« AnteriorContinuar »
in a man who sees the world as we do, is a vile sin in the one who does not.
In the organic law of the Philippine Islands (Civil Government Act, approved by the Congress of the United States, July 1, 1902) we make the following solemn promise to the Moros and Filipinos. (Section 5. Guaranties of personal rights.)
That no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
That no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be allowed.
In the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris on December 10, 1898, Article 10, provides that:
The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.
Our sin against the Moro is all the more grievous because of:—first, the basic principles upon which the government of the United States is founded, not to interfere with any religion; second, that we assured the Moros through the head of the Moslem religion, the Sultan of Turkey, that this was the case; third, that the Moro, himself, was anxious to become and remain a good citizen of the United States; fourth, that whenever he became convinced, that any measure for his improvement had not behind it the sinister motive of divorcing him from his religion, he readily accepted it. In the Lake Lanao country we inherited the trouble from the Spaniards. If we had waited until the Moros were fully cognizant of our intentions, not to interfere with their religion, the road could have been built without the slightest objection on their part. But they had absolutely no way of knowing that our attitude was not that of the Spaniard. They were so remote from Sulu, they had failed to receive the message of the Caliph, before the trouble began.
When the writer went among the Moros, over whom he had control and fully explained any measure, there was no objection on their part after he had shown them that he kept faith with them, or in case of failure to do so, could give a reason for it. They trusted him so fully that they conferred upon him every honor in their power, and made him their Ambassador to the Caliph, with a petition for teachers and to inform him, the Caliph, that they were true followers of Islam, but also loyal citizens of the United States and wished to remain so; and that they wished to be taught their duty to their God and to their country. But why Mohammedan teachers? Because they know the Koran and the life and purposes of the Prophet, and are familiar with the sacred Arabic, the prayers and forms of worship.
The Moslem is too well armored in his religion, to be converted to Christianity. He has the same God. His Koran teaches constant prayer, and inculcates abstinence from all intoxicants and temperance in all things. He lives by faith and his God is an Entity not a Person. He has no Sunday because every day is devoted to prayer. He has very definite reasons for rejecting the Trinity, which are not to be argued away. Yes, he is a polygamist -and an Oriental harking back to the days of Solomonthe latter explains the former. This question of polygamy is being solved by both the Turk and by the Moro, upon both economical and educational grounds. It is not the creed of Islam that is to blame for it, but the following out of an Oriental custom as old as Abraham, and which still manifests itself among the Christian nations in the clandestine resort to concubinage, which after all may be the primal instinct of Natural Selection, that the veneer of civilization is not yet thick enough to cover.
If we wish the honor and satisfaction of successfully governing the Moro we must have the patience and skill to embrace his viewpoint of life. It is very difficult for the white man to interpret the Moro point of view. Wholly impossible unless he lives with the Moros for many years.
Having taken this most important step, we are prepared to advance with the Moro along the line of his own culture, religion and customary laws, carrying them all without neglect, ridicule, contempt or violence, while continually pointing the way to higher ideals and better results in his own system. Such a course will remove suspicion, beget confidence, promote loyalty, neutralize resistance, and insure peace and progress.
Why not show our qualities in leadership by responding to the prayers of the Moros and by aiding them to fully attain their best ideals?
If those ideals are finally found to be below the standard of the white man the Moro will be the first to realize the shortcoming and adopt another course. If the white man is loath to abide this test he is unfit to lead the way. Such a course is not compromising to the Christian but exhibits the highest qualities of consistency and toleration. If we show the white feather regarding our ideals by refusing confidence, patience and toleration we cultivate contempt and resistance in the Moro. He judges us keenly by our ideals and especially by their exemplification in our daily life.
Our assumption that because a conception and its realization is good for the Christian it must necessarily be good for the Moro, and that he must finally adopt it is not conclusive to the Moslem. He questions the motive and ultimate purpose of the scheme, and draws the conclusion that another plan is under way to change his faith, and in most cases he is right. A demonstration of our failure to get his view point.
STANDARDS OF MEASUREMENT FOR RACE
By Howard W. Odum, Ph.D., Professor of Educational
Sociology, University of Georgia This paper purposes to consider very briefly and informally certain standards of measurement for race development. More accurately it may be said to present certain considerations concerning standards of measurement rather than to present the detailed methods themselves. The considerations herein presented relate to both the practical facts of the past and present, and to proposed objective measurements which scientific study may develop. Furthermore, the considerations are in outline form and largely critical and suggestive for the purpose of frank review of practical conditions and scientific knowledge on the subject; for the purpose of stimulating thought and interest; and for the purpose of suggesting definite methods whereby concrete studies may develop standardized results. This paper further applies primarily to the negro in the United States. That the subject in this relation is of the utmost importance will be recognized by all scientific students of race conditions and by practical students of education and sociology.
At the outset it is well to emphasize the importance of the term “Race Development” vs. “Race Traits” and to emphasize the distinctive field of study offered by organized efforts for considering knowledge and problems of Race Development. For the purpose of this paper especially, the term “Race Development” is much more desirable than "Race Traits” or “Race Psychology." Likewise from the viewpoint of scientific study of races, with the information now at hand and from the viewpoint. of practical problems of society, "Race Development" offers a field for much more tangible results. This is true for many rea
sons, some of which it is important to note here. “Race Development” offers a better medium for measurement; it assumes movement and progress; it assumes measurement of progress by differing and changing character rather than by fixed traits. It recognizes race character, group character, local character, chronological character, institutional character, and geographical and historical foundations. It enables the measurement of status and conditions without exclusive regard to cause; it recognizes fundamental differences in different groups; in fine, it is a term of evolution and of progress and in a very practical way leaves the question of original or innate race traits to the theoretical anthropologist. If we summarize development in human history as development in time; in space; in magnitude and scope of endeavor; in intensity of endeavor; in condition of adaptation; and in total social welfare; we may measure Race Development by ascertaining through objective methods the status or conditions of a given race of people at a given time or place, with reference to these several aspects of development. Thus our problem becomes a problem of measurement of condition or position compared with or removed from certain defined premises; with provisions for establishing a mode whereby one group or society may be compared with another; and in which the group or society compared may be a race.
Such measurement of conditions, however, is subject to numerous limitations. The whole question of measurement depends upon the standards by which measurement is made. The multiplicity and difference of viewpoints and standards make the problem most complex; make dogmatism out of the question and have given rise to a mass of conflicting data, opinions and so-called false science. The reported status of development of a race will vary in accordance with the several standards used, whether development in time, in space, in quality, in quantity or in general social adaptation be the measuring scale; or whether a single characteristic or group of characteristics be used as a standard of measurement; or whether there be one measuring agent or many. That modern society has made much progress