NATIONAL ANTIPATHIES.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 13, 7 December 1863, Page 5 (Supplement)

NATIONAL ANTIPATHIES.

(From the Saturday Review.) Of the many common places which require reconsideration- one is the commonplace .which ascribes all -national antipathies to mere ignorance and prejudice. Lord Nelson made it a point of duty to .hate the French. "My mother," she-said, ""ha-ted the French." T^«en in Parliament, in the language of *o.ne of our most eminent statesmen, the French were described as our -natural enemies within living memory. Many people hate Americaiss, and others extend the same feeling to the •Scotch and Irish, both or either. Such feelings, however, are at present, and for some yea-rs past have been, avowed 'both less frequently and less freely than used to be the case. A totally •different and even antagonistic set of •commonplaces has grown up. We have 'learnt, for one thing, that it is wrong to hate auy one; and we haye also learnt a whole string of moral sentiments, conveyed as often as not in politico-economical terms, about the immense advantages and services which 'nations may derive from each other. "" Hate the French, fight the French, for King George or any one else upon the throne? -Dou't think of such a thing. Trade with the French, admire their ways, read 'their books, talk 'their language, and acknowledge that in ever -so many respects tbey are -unapproarch- v ably superior to M Such are supposed to be .he precepts -o'f practical Christianity, judiciously combined with r political economy and the other characteristic products of our time andIt was, no doubt, in obedience ■to this sentiment, which -culminated -about the time of the Exhibition <of' 1 851, that Loudon was amicablyinvaded "by legions of National ' Guards, whilst: Paris has, been occupied from time to time by organized bodies of English' mechanics, who go there 'to see the lions and fraternize with their brethren, •in blouses. , To a considerable portion of the world, this tone and feeling always had 'rather too much of the very-good-boy •sentiment to be quite agreeable. It was, indeed, an application to the relations between nations of Dr. Watt's ' beautiful advice to the children whose little hands were never made to tear •each other's eyes. Most of us are fond of dogs, including those that bark and bite; and even the .proprietors of well-' stocked nurseries may have some sympathy with bears and lions, though they •do growl and fight. Indeed, the reflection that God has made them so suggests « question whether the process can in all cases, and under all circumstances, be an unmixed evil. Thus the trium--,phant denounciation of the old party cries, and of the rough antipathies from which they proceeded — antipathies which, after all, were rather boisterous than malignant — suggested to many o! f -fthose who heard them more resentment than sympathy. Such hearers were •constantly impelled to aslc, " Why cannot we stop the muuths of these prigs, aud go on hating the French, as our fathers did before us, with quiet minds . and a good conscience ?" The inquiry ds by no means an idle one. The question whether a nation can properly be the subject of antipathy is -composed of several subordinate questions. Antipathy may mean simply -dislike — the feeling pained or annoyed by intercourse instead of deriving pleasure from it. It may mean something ' more- — namely, an active desire to injure. And this desire to injure may mean a desire to produce some effect greatly dreaded and disliked by the nation which excites it — as, for example, to ■deprive them o£ part of their political greatness or power; or it may mean a wish, simply and without reference to anything else, that they should suffer — a wish, for instance, that their population should be dimin : sh_d by plague or famine, or that it should degenerate^ by the indulgence of vicious propensi- , •ties, or that their , territory .'should be permanently injured by changes of climate or by natural convulsions. Certainly, to have a nation in the last of these senses — to wish deliberately, for that its population should be enfeebled by viee — would be almost as • devilish a feeling as can well be conceived, and it may be doubted whether any reasouable human creature ever really entertained it. «. People have said , ulLsofts of hard things of each other, '■' antl^ave at different times done each -othe>*lmost incalculable mischief; but V' history probably supplies no instance of this sort of deadly malice. If it ever existed at all, it must have been confined to a few moody persons, brooding over some injury which they supposed j themselves to have received at the ■ hands of their oppressors. One can imagine that a Jew in the middle ages < . might have regarded several* of the European nations in turn with some such feeling, and might have triumphed in watching, and even encouraging, the vices of those by whom he and his had been tormented. The feelings of the mass of the population of any one large and high-spirited nation towards any other never probably assumed any such complexion. Putting out of the question this state of mmd — which no one defends, and which, in all probability, hardly any one experiences — the national antipathies which actually occur may be reduced to two classes. There is the antipathy which consistgin opposition to a particular course of national policy, and there is the antipathy which con'giats in disliking a particular kind of national character. Are these sorts" of national antipathy usually due to mere prejudice, and ought they to be regarded as simply injurious ? The first kind of national antipathy — that which arises out of political rivalry — is that which the purist commonplaces on the subject

chiefly condemn. Their favorite notion is that, if we could only see it, all nations have a common interest, and that, therefore, it is a mere relic of barbarism which leads any one country to view with jealousy the extension of the power of other nations. This lay atthe root of all the peace commonplaces which were so plentiful ten years ago. In the present day, it seems almost needless to point out the absurdity of this. Most people.judge from their immediate experience; and the barefactthat we ate now living, and that for the last ten years er thereabouts we have been living, in the very midst of wars and . rumors of wars, completely destroys all the plausibility which Used to attach to. what was once so familiar. The forget- ! fulness of all but present experience is not the more dignified because, as it happens, the obvious 'esson from experience is on this occasion the true one. It is perfectly true that during the last ten years there have been abundance of wars in Europe ; but it is no less true that for nearly forty years Europe enjoyed profound peace, and that our recent experience has amply proved that both moral aud economical causes have united to increase the J general dread, and to diminish the fre- ; quency and, on the whole, the duration of wars. Stronger reasons, therefore, than the mere fact that of late years wars have been frequent must be found before it can be concluded that the jealousy, and consequent rivalry and dislike, with which nations regard each other is Hkely to be a permanent state of feeling. It is by no means difficult to find them. Whatever view we may take of the future history of the world, there can be no doubt that, so long as human nature remains unchanged, all nations will have a foreign policy. Great changes are implied almost-of necessity in the very existence of such vast and, to some extent, heterogeneous bodies as Turkey in Europe and Asia, Russia, and Germany. It is true that the questions thus suggested, and others which mi«ht easily be mentioned, may be settled j amicably by negotiati n ; but diplomacy | is, in its essence, no more than ccurj teous threatening. Fleets and armies held in reserve give it its significance, just a? the gold in the cellars of the, Bank of England is the true source of 1 the value of bank-notes. The course of r European politics may be ostensibly reduced to the form of a correspondence so quiet and polite as to look perfectlycolorless and almost unmeaning. Substantially, it means, "Do what 1 dictate, or the first time I get a chance . I'll knock your brains out." So long as this is the case, whether we fight or not, there will always be jealousies between nations, and more or less ot the national antipathy which springs from them. There is, indeed, considerable reason to think that, as nations come more and more to represent and embody opinions and sentiments, their jealousies will become greater, and their antipathies stronger. It is curious to observe the sympathies which have been displayed again and again between ' Russia and the United States. The two enormous empires — e<aoh with half a world to people, each fanatically per suaded of its wonderful destinies, each animated by a sort of patriotic fervor which seems to take something of the : character of a religion, and «ach under, the control of a Government which, possessing the unlimited confidence of the nation, can venture upon acts from which any other civilized Government, would shrink — are drawn together by a force of sympathy which deserve, to be viewed, not only with interest, but with something like awe, by tfee rest of the world. If we want an example o£ natural antipathy between two countries — of that sort of repulsion and rivalry which the position of the parties naturally engenders — compare Russia and France. French power, French sympathies, French religion, French ideas, are" in diametrical opposition to those ef Russia. We in this country never disliked the Russians even when we fought with them ; and even now, '■ though we sympathise with the Poles, we have not the faintest wish to hurt Russia, and are placed in a most embarrassing position between probable allies whom we do not like, and possible enemies whom we do not hate. The last form of national antipathy — that which consists in one nation disliking another as one man might dislike another — is frequently denounced as foolish and wicked, and as being founded entirely on ignorance. In point of fact, it is absurd to suppose that it will ever cease to exist, or will ever cease to exercise a very powerful influence on public affairs, as to suppose that personal likes and dislikes will ever cease to exist. Nations have characters as truly as individuals. At least a thousand different influences existing amongst them tend to produce a particular type of character, which it is as easy to recognise, and as difficult to analyse completely, as any other type of character. We all know what we mean by the French character, as well as we know what we mean by a proud man ; yet we should find it extremely difficult to answer every question which might be asked about either one or the other. It has got to be a commonplace amongst many writers that the common half-instinctive first impression' which the natives of one country get of the character of the natives ofcother countries is probably altogether wrong, and that therefore the mutual dislike which the populations of different countries often feel for each other is a mpfe unreasonable prejudice which bet^eVinformation would remove. No doubt the rough impression generally • omits much, especially much that^ is <*ood and pleasant ; but it is almost always jjetu c t as far as it goes, and if it

omits much that is good, it also omits much that is bad. It is quite possible that the opinion ultimately formed on the subject by a man who has lived Jong in a foreign country, and taking great pains to study its character, its literature, and its institutions, may be that he thoroughly dislikes it. For instance, one would not say that M. de Tocqueville liked the Americans ; and probably there are many persons who both know and dislike the Jews. The dislike which we English have inspired throughout almost every part of the Continent of Europe rests on very reasonable grounds ; and no one who knows the French wall will be surprised that, notwithstanding the most elaborate fraternisation, and aQy quantity of alliance in politics and in business, tire English and French should still dislike each other. It is perfectly true that mere dislike, the not taking pleasure iv the company of a man or in the character or institution of a nation, is no sort of reason for wishing to injure either the individual or the country. You may do business on perfectly satisfactory terms for twenty years together with a man whom you thoroughly dislike, and Whom you would on no consideration ask to dinner. The connection may be most important to you in a thousand ways, and you may be well aware that, i if you became hostile, you and he might inflict terrible injuries en each other. All this may be perfectly true, but his no reason whatever for pretending to feel what you do not and never esn or will feel towards him; nor is it even & reason for not saying w^iat you think of him with due caution, and in places where it will do no harm. It is just the same with nations. We may be friends, customers, allies, and everything else you please, and very cordially dislike each other all the while; and there is not only no use, but a great deal of harm, in pretending to feel a liking which we do not feel. ,