls his feeling,--and he has this
delightful sentence in regard to him: "I do not mean to say that his
three lectures on translating Homer are the greatest literary work of
our time. But I think, on the whole, that I should rather have the pair
of intellectual eyes which can see Homer as he saw him, than any other
mental quality I can think of." "But"--and mark this--"Mr. Arnold has
never seemed to me fortunate in his judgment about Americans . . . The
trouble with Mr. Arnold is that he never travelled in the United States
when on this side of the Atlantic. . . . He visited a great City or two,
but never made himself acquainted with the American people. He never
knew the sources of our power or the spirit of our people."
Senator Hoar, with a generous nature made thrice generous by the
mellowness of years, speaking of the man he hugely liked, tempered the
truth to a more than paternal mildness. But it is the truth. Matthew
Arnold, to put it bluntly, was wrong-headed in his judgment of America
and Americans to a degree which one living long in the United States
only comes slowly and reluctantly to understand. And if he so erred, how
shall all the lesser teachers from whom England gets its knowledge of
America keep straight?
But what the American people really objected to in Matthew Arnold was
not any blundering things that he said of them, but the fact that he
wore on inappropriate occasions in New York a brown checked suit.
* * * * *
And across all the gulf of more than twenty years there looms up in my
memory--"looms like some Homer-rock or Troy-tree"--the figure of the
Hon. S----y B----l flaunting his mustard coloured suit, gridironed with
a four-inch check, across three thousand miles of continent, to the
delight of cities, filling prairies with wonder and moving the Rocky
Mountains to undisguised mirth. And how could we others explain that he,
with his undeniably John-Bull-like breadth of shoulder and ruddy face,
was not a fair sample of the British aristocrat? Was he not an
Honourable and the son of a Baron and the "real thing" in every way? I
have no doubt that there still live in the prairie towns of North Dakota
and in the recesses of the mountains of Montana hundreds of men and
women, grown old now, who through all the mists of the years still
remember that lamentable figure; and to them, though they may have seen
and barely noticed ten thousand Englishmen since, the typical Britisher
still remains the Hon. S----y B----l.
It is not possible to say how far the influence of one man may extend. I
verily believe that twenty years ago those clothes of Matthew Arnold
stood for more in America's estimate of England than the _Alabama_
incident. Ex-President Cleveland, as we have seen, speaks of the
"sublime patriotism and devotion to their nation's honour" of the "plain
people of the land" who backed him up when war with Great Britain seemed
to be so near. But I wonder in how many breasts the desire for war was
inspired not by patriotism but by memory of the Hon. S----y B----l. And
when the Englishman thinks of the possibility of war with the United
States, with whom is it that he pictures himself as fighting? Some one
individual American, whom he has seen in London, drunk perhaps,
certainly noisy and offensive. Such a one stands in the mind of many an
Englishman who has not travelled as the type of the whole people of the
United States.
If it were possible for the two peoples to come to know each other as
they really are--if one half of the population of each country could for
a season change places with one half of the other, so that all the
individuals of both nations would be acquainted with the ways and
thoughts of the other, not as the comic artists draw them, nor as they
are when they are abroad, but as they live their daily lives at
home--then indeed would all thought of difference between the two
disappear, and war between them be as impossible as war between Surrey
and Kent.