somebody writes complaining of something i said about progress. i have forgotten what i said, but i am quite certain that it was (like a certain mr. douglas in a poem which i have also forgotten) tender and true. in any case, what i say now is this. human history is so rich and complicated that you can make out a case for any course of improvement or retrogression. i could make out that the world has been growing more democratic, for the english franchise has certainly grown more democratic. i could also make out that the world has been growing more aristocratic, for the english public schools have certainly grown more aristocratic i could prove the decline of militarism by the decline of flogging; i could prove the increase of militarism by the increase of standing armies and conscription. but i can prove anything in this way. i can prove that the world has always been growing greener. only lately men have invented absinthe and the westminster gazette. i could prove the world has grown less green. there are no more robin hood foresters, and fields are being covered with houses. i could show that the world was less red with khaki or more red with the new penny stamps. but in all cases progress means progress only in some particular thing. have you ever noticed that strange line of tennyson, in which he confesses, half consciously, how very conventional progress is?—
"let the great world spin for ever down the ringing
grooves of change."
even in praising change, he takes for a simile the most unchanging thing. he calls our modern change a groove. and it is a groove; perhaps there was never anything so groovy.
nothing would induce me in so idle a monologue as this to discuss adequately a great political matter like the question of the military punishments in egypt. but i may suggest one broad reality to be observed by both sides, and which is, generally speaking, observed by neither. whatever else is right, it is utterly wrong to employ the argument that we europeans must do to savages and asiatics whatever savages and asiatics do to us. i have even seen some controversialists use the metaphor, "we must fight them with their own weapons." very well; let those controversialists take their metaphor, and take it literally. let us fight the soudanese with their own weapons. their own weapons are large, very clumsy knives, with an occasional old-fashioned gun. their own weapons are also torture and slavery. if we fight them with torture and slavery, we shall be fighting badly, precisely as if we fought them with clumsy knives and old guns. that is the whole strength of our christian civilisation, that it does fight with its own weapons and not with other people's. it is not true that superiority suggests a tit for tat. it is not true that if a small hooligan puts his tongue out at the lord chief justice, the lord chief justice immediately realises that his only chance of maintaining his position is to put his tongue out at the little hooligan. the hooligan may or may not have any respect at all for the lord chief justice: that is a matter which we may contentedly leave as a solemn psychological mystery. but if the hooligan has any respect at all for the lord chief justice, that respect is certainly extended to the lord chief justice entirely because he does not put his tongue out.
exactly in the same way the ruder or more sluggish races regard the civilisation of christendom. if they have any respect for it, it is precisely because it does not use their own coarse and cruel expedients. according to some modern moralists whenever zulus cut off the heads of dead englishmen, englishmen must cut off the heads of dead zulus. whenever arabs or egyptians constantly use the whip to their slaves, englishmen must use the whip to their subjects. and on a similar principle (i suppose), whenever an english admiral has to fight cannibals the english admiral ought to eat them. however unattractive a menu consisting entirely of barbaric kings may appear to an english gentleman, he must try to sit down to it with an appetite. he must fight the sandwich islanders with their own weapons; and their own weapons are knives and forks. but the truth of the matter is, of course, that to do this kind of thing is to break the whole spell of our supremacy. all the mystery of the white man, all the fearful poetry of the white man, so far as it exists in the eyes of these savages, consists in the fact that we do not do such things. the zulus point at us and say, "observe the advent of these inexplicable demi-gods, these magicians, who do not cut off the noses of their enemies." the soudanese say to each other, "this hardy people never flogs its servants; it is superior to the simplest and most obvious human pleasures." and the cannibals say, "the austere and terrible race, the race that denies itself even boiled missionary, is upon us: let us flee."
whether or no[** "not"? or just his style?] these details are a little conjectural, the general proposition i suggest is the plainest common sense. the elements that make europe upon the whole the most humanitarian civilisation are precisely the elements that make it upon the whole the strongest. for the power which makes a man able to entertain a good impulse is the same as that which enables him to make a good gun; it is imagination. it is imagination that makes a man outwit his enemy, and it is imagination that makes him spare his enemy. it is precisely because this picturing of the other man's point of view is in the main a thing in which christians and europeans specialise that christians and europeans, with all their faults, have carried to such perfection both the arts of peace and war.
they alone have invented machine-guns, and they alone have invented ambulances; they have invented ambulances (strange as it may sound) for the same reason for which they have invented machine-guns. both involve a vivid calculation of remote events. it is precisely because the east, with all its wisdom, is cruel, that the east, with all its wisdom, is weak. and it is precisely because savages are pitiless that they are still—merely savages. if they could imagine their enemy's sufferings they could also imagine his tactics. if zulus did not cut off the englishman's head they might really borrow it. for if you do not understand a man you cannot crush him. and if you do understand him, very probably you will not.
when i was about seven years old i used to think that the chief modern danger was a danger of over-civilisation. i am inclined to think now that the chief modern danger is that of a slow return towards barbarism, just such a return towards barbarism as is indicated in the suggestions of barbaric retaliation of which i have just spoken. civilisation in the best sense merely means the full authority of the human spirit over all externals. barbarism means the worship of those externals in their crude and unconquered state. barbarism means the worship of nature; and in recent poetry, science, and philosophy there has been too much of the worship of nature. wherever men begin to talk much and with great solemnity about the forces outside man, the note of it is barbaric. when men talk much about heredity and environment they are almost barbarians. the modern men of science are many of them almost barbarians. mr. blatchford is in great danger of becoming a barbarian. for barbarians (especially the truly squalid and unhappy barbarians) are always talking about these scientific subjects from morning till night. that is why they remain squalid and unhappy; that is why they remain barbarians. hottentots are always talking about heredity, like mr. blatchford. sandwich islanders are always talking about environment, like mr. suthers. savages—those that are truly stunted or depraved—dedicate nearly all their tales and sayings to the subject of physical kinship, of a curse on this or that tribe, of a taint in this or that family, of the invincible law of blood, of the unavoidable evil of places. the true savage is a slave, and is always talking about what he must do; the true civilised man is a free man and is always talking about what he may do. hence all the zola heredity and ibsen heredity that has been written in our time affects me as not merely evil, but as essentially ignorant and retrogressive. this sort of science is almost the only thing that can with strict propriety be called reactionary. scientific determinism is simply the primal twilight of all mankind; and some men seem to be returning to it.
another savage trait of our time is the disposition to talk about material substances instead of about ideas. the old civilisation talked about the sin of gluttony or excess. we talk about the problem of drink—as if drink could be a problem. when people have come to call the problem of human intemperance the problem of drink, and to talk about curing it by attacking the drink traffic, they have reached quite a dim stage of barbarism. the thing is an inverted form of fetish worship; it is no sillier to say that a bottle is a god than to say that a bottle is a devil. the people who talk about the curse of drink will probably progress down that dark hill. in a little while we shall have them calling the practice of wife-beating the problem of pokers; the habit of housebreaking will be called the problem of the skeleton-key trade; and for all i know they may try to prevent forgery by shutting up all the stationers' shops by act of parliament.
i cannot help thinking that there is some shadow of this uncivilised materialism lying at present upon a much more dignified and valuable cause. every one is talking just now about the desirability of ingeminating peace and averting war. but even war and peace are physical states rather than moral states, and in talking about them only we have by no means got to the bottom of the matter. how, for instance, do we as a matter of fact create peace in one single community? we do not do it by vaguely telling every one to avoid fighting and to submit to anything that is done to him. we do it by definitely defining his rights and then undertaking to avenge his wrongs. we shall never have a common peace in europe till we have a common principle in europe. people talk of "the united states of europe;" but they forget that it needed the very doctrinal "declaration of independence" to make the united states of america. you cannot agree about nothing any more than you can quarrel about nothing.
