To no inconsiderable extent this is America's own fault. She does not
present to the world a record that is easily read. It is obvious, for
instance--and so obvious that it is not often enough stated--that
America has and will continue to have a fundamentally English
civilization. English law is the basis of her law. English speech is her
speech, and if with a difference, it is a difference that the
philologist, all things considered, finds amazingly small. English
literature is her literature--Chaucer and Shakespeare hers because her
blood then coursed indistinguishably through the English heart they knew
so well; Milton, Dryden, and the Queen Anne men hers, because she was
still a part of England; the later men hers by virtue of affectionate
acquaintanceship and a generous and not inconsiderable rivalry. English
history, in short, is her history. The struggles of the thirteenth
century through which law and parliament came into being, the struggles
of the seventeenth century through which law and parliament came to
rule, are America's struggles upon which she can look back with the
satisfaction that some things that have been done in the world need
never be undone or done over again, whatever the room for improvement
may still be. Americans, no less than British, recognize that
independence was largely an accidental result of a war which sprang out
of a false theory of economics, but whose conclusion carried with it a
lesson in the management of empire which subsequent history shows the
British to have learned thoroughly and for the benefit of all concerned.
American independence, however, once established, pointed a way to
democratic freedom which England hastened to follow. This we know. And
yet--
And yet we allow these obvious and fundamental considerations to become
marvelously obscured. We allow England's failure to solve an insoluble
Irish problem to arouse in us an attitude of mind possibly excusable in
some Irishmen, but wholly inexcusable in any American. We allow a
sentimental regard for some immigrant from Eastern Europe, who comes to
us with a philosophy born of conditions that in English-speaking lands
ceased to be centuries ago, to make us pretend to see in him the true
expression of America's traditional ideals. We allow ourselves to be far
too easy with the phrase, "He is not pro-German, he is merely
anti-British." Why are they anti-British? Why should they be permitted
to make it falsely appear that recognition of the English basis of
America involves approval of everything that England in her history may
or may not have done? Why should they be allowed to pretend that
disapproval of some particular act of England justifies repudiation of
most of the things by virtue of which we are what we are? America from
the first has been part of the great English experiment--great because
it is capable of learning from experience.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account