Latin American perspectives; Two Variants in Caribbean Race Relations

National Educational radio in cooperation with the Institute on man and science presents a series of talks drawn from the institute's annual conference held recently in Rensselaer bill New York. The Institute on man and science is a nonprofit educational institution chartered by the New York State Board of Regions. The annual assembly of the institute is designed to focus attention on 20th century technology and the human relationships resulting from its application. The speaker for this program is W. Warren wager professor of history at the University of New Mexico. Professor wagers topic is the concert of cultures here now is Professor wager. I'm sorry this is the last lecture I have enjoyed being here in my first two lectures. I tried to provide you with a definition and historical perspective of the city of man. And I discussed the outlines of a possible cosmopolitan morality. Now

in something less than half an hour I'm going to survey some possible building plans for our city. The question before us is how will the city of man be structured. What will be the relationship of its culture and policy to existing cultures and polities. And what will be the relationship of its culture and polity to each other. As you can see I will stop at nothing. And I think we can even seriously look forward to the time when our own city our city of men will have the opportunity of joining its life and thought to the life and thought of other kindred cities of intelligent beings in our cosmos. It is inconceivable to me on the basis of our current knowledge of the universe that we are alone several quite reputable university scientists are even more or less convinced that we are already under observation by extraterrestrial surveillance

vehicles. But in the time I have at my disposal this evening it will be quite enough to suggest blueprints for an earthly city of man although you know it's an odd thing but I'm reasonably sure that more attempts have been made mostly by science fiction writers to imagine the nature of interstellar communities then to anticipate the structure of an international civilization on this planet. There are also for that matter more architects specializing in the designing of hamburger stands and freeway overpasses than there are thinkers actively engaged in Cosmopolitan planning much as I would enjoy meeting intelligent beings from outer space. I certainly would not look forward with any enthusiasm to explaining homo sapien gains to them. Now one of the most significant controversies that has taken place in

Cosmopolitan circles is the question of which comes first culture or commonwealth. Some thinkers would argue that a Commonwealth apology can come into being only when there already exists a well formed community grounded in a common cultural life and possessing a clear sense of its identity. Others maintain that although a state cannot be imposed on a miscellaneous assortment of otherwise unrelated peoples States can be created among peoples that already have some sense of a common life and a common purpose. And once the polity exists it can take steps to complete the maturation of culture and community. Political Institutions are themselves by this there a culture forming agencies and the longer that a people

lives under a single government the closer together they will tend to grow in every way. A good case in point would be the historical evolution of such countries as Italy and Germany which are unquestionably more culturally unified today than they were at the time of political unification in the mid 19th century. One of the two positions are not of course diametrically opposed. No one questions the culture forming powers of states. Indeed in an age of totalitarian super states where all too painfully aware of the culture forming powers of states the real issue is a matter of timing. At what point in the evolution of a culture is a community prepared to accept the authority of a single government as applied to the problem of the present world community. Is there already enough of a world

culture a world feeling of oneness and what some political scientists call we ness to support the weight of a world government. On the question of the desirability of a world government I don't have very many reservations under certain flukey circumstances and for certain periods of time it may well be that countries can live together in peace without a common government. But as soon as national interests for any reason seem to clash the resort to war becomes always a strong possibility when there is no common law or government to compel a settlement of differences. Also there are many functions that a world government could provide to the world community especially in the field of economic development that lie beyond the reach of separate national governments to provide. The need for a world state of some sort is I think indisputable. Without

it we are mathematically certain to blow ourselves to pieces sooner or later. But are we ready in 1068 to submit to the authority of a world government and the world rule of law. Well our friends the world Federalists and I have many friends who are world Federalists say yes. We cannot afford to wait another year. The time is now. It might require a thousand years to fuse the world's cultures into a unified whole. But we can have a world government just by signing a piece of paper and holding a few elections. Well obviously in a sense the the world federalists are right. We certainly cannot afford to wait another day. At any moment a world war could erupt that would destroy civilized life on Earth but much as I sympathize with the goals of world federalism I'm afraid I cannot agree with their schedule of

priorities. It seems to me that the last thing that the sovereign states of the world today are likely to surrender to world control is their means of self defense. Despite the relaxation of tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union despite the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty despite the negotiations to end nuclear proliferation we are no closer. It seems to me we are no closer to a world army or to universal general disarmament than we were in 1945 or 1914 or any other period in modern history. So my conclusion is this we must have a world government but the nations of the world are not prepared at the moment to sacrifice the essence of their sovereignty the will is quite obviously lacking. The world community has not matured sufficiently and we are not sufficiently grounded in a common culture to be willing to risk the fusion of sovereignties in any kind of world

government. The appeal after all has gone out to the nations for more than 20 years from the World Federalist movement and there has been no real answer. Even the movements for regional Federation seem to be making far less headway than the counter forces working for regional dissolution. In recent years go alyssum has been successful in retarding the economic integration of Western Europe and in bringing to a standstill. The drive for political integration in that part of the world the British Commonwealth counts for less and less in the scheme of things. The new political bosses of Eastern Europe are hard at work eroding the political and economic ties established among the Socialist Republics in the period 1945 to 60 Nasser's Arab unity movement has foundered. Africa has been thoroughly

Balkanized the Indian subcontinent is a house divided against itself. It's difficult enough to imagine the United States federating with Canada or Colombia with Venezuela or Belgium with the Netherlands. A federal world Republic at this juncture in world history is simply inconceivable. I think then that the plain facts of contemporary world politics refute the argument of those who would go on pressing for immediate world federation if the world community were prepared or almost prepared or anywhere near prepared to take the step taken for example by the colonies in 1776 or by the Germany's in 1871. We would know it. Politicians would be running campaigns based on federalism or anti federalism. Television documentaries would be canvassing public opinion and featuring panel discussions. There would be

an abundant literature on the subject. Many countries would be negotiating with other countries for local unions orators would be bombarding the Congress and the House of Commons and the French National Assembly and the United Nations with arguments for or against Federation. It would be news but on the contrary. Hardly anyone in public life even bothers to raise the question. It's not even an issue. Not even with the new left or the hippies or the or the student rebellion. They couldn't care less. No matter then how urgent the need for a world government may be. I think that our time is better spent in doing what we can to help lay the indispensable cultural and ideological foundations of the city of man. We need to

generate a world will for unity. We need a climate of expectation in which the issue of a world government can become a serious and a passionate question and no doubt the closer we approach a genuine universal system of shared or harmonious cultural values the closer we shall come to having generated that word will. Well now in exploring the dimensions of a possible world culture a cosmopolitan morality I think perhaps comes first. This is the problem I dealt with in my lecture this morning and I think of all the ingredients of a planetary culture. It is in this area that a certain rough over arching agreement on basic principles will have to evolve first. Above all we shall need a consensus on the question of the Paramount commitment

to mankind. But ethical thought obviously cannot stand alone. Not for any great length of time. What we are trying to envisage here this evening is a complete and a completely viable world civilization the world civilization like our national societies and like all the great civilizations of the past. The cities of Man of the past will have to be thoroughly operational and organic whole. It will have to be a going concern and it will have to minister to the full range of human need. A culture to begin with consists of certain common ethical ideas of one or more leading systems of religious belief and practice of characteristics schools of metaphysics and theories of knowledge and beauty of plastic and graphic arts of literature and theater and music and dance

science and scholarship of common patterns of family life of recreation of dress and cuisine and lovemaking and a lot more but seen in this light culture is an affair primarily of the mind and the spirit. Even when the five senses are are also perhaps called into play. Can there be a city of man that is a unified world civilization. Can there be a city of men without a unified world culture. In short without unity or at least harmony. And these are not quite the same at the level of mind and spirit. I think not a world state even if you could achieve it without a world culture would be little better than a body without a mind or at any rate without a soul. Already without much conscious effort the various regional cultures

are slowly painfully slowly fusing at various strategic and non strategic points. Japanese businessmen for example where Western business suits they watch baseball games they emulate western capitalism. Americans enjoy Japanese films and borrow from traditional Japanese architectural design. Take classes in judo and karate and enjoy the books of Di's at Suzuki. At some levels cultural penetration is quite deep. Modern western mathematics for one example and natural science both have achieved full acceptance in all parts of the world. There is already a world scientific culture based on the western model which should differs very little from one continent and country to another. But the structure of a unified world culture is difficult to predict. I think the two principal paths to unity might be described as

fusion. On the one hand and orchestration on the other. That is the fusion of the existing cultures and cultural traditions into a unitary world culture that would prevail throughout the planet with a single world religion a world philosophy a world of art and all the rest. Or alternatively orchestration the orchestration of the existing cultures in which each would follow its own articular genius. But in Concord or concert with all the others. I think for the foreseeable future that a concert of cultures and hence my my title tonight at a concert of cultures is more plausible than to expect all the voices of men to sing in unison. The world's principal cultures have evolved from

different basic options choices that were made in their formative stages and for these options to be re conceived fundamentally enough that they could then be blended into a unitary culture system might prove neither necessary nor desirable and at any rate it would take a very long time to achieve what seems more important. Is that the world's cultures play in harmony together reconciling violent disagreement through dialogue and exchanging mutually compatible values. And of course in at least the one area of moral ideas I've already suggested that some degree of agreement even fusion might be essential as a precondition for any kind of dialogue and for any kind of common political institutions whatsoever. But to achieve even harmony to achieve even orchestration. No culture can allow itself the luxury of absolute ising any of its values.

Every cultural tradition must be prepared to admit the possibility of error and the possibility of incompleteness in its own values and beliefs. And it must entertain an attitude of openness towards all its brother cultures and a willingness and in fact an eagerness to communicate to understand and to be understood where also does the moral issue of freedom enter into this picture of coalescing cultures. I don't think we should leave this out. Man is a social animal and even of all Guard rebels tend to rebel in much the same way at any given time. But of course I recognize as you may gather from this morning's talk that here and there in various circumstances many of us feel the

compulsion to dissent from the consensus of our culture. If some of us did not there would be no change no progress no innovation no constructive criticism and reform. And yet cultures have a way of imposing conformity that reaches even more deeply I think than the law or the power of the state. So for this reason we still need safeguards in our city of man not only for the living cultures of mankind but also and I think ultimately even more for the person whose freedom to dissent is so precious to human advancement. Discrimination against the solitary non-conformist will have to be discouraged in every possible way and we shall also have to learn to tolerate cultural diasporas groups of like minded people scattered here and there throughout the world community who cannot accept the prevalent culture of the regions in

which they happen to live. As Toynbee points out the Jewish communities of the world provide the model for this type of dispersed society. But there are others and the rights of descent of all of them must be jealously safeguarded. So long as they respect in turn the freedom of their neighbors. But when we speak of protecting of safeguarding of course we are already involved in questions of law and government. Now men are not gods. They are not saints. It is very easy for them to succumb to the temptation to exploit to injure or to enslave their fellow men. And we shall need a world government as I indicated earlier to keep the peace to ensure equality of opportunity to prevent the exploitation of man by man to protect freedom to husband the earth's natural resources

and even perhaps to represent mankind in its first contacts with the civilizations of other stellar systems. Now here too there are several possible alternatives. Some prophets in visit only a loose confederation of states. Others an authentic World Federation a federal world Republic. Still others a unitary world state on the British model with sovereignty resting in the whole world population as represented in a single world parliament. Federalism tends to win the support of most thinkers who have devoted their time to this problem. But I would warn that a confederate or a federal system might serve only to underwrite the power of local despotism. This is a problem always to consider many of our modern nation states came into existence in order to suppress regional differences. Or they have done so at least in the course of their development. I see no

reason why in a world system the Afrikaners should continue to have the right to exploit and oppress their black fellow citizens. Or why the Russians should automatically go on ruling Kazakhstan or isto Nia. Or why the Serbs and Croats or the the Welsh and Scots and English should continue to live in the same state if they freely. Choose not to live in the same state. A world federal system might make a lot more sense if many of the existing nation states were dissolved into their component parts each of which would then enjoy local autonomy. Of course it's also possible that some nation states will eventually agree to form regional federations such as the United States of Western Europe or Central America or the Arab Near East and they would enter the world Republican this form if they chose. But in the light of experiences in the 1960s it seems that the future of this type of federalism is

obscured to say the least in any event I think many of us would accept the principle that a federal world Republic with generous provision for local self-government will work only if and when each local government genuinely represents all of its people. Failing this perhaps only a fairly strong centralized unitary world state would have the power and the opportunity to protect minorities against majorities or as in South Africa majorities against minorities in many parts of the world. And then there is finally the messy problem of economic disparity I frankly see no solution to this problem unless the advanced nations mostly Western take the initiative to form a World Development Authority with the funds and the impetus to bring about rapid industrialization in the underdeveloped countries paid for by a real belt

tightening on the part of the privileged countries. We need immediate action to reduce birth rates to diversified tropical economies to finance large scale industrial development and wipe out the trade advantages of the advanced countries on the world market. This is something we can begin to do now without waiting for a full fledged world government although only a world government would have the teeth to finish the job. And I don't think we should be afraid to speak in terms of a Western initiative not only in terms of economic aid but in every area and American initiative would seem quite rightly just another device of U.S. foreign policy but a Western initiative with strong support from such non-Western powers as Japan especially if it could be made to operate under U.N. auspices is something else again I don't think it's too late to prevent the ultimate rupture

between the advanced and the poor countries of the world that most of us do see coming with a vision with generosity and mutual respect. We may make this unnecessary. But however much the West can learn from the native cultures of Latin America of Africa and Asia however much certain individual non-Western countries and peoples can contribute to the. To leadership and to well be. The fact remains that the largest number of free educated world conscious persons and communities in the world today are Western. The responsibility falls on us as Westerners to take the initiative in building the city of man. And in due course the bread that we cast upon the waters

will return. The head start that historical circumstance has given to the peoples of the Western world. And remember that once we lag very far behind the near and the Far East. But this headstart that accident has given us creates in us an obligation to use our advantages generously for world renewal guilt feelings about past imperial exploitation or false cultural modesty or blasé cultural relativism. None of these attitudes excuses us from taking the initiative which it is in our power alone to take. World culture then and a World Commonwealth involving a world economy and a world government. Together these constitute the unified world civilization that we might have in a hundred years time.

If you can. In all seriousness imagine the long term survival of homo sapiens without the establishment of such a civilization. You have a much livelier imagination than your speaker. If you cannot imagine survival without a world civilization you should not let another day pass without asking yourself what you can do and what all of us can do to translate the vision of the city of man into concrete historical reality. Thank you I heard W. Warren wager professor of history at the University of New Mexico as he spoke on the topic. The concert of cultures Professor wagers spoke at the annual conference of the Institute on man in science held in Rensselaer Vale New York on our next program. Donald dupré of the National Film Board of Canada will discuss the subject

modern media and social change. These lectures are recorded by the Institute on man and science. The programs are prepared for broadcast and distributed by the national educational radio network.