I
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 contrary of a
virtue is not necessarily a vice. 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.
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 that, if right, it is at least stupid, to judge an
uncivilized people by the standards of morality and intelligence set
up by civilized ones. 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 can. The
civilized philanthropist wreaks upon his fellows a ranker philanthropy,
the civilized rascal a sturdier rascality. And—splendid triumph of
enlightenment!—the two characters are, in civilization, frequently
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 one of ours that is essentially the same.
And nearly every custom of our barbarian ancestors in historic times
persists in some form to-day. 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 doing so and actually despising and persecuting those who
do not care to conform. Almost 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.
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
ungenerous 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 overeating, 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 our
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, for the chief takes all the dead, the general
all the glory.