Prejudices, fifth seriesMencken, H. L. (Henry Louis)
History
Prejudices, fifth series
Mencken, H. L. (Henry Louis)
American essays -- 20th century; American literature -- History and criticism; Literature -- History and criticism
Dr. Abbott’s book, as I have said, is somewhat difficult; perhaps
I misrepresent him in a few details. But in the main, I believe, I
gather his doctrine correctly; it is, indeed, a doctrine that has
grown very familiar. The Ku Klux has carried it into every hamlet in
the land, and bolstered it with the authority of Holy Writ. I could,
if I would, amuse myself by exhibiting the holes in it. Is it a fact,
then, that the “Anglo-Saxons” conquered the continent unaided? What
of the Spaniards and French? What of the Dutch and Germans? What of
the Scotch-Irish? Is it a fact that they invented the American scheme
of government? What of Rousseau? Is it a fact that all assaults upon
that scheme have been made by assistant Americans? What of Jefferson,
Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Jeff Davis, Bryan? Is it a fact that all the
enemies of the Constitution came from below the salt? What of the
Eighteenth Amendment: does it damage the Bill of Rights more or less
than the late Dr. La Follette’s vaporous schemes? Such questions
suggest themselves in great variety. I could roll them off until you
stood agape. But I have no desire to press a professor of history
unduly; his authority, in the last analysis, cannot be upset by facts.
And in the present case, whatever his errors in detail, it seems to me
to be quite clear that the fundamental facts are on his side. There
_is_ unquestionably a difference between the “Anglo-Saxon” American
and the non-“Anglo-Saxon”--a difference in their primary instincts,
in their reactions to common stimuli, in their ways of looking at the
world. And that difference, of late years, _has_ come to the estate of
a conflict, with the “Anglo-Saxon” striving to keep what he has--his
point of view, his cultural leadership, his political hegemony--and
the non-“Anglo-Saxon” trying to take it away from him. To deny that
conflict is to fall into an absurdity far worse than any Dr. Abbott is
guilty of. To admit it is to admit his clear right, nay, his bounden
duty, to do battle for his side, passionately, desperately, and with
any weapon at hand.
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