It is a long time since we have written anything about Scandia; we want to tell a little about the history of this small but excellent sheet, and about the men who have been responsible for it.

Nothing very fanciful occurs to us, however, in reminiscing about Scandia. We recall merely that the paper was founded by Anton B. Lange in Duluth in 1888. Along about 1889 or 1890, we believe it was, Lange moved to Chicago and brought Scandia with him.

From that time, Scandia has been an institution in the Chicago Norwegian colony, and it has had moreover, a history vastly different from that of any other Norwegian language paper in this country with which we are acquainted. We shall present our reasons for saying this, but just let us recall the names of the editors of Scandia since its founding:

2

1. Anton B. Lange, until his death in 1910; 2. H. Sundby Hansen, 1910-1913; Ludvig H. Lund, 1914-.

It is unnecessary,and indeed irrelevant, to go into the history of the late Mr. Lange. But it is pertinent to bear in mind that the Lange tradition is the basis on which Scandia has continued throughout these years. We have in mind, not what his enemies said about his editorial policy, which often enough was cross and blunt, but his fearless critical attitude and his liberal spirit.

For I make bold to say that, among the many shortcomings of our Norwegian language press in this country, none is greater than its lack of liberality, and none is more obvious than its intolerance and lack of true critical judgment in appraising subjects concerning modern thought and intellectual trends. Life is much more than superficial politics, much more than belief in concealed dogma. The game of politics is merely a reflex of economic 3conditions in any given period.

It was Lange's critical attitude in dealing with local conditions which established Scandia as a tolerant, liberal, urban-minded organ, and, certainly, this character the paper has retained. Always it has been a paper for city people. Its editors have all been city born and bred, with a background of city culture.

In this, too, the Lange tradition has had permanent influence. Lange was "Ekte Begenser" [a real Bergenser] with the cultural background of that fine old historic city on Norway's west coast. His liberality doubtless has its roots in Norway's old "Venstre" [left wing], a party, by the way, which has completed its mission of completely democratizing the nation, and which has been pushed aside by the more up-to-date Norwegian labor party.

Chicago's "Bergensere" have always been Scandia's mainstay, doubtless because of the Lange tradition, but of course the paper has liberal-minded 4readers from all parts of Norway. Since Lange's time, we think the paper has improved in some respects and become inferior in others. Lange's Norwegian was dynamic, and few editors in this country wielded a more virile pen or presented their readers with a smoother style. The gift was characteristically individual.

On the credit side, after Lange's time, should be mentioned, we think, that editorial vituperation and personal attack have been completely eliminated, an open forum column has been established wherein the readers may freely discuss all topics of interest, and a still broader and more liberal editorial policy has been followed in the interest of enlightenment. A newspaper or a magazine of general circulation should be more than a slavish follower of conventional opinion; it should be not merely clever but a leader in presenting civilizing ideas.

It is to be hoped that any new managers will carefully guard Scandia's tradition of fearless democratic liberality and urban culture. With energetic men on the 5business side of the paper, and the editorial policy conducted in this spirit, I believe Scandia still has ahead of it many useful years of inspiring and enlightening service.

Edward Andersen, who scolds in the approved manner of an English costermonger or fishwife, is an amazing young man--mentally I mean, for in years he may have passed voting age. He is amazing for at least two reasons. First, because he is a Norwegian-American of the second generation, which we assume from his name and the language, though we may be in error; and secondly, because of his cocksureness and his conventional opinions.

It is sometimes interesting, though anything but refreshing, to find in the columns of Scandia Mr. Andersen's bombastic style of American patriotism. This type of flag-waving chauvinism civilized Americans abhor as exhibitionism and bad manners. This fact is unknown or ignored by the lusty practitioners of the religious cult of chauvinistic patriotism. The cult 6gives bad manners ample opportunity of vigorous assertion.

For this reason, Mr. Andersen's remarkable opinions constitute an interesting educational exhibit in showing the cultural advance, if any, of the second generation Norwegians over that of their parents and ancestors.

To this there are many notable exceptions, of course, but we are sure that Mr. Andersen will not deny that his opinions on what (for the sake of brevity) we may call "Americanism" (with apologies to the Tribune and Mr. Hearst), represent those of all the best and most reliable people, while, on the contrary, the opinions of Sigrid Hakstad and Synove Lange--and permit us to include our own--represent those of all the bad people. the suspects, who should be carefully watched, gagged, and hamstrung and, if possible, deported from "God's country". At least this appears to be the essence of what Mr. Andersen has ventured to express up to now.

7

We are not here concerned with the trivial point at issue between Mr. Andersen and Synove Lange, or with the original point raised by Mrs. Hakstad in the form of questions addressed to a recently returned American-born young man from his first visit to the country of his ancestors.

Like a patriot of the right sort, Mr. Andersen was not slow in scenting danger. Immediately he recognized subversive tendencies lurking in Mrs. Hakstad's question. Possibly he suspected a "red" conspiracy. At any rate, no young American should be exposed to questions of a cultural nature about any foreign country, even about the country of his immediate ancestors. Such knowledge is dangerous to the safety of the Republic.

We are interested rather in the psychological aspect of the intellectual discussion which ensued from that innocent beginning. Mr. Andersen is a prolific quoter of aphonisms and of other men's philosophy, presumably because he feels the need of authoritative support. It is, therefore, not at all strange that 8he has conveniently forgotten to quote the celebrated English statesman who told his colleagues in parliament that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". But he meant, of course, English patriotism.

Mr. Andersen's fervent attitude regarding patriotism is undoubtedly an expression of what may be called a "transition" mentality, often exhibited by second generation Norwegian-Americans, assuming he is one (and by those of other national groups), when their own radical cultural background has been lost or ignorantly discarded.

In this connection, it is profitable to remember that Americans of English, Scotch, Irish, and French Hugenot ancestry dating back to colonial times have never discarded their ancestral cultural background, no matter what their attitude has been on questions of economics and political relations, with the old country.

9

Such opinions as Mr. Andersen has expressed in his discussion on this particular subject give us and many others, to use a vulgarism, a pain in the neck. Having been an American newspaper correspondent in the legislature at Springfield, Illinois, in the legislature at Madison, Wisconsin, in the legislature at Albany, New York, and having covered both the House and the Senate in Washington, and served as correspondent at the White House, among numerous and sundry other first-rank assignments, we happen to know how and by whom that type of patriotism is manufactured for public consumption.

Permit us to say further that most of the leaders in the nefarious and brain befuddling traffic, at least those who haven't completely sold themselves boots, baggage, and breeches, often suffer from a pain in the neck, not to mention in another prominent part of the anatomy, from their own bombastic inventions. When their conscience troubles them too much, they seek escape in an alcoholic debauch.

10

Mr. Andersen seems to have fallen for the bombastic flag-waving cult pretty hard. Well, he has plenty of company. An emotional appeal is all that is needed to stir up the latent animal instinct of the crowd to frenzy. Reason is dethroned. Tolerance is crushed beneath the tramping feet of the mob. Only they are right. All others are wrong, hence dangerous. Let them take the next boat.

Fortunately, this is only one phase of America, though a very bad phase. It represents neither the opinion nor the wish of cultural America, of civilized Americans. Let us repeat, they abhor it as the worst of bad manners.

In every country, civilized people regard this type of patriotism with deserved suspicion because of its mob emotional content. Everywhere the distinguishing mark of a civilized person is his ability to be guided by reason rather than by his emotions, which are kept under strict control. To sway the uninformed multitude by a patriotic appeal is an old and often used 11trick which may be considered clever--for the purpose of putting over something--war, for instance, or some law, the far-reaching effect of which in the curtailment of rights and liberties the people do not realize or understand until too late; such methods, we say, may be considered clever, but they are not civilized.

For all these reasons, Mr. Andersen is an amazing young man, and we would not for all the world wish to abridge his right of expression. In this principle we are sure all of Scandia's readers agree. For freedom of utterance, it may astound Mr. Andersen to learn, is not an American invention. We have it as a right in our Federal Constitution, but how often isn't it violated and suppressed by patriotic zealots?

Patriots want no opinions but their own. At least they are intolerant of any other. Notwithstanding this, I trust that Mr. Andersen will continue to voice his charming views in Scandia. His opinions form a diverting 12interlude between Alfred Gabrielson's theosophical profundities and "Omar's" hectic attempts to gain converts (rather correspondence school students) for the so-called "Rosacrusian" temple or "university" in San Jose, California. I have it on good authority that the depression hit H. Spencer Lewis's repository of "ancient mystic wisdom" pretty hard. But "Omar" is faithful.

Thus, from all quarters, Scandia's readers gain esoteric, as well as exoteric, enlightenment which, in the perusal, calls forth in the attentive reader an abundance of hilarious, though perfectly innocent merriment. More could hardly be said in Mr. Andersen's behalf. Nor less.