Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
|
[keep always in mind when this guy was writing, and contrast the perspective then with what's going on today, 90 years later. Keep in mind this is an Ivy League professor writing these words - and how he would be treated today if he tried to publish these opinions.]
The Philosophy of Nationalism, by Charles Conant Josey. (1923)
Chapter II [pages 50-89]
THE PROBLEMS BEFORE US
Before we can intelligently criticise proposed solutions of world problems, it is necessary that we have some grasp of the problems that confront us.
A glance at the world as it now exists shows that broadly speaking, there are two groups of nations -- a dominant group and a subject group. In the first group are the Europeans, or white races. While many differences in culture and race, if race be taken in a narrow sense, may be pointed out within this group, yet both culturally and racially this group forms a comparatively homogeneous unit when compared with mankind as a whole. The second group does not present the same degree of homogeneity that the first one does. Indeed, for many purposes it should be divided into two groups. In one group should be placed the peoples of Asia. In the other group should be placed the peoples of Africa. This further division, however, is of no interest to us. For our concern is with the question: What should be the attitude of the dominant group of nations toward the other group? We may, therefore, properly limit our groups to two, and then ask what should be the relations between the European group of nations and the other.
By putting the question in this way, it is hoped the reader will for a time look at the world situation in terms of race and culture rather than in terms of narrow and restricted nationalism. Political institutions, national boundaries, and hatreds between the members of the European group are here left out of account. For fundamentally this group is united by a similarity of race and culture, which should enable it to rise above the petty issues, which keep it divided, into a spiritual unity that shall give it a common outlook and interest. On the other hand, by putting the question in the above way, it is hoped that the readers will recognize the close bonds of culture and race which unite all Europeans, and thus avoid the broad humanitarianism which, in placing all men on the same footing, removes the possibility of using pride in race and culture as levers in creating the social solidarity that is necessary if we are to maintain our position of dominance.
If the term nationalism can be expanded in this way, and so include all peoples who are united by pride in a common race and culture, it will adequately express the ideal which is to be opposed to the ideal of internationalism. Nationalism so defined would be a sort of limited internationalism; but instead of making its appeal to humanity, it would appeal to race consciousness and similarity of culture and interest. Nothing is more foreign to the use of Nationalism here employed than the rivalries, strife, and jealousies which separate the members of our cultural and racial group from each other. This strife is to be regarded as belonging to the same sort of civil warfare that proved fatal to Greece.
Notice an Ivy League professor speaking about white dominance - in 1923. Talking about RACIAL rather than PETTY, POLITICAL NATIONALISM - ie, WHITE nationalism. "ORION" - Our Race Is Our Nation. Contrast with Fox Jews teaching its sheep to hate the French, hate the Germans. Anything to divide whites from whites, and get them all looking to serve the jews. Josey is telling white men to look at what they have in common, and see that it outweighs their differences by a skyscraper to a pea.
Unless the meaning of Nationalism and Internationalism here given is kept in mind, much that is to follow regarding these ideals will be misunderstood. The discussion here to be undertaken is not so much regarding the relative merits of a narrow nationalism and a thoroughgoing internationalism, in the common meaning of these terms, as it is regarding the limits to which the internationalist ideals may desirably reach. That is to say, we are concerned to know whether it is better to embrace ideals that will tend to bind the dominant group of nations together in a union of closer friendship and mutual helpfulness, with a keener and deeper realization of the spiritual and racial values which should cause them to regard themselves as brothers; or whether it is better to embrace ideals that will tend to destroy the basis of this spiritual unity in the effort to get all men to regard themselves as brothers, with no distinction as to culture, common interest, or race.
This by way of explanation of the two ideals that are to be considered. What of the world for which these ideals are advanced?
The world as it exists to-day is dominated by the white races. Comprising about one-third of the population of the world, we have under our control approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the land area of the world. The parts of the world under our control include by far the richest portions of the world, with the possible exception of China, and China herself could hardly hold together if the whites wished otherwise. To-day we, in spite of the recent rise of an Oriental power, are the masters of the world. This mastery is based on our wealth, political genius, and the power of our armies and navies.
This proud position of world dominance has not always been the possession of the white races. Indeed, it is a very recent development. The position of the white races in the fifteenth century was quite different from what it is to-day. At that time they found themselves undisputed masters of only a small part of Europe, and even there they were not altogether secure from the threats of Asiatic invasion. If ever a race was at bay, the white race was at that time. Shut in between the Atlantic Ocean and a strong Oriental power, the fortunes of the white man were at a low ebb. Of a sudden the white race began to come back. At that time, largely as a result of geographical discoveries, it began a period of growth and expansion that have been greatly accelerated by discoveries in science and by the industrial revolution. This rapid racial expansion and growth in wealth and power have had certain psychological effects, such as enhancing feelings of race pride and personal worth. These have had much to do with the continued expansion of the race and its continued successes in imposing its will on other groups.
As a result, the white races acquired and possessed, certainly until recently, feelings of confidence and superiority and an assurance that have been great aids in overcoming opposition that would perhaps have been insurmountable otherwise. Owing, then, we may say, to certain geographical and scientific discoveries and improved methods of production, we have been able to effect a great racial expansion and to dominate the world. With this exalted position there have come feelings of race pride and personal worth, a confidence and an ambition that have provided us in a large way with the traits of domination. Thus success has endowed us with traits making for muore success and for a firmer hold on the world.
Our position, however, is not unthreatened. In taking possession of so large a part of the world, members in our group have become jealous and envious of each other. In dividing the spoils, many sources of friction have been created. More than this, in making use of our capital in exploiting the resources of backward countries, we are creating for ourselves industrial and possibly political rivals. For various reasons, there is a growing friction between our group of nations and the backward nations. The policies we are pursuing, dictated in part by our greed and in part by our idealism, are such that the exploited nations are becoming more and more able to make their resentment felt. In addition to these dangers each members of our group is divided into classes that are becoming more and more hostile. As a result , our social solidarity is becoming more and more endangered. We are thus placed in a precarious position. At the time when the friction between our group and the rest of the world increases, at the time when the power of the rest of the world is increasing, we find that our power is being more and more dissipated in the petty jealousies between the states of our group and in the struggles between capital and labor.
The dangers, then, which confront us may be divided into two groups -- those which are internal and those which are external. Under the first head should be placed the antagonism between the various members of our group and the struggle between classes. Under this head should be placed also the growing spirit of criticism and doubt regarding the superiority of our race and its claims to our loyalty and allegiance. Under this head must be placed the ethics of internationalism, which extols "service first" rather than "safety first," and which recognizes no value in loyalty to race and nation. Under this head must be placed the sporting attitude, which leads us to believe and hope, without paying due consideration to the handicaps* a wealthy cultural group is under when competing with a poor one, that the one which deserves to win will win.
In the group of external dangers should be placed the rapid industrialization of the Orient, the growing spirit of restlessness and ambition that has been fanned by our political and social ideals and by a more general dissemination of historical knowledge, discovered by the labors of our scholars. In this group must be placed the advantages of a poor group in competing with a wealthy one, and the consequent probability of a great racial expansion of the Orientals as a result of the industrial revolution that is being effected. Finally, in this group must be placed the danger of a rise of powerful military and naval powers to challenge our position of world domination.
* For discussion of these, see below, page 77.
Before considering these dangers, the question may be raised: What is the value of world domination? Why should we wish to dominate? Why not build factories where goods can be produced the cheapest? Why not invest capital where the largest returns are promised, regardless of race and nation? These questions are often raised; they require a serious answer.
It may be taken as certain that we wish a rich and complex culture, one that is highly organized, one that provides many opportunities for making life worth while, one that encourages artistic fruitfulness. It is no less certain that such a society is possible only where there is a considerable surplus of wealth. An account of the sources of our wealth reveals how largely it is based on a world specialization of function of which we are the beneficiaries. Unless we are able to maintain our position of advantage, we shall be deprived of the wealth that is the necessary basis for our rich and colorful culture. More than this, unless we maintain our position, we shall not be able to maintain our population, which will inevitably become smaller and smaller, while the population of countries which take our place will increase.
An account of the factors that have brought about our present wealth will make this apparent. Ultimately our wealth rests on our industrial system, which in turn rests upon a number of inventions which have improved our methods of production. As a result of these inventions and new methods of production, our workmen are enabled to produce as much wealth in a few hours as they formerly produced in days. When these discoveries were made we were given a tremendous advantage. The white man was placed in a position where he could buy with a few hours of labor what required a number of days to produce in a non-industrialized country. More than this, the world needed our manufactured articles. Hence, a trade sprang up of great profit to us, as well as to the non-industrialized country. As a consequence of this arrangement, we became immensely wealthy. The demand for a large population to operate our machines resulted. The wealth to support this population was created. As a result, the population of the white world has increased over 500 per cent since the industrial revolution.*
If we lose our dominant industrial position by industrializing our customers, what will become of the millions of our fellow-citizens dependent on this system for a living? What will become of the wealth it enables us to accumulate from all parts of the world? What will become of the leisure and the fruits of it which we prize? No doubt economists and others who favor the industrialization of the Orient can point to the fact that the commerce between two industrialized countries, like Germany and England, for instance, is more profitable than the commerce between one of these countries and a non-industrialized country. That is to say, they can point to the fact that we can make more out of a wealthy country than a poor one. But, after all, in order that an industrialized country may get the full benefit of its industrial system, is it not necessary that some supply it with raw materials and take in exchange the machine-made articles? If all the world becomes as industrialized as Western Europe, and each country has a surplus of manufactured goods it wishes to exchange for food and raw products, what will be the effect on our cultural group?
* This increase should not be regarded as due wholly to the industrial revolution. Other factors, such as geographical discoveries, the opening up of new sources of wealth, improved methods of sanitation and therapeutics, played an important part.
Last edited by Alex Linder; November 19th, 2013 at 04:31 PM.
|