People of this sort do not even feel the need of alternatives. Beyond the scope of a few personal projects, meeting Her again, and things like that, they do not feel that there is a future. They are unencumbered by any baggage of convictions whatever, in relation to that. That, at least, is the only way in which I can explain our friend’s high intellectual mobility3. Attempts to correlate statesmanship, which they regard with interest as a dramatic interplay of personalities4, with any secular5 movement of humanity, they class with the differential calculus6 and Darwinism, as things far too difficult to be anything but finally and subtly wrong.
So the argument must pass into a direct address to the reader.
If you are not prepared to regard a world-wide synthesis of all cultures and polities and races into one World State as the desirable end upon which all civilising efforts converge7, what do you regard as the desirable end? Synthesis, one may remark in passing, does not necessarily mean fusion8, nor does it mean uniformity.
The alternatives fall roughly under three headings. The first is to assume there is a best race, to define as well as one can that best race, and to regard all other races as material for extermination9. This has a fine, modern, biological air (“Survival of the Fittest”). If you are one of those queer German professors who write insanity10 about Welt-Politik, you assume the best race is the “Teutonic”; Cecil Rhodes affected11 that triumph of creative imagination, the “Anglo-Saxon race”; my friend, Moses Cohen, thinks there is much to be said for the Jew. On its premises12, this is a perfectly13 sound and reasonable policy, and it opens out a brilliant prospect14 for the scientific inventor for what one might call Welt-Apparat in the future, for national harrowing and reaping machines, and race-destroying fumigations. The great plain of China (“Yellow Peril”) lends itself particularly to some striking wholesale15 undertaking16; it might, for example, be flooded for a few days, and then disinfected with volcanic17 chlorine. Whether, when all the inferior races have been stamped out, the superior race would not proceed at once, or after a brief millennial18 period of social harmony, to divide itself into sub-classes, and begin the business over again at a higher level, is an interesting residual19 question into which we need not now penetrate20.
That complete development of a scientific Welt-Politik is not, however, very widely advocated at present, no doubt from a want of confidence in the public imagination. We have, however, a very audible and influential21 school, the Modern Imperialist school, which distinguishes its own race — there is a German, a British, and an Anglo-Saxon section in the school, and a wider teaching which embraces the whole “white race” in one remarkable22 tolerance23 — as the superior race, as one, indeed, superior enough to own slaves, collectively, if not individually; and the exponents24 of this doctrine25 look with a resolute26, truculent27, but slightly indistinct eye to a future in which all the rest of the world will be in subjection to these elect. The ideals of this type are set forth28 pretty clearly in Mr. Kidd’s Control of the Tropics. The whole world is to be administered by the “white” Powers — Mr. Kidd did not anticipate Japan — who will see to it that their subjects do not “prevent the utilisation of the immense natural resources which they have in charge.” Those other races are to be regarded as children, recalcitrant29 children at times, and without any of the tender emotions of paternity. It is a little doubtful whether the races lacking “in the elementary qualities of social efficiency” are expected to acquire them under the chastening hands of those races which, through “strength and energy of character, humanity, probity30, and integrity, and a single-minded devotion to conceptions of duty,” are developing “the resources of the richest regions of the earth” over their heads, or whether this is the ultimate ideal.
Next comes the rather incoherent alternative that one associates in England with official Liberalism.
Liberalism in England is not quite the same thing as Liberalism in the rest of the world; it is woven of two strands31. There is Whiggism, the powerful tradition of seventeenth-century Protestant and republican England, with its great debt to republican Rome, its strong constructive33 and disciplinary bias34, its broad and originally very living and intelligent outlook; and interwoven with this there is the sentimental35 and logical Liberalism that sprang from the stresses of the eighteenth century, that finds its early scarce differentiated36 expression in Harrington’s Oceana, and after fresh draughts37 of the tradition of Brutus and Cato and some elegant trifling38 with noble savages39, budded in La Cite Morellyste, flowered in the emotional democratic naturalism of Rousseau, and bore abundant fruit in the French Revolution. These are two very distinct strands. Directly they were freed in America from the grip of conflict with British Toryism, they came apart as the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. Their continued union in Great Britain is a political accident. Because of this mixture, the whole career of English-speaking Liberalism, though it has gone to one unbroken strain of eloquence40, has never produced a clear statement of policy in relation to other peoples politically less fortunate. It has developed no definite ideas at all about the future of mankind. The Whig disposition41, which once had some play in India, was certainly to attempt to anglicise the “native,” to assimilate his culture, and then to assimilate his political status with that of his temporary ruler. But interwoven with this anglicising tendency, which was also, by the bye, a Christianising tendency, was a strong disposition, derived42 from the Rousseau strand32, to leave other peoples alone, to facilitate even the separation and autonomy of detached portions of our own peoples, to disintegrate43 finally into perfect, because lawless, individuals. The official exposition of British “Liberalism” to-day still wriggles44 unstably45 because of these conflicting constituents46, but on the whole the Whig strand now seems the weaker. The contemporary Liberal politician offers cogent47 criticism upon the brutality48 and conceit49 of modern imperialisms, but that seems to be the limit of his service. Taking what they do not say and do not propose as an indication of Liberal intentions, it would seem that the ideal of the British Liberals and of the American Democrats51 is to favour the existence of just as many petty, loosely allied52, or quite independent nationalities as possible, just as many languages as possible, to deprecate armies and all controls, and to trust to the innate53 goodness of disorder54 and the powers of an ardent55 sentimentality to keep the world clean and sweet. The Liberals will not face the plain consequence that such a state of affairs is hopelessly unstable56, that it involves the maximum risk of war with the minimum of permanent benefit and public order. They will not reflect that the stars in their courses rule inexorably against it. It is a vague, impossible ideal, with a rude sort of unworldly moral beauty, like the gospel of the Doukhobors. Besides that charm it has this most seductive quality to an official British Liberal, that it does not exact intellectual activity nor indeed activity of any sort whatever. It is, by virtue57 of that alone, a far less mischievous58 doctrine than the crude and violent Imperialism50 of the popular Press.
Neither of these two schools of policy, neither the international laisser faire of the Liberals, nor “hustle to the top” Imperialism, promise any reality of permanent progress for the world of men. They are the resort, the moral reference, of those who will not think frankly59 and exhaustively over the whole field of this question. Do that, insist upon solutions of more than accidental applicability, and you emerge with one or other of two contrasted solutions, as the consciousness of kind or the consciousness of individuality prevails in your mind. In the former case you will adopt aggressive Imperialism, but you will carry it out to its “thorough” degree of extermination. You will seek to develop the culture and power of your kind of men and women to the utmost in order to shoulder all other kinds from the earth. If on the other hand you appreciate the unique, you will aim at such a synthesis as this Utopia displays, a synthesis far more credible60 and possible than any other Welt-Politik. In spite of all the pageant61 of modern war, synthesis is in the trend of the world. To aid and develop it, could be made the open and secure policy of any great modern empire now. Modern war, modern international hostility62 is, I believe, possible only through the stupid illiteracy63 of the mass of men and the conceit and intellectual indolence of rulers and those who feed the public mind. Were the will of the mass of men lit and conscious, I am firmly convinced it would now burn steadily64 for synthesis and peace.
It would be so easy to bring about a world peace within a few decades, was there but the will for it among men! The great empires that exist need but a little speech and frankness one with another. Within, the riddles65 of social order are already half solved in books and thought, there are the common people and the subject peoples to be educated and drilled, to be led to a common speech and a common literature, to be assimilated and made citizens; without, there is the possibility of treaties. Why, for example, should Britain and France, or either and the United States, or Sweden and Norway, or Holland, or Denmark, or Italy, fight any more for ever? And if there is no reason, how foolish and dangerous it is still to sustain linguistic66 differences and custom houses, and all sorts of foolish and irritating distinctions between their various citizens! Why should not all these peoples agree to teach some common language, French, for example, in their common schools, or to teach each other’s languages reciprocally? Why should they not aim at a common literature, and bring their various common laws, their marriage laws, and so on, into uniformity? Why should they not work for a uniform minimum of labour conditions through all their communities? Why, then, should they not — except in the interests of a few rascal67 plutocrats — trade freely and exchange their citizenship68 freely throughout their common boundaries? No doubt there are difficulties to be found, but they are quite finite difficulties. What is there to prevent a parallel movement of all the civilised Powers in the world towards a common ideal and assimilation?
Stupidity — nothing but stupidity, a stupid brute69 jealousy70, aimless and unjustifiable.
The coarser conceptions of aggregation71 are at hand, the hostile, jealous patriotisms, the blare of trumpets72 and the pride of fools; they serve the daily need though they lead towards disaster. The real and the immediate73 has us in its grip, the accidental personal thing. The little effort of thought, the brief sustained effort of will, is too much for the contemporary mind. Such treaties, such sympathetic international movements, are but dream stuff yet on earth, though Utopia has realised them long since and already passed them by.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
botanist
|
|
| n.植物学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
mobility
|
|
| n.可动性，变动性，情感不定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
personalities
|
|
| n. 诽谤，（对某人容貌、性格等所进行的）人身攻击； 人身攻击；人格, 个性, 名人( personality的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
secular
|
|
| n.牧师，凡人；adj.世俗的，现世的，不朽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
calculus
|
|
| n.微积分；结石 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
converge
|
|
| vi.会合；聚集，集中；(思想、观点等)趋近 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
extermination
|
|
| n.消灭，根绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
insanity
|
|
| n.疯狂，精神错乱；极端的愚蠢，荒唐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
wholesale
|
|
| n.批发；adv.以批发方式；vt.批发，成批出售 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
undertaking
|
|
| n.保证，许诺，事业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
volcanic
|
|
| adj.火山的；象火山的；由火山引起的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
millennial
|
|
| 一千年的，千福年的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
residual
|
|
| adj.复播复映追加时间；存留下来的，剩余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
penetrate
|
|
| v.透(渗)入；刺入，刺穿；洞察，了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
tolerance
|
|
| n.宽容；容忍，忍受；耐药力；公差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
exponents
|
|
| n.倡导者( exponent的名词复数 )；说明者；指数；能手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
truculent
|
|
| adj.野蛮的，粗野的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
recalcitrant
|
|
| adj.倔强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
probity
|
|
| n.刚直；廉洁，正直 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
strands
|
|
| n.（线、绳、金属线、毛发等的）股( strand的名词复数 )；缕；海洋、湖或河的)岸；（观点、计划、故事等的）部份v.使滞留，使搁浅( strand的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
strand
|
|
| vt.使（船）搁浅，使（某人）困于（某地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
constructive
|
|
| adj.建设的，建设性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
sentimental
|
|
| adj.多愁善感的，感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
differentiated
|
|
| 区分，区别，辨别( differentiate的过去式和过去分词 )； 区别对待； 表明…间的差别，构成…间差别的特征 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
draughts
|
|
| n. <英>国际跳棋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
disintegrate
|
|
| v.瓦解，解体，（使）碎裂，（使）粉碎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
wriggles
|
|
| n.蠕动，扭动( wriggle的名词复数 )v.扭动，蠕动，蜿蜒行进( wriggle的第三人称单数 )；（使身体某一部位）扭动；耍滑不做，逃避（应做的事等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
unstably
|
|
| adj.不稳固的；不坚定的；易变的；反复无常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
constituents
|
|
| n.选民( constituent的名词复数 )；成分；构成部分；要素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
cogent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
conceit
|
|
| n.自负，自高自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
imperialism
|
|
| n.帝国主义，帝国主义政策 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
innate
|
|
| adj.天生的，固有的，天赋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
unstable
|
|
| adj.不稳定的，易变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
pageant
|
|
| n.壮观的游行；露天历史剧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
illiteracy
|
|
| n.文盲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
riddles
|
|
| n.谜（语）( riddle的名词复数 )；猜不透的难题，难解之谜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
linguistic
|
|
| adj.语言的，语言学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
rascal
|
|
| n.流氓；不诚实的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
jealousy
|
|
| n.妒忌，嫉妒，猜忌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
aggregation
|
|
| n.聚合，组合；凝聚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
trumpets
|
|
| 喇叭( trumpet的名词复数 )； 小号； 喇叭形物； （尤指）绽开的水仙花 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |