The question "Does civilization civilize?" is a fine example of petitioprincipii, and decides itself in the affirmative; for civilization mustneeds do that from the doing of which it has its name. But it is notnecessary to suppose that he who propounds is either unconscious of hislapse in logic or desirous of digging a pitfall for the feet of thosewho discuss; I take it he simply wishes to put the matter in animpressive way, and relies upon a certain degree of intelligence in theinterpretation.
Concerning uncivilized peoples we know but little except what we aretold by travelers—who, speaking generally, can know very little but thefact of uncivilization, as shown in externals and irrelevances, and aremoreover, greatly given to lying. From the savages we hear very little.Judging them in all things by our own standards in default of aknowledge of theirs, we necessarily condemn, disparage and belittle. Onething that civilization certainly has not done is to make us intelligentenough to understand that the contrary of a virtue is not necessarily avice. Because, as a rule, we have but one wife and several mistresseseach it is not certain that polygamy is everywhere—nor, for thatmatter, anywhere—either wrong or inexpedient. Because the brutality ofthe civilized slave owners and dealers created a conquering sentimentagainst slavery it is not intelligent to assume that slavery is amaleficent thing amongst Oriental peoples (for example) where the slaveis not oppressed. Some of these same Orientals whom we are pleased toterm half-civilized have no regard for truth. "Takest thou me for aChristian dog," said one of them, "that I should be the slave of myword?" So far as I can perceive, the "Christian dog" is no more theslave of his word than the True Believer, and I think thesavage—allowing for the fact that his inveracity has dominion overfewer things—as great a liar as either of them. For my part, I do notknow what, in all circumstances, is right or wrong; but I know that, ifright, it is at least stupid, to judge an uncivilized people by thestandards of morality and intelligence set up by civilized ones. Life incivilized countries is so complex that men there have more ways to begood than savages have, and more to be bad; more to be happy, and moreto be miserable. And in each way to be good or bad, their generallysuperior knowledge—their knowledge of more things—enables them tocommit greater excesses than the savage can. The civilizedphilanthropist wreaks upon his fellows a ranker philanthropy, thecivilized rascal a sturdier rascality. And—splendid triumph ofenlightenment!—the two characters are, in civilization, frequentlycombined in one person.
I know of no savage custom or habit of thought which has not its matein civilized countries. For every mischievous or absurd practice of thenatural man I can name you one of ours that is essentially the same. Andnearly every custom of our barbarian ancestors in historic timespersists in some form today. We make ourselves look formidable inbattle—for that matter, we fight. Our women paint their faces. We feelit obligatory to dress more or less alike, inventing the most ingeniousreasons for doing so and actually despising and persecuting th