The Problem of dissent

Title

Creator

Commager, Henry Steele

Language

English

Year

1966

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

Extracted in part from SR.

A famous historian points out an analogy or similarity between the Vietnam and the Filipino revolution on the subject of criticism and dissent.

Fulltext

■ A famous historian points out an analogy or si milarity between the Vietnam and the Filipino revolution on the subject of criticism and dissent. THE PROBLEM OF DISSENT In 1899 we fought a war that has interesting parallels with that which we are fighting today — war which we now have almost wholly forgotten, perhaps for rea sons that psychologists can understand better than poli ticians. That was the war to put down the Filipino “in surrection.” For the Filipi nos — like the Cubans — thought that they were to be liberated, but Admiral De wey cabled that the Filipino Republic represented only a fraction of the Filipyio peo ple and that independence was not to be thought of and the United States threw her' military might into the task of defeating what they called an insurrection. < Soon the presses were filled with stories of concentration camps and tortures; soon American soldiers were singing. Damn, damn, damn, the Filipinos Slant-eye’d Kakiak Ladrones And beneath the starry flag Civilize them with a Krag And return us to our own beloved Homes! The Filipino war excited a wave of outrage and protest among intellectuals, refor mers, and idealists as voci ferous as that which we now witness. Mark Twain ad dressed a powerful letter, “To a Person Sitting in Darkness,” which asserted that the Stars and Stripes should have the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by skull and crossbones. The philosopher Wil liam James charged that “we are now engaged in crushing out the sacredest thing in this great human world. . . . Why do we go on? First, the war fever, and then the pride which always refuses to back down when under fire.” And from the poet William Vaughn Moody came a me morable “Ode in Time of Hesitation”: Alas, what sounds are these that come Sullenly over the Pacific seas, . . . February 1966 9 Sounds of ignoble battle, striking dumb The season’s half awakened ecstacies. . . . Was it for this our fathers kept the law? Are we the eagle nation Milton saw Mewing its mighty youth, Soon to possess the moun tain winds of truth And be a swift familiar of the sun. . . . 'Or have we but the talons and the maw? And "To a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines” he wrote just such an ode as might be written for a soldier fallen in Vietnam: A flag for the soldier’s bier Who dies that his land may live; O banners, banners, here That Jie doubt not, nor misgive. . . . Let him never dream that his bullet’s scream’ Went wide of its island mark Home to the heart of his darling land Where she stumbled and sinned in the dark. Nor were these men of let ters alone in their passionate outery against what they thought an unjust war. They had the support of a bril liant galaxy of public leaders: Carl Schurz and Samuel Gompers, El L. Godkin of the Nation and Felix Adler of the Ethical Culture So ciety, Jane Addams of Hull House and President Jordan of Standford University, and Andrew Carnegie and scores of others. And when the defenders of the war raised the cry “Don’t haul down the flag,” it was no other than William Jennings Bryan, ti tular head of the Democra tic party, who asked, "Who will haul down the Pres ident?” We need not decide now whether those who protested this war* were right or wrong. It is sufficient to remember that we honor Mark Twain and William James, regard Jane Addams as one of the greatest of American women, and still read Godkin, and that Bryan is- somewhat bet ter remembered than Wil liam McKinley. Those in fatuates patriots who now assert that it is somehow trea sonable to criticize any poli cy that involves Americans in fighting overseas would do well to ponder the lessons of the Philippine War. 10 Panorama But, it will be said, as it is always said, this war is dif ferent. Whether history will judge this war to be different or not, we cannot say. But this we can say with certain ty: a government and a so ciety that silences those who dissent is one that has lost its way. This we can say: that what is essential in a free society is that there should be an atmosphere where those who wish to dis sent and even to demonstrate can do so without fear of re crimination or vilification. What is the alternative? What is implicit in the de mand, now, that agitation be silenced, that demonstra tors be punished? What is implicit in the insistence that we “pull up by the roots and rend to pieces” the protests from students — it is Senator Stennis we are quoting here. What is implicit in the charge that those who de monstrate against the war are somehow guilty of treason? It is, of course, this: that once our government has embarked upon a policy there is to be no more criti cism, protest, or dissent. All must close . ranks and unite behind the government. Now we have had a good deal of experience, first and last, with this view of the duty of the citizen to his government and it behooves us to recall that experience before we go too far astray. We ourselves had expe rience with this philosophy in the ante-bellium South. The dominant forces of Southern life were, by the 1840s, con vinced that slavery was a positive good, a blessing alike for slaves and for mas ters; they were just as sure of the righteousness of the “peculiar institution” as is Senator Dodd of the right eousness of the war in Viet nam. And they adopted a policy that is many Senators now want to impose upon us: that of silencing criti cism and intimidating critics. Teachers who attacked slave ry were deprived of their posts — just what Mr. Nixon now advises as the sovereign cure for what ails our uni versities! Editors who rais ed their voices in criticism of slavery lost their papers. Clergymen who did not realized that slavery was en joined by the Bible were forced out of their pulpits. Books that criticized slavery February 1966 11 were burned. In the end the dominant forces of the South got their way: critics were silenced. The South closed its ranks against critics, and closed its mind; it closed, too, every avenue of solution to the slavery problem ex cept that of violence. Nazi Germany provides us with an even more sobering spectacle. There, too, under Hitler, opposition to govern ment was equated with trea son. Those who dared ques tion the inferiority of Jews, or the justice of the conquest of inferior people like the Poles, were effectually si lenced, by exile or by the gas chamber. With criticism and dissent eliminated, Hit ler and his followers were able to lead their nation, and the .world, down the path to destruction. There is, alas, a tragic example of this attitude to ward criticism before our eyes, and in a people who inherit, if they do not che rish, our traditions of law and liberty. Like the slaveocracy of the Old South, the dominant leaders of South Africa today are convinced that whites are superior to Negroes, and that Negroes must not be allowed to en joy the freedoms available to whites. To maintain this policy and to silence criti cism — criticism coming from the academic community and from the press — they have dis pensed with the traditions of due process and of fair trial, violated academic freedom, and are in process of destroy ing centuries of constitu tional guarantees. And with criticism silenced, they are able to delude themselves that what they do is just and right. Now, it would be absurd and iniquitous to equate our current policies toward Viet nam with the defence of slavery, or with Nazi or Afri kaner policies. But the point is not whether these policies have anything in common. The point is that when a nation silences criticism and dissent, it deprives itself of the power to correct its er rors. The process of silen cing need not be as savage as in Nazi Germany or in South Africa today; it is enough that an atmosphere be created where men pre fer silence to protest. As has been observed of book-burn ing, it is not necessary to 12 Panorama burn books, it is not enough to discourage men from writ ing them. It cannot be too often re peated that the justification and the purpose of freedom of speech is not to indulge those who want to speak their minds. It is to prevent error and discover truth. There may be other ways of detecting error and discover ing truth than that of free discussion, but so far we have not found them. — By Henry Steele Comma ger, ex tracted in part from SR. RESEARCH AND PLAGIARISM Nicholas Murray Butler and Professor Brander Matthews of Columbia University were having a con versation, and Prof. Matthews was giving his ideas as to plagiarism, from an article of his own on that subject. "In the case of the first man to use an anecdote," he said, there is originality; in the case of the second there is plagiarism; with the third, it is lack of ori ginality; and with the fourth it is drawing from a common 6tock." "Yes,” broke in President Butler, "and in the case of the fifth, it is research." February 1966 13

Media