There's a famous quote by Ormond E Burton which gets mentioned many
times by Anzac commentaries: ‘somewhere between the landing at
Anzac and the end of the battle of the Somme New Zealand very
definitely became a nation.’ . Just what this means exactly, and
just how much of our so called 'national identity' derives from our
inheritance of WW1 battle experience is a subject I will leave to the
various newspaper and magazine editors. I'm much more interested in
the man Ormond E Burton, and how this conservative trope squares –
or fails to square – with his subsequent statements about
nationhood and his militant pacifism.
 |
| Ormond E Burton |
After reading a fairly large fraction of his prolific writings, I
have to admit that Burton still confuses and confounds me. His
uncompromising and sometimes rigid principles lead him to adopt
stances which from a 21st century point of view are
difficult to reconcile. On many issues he takes a very conservative
stand: prohibition, bibles in schools and a refusal to have anything
to do with divorce proceedings. Yet the same devout Christian beliefs
which inform these positions lead him to radical Christian socialism
and militant pacifism.
Although I'm not a Christian and find many of his more conservative
beliefs very hard to have any respect for, there is still something
quite fascinating about Burton's politics. He's part of a broad and
heterogeneous movement which responded critically to the aftermath of
world war one. This took many forms, including anti-war novels like
Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front
and various kinds of poltical movements which rejected the
militaristic nationalism associated with the war years. Burton was a
significant part of the New Zealand version of this international
reaction, his 1935 book The Silent Division is
a powerful pacifist statement. Another significant part of the New
Zealand reaction was the formation of the Labour party in 1916, which
Burton joined soon after the war finished and was forced to leave in
1925.
Burton was a devout and apparently
quite dogmatic Christian, but his uncompromising views did not
prevent him becoming close friends with socialists of a much more
'rationalist' bent such as John A Lee. He was a diligent and
committed party member who worked his way up the ladder into a fairly
senior position, by 1925 he had been elected as the Senior Vice
President of the Executive of the Auckland Labour Representative
Committee. He rubbed shoulders with union leaders and Members of
Parliament. Burton's Christian views were shared by many of the
members of the early Labour party, and his Methodism was
unexceptional.
The background to Burton's departure
is the rise of a much more radical political force to the left of
Labour: the Communist Party. Formed in 1921, militant socialists
inspired by the Russian revolution in 1917 were a powerful minority
left current in the 1920s. Although revolution was the goal, the
Communist Party was keen to work with Labour to promote leftist
policies. The more moderate factions within Labour were very unhappy
about this, and did not want their party to be tainted by association
with the revolutionary minority. Aiming for electoral success, the
leadership of the party agreed with this moderate faction –
Communists would scare too many potential voters away.
To distance itself from the
Communist Party, Labour clarified its platform as one which involved
attaining socialism 'by constitutional means' (as opposed to
revolutionary means), and also introduced a tighter set of rules for
members. These included the expectation that members would sign the
following pledge:
I hereby pledge myself to the New
Zealand Labour Party to faithfully uphold and wholeheartedly work for
its Constitution, Objective and Platform and no other, and to work
and vote for the selected candidates of the Party. [1]
The “and no other” part of the clause was contested by Communist
Party delegate S. Fournier, who moved that these words be deleted.
The motion has heavily defeated, and the pledge became a part of the
constitution. The moderates had successfully distanced themselves
from the radicals.
Burton was now put in a really difficult position. He was a very
honest and principled political actor, and I can't help thinking that
his version of uncompromising integrity doesn't fit very well with
parliamentary politics. The parts of the Platform he could not
swallow were to do with education: compulsory teaching of Esperanto
in schools and secular education. There was also an ambiguity about
Labour's position on prohibition of alcohol. For these three reasons
Burton refused to sign the pledge, and had to leave the Labour party.
The prohibition issue was certainly a big one. It divided the left,
and from what I can tell the Labour party's neutral position was
strategically sensible. It's also not clear to me how allowing
'wowsers' like Burton to make a conscience vote would have damaged
the party or the cause at all.
The other two issues appear exceedingly obscure. Education policy is
mentioned very briefly in the books about the 1920s Labour party I
have read so far, it doesn't seem to be a major issue. Issues like
employment, taxes, workers' rights and so on are the major topics in
these histories. Education is talked about as an issue with respect
to how much money is spent on it, how accessible it is and so on. The
Labour government of 1935 would introduce some radical education
reforms. But as far as I know, Esperanto was not on the agenda and
secular education was a given – according to the Education Act of
1877 New Zealand schools should be "free, compulsory and
secular".
Pondering these obscure historical questions, I spent an afternoon at
the McNab Collection of the Dunedin Public Library doing some
research. The truth is I'm very new to doing this kind of research,
so I'm still acquiring the skills and know-how. So even though the
question of Esperanto in New Zealand education in the 1920s is not
really a subject I have any interest or invesment in, I quite enjoyed
making this historical journey. I found a book published in 1973 with
the splendidly long winded title “A History of the Introduction and
Spread of the International, Auxilliary Language – Esperanto – In
New Zealand (During the Period 1904 – 1963)”.
The chapter on the 1920s contains this little nugget:
In
political circles there was an interesting development in 1922. At
the 4-days national conference of the New Zealand Labour Party, held
in July of that year, a new plank was introduced into the Party's
official manifesto “that the International Language, Esperanto, be
taught in all State schoolsi.”
I also found out that the report of this conference is to be found in
the Maoriland Worker of the same year, but searching for the
details about Esperanto on the papers past website proved to be
fruitless. So I'll have to accept this source at face value for now.
Also of interest in this book was the information that the Auckland
Esperanto Society had members who were active in the WEA (Workers
Educational Association), and regularly published Esperanto related
articles in the Labour News. There's also a description of some of
the sorts of people who attended a 1926 Esperanto conference: “postal
workers, railwaymen, lawyers, Scouts, teachers, doctors, the
Esperanto Scientific Association, vegetarians, anti-smokers,
adherents to the various religions, etcii”.
 |
| Ludwik Lazarus Zamenhof (15 December 1859 – 14 April 1917), creator of Esperanto |
Esperanto never became the massive international force that it
dreamed of becoming, but it seems that in the educated progressive
circles of western countries, it was a fairly significant movement in
the 1920s. As a form of really genuine 'internationalism' it looks to
be quite limited and doubtful from today's perspective: based on
European languages only, speakers from non-western backgrounds would
hardly be well served by its supposed merits. There were lots of
other problems too, and although it still exists today it is very
much a minority interest hobby rather than a significant educational
force. But in the 1920s there was hope for the future of the invented
language, and it's not surprising that many socialists shared this
hope:
“Esperantists
have traditionally shown a distrust for political action and have
tended to concentrate their efforts on recruitment of individuals.
However, socialist ideology has been highly compatible with the
democratising spirit of Esperanto, and organisations have
consequently been formed with the aim of establishing a formal
connection between the two ideals. Various areas of compatibility
between them have been perceived. Internationalist ideas of the unity
of workers of the world have been seen as effectively fostered
through Esperanto. Socialism has been associated with the idea of
scientific planning of society, and Esperanto has been supported as
being compatible with such a scientific spirit. Esperanto has been
seen as subversive of national loyalties which themselves support
capitalism and militarism. Finally, the practical advantages of
Esperanto in worker's education, in the proceedings of international
workers' conferences, and generally in the fostering of direct
contacts between workers, have also played an important roleiii”.
So
why did Burton object to Esperanto? My guess is it has something to
do with the 'scientific spirit' alluded to above. Burton's version of
socialism definitely included the use of Marxist-inspired language
(as I will show below), but his commitment to socialism was based on
Christian ethical principles rather than any kind of 'science'. After
his departure from the Labour party, this enmity towards
'rationalism' as a basis for politics would only deepen, but I
suspect that this is what is going on here.
The
question of secular education and the push for 'Bibles in schools' is
another story that needs to be approached with due respect to
historical differences of context. There was a big push for a 'bibles
in schools' programme in 1914 spearheaded by the conservative Reform
minister James Allen. It was vehemently resisted not so much on
secular grounds but more on sectarian grounds : divisions between Roman Catholics and protestants,
evangelicals and episcopals were a major problem. Catholics in
particular were strongly opposed to what would surely be a protestant
version of bible study. As a Methodist, Burton was a keen supporter
of a broad alliance of evangelical christians (including Scottish
Presbyterians, Baptists, Brethren, Congregationalists, the Church of
Christ and the Salvation Army) who pushed for the bible in schools
programme. These religious lines of division don't match up
straightforwardly with lines of class or political affiliation.
Catholics tended to be more working class, but so were many
Methodists and other non conformists. Presbyterians tended to be more
conservative, but this same evangelical coalition also pushed for
women's right to vote. So Burton's differences with his more
rationalistic socialist peers were a fairly typical sort of
contradiction within the broader left movement.
So
what did Burton think of the Labour party after he left? I think his
words are worth quoting in full:
I think the Party
was wrong. Agreement on fundamentals is necessary, but enforcement of
rigid conformities on matters of detail always brings division –
and there must be freedom of conscience. Ultimately the refusal to
allow freedom, which was made so that power could be more effectively
applied, did I think destroy the foundations. Since then, and
especially since the expulsion of John Lee in 1941, the spirit of
expedient conformity has utterly destroyed the Socialist basis with
the result that the Party today without clear aim, any deep idealism,
or any Messianic vision is simply another group of opportunists with
a mentality that does not rise above what appears to be the immediate
benefit of those likely to vote for them.iv
(Christian Action p.8)
I think these are true words which are not relative to historical
context like the other issues I have explored are. What he says about
the Labour party is still true today: a party 'without clear aim, any
deep idealism'. But the really ironic fact about his expulsion is
that he was also very much a real and genuine socialist. He didn't
give up on politics after 1925, and stood as an independent candidate
for the 1928 general election. Only 200 people voted for him, so his
platform position is like Esperanto, obscure and distant, but still
worth quoting in full:
All the means of
production, distribution and exchange were to be owned and controlled
by the people. The whole should be administered by a Parliament half
of the members of which would be elected as present, from the various
electorates, and half would be the representatives directly appointed
by special economic, professional or cultural groups. The actual
control of industries and such matters as Health and Education would
be in the hands of National Boards whose members would be appointed
partly by parliament and partly by those actually working in the
occupation.
All
non-productive, parasitical and dangerous industries, made possible
because of the profit motive in capitalism, would be abolished.
Productive industries would be reorganised under community control.
The whole product of industry was to be deemed the property of the
nation for equal distribution. Housing, food and clothing should be
supplied according to family requirements and without reference to
the skill, organising capacity or importance of the folk concerned.
When the basic
necessities were assured the surplus productive capacity of the
people would be directed to the production of luxury goods. These
should be valued on the basis of the unit of labour and in as far as
possible shared – often as community facilities.
All adults should
have the right to work. The tools of labour including land, mines and
factories, would be the property of the community. Workers would have
the use of the tools as long as they were working but would not have
the right to sell them for profit to other workers.
Education should
be free and should be carried as far as the individual was able and
willing to go. A socialist community could only function on a basis
of passionate idealism and widespread and unselfish desire on the
part of the great mass of the people to render such willing service.
Such feelings would need to penetrate deeply the very roots of the
educational process. This could only come from religious conviction
and as there was no common agreement here a rigid unified national
system was impossible. Any section of the community therefore that
had belief of sufficient vitality to staff schools should be allowed
to do so. This would break up the standardised national system but
would give freedom and life.
As far as Health
was concerned there should be free and equal treatment for all. The
Medical Profession should be completely reorganised as a community
service, with very great stress placed on preventative medicine and
on physical training to produce stronger and healthier people.
With regard to
the anti-social there should be two lines of action. Those who were
lazy and shiftless should be deprived of all luxury quotas. Their
laziness should be their luxury. The actively and dangerously
anti-social thieves, violent persons, sexual delinquents, alcoholics,
etc – were to come under the control of a Social Welfare Department
staffed by Churches and such other groups as were positively
concerned with the redemption of the anti-social. The present
depressive machinery of criminal courts, penal laws and prisons would
be abolished. Instead every endeavour would be made to get to the
very roots of crime – underprivileged conditions, broken homes,
unwanted children. Proper preventive action and right social
education would dry up morasses of crime. With regard to adults every
positive means should be taken to win them to better life remembering
that punishment never succeeds in making better men but that wise and
patient friendship often does. Finally when very possible thing has
been done, and failed, we must as a community be prepared to suffer
thieves and alcoholics with the same patience that we display towards
adulterers and exploiters – much more dangerous types. In extreme
cases it would be necessary to picket the violent with volunteers.
As far as enemy
countries were concerned we would have to exhibit unfailing goodwill.
The one effective security measure is to change the enemy into a
friend. We should extend goodwill and friendly co-operation, directly
and also through such international bodies as the League of Nationsv.
1. Report of Tenth Annual Conference, 1926, National Executive Report. Quoted in Brown, Bruce. 'The Rise of New Zealand Labour: A History of the New Zealand Labour Party from 1916 to 1940', Price Milburn, Wellington 1962
iA
History of the Introduction and Spread of the International,
Auxilliary Language – Esperanto – In New Zealand (During the
Period 1904 – 1963), Wm. H. King, Wellington 1973, p.33
iiIbid,
p. 36
iiiForster,
Peter G. 'The
Esperanto Movement', Walter de Gruyter, 1982
ivBurton,
O E. 'Christian Action', Levin, Kerslake, Billens & Humphrey,
1970, p.8
No comments:
Post a Comment