|
A Case of Misunderstanding [excerpt]
.
One of the greatest troubles in the
world is that people misunderstand one another. At times it is almost
a hopeless task to make yourself understood. You may say as plainly
as you can that two and two make four, but the listener will swear
that you said that two and two make three and a half. The other
man may be as honest as you are, he may have no intention of misrepresenting
you; but he simply does not understand you, and all your explanations
will not mend matters. You know what you said and he knows
what he heard. As an illustration of this fact I will give
the following case:
On October 18, at the regular meeting
of the Manhattan Liberal Club, Emma Goldman made a speech in which
she said that personally she was opposed to assassination, and,
as an Anarchist who did not believe in shedding blood, was justified
in denouncing it; but, she added, an Archist, a man who upholds
the government policy in sending American boys to butcher Filipinos,
has no right to condemn assassination. No amount of persecution,
she concluded, will do away with assassination. If you want to get
rid of assassins, change the conditions which produce them.
Whatever we may think of Emma Goldman’s
philosophy, it was plain, to me at least, that instead of championing
murder she was decidedly opposed to it. But the lecturer of the
evening, in his reply to his critics, insisted that Emma Goldman
advocated assassination and defended Czolgosz’s act. Mr. Pierce,
let it be understood, is not an ignorant man; he is a prominent
lawyer, and at one time held the position of assistant district
attorney in this city. Now, if a man of his stamp misapprehends
a statement made in plain language, what shall we say of people
belonging to the Tom, Dick, and Harry tribe? Need we wonder that
men hate and persecute one another? You may swear by everything
that is sacred that you are innocent, that you have never been guilty
of any crime, but what good will it do you? Your accuser will also
swear by everything that is sacred that you are convicted by your
own words.
While on the subject of the Liberal
Club, I wish to address a few words to the fighting element of the
Club. At the meeting mentioned above, Mr. Pierce’s lecture was entitled,
“Crowd Not and Submit Not to Crowding.” The lecturer pointed out
the evil of trusts and combinations protected by legislation, and
of strong nations crowding out weak ones. Incidentally he touched
upon Anarchy, and said that he had no use for Anarchists and assassins.
His remarks on this subject lasted only one minute. It was evident
that he knew nothing of the philosophy of Anarchism, and needed
enlightenment.
|
