Our Needs and Demands
LACK of individual self-reliance is a far greater evil than dependence upon others. Dependence upon others means continual discomfort, means prevention of the development of personal free will, means subjugation to the yoke of oppression, means degradations and enslavements. But dependence upon others implies no disgrace, there is nothing contemptible implied. He is unfortunate and not contemptible who cannot battle successfully with the brute force of a powerful antagonist. The conquered still feels himself free, still feels the true worth of a proud manhood, is still able to gather strength for the great moment when his protest can be successfully launched. With Max Nordau this thought found expression in a brief aphorism "It is no shame to wait." But it must be understood that it is no passive waiting that is spoken of here: it is a waiting fraught with tenseness and with the silent gathering of energies.
But lack of individual self-reliance implies both misfortune and disgrace. To lack self-reliance —that is to be incredulous of one's own forces, to have no "modus operandi" of one's own, to relegate one's self to the ranks of the weak and the helpless who have given up all hope of ever attaining strength and independence. The man without any self-reliance lives in eternal perplexity, fears to take a single step, he lacks confidence, he has not the enterprise to take risks. If a hill rise in his way, or a deep valley opens before him, he skirts it by circuitous paths, for every hill is too lofty for him, every valley too deep.
Society, made up as it is, of elements far more antagonistic than friendly to the individual—can respect the individual only insofar as he respects himself. In society there are none to make place for the individual out of sheer benevolence. The individual must first conquer what he would possess. For these reasons leave no room for surprise that society treats the man who lacks self-reliance as of second or third-rate worth, and either makes place for him in the lower ranks or leaves him entirely outside its pale.
There is no need to go far afield for examples. Let us take the most elementary form of human lack of self-reliance. It is a form familiar to all observers of social relations. It finds vent in a cringing and fawning attitude. Men who are conscious of their own worth know that they are self-governed. And in knowing that they are self-governed they are content with their own social sphere where they are equal among equals. And this content with their own social sphere keeps them from entertaining the desire which soon develops into a passion, to force an entrance into spheres foreign to them. As a rule, however, a social sphere no sooner detects an effort on the part of anyone to force an entrance, than it shuts its gates firmly on the would-be intruder. The man of self-reliance, the man of pride, does not cringe at the gates, and yet upon him it is impossible to shut them.
Pride carried too far becomes hauteur; to overestimate one's ability is foolish: it argues an inability to take stock, betrays ignorance of the elements of life's arith-
metic. But worse than these is self-effacement. He who thus condemns himself is by others doubly condemned.
And now, turning to the prevailing conditions in our own inner life, we perceive at once two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand we have outlined traditional Goluth tendency, springing from the lack of self-reliance, from an underestimation of our national energies,—nay more, from a total denial of any national energy whatever. On the other hand we have a younger —but therefore, a much more powerful tendency, springing from the instinct of self-respect and the will to self-liberation.
On the one hand we are advised:
Take no stand as a nation. It is better to remain disconnected individuals. Create no disturbance. Speak of no National rights; speak of no cultural antonomy. Do not attract the attention of the nations. In plain language it means: Complete national self-effacement. It does not matter whether this advice springs from motives of a business character or from radicalism falsely interpreted, it always remains what it is—an offspring of slavish conception.
Are we to accept at this momentously historical time advices of this nature? Are we to allow these to speak thus in our name? To permit this would be the greatest misfortune that has ever befallen us.
Mark well what you are about. For the present the problem of civic rights is confined to Russia, and in this respect it is highly probable that the centre of gravity of the Jewish masses will now be transferred from Eastern to Western Europe, and the governments of Western Europe are advanced far beyond you. For they have already perceived that the mere granting of civic rights will not solve the complex and urgent problem of how to avoid, at the beginning, friction between the various national groups. These governments are seeking new methods to ensure the developments of potentialities in the minor nationalities. At a time like this you will betray your political soul-poverty and say: “My Lords and Masters; please do not put yourselves out: we are the representatives of the Jewish people, and our requests are not at all so extravagant. We will be per- fectlv content if you will merely consider us as citizens.”
What opinion will they have of our nation if these representatives will stand as our protagonists.
On the other hand this is our advice.
Make yourselves worthy of the historic moment through which you are passıng; do not sink your identi- ties; be men,, and speak in the language of men! Civil riehts! We have not come a-begging for charity. We demand what you have plundered from us! Citizens we have always been. We demand National rights! Our appeal is made in the name of Right and Progress. Do not rear the future of your national group on the altar of our sacrifice ; for this will bring no good either to us or to you. We desire to be good citizens; and to be good citizens we must be whole and healthy beings. And we can only he whole and healthv when we are not forced to deny
(Continued on page 87)