JINGOISM, ANCIENT AND MODERN.
(To the Editor.) I Sir, —And so Admirals Evans and Schley have been interviewed as to their opinions on the United States Navy. And \ of course, they both say that " What we want is battleships, and still more battleships, and arsenals, and docks and naval depots." Of course that was what might have been expected. Whoever laiew a navy man in any country wHo was not always insisting on having a naval increase? .Now, the United States was never so-strong in navy power as at present, and yet the voice of the scaremonger is heard in the land. How is it that when they had no navy worth mentioning, no nation ever thought of attackiag Wfm or invading the country? The trouble is (as I take it) that s> lot of simple-minded and easily excited people the world over believe what a lot of theeo so-called experts tell them, and lead themselves with enormous national debts and taxation up to the neck trying to come up to what these "experts" tell them, and still they are crying out like the proverbial horse-let-eh. "Give, give!" Eoosevelt encouraged them, being a bit of a Jingo himself. Now he is gone to Africa vo enjoy himself, shooting something, mid America expects that every lion will do his duty. In. the time of Napoleon Jingoism was very rampant in France, and yet were som? who lifted up their voice against it. But-thev were promptly sat on, and in some case's even mobbed. How could they be so wanting in "patriotism," and so""dense" as to say a-nything against, the great and only Napoleon, wtib was just covering. France with glory. And yet the FrenclT nation came to see that these anti-Jingoes' were not far wrong after all. No Frenchman would pretend to defend Napoleon to-day. I might cite other instances from history, but the moral is obvious, and J don't wish to trespass unduly on your valuable-space.—l an, etc, T. TOKRENS. ;. : (To the Editor.) Sir,—rlh reply to your correspondent's letter eigned "Gammero," In which he
expresses disagreement -with the * writer's views of '.discernment, I desire to take exception. In the first .place, the writer is ; not awa-re that he made any reference whatever to living, under, a foreign flag" or otherwise, put what he did do was to express that he had no sympathy >with. the Executive's ' undue haste in taking - the extreme step they did before first consulting the people through their Perliam'entary representatives. The action of the Imperial authorities in relegating the building of the Dominion Dreadnought till the year 1910 ought to satisfy the densest intellects that there was, no actual acute crisis, and the trifling delay of a- few weeks to carry out the project in a business and statesmanlike manner would have been equally or far more patriotic, and I presume that the moral effect would have dated from the inception of the idea, but some are continually jumping where no bombshell exists. The -writer claims second to none in patriotism, and loyalty, but not in rank stupidity, and fully realizes that it is not only our duty, but should be an inborn love of nationality and prestige, to assist ourselves and Mother Country to the last man and to the last shilling "if necessary," m the defence of common Empire, for to all it is an undivided interest; but there are more ways than one of accomplishing the same end, and had a reasonable time been given to consider the matter, some other plan mtigiht have been adopted that would have been equally, if not more effective. The writer feels that even your correspondent will concede that on the average the working man's family exceeds that of his more wealthy neighbour, say in the proportion of 3 to 2, which in a family of nine in the former at 1/6 per head annum, represents 13/6, as against 9/ in the case of the latter. Now, if the vessel was. to have been built in the Dominion, thus providing labour for the workers at remunerative rates as an equivalent, it would have assisted in equalizing the difference; but the Executive being aware that the vessel was to be built abroad, the least, "in my opinion," they should have done, was to have given the wealthiest classes an opportunity to donate individually in proportion to their wealth or inclinations, the balance to be made up as might be suggested or agreed upon.—l am, etc.. J. WAITE.
Fairfax Media is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Fairfax Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.