CURRENT LITERATURE.
PATRIOTISM AND EXPIRE.
Patriotism and Empire. By John M. Robertson. (Grant Richards. 3s. 6d.)—" Mere negative community of malice, involving only the necessary minimum of further co-operation or fellow-feel. ing,"—that is the "practical definition of patriotism" which, in Mr. Robertson's opinion, "is the burden of all history." :This "old passion of patriotism" is "in itself the potential solvent and negation of culture, in the sense that it turns to naught the best fruits thereof." Moreover, it is, from the point of view of the industrial masses, both so absurdly forgiving and forgetful, and so shortsighted. In the case of the " exploiting upper-classes," indeed, patriotism of the old kind was, Mr. Robertson contends, and its later and worse form, called Imperialism, is, much more a matter of business than of passion. It enabled them in early Rome chronically to stave off the social problem, for the plebeians responded with steady stupidity to the call upon them to join in fighting their neighbours, instead of making common cause with the lower orders among the latter. A bad modern case, mentioned with obvious annoyance by Mr. Robertson, is that of the Canadian descendants of the victims of the Highland clearances of the early part of the present century. "It is only too true that their children remain 'loyal' and patriotic,' in the old sense, in their new homes. Such and so irrational are 'loyalty' and patriotism ' ; let the amateur of both make the best of it." The word " amateur " here is, we confess, obscure to us,—unless it is a foolish Gallicism. Prob- ably its appearance is to be explained by the heat with which the passage was written. These poor loyal and patriotic Scottish-Canadians, however, are far from being alone in their perverse folly. In the opinion of Mr. Robertson and his school, as we presume, a large part, if not the whole, of the working classes in Great Britain and in the United
States have been, and are, " exploited " by the capitalists —and, taking the past and present together, it is true of a good many of them—and yet it is in these two countries that, as he deplores, Imperialism has of late had its most marked develop. meats. In both countries the preponderance of political power is in the hands, not of aristocrats or capitalists, but of the industrial masses. If they were anti-Imperialist they would very soon let the politicians know it. The fact, of course, is notoriously otherwise, and it is not denied by Mr. Robertson.
The explanation, as we gather, is the want of leaders and in- fluential teachers, who will hold up "moral ideals," and advocate "a policy of scientific social development." Mr. Robertson apparently thinks that he has a mission for the better education of his fellow-countrymen in this regard. By all means let him strive to fulfil it. But in our judgment he will not go fax, or indeed make any progress at all, until he has, in the first place, modified the arrogant confidence of his general manner, and, secondly, recognised the presence of a large element of nobility in the national impulses and aspirations which he now vituperates with such absence of discrimination, and, we must add, in so deliberately insulting a tone. That Imperialism is liable to abuses and evils we sorrowfully acknowledge, but the man who can write of it that "it is all vain, where it is not vile," shows himself, despite the possession of considerable learning and power of effective statement, sadly lacking in the insight and the temper required for the true reformer's role.
Previous page
