Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-02-16
albuquerque Morning journal Wednesday February 49, 1921

| cord ana without pressure OF Kind, has granted
any tributary people their freedom. We fear thai
| the saying that What Britain once gets she never
lets so" is only true. Perhaps we have forgotten
some obscure instance to the contrary; If So Mr..
! McMillcn can correct us.
! We know, however that we have not forgotten
! the facts regarding America, India Egypt and
Ireland That Britains rule in some of these
provinces has been benevolent do not deny; but
the fact remains that any effort on their part to
secure absolute independence has been vigorously
| and stubbornly resisted.
We cannot conccdc that the British people are to
be absolved for any blame in connection with the
Revolutionary War, simply the ground that
George III a tyrant-a German tyrant, if you
please. Today holding the German people
responsible for the acts of another German tyrant
and justly so, because it is political axiom that
Il nation must suffer for the acts of its rulers. His
tory has clearly shown that tyrant long
retain his rule save through the sufferance of a
majority of his subiects-especally II these sub
jects enlightened people.
That many Britons deplored the effort to retain
the American colonies against their will, we freely
admit; but this conviction was not strong enough
to them to rise against ruler who would
thus impose his tyranny upon their brethren Thus
by their nacton they ratified his deeds however
much they may have lamented them.
We do not point this out as any argument why
be the most cordial England has since that time
shown us many times that she our friend. The
recent baptism of fire and blood alone could have
wiped out any raneor that might have remained
No; the point are emphasizing now is that
the British people-eher actively passively-
have not shown that some jealous regard for the
liberties of others that they have consistently shown
when their freedom ieopardizcd
Again, MIR, McMillen dwes considerably the
fact that Americans ara an English people. While
we admit that the prevailing strain is Anglo-Saxon,
we must insist that the American people not
English but distinctively American Our language is
the same as that of our British cousins-with a
number of racy variations; and customs
similar, but by no meass identical.
The temperaments of the two peoples however,
far different.
The fact Of the matter is distinct national
type is being developed in America. Would Mr.. Nc
Millen argue that the flames under the melting
pot fuse only the Anglo-Saxon races? Are
not Americans of Russian French Mexican ana
Italian extraction much American as any Anglo
American? If these immigrants fail to absorb our
ideals they fail to become Americans If an Eng
fish immigrant also fails to absorb them, he, too
is not American. r.
Our strength comes from the fact that we are
composite people drawing the best from many
races. To doubt this would be to doubt the exist
ence of the most American trait we have.
different people from the British; but the greatest
factor has been the constant fusion Of 1t is
this interfuson that makes America distinctive
And every true American of non English extraction
has the right to challenge the statement that 1--WE
are in fact English people"
Finally Mr.. McMillen points to the fact that:
English speaking people are slow to learn other
languages as a sign of strength We believe it is
weakness.
That Enssh-speaking people love and retain
their tongue is an admirable trait, making for
the survival of their racial and national integrity
But their inability to learn other languages IN
ADDITION hardly be termed enviable. 1t is
certainly not corollary to the steadfast retention
of the mother tongue. To put it buntly, it is an
unfortunate provnciasm that should be corrected
rather than encouraged. 80.
To assert that people of English speech must
ignore other languages in order to retain their own
is to imply that English cannot hold its own with
the other tongues of the world. This is not correct
whether we consider the language from phil
illogical point of view a literary
Mr. McMen, indeed, does not make this out
right assertion; but he strongly hints at it when he
says: .-. ...
THE English-speakng people, wherever
they have congregated, have been criticized for
their inability to learn other languages, to APP
prove other methods of government; and it
must be confessed that the general attitude of
the English-speaking people is that their Ian
guage is good enough and let the rest of the
world learn to speak English. 1t is this
very stubbornness this tenacity of purpose, this
determination to adhere to it's language and its
principles of governments that is the strongest
characteristic and the of the greatest
good through the influence of the English
speaking people"
These are the three points which cannot
agree with Mr. McMillen.
But in its main theme--the fomenting of cor
dial relations between the two nations-we repeat
that regard his paper timely and pa
triotic contribution to current literature.