I

The question "Does civilization civilize?" is a fine example of _petitio
principii_, and decides itself in the affirmative; for civilization must
needs do that from the doing of which it has its name. But it is not
necessary to suppose that he who propounds is either unconscious of his
lapse in logic or desirous of digging a pitfall for the feet of those
who discuss; I take it he simply wishes to put the matter in an
impressive way, and relies upon a certain degree of intelligence in the
interpretation.

Concerning uncivilized peoples we know but little except what we are
told by travelers--who, speaking generally, can know very little but the
fact of uncivilization, as shown in externals and irrelevances, and are
moreover, greatly given to lying. From the savages we hear very little.
Judging them in all things by our own standards in default of a
knowledge of theirs, we necessarily condemn, disparage and belittle. One
thing that civilization certainly has not done is to make us intelligent
enough to understand that the contrary of a virtue is not necessarily a
vice. Because, as a rule, we have but one wife and several mistresses
each it is not certain that polygamy is everywhere--nor, for that
matter, anywhere--either wrong or inexpedient. Because the brutality of
the civilized slave owners and dealers created a conquering sentiment
against slavery it is not intelligent to assume that slavery is a
maleficent thing amongst Oriental peoples (for example) where the slave
is not oppressed. Some of these same Orientals whom we are pleased to
term half-civilized have no regard for truth. "Takest thou me for a
Christian dog," said one of them, "that I should be the slave of my