Two Kinds of Democratic Civilization

by Charles Knight

The Bush administration has been bold enough to attempt an "adaptation" of the notion of preemption to the conditions of the new era (for a critical examination of this adaptation see "Essential Elements Missing in the National Security Strategy of 2002".) Inspired by the administration's presumption in the endeavor of changing the meaning of a perfectly good English word, I have attempted an adaptation of satire from an earlier era ... a much more modest project. With due apologies to Mark Twain I offer this revision of a few paragraphs from his "To the Person Sitting in darkness", first published in February of 1901.

Charles Knight, February 2003

Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of democratic civilization -- one for home consumption and one for backward and dark foreign markets?

... shall we go on conferring our democratic civilization on the peoples that sit in darkness, or shall we give those poor things a rest? Shall we bang right ahead in our loud, triumphalist way, and commit the new century to the game; or shall we sober up and sit down and think it over first? Would it not be prudent to get our democracy-tools together, and see how much stock is left on hand in the way of polling and lobbying, and voting machines and chads, and Lincoln bedrooms and other Torches of Progress and Enlightenment (projected on Predators, Raptors, Apaches and Tomahawks), and then balance the books, and arrive at the profit and loss, so that we may intelligently decide whether to continue the business or sell out the property and start a new Democracy Scheme on the proceeds?

Extending the Blessings of our "single sustainable model" to our Brother (and Sister) who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked -- but not enough, in my judgment, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have gotten hold of more information than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious.

______

The original as excerpted from Mark Twain, "To the Person Sitting in darkness", North American Review (Feb. 1901):

That is, shall we go on conferring our Civilization upon the peoples that sit in darkness, or shall we give those poor things a rest? Shall we bang right ahead in our old-time, loud, pious way, and commit the new century to the game; or shall we sober up and sit down and think it over first? Would it not be prudent to get our Civilization-tools together, and see how much stock is left on hand in the way of Glass Beads and Theology, and Maxim Guns and Hymn Books, and Trade-Gin and Torches of Progress and Enlightenment (patent adjustable ones, good to fire villages with, upon occasion), and balance the books, and arrive at the profit and loss, so that we may intelligently decide whether to continue the business or sell out the property and start a new Civilization Scheme on the proceeds?

Extending the Blessings of Civilization to our Brother who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked -- but not enough, in my judgment, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too scarce -- too scarce and too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious. Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of Civilization -- one for home consumption and one for the heathen market?