Georges Dodds, who maintains the R.U.R.itaninan Muglug web site -- where you'll find a number of electronic texts (including the Talbot Mundy story, "The Soul of a Regiment") -- provided the following newspaper story about Talbot Mundy, which appeared in 1919. Many thanks to Georges!
These columns of type provide a look at Mundy's life after he had settled down to being a popular author of adventure fiction. Here we see that his writing about exotic lands has led to his being considered something of an expert on foreign relations. It is very interesting to read Mundy's views on the Islamic world and on America's place in the international community from nearly 100 years later.
* * *
From New York Times
May 25, 1919
page 50
AMERICA AS PROTECTOR OF ARMENIA
Talbot Mundy Reviews Reasons Why Oppressed Nation Looks on United States as Only Logical Mandatary
TALBOT MUNDY, English novelist and now living in this country, says it is Incumbent upon America to accept the mandatary of Armenia. His opinion was asked because of his long experience with affairs in the Near East.
"To an outsider looking at this question it would seem that its answer might easily be found along three different channels, each one as satisfactory as the other," he observed. "England fought a war for democracy, France fought a war for democracy, and America fought a war for democracy. Why, then, select America, of the three, and say that it is her duty to take upon herself the responsibility of foster-mothering Armenia until the time that she can stand on her own feet? There is every reason in the world.
"The East thinks in terms of religion. The West does, too, for that matter, but it doesn't admit it. The West calls it morality or ethics or civilization or what you will. It boils down to the same thing. But in the East they frankly come out on the principle that all action, political, educational, economic, industrial, and every other kind you can think of, revolves about the question of religion. You mention the word Turkey, and the thought association connected with it is Mohammedanism; you mention China, and it is Confucianism; you mention Persia, and it is Buddhism or Brahmanism or some other cult of creed fostered there. In any case and in every case it is religion.
"The biggest group in the East is the Mohammedan. Just how powerful it is the world little appreciates. I have knocked around the different Eastern territories of England and have seen the Orient as the Americans do not and cannot see it. Americans have never had to buck up against the question of preserving the religious integrity of a people, or, what's more to the point, the Americans have never bucked up against the question of preserving the religious integrity of a people to whom no other integrity is important. They have heard of the Turks making inroads against the Armenians and they have tried to stem those inroads, but there are few among them who appreciate the fact that the aim of the Turk has not been subjugation of territory or subjugation of people, but subjugation of religion. It has been the battle of the East against the West, the religion of the East against the religion of the West, centered in territory almost completely surrounded by Mohammedanism.
"The English and the French have for years been cognizant of this situation. They appreciate fully the strength of the religious feeling in the East. To England the knowledge has come through her possessions and suzerainty in India and Egypt; to France it has come through her dominions in Africa. The policy guiding both in the rule and control of these countries has been that of guidance along lines of government, industry, education, but -- hands off religion. That point cannot too greatly be emphasized.
"Let me give you an illustration: In Egypt, for instance, the public schools teach the three R's. The Mohammedan learns how to read, write, and do accounting for the English Government. What most of them do when they come out of the English schools is to get the numerous clerical jobs offered by the Government. But the public schools do not teach ethics or morality. They dare not. The Mohammedans would rise up against it. To them morality as practiced by the English or by any of the Western countries is interpreted in terms of Christianity. The explanation of the right and wrong of a situation, as seen from the standpoint of an Englishman and given by an Englishman, is considered in the light of proselytizing, than which there is no greater crime. As a result of this flaw in his education the Egyptian is a liar and a scoundrel, judging from our standards, but a likable enough fellow if let alone.
"To preserve the peace and to maintain a harmonious relationship, England had let the Mohammedan alone in her territory, and, what's more, will continue to let him alone. Therein lies her strength in his country. This, in the same manner, is true of the French. They have the Mohammedan problem in Morocco. They, too, let it stand.
"As a result of this policy, which these two nations have had to adopt perforce, England and France are today considered by the Mohammedans in the light of protectors and preservers of Islam. This fact may fundamentally be fallacious, but nevertheless it is the belief of the Mohammedan peoples in the East.
"Should, therefore, either England or France abruptly overturn this belief by suddenly making herself the protector of a Christian nation hemmed in between Mohammedan nations, the result would be disastrous. The Mohammedans would interpret it in the light of an effort to spread Christianity by using Armenia as an entering wedge. A good deal of the territory now belonging to Armenia was formerly Turkish. Establishing Armenia as a Christian nation, which most assuredly it is, would mean declaring part of the former Turkish territory Christian. England dare not take such responsibility upon herself: neither can France. It would mean the setting fire to a new war, based, if you please, on religious belief. It is not a pleasant prospect to contemplate, but, let me assure you, it is a highly probable one.
"Eliminating England and France as possible mandatories, only the United States is left in the field. The question may naturally then arise why the Turks would make less objection or no objection to an American suzerainty of a Christian Armenia, whereas they would rise up in revolt against an English or French suzerainty for various reasons. First of all, the Turk is convinced that America entered into the war for no territorial reasons. He feels that she was prompted by nothing but a desire to carrry [sic] into effect the words of President Wilson making the world safe for democracy. He feels, too, that any division America might make of his territory would be done with an effort to be fair to every party concerned, with no bias or prejudice of any kind. And what's more, he knows that America in Armenia would mean America in Armenia alone and nothing more. There would be no reaching out and gathering in of outlying districts.
"America, you see, has an unprecedented record in the history of territorial acquisition. She had control over Cuba and could have kept it by force of arms if she had wanted to, but she returned it. No other nation had ever done that before. France has not that record, nor has England. On the part of the latter it has been unfortunate but true that every time she placed her foot on foreign territory she has made it her own. Territorial expansion has seemingly been her doctrine.
"And Armenia has the greatest desire to be taken under the wings of the United States. For years the Armenians have been helped by Americans. No other country but America has sent missionaries there; no other country has taken an interest in the education of her people. All their teaching has been saturated with the wonders of American freedom and American democracy. The aim of the young Armenian is to grow up and help turn his country into a republic like the one he has studied and dreamed about, or, failing in that, to come here to America and live the life of a free man.
"Now that the war is over and there is hope of his seeing his ideal of an independent Christian Armenia brought to realization, he wants the help of the country in whose image he is anxious to mold his own land. The Armenian distrusts any other. He is afraid of any other. Fearful lest the American will not come to his help and assume this responsibility out of a spirit of generosity, he tries to logically prove that America ought to take over the mandate through very justice to his country. His logic goes something like this: America waited three years before she entered the war. At the end of that time she went into it because she decided that it was a just war and that the enemy of the Allies had to be beaten. If, then, the war was a just war three years after it was started, it was just in its very inception. The entrance of America was the deathblow to the Germans. If America had entered three years before she did the Germans would have been beaten three years sooner and the Armenians would not have suffered at the hands of the Turks. The tardiness of America is therefore regarded as responsible for the devastation of their country. The least America can do under the circumstances, they argue, is to help Armenia get on to her feet.
"Whether that argument holds water, the fact remains that America is the only country that can solve the problem there. It is not a very difficult one. The Armenians are a fine, industrious, educated people. The fact that they have survived after so many years of oppression and cruelty tends to show that they are a strong race. The Turk has tried to give them the reputation of immorality, treachery, and cunning. They are not immoral. They could not have survived if they had been. Degeneracy and immorality in a race is suicidal to it. As for being treacherous and cunning, they are so from the point of view of the Turk only. They have had to be so to maintain what little national integrity they had. The Turk beat and persecuted them, and for the purpose of carrying on their work a great many of them confessed to a belief in Mohammedanism which did not exist. That, however, was the only way in which they could live. When it came to joining the armies of the Turks they refused, and hence were scorned and looked down upon as traitors and renegades. I repeat, they were that only from the point of view of the oppressors. But from the point of view of the oppressed, they were showing the fine mettle of a Christian Armenia.
"At present the Armenians are divided into groups and sections. That is the result of the rule of the Turk. His motto has been that of the Roman -- divide them up and weaken them. The Turk has sowed distrust among them and has caused many dissensions on petty differences of sects and creeds. That however, is fast changing. The Armenians, assured of life as an independent nation, are forgetting their minor differences and uniting on the principle of the new freedom.
"The outcome of this freedom will depend vastly on the attitude of the American people. That attitude cannot be the same today as it was four years ago. At that time America was saturated with a spirit of pacifism that hid its head under the name of neutrality. The people in this country refused to have anything to do with 'Paris politics.' It didn't concern them what the other half of the world was doing. It took them three years to find out that they were a vital and integral part of the brotherhood of nations.
"It would be most unfortunate if they adopted the same tactics today. I say in all honesty and in firm belief that if America does not assume suzeranity over Armenia for the necessary period of years it will take that country to establish itself firmly, warfare will not cease in the European countries. Should England or France take over the mandate, it will simply mean that we are sidestepping our destiny as we did at the beginning of this war. And when things once more come to a crisis, America will again be pulled into the strife. That is certain.
"This country is suffering from mental inertia. Now that the war is over, the people are deluding themselves with the belief that all America has to do is to sign the treaty and come home, and forget all about what has happened on the other aide. They want to sit smug and tight and play their own little games without being bothered by the pastimes of the little fellows across the sea. It can't be done.
"You can't sit back and sanctimoniously give voice to the question, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' As far as I can remember, that fellow Cain was never a very popular fellow nor a very noble one. America is popular and America is considered noble. She can't break faith with the little fellows who have learned to depend upon her. At most, the Armenian dependency will last for a period of ten years. All the distaste for the job and the discomfort connected with it will be more than made up by the numbers of lives saved and the success in the guidance of a nation toward the ideal of American democracy."
LINKS:
Learn more about Talbot Mundy's adventurous life from Brian Taves' Talbot Mundy, Philosopher of Adventure: A Critical Biography, which is available at Amazon.com. Learn more by clicking here.
Visit Georges Dodds' R.U.R.itaninan Muglug web site!
Learn more about Talbot Mundy's work from The Pulp Rack's selection of essays on Mundy. Click here.
Posted by ds at July 9, 2007 09:09 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://pulprack.com/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/54
