"The child is father of the man." [Translator's note: The literal translation is: "What little Johnny doesn't learn, John will never learn."] American educational methods, more designed to make foolproof patriots out of our little Yankees than to endow them with a treasure of useful knowledge for later life, are directly responsible for the abysmal ignorance and inadequate general knowledge of many Anglo-American journalists, as we realize every time we read English-language newspapers. The writers themselves can hardly be blamed for the blunders they make. They are the victims of an ill-planned, single-track system of education which limits the mental horizon of the students as much as possible to Uncle Sam's own territory, and only occasionally and in a derogatory manner touches upon things concerning the outside world, which is always painted in caricature. That this outside world is a factor with which the United States has to reckon, will dawn upon the young American only after he has been out of 2school a long time. Many of them would be only too glad today if their school-ma'am had given them more thorough instruction in matters pertaining to this ill-treated and despised outside world. But now it is too late to sit down and make up what was once neglected.

The results of such single-track "patriotic" education were never so obvious as they are now, when European events necessarily claim the largest space in our daily newspapers.Newspapermen sweat over atlases and encyclopaedias in the various editorial rooms in order to follow world events. But since the foundations [of their education] are shaky, even these works are of limited value and do not always prevent ridiculous results and conclusions. Our American newspaper editors may know the geographical positions of Kokomo, Indiana or Kankakee, Illinois or Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, and they may have a pretty good idea of the commercial significance of these important localities, but most of them did not know until recently where Lemberg--a city of two hundred thousand population and an important industrial and commercial center--was located, whether in Austria, Russia, Turkey, or Japan. These editors have 3probably some knowledge of the American Constitution and know a little something about the English Constitution, but of other systems of government they haven't the least idea. Neither do they know anything about European history, or the economic and social conditions in Europe. Those vague and distorted ideas with which they have been indoctrinated while in school will always stick with them, all friendly efforts at correction notwithstanding.

In their eyes, [i.e., the editors'] all European nations are alike. All of them stagger through life under the yoke of autocratic tyrants. The only exception among the great powers, besides the "Republic" of France, is England--which is ruled not by a man but by a fool. All other nations are still yearning for their liberty--if we want to believe these learned journalists. That some of these "unfortunate" nations enjoy more freedom in many respects than the lucky inhabitants of "God's own country," that, for instance, the German Kaiser, the "war lord" and "autocrat," exercises less actual power than our President in Washington, you can never get into their heads. With the stubbornness of a mule they insist that Europe's cataclysm is solely the fault of certain sinister 4monarchs. Each after the other, they repeat these stories, because none of them has a clear conception of the political conditions prevailing on the other side of the ocean; none of them knows the history of these nations, and they are therefore unable to come to any correct conclusions.

To tilt at windmills is a thankless task. Nevertheless, we cannot tell these ignoramuses often enough that the time of cabinet wars is a thing of the past. Unless he has public opinion and the united will of a nation behind him, no emperor, king, prince, or president would be able to draw the sword. The man at the helm of a nation must always have virtually unanimous public approval in order to make war. The best illustration of this is Italy's desertion of the Central Powers. The king would have caused a revolution in his country if he had come to Austria's aid, as the Alliance treaty called for. How unanimously did the Austro-Hungarian peoples rally around their aged emperor when he declared war on those cowardly murderers in Belgrade! Did not Germany rise as one man when the final day of reckoning had arrived? The German Kaiser could not have opposed his people's will to war even if he had wanted to. Being a 5peace-loving man, he held out as long as he could. If a weak republican government had been at the helm of the Reich instead of the "war lord," the storm would have broken loose years ago.

Did we not come close to a war with Huerta? And if war had broken out, which "king" would our Yankees have held responsible? That war was avoided was due solely to Wilson's reasonable policy. A Roosevelt would probably have led the country into war, and the same newspapers which, out of ignorance, are today calling the Kaiser a warmonger would have probably praised "King Theodore" to the skies as America's savior. And yet the Mexicans were not guilty of any conspiracy in Arizona, neither did they attempt to drive the Americans from California, nor did they assassinate the American Vice-president and his wife in San Antonio. That the motives of European nations are measured with a different yardstick does not speak well for America's unbiased judgment. Very often, this attitude is nothing else but the consequence of an inadequate education.