WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.

Auckland Star, 2 September 1933, Page 8

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.

POINTS FROM THE PRESS. WAR WITH OURSELVES. In spite of the facfc that peoples' consciences freely admit that war is wrong, and in spite of the very good case for peace presented by the pacifists on historical and economic grounds, anti-war propaganda remains largely ineffective. Shaw stated the paradox another way when he said that the one thing which can unite all men in a common fervour of self-sacrifice is the one thing that all know to be wrong. Nations admit that war is self-defeating, yet they go on preparing for war. The general reason given is fear of the other fellow, but Dr. Glover attributes this state of things to the unconscious urge of primal impulses. The average man would be horrified, lie says, if he were told that he enjoyed the taste of human blood with his breakfast bacon and eggs. Yet when he folds back the newspaper and reads that the mob is wreaking vengeance in Cuba the faint pleasure that he takes in the cable message is not unrelated to the primitive desires of' war. It is true that pacifists have recognised the existence of the pugnacious impulses, and as a sort of an aside to their moral appeals and historical analysis they have recommended the sublimation of aggroesion through sport and mountaineering, but so far their ethical preaching and statistical reasoning have been so much waste of energy. According to Dr. Glover, this ia because they have employed the wrong methods. He sees a more effective attack on war through a deeper knowledge of psychology. "Study human beings; study in particular tile impulses of aggression, and study them first in yourself." And then he suggests that in a psycho-analysis of dictators, foreign secretaries, diplomats and peace delegates we might find a further explanation of disarmament conference failures.—" Chriatchurch Star."

* • • • SCIENTIFIC PIONEERS. The lute Mr. G. M. Thomson's "little book on ferns" led Dr. L. Cockayne, C.M.0., F.R.S., tc begin his study of New Zealand plant life; and Dr. Cockayne's graceful tribute in this issue to his old friend and colleague will be read with interest, especially by the increasing number of people who feel more than a passing interest in New Zealand botany and the researches of the biologists. At a time when the public was taking but little notice of the national work being done by scientific pioneers. Mr. Thomson and Mr. D. Petrie took it on themselves to hire a cutter at the Bin IT and made a trip to then little-known Stewart Island in the interests of botanical and zoological discovery. Mr. Thomson's hand was again in his pocket as well as on his pen to establish, before its time, "The New Zealand Journal of Science," which failed financially, to its founder's loss. But his scientific successes far outshine that economic failure. In pollination of New Zealand plants little is yet known beyond the pioneer researches of Mr. Thomson, and here Dr. Cockayne sees a promising field for new workers. He himself worked for years with little public notice, but his honours, including the award of the Darwin Medal, show that there are laurels to be won through biological research even in New Zealand. The late Mr. Thomson, the late Mr. Petrie, Dr. Cockayne, and a leader of tlie younger generation, Mr. IT. H. Allan, were all nt one period of their lives schoolmasters, which fact suggests that pedagogy has made a weighty contribution to natural science.;. Botanical work is much dependent on vision, and readers will be sorry to learn that, because of Tailing eyesight. Dr. Cockayne's tribute was dictated, not written. His field work is over, but his hold on the things that matter, and his disregard of the others, is ns strong as ever.— Wellington " Evening Post."

, SHIELDS AND TROPHIES. There is no doubt that what the politicopsychologists call the mass mind attaches an enormous importance to the possession of athletic trophies. Some ultra-civilised critics deplore the trophy complex and would abolish all such spoils of victory, but what they do not realise is that their ideas are in conflict with a primitive urge, which is likely to be persistent for ages to come. Like a multitude of other customs, the trophy habit must be referred to an original sex impulse. When two warriors fought for the object of their affections the victor brought back the head of the vanquished as proof of his prowess, and in the course of a century, or a millennium, headhunting became an established custom. If it had not been for this primitive impulse it is possible that the robbery of the vanquished and tlie plundering of their cities would never have had a place in warfare. It was the civilised and philosophical Greek who substituted the trophy as the sign of victory, for the severed head as evidence of it; but we have forgotten that the Greeks, wiser than other people, decreed that a trophy should never be a permanent monument \ and that when it decayed it should not be replaced. We moderns are still in an earlier stage of civilisation than the Greeks, for we insist on taking the shield or the trophy of victory home with us and keeping it until it is won from us in battle. Indeed, we make its possession an invitation to battle, and we permit it to keep alive jealousies, if not ill-feelings, and sometimes we even make money out of it. The people who would like to abolish the Ranfurly Shield and the Payne Trophy niay be right according to the reasoning of the Greeks, but their philosophy is futile against a complex that originated in palaeozoic times and has persisted ever since.— " Christchurch Times."