Patriotism
By Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
April 09, 2015 "ICH"
- Were anyone to call me dishonest or untruthful he would touch me to the
quick. Were he to say that I am unpatriotic, he would leave me unmoved. “What,
then, have you no love of country?” That is a question not to be answered in a
breath.
The early abolition of serfdom in England, the early growth of relatively-free
institutions, and the greater recognition of popular claims after the decay of
feudalism had divorced the masses from the soil, were traits of English life
which may be looked back upon with pride. When it was decided that any slave who
set foot in England became free; when the importation of slaves into the
Colonies was stopped; when twenty millions were paid for the emancipation of
slaves in the West Indies; and when, however unadvisedly, a fleet was maintained
to stop the slave trade; our countrymen did things worthy to be admired. And
when England gave a home to political refugees and took up the causes of small
states struggling for freedom, it again exhibited noble traits which excite
affection. But there are traits, unhappily of late more frequently displayed,
which do the reverse. Contemplation of the acts by which England has acquired
over eighty possessions – settlements, colonies, protectorates, &c. – does not
arouse feelings of satisfaction. The transitions from missionaries to resident
agents, then to officials having armed forces, then to punishments of those who
resist their rule, ending in so-called “pacification” – these processes of
annexation, now gradual and now sudden, as that of the new Indian province and
that of Barotziland, which was declared a British colony with no more regard for
the wills of the inhabiting people than for those of the inhabiting beasts – do
not excite sympathy with their perpetrators. Love of country is not fostered in
me on remembering that when, after our Prime Minister had declared that we were
bound in honour to the Khedive to reconquer the Soudan, we, after the
re-conquest, forthwith began to administer it in the name of the Queen and the
Khedive – practically annexing it; nor when, after promising through the mouths
of two Colonial Ministers not to interfere in the internal affairs of the
Transvaal, we proceeded to insist on certain electoral arrangements, and made
resistance the excuse for a desolating war.*
Nor does the national character shown by a popular ovation to a leader of
filibusters, or by the according of a University honour to an arch-conspirator,
or by the uproarious applause with which undergraduates greeted one who sneered
at the “unctuous rectitude” of those who opposed his plans of aggression, appear
to me lovable. If because my love of country does not survive these and many
other adverse experiences I am called unpatriotic – well, I am content to be so
called.
To me the cry – “Our country, right or wrong!” seems detestable. By association
with love of country the sentiment it expresses gains a certain justification.
Do but pull off the cloak, however, and the contained sentiment is seen to be of
the lowest. Let us observe the alternative cases.
Suppose our country is in the right – suppose it is resisting invasion. Then the
idea and feeling embodied in the cry are righteous. It may be effectively
contended that self-defence is not only justified but is a duty. Now suppose,
contrariwise, that our country is the aggressor – has taken possession of
others’ territory, or is forcing by arms certain commodities on a nation which
does not want them, or is backing up some of its agents in “punishing” those who
have retaliated. Suppose it is doing something which, by the hypothesis, is
admitted to be wrong. What is then the implication of the cry? The right is on
the side of those who oppose us; the wrong is on our side. How in that case is
to be expressed the so-called patriotic wish? Evidently the words must stand –
“Down with the right, up with the wrong!” Now in other relations this
combination of aims implies the acme of wickedness. In the minds of past men
there existed, and there still exists in many minds, a belief in a personalized
principle of evil – a Being going up and down in the world everywhere fighting
against the good and helping the bad to triumph. Can there be more briefly
expressed the aim of that Being than in the words “Up with the wrong and down
with the right” ? Do the so-called patriots like the endorsement?
Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling – anti-patriotic feeling,
it will doubtless be called – in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of
the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be “our
interests,” we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops
were in danger. At the Athenćum Club a well-known military man – then a captain
but now a general – drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and
read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I
astounded him by replying – “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to
order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are
shot themselves.”
I foresee the exclamation which will be called forth. Such a principle, it will
be said, would make an army impossible and a government powerless. It would
never do to have each soldier use his judgment about the purpose for which a
battle is waged. Military organization would be paralyzed and our country would
be a prey to the first invader.
Not so fast, is the reply. For one war an army would remain just as available as
now – a war of national defence. In such a war every soldier would be conscious
of the justice of his cause. He would not be engaged in dealing death among men
about whose doings, good or ill, he knew nothing, but among men who were
manifest transgressors against himself and his compatriots. Only aggressive war
would be negatived, not defensive war.
Of course it may be said, and said truly, that if there is no aggressive war
there can be no defensive war. It is clear, however, that one nation may limit
itself to defensive war when other nations do not. So that the principle remains
operative.
But those whose cry is – “Our country, right or wrong!” and who would add to our
eighty-odd possessions others to be similarly obtained, will contemplate with
disgust such a restriction upon military action. To them no folly seems greater
than that of practising on Monday the principles they profess on Sunday.
===
* We continue to hear repeated the transparent
excuse that the Boers commenced the war. In the far west of the U.S., where
every man carries his life in his hand and the usages of fighting are well
understood, it is held that he is the aggressor who first moves his hand towards
his weapon. The application is obvious.
British philosopher and sociologist, Herbert
Spencer was a major figure in the intellectual life of the Victorian era. He was
one of the principal proponents of evolutionary theory in the mid nineteenth
century, and his reputation at the time rivaled that of Charles Darwin. Spencer
was initially best known for developing and applying evolutionary theory to
philosophy, psychology and the study of society -- what he called his "synthetic
philosophy" (see his A System of Synthetic
Philosophy, 1862-93). Today, however, he is
usually remembered in philosophical circles for his political thought, primarily
for his defense of natural rights and for criticisms of utilitarian positivism,
and his views have been invoked by 'libertarian' thinkers such as
Robert Nozick.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/spencer/
|
Click for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note-
Translation may take a
moment to load.
What's your response?
-
Scroll down to add / read comments
Please
read our
Comment Policy
before posting -
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
|
| |
|
