Looking Through America’s Eyes

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 125, 17 August 1927, Page 9

Looking Through America’s Eyes

WORLD PROBLEMS U.S.A. PROFESSOR SPEAKS j “ »he United States has an inferiority complex, though you might find it hard to believe. The people are firmly convinced that the American statesmen oannot compete with the European ones over European issues. They feel that the American is an honest man who can play chequers, but who can hardly be expected to play draw poker with the experts.” In breezy style, Professor G. H. Blakeslie, of Clark University, Massachusetts, described American opinions on questions of importance last night, in his lecture given under the auspices of the W.E.A. In the statement quoted he was trying to make it clear why America wished to keep clear of European politics. The professor explained that it was in no sense his intention to defend American opinion, but merely to interpret it. Though the country differed so much in geography and nationality, and though the outlook of the Atlantic Coast—which was conscious of a Europe—was totally different from the provincial outlook of the farmer of the middle west, or the views of the Pacific Coast, he thought that on many issues there was an American point of view. “FAMILY SECURITY” In the American attitude to Great Britain, lie said, there was no sentiment, but a deep sense of family security. France might arouse enthusiasm in the United States at times, but the sense of security was lacking. Professor Gilbert Murray, after studying American outlook, had come to the conclusion that the relations of America and Britain rested on a “deep sense of community of interest, with frequent surface irritations.” America had a tie to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and in the type of democracy which had been set up. All these countries had been built up by the labours of the pioneers. The United States believed that its character was marked by the strength, the virtues, and possibly by the limitations of the pioneers. Then there was the attempt to hold the racial integrity of the people. Australia and New Zealand had taken steps years ago to limit immigration. It was only since the war that the United States had realised that the national type of American was in danger of destruction from the flood of immigrants from the East and Central Europe. “You have here 98 per cent, of British stock, 1 think,” said the professor, “and Australia has a similar percentage. One of the Canadian university professors estimated that Canada was 52 per cent. British. In the United States 57 per cent, of the people have come from British stock, so unless there is some discrepancy in the Canadian figures the States is somewhat more than the great DomiTHE MONROE DOCTRINE “Americans do regard the Monroe Doctrine as a kind of religious fetish,” said the professor. He explained that it was purely a policy of defence, insisting that no non-American country should be allowed to enter American territory and seize land or government. A similar measure had been passed by the Intercolonial Conference at Sydney in 1873 (when it was feared that Germany had eyes on the Pacific) against the acquisition of dominions in the Pacific by foreign Powers. Avoidance of the political disputes of Europe was another strong policy of the United States. It wanted no parts in the quarrels of the Continent. Canada and Australia, though parts of the great British Commonwealth of Nations, had also shown an unwillingness to do this. Deep down in the American political consciousness, rightly or wrongly, was the idea of keeping out of the “perfect horror” of European politics, and the sentiment had been noted many times since Jefferson said it first Even Great Britain had shown a desire to keep out of European affairs, and the Atlantic was rather larger than the Channel. The beginning of the war was viewed with horror and dismay by Americans, not one in a thousand of whom believed there was any need to enter the conflict until it came to involve the principles vital to democracy. There were two reasons why the United States entered the war—the first, to protect her commercial rights; and the j second, to join in the great crusade for the well-being of herself and the world, “to make the world safe for democracy.” KEEPING OUT OF QUARRELS The States wanted to keep out of the quarrels of Europe, but she wanted to help with the financial and economic rehabilitation of Europe. Though she had not joined the League of Nations, she had as many official representatives at Geneva as any nation, and she was for all practical purposes a member. She had never been so friendly toward the League, and never so determined not to become a member. If the States of Europe would form a central league for the settlement of their own political disputes. America would be delighted, and would then be able to take part in the questions of world-wide interest. Year by year she would co-operate with the other nations, until she became an associate member of the League. “It seems a great pity that the mere question of pounds, dollars, and francs should affect the old friendship of the Allied Powers,” he said, speaking of the war indebtedness, “and that it should destroy the reputation for generosity held by America 10 years i ago.” The American people were I not consciously ungenerous, but they did not view the situation from the angle which was so clear to the countries of Europe. Until the States entered the war she had given dollars, while the Allies had given soldiers. Since the soldiers could not bo called back, then surely the dollars should not be. The majority of the American people did not see this, but believed that their claims were just. ALLIED INDEBTEDNESS There was a strong movement for an entire reconsideration of the question of the indebtedness. University leaders were making a strong appeal, and though it meant that the money would have to be raised by taxation if the Allies did not pay, there was a supporting feeling in the country. In a year ajad a-lialf Germany would be at the peck of the payments she was supposed to be able to make, and this might be a suitable time to reconsider the question, in order to further the spirit of Locarno. The great problem of the future was how nations could live together in a world rapidly getting smaller, while they were jostling each other more each day. The British Commonwealth of Nations had shown the new idea In which peoples might live together harmoniously. The great factor would be the friendship of tha Englishspeaking nation?