雅’布’A’里斯
(JACOB A. RIIS)
’’民’’鬥’ The Battle with the Slum
20 ’’’’’市’’區’’民’街景 ’ ’’我們’除’民’’’’’民’’我們’滅’’’必’’’’ 雅’布’A’里斯(1849－1914)’生’丹麥’’’’歲移’’國’’’’’’成’’’市’’報’’’’報導’敗’醜’’及’’’’區’民生’’’’1890’’’’’’’’’’樣生’’’’’’方’’立’對’濟公’’’改革’ ’’’民’’鬥’’’’’’’’’樣生’’’’’’’’’’1902’’里斯’’’’評論’’’’’’首次’識’’’’’’’期對’’’’區’教’及’’機’’’面’’’’把讀’’引’’’身邊’’’’’僚’戰’’’’’’而戰’’’’’文’’有揭’’’’敗及’’’’’’’’’’’’報’醜’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’面文章’選’里斯’’’’民’’鬥’’’ ’民’’歷’’文’’樣’老’文’’’著’個種族’’’’’’’個種族裏’’’有’’’由’’樣’那樣’原’’’跟’’’’’’伐’’’’’’們擠’’’’隊伍’’’’掉隊’’當遠遠’’’’隊伍’’’’’們’失’’望’失’’’’最終’棄’切’打’’’’假’’們’立’援’’們’成’’部環境’犧’’’環境’成’’們’’’’’’’’’’’’’’互’著’’’’’陷’’’’’’’’’’環境’傳給’’’’’’’’由’’數’’’’民’’’’’成’’’民’’鬥’’ ’文’’之’對之’’’’’’’懼’’我’’’’對敵之’’文’打’’’場’輸不贏’戰’’當普’’識’基本原’成’’們’’動準’’’’民’’’’失’’’’’不’’’提’論’’’’’’們顯’’劃’’類’’’論’’公正對’個’’視’我們’眾國’唯’’’’障’’’’’民’問’’’’’’’實踐’’民’’’快’失’我們不必等’’個太平盛’’’’’’’’動手’除’民’’而’’’’’動手’動’’需’做’’’不’讓’民’’生’滅’’樣對’民’’對我們’’’有公正’言’’’’’揪心’’’’民’’’結’’’’’本身’’’救’當’個’溺’’’’’做’’’’’’’’中’’’’’’談論’’有’’’間’’我們’’’’問’’本末倒’’’’’’’’樂’對’’不堪’’不’不問’’任’’’“’’天擇’’’生’”’有’“最不’’”’生’’’’用’’話說’’探’“’有’’’’原’”’有’’’’’種論調’’’’學’實’’謬’它’’耳’聽’’’’’之’’’’’’價’“’有’’’’原’”’’’’’及’它種種’棍有機’乘’’們’絕望’落’’民’中’撈’把’’’’’論’找’’防’’’’’幫’’鬥’’’成’’’’’’論’’我們’’’價’而’還未’完’我們’’’’手’’那溺’’’’中’’’’’’’’候’’’晚’’’我們’’’難’’溺’’’’’’而’’’’’’’’ ’民’問’’歷’’’’’’’’’’’目’’’種巨’變化’’’’及’’’由’’’’’’’’’’’’接’’’’’’由本身’我們當中太’’’’’我們’眾國’’立’普選’基礎之’’’’’足’證’我們’有那’’’’’國’’問’’’’實’’’裏有’’不’’’’’我們曾莊’’’’’’’生而平等’’’擁有’’不’剝奪’’’’’中’’生’’’’由’’’’’福’’’’’’’我們’閉’眼睛’期’著’’方’’’生’’’’’像’個’’’’’’醫生’藥方’’’’’’’望它’’生療’’’言本身’’有錯’’’’’’重 覆’言解’不’任’問’’’’言’’’百’之’’今天’我們’眼’’’’’’市中’勞動婦’’天’錢’有六’’分’生產’打’褲’’’’’分’’民墓’奪走’裏’分之’’’’’’有’分之’’’’’戰亂’’’’’’民’裏嬰’’’’’’我們’國’’’’’’’’源源不’’’’我們港’’’足夠’百’歐’’’用’食’’’而’’’街陋’裏’’堆堆目不識’’’’少’’’擠’’塊’’國壓迫’’’趕’’國內黑’’’’’’打’’’’’’’’熱之中’白’’’正’’’’’’’喊’’喊’’有’顯’’’’’我們贏’’’’’由’’’’交’’問’’未解’’正’’’我們’歐’落’’’’’’’’’’’’’化’’天六’’分’“’由”’我們’’個市’’’快都打’’’種’’’最終成’我們’’’’’醜’’’’’’ 不錯’我們’’’’’’儘管’’’’’’場戰’’打不’’而’’打’’’’’’麼我們’除’民’’’麼’民’’我們’滅’’’必’’’’對’不’有任’’疑’’’問’不’’避’’避’’著投降’投降’’著民’’’’結’’ 假’有’’’’’’’’’’那麼不妨’’’’民’’’’基’智’’公眾精’之’’’它有賴’’民有’’管’’’’而’民’’’’’’’’匱’’醜陋’憤’之’’暴亂’’’還’’’方面’’’方面’’石心’’麻木不仁’’’’’’’’’厭’’’本’不’’’’不管我們’’擁有’’情誼’我們本’’’’’’假’不給’’’’區’樹街’’’’’情誼’我們’’’第五’’’’區找’善’公民’’’’’’勞’’’方面’’裏’’民’’由’’’’’’問’’’方面’’邊’’仍’’’’’忙景’’’裏’’’’’’’滿’’’’’匱’’’’’結’’’’’’’民心中’’國熱情’熄滅’’ 早’’國之’’’’國’’’’們’’’’’’’市’’們’劃中’’’之’’’裏潛伏著民’’’’’’’機’’國之’’’’國’’’五’中’有’’生’’’市’而’’’’中’有’’生’’’市’除’商’’’’’’今’’’’民’’’’’假’對’民’不’不問’那麼試問’’民’’我們’滅之日’遠嗎? 換’話說’當’需’’們’’由’身’給’選票’’’’不’讓’們像豬’’生’’’’’’’種’’’做’’’不’奪走’個’’’童’’奪走’’’園’奪走’’’樂’奪走’那’’’’’’由’而’’’’望’’’成’’’備’’選民’成熟’’童’我們’未’’今天我們’麼塑’’們’’天’們’’’麼對’我們’’’’’民’’有任’’’’言’最’’’’’最’’’’’莫’’對’’’打擊’’’公民’任源 ’’’’而不’源’任’’’’方’’民’’’’’仇敵’由’’民’’’’’我們國’’’’’’市早’稱’“’’’’’’市”’當’個國’’’正稱’“’’’’’國’’”’國’不國’ 有鑒’’’我’’’’’’民’’鬥’中’我們’麼戰勝’’麼滅’’’有中間路’走’我們’’’勝’’’’’我們不’像’輩那樣’維’’’’’’’’’場’’戰’’’’’’’’’’都不夠’儘管’’’我們必須’續戰鬥’假’’’我們’’’’’防止’’忘’’’情誼’’’第’’’第’’’’’’’我們’’心滿’足’’’’’’旨’讓’’’’有’收穫’’’’們對’’’’樣’’’’讓我們用辛勤’’’’領’概’’’’中’教誨’’有’教誨’’’’’’’未’’天國’ The slum is as old as civilization. Civilization implies a race to get ahead. In a race there are usually some who for one cause or another cannot keep up, or are thrust out from among their fellows. They fall behind, and when they have been left far in the rear they lose hope and ambition, and give up. Thenceforward, if left to their own resources, they are the victims, not the masters, of their environment; and it is a bad master. They drag one another always farther down. The bad environment becomes the heredity of the next generation. Then, given the crowd, you have the slum ready-made. The battle with the slum began the day civilization recognized in it her enemy. It was a losing fight until conscience joined forces with fear and self-interest against it. When common sense and the golden rule obtain among men as a rule of practice, it will be over. The two have not always been classed together, but here they are plainly seen to belong together. Justice to the individual is accepted in theory as the only safe groundwork of the commonwealth. When it is practised in dealing with the slum, there will shortly be no slum. We need not wait for the millennium, to get rid of it. We can do it now. All that is required is that it shall not be left to itself. That is justice to it and to us, since its grievous ailment is that it cannot help itself. When a man is drowning, the thing to do is to pull him out of the water; afterward there will be time for talking it over. We got at it the other way in dealing with our social problems. The wise men had their day, and they decided to let bad enough alone; that it was unsafe to interfere with "causes that operate sociologically," as one survivor of these unfittest put it to me. It was a piece of scientific humbug that cost the age which listened to it dear. "Causes that operate sociologically" are the opportunity of the political and every other kind of scamp who trades upon the depravity and helplessness of the slum, and the refuge of the pessimist who is useless in the fight against them. We have not done yet paying the bills he ran up for us. Some time since we turned to, to pull the drowning man out, and it was time. A little while longer, and we should hardly have escaped being dragged down with him. The slum complaint had been chronic in all ages, but the great changes which the nineteenth century saw, the new industry, political freedom, brought on an acute attack which put that very freedom in jeopardy. Too many of us had supposed that, built as our commonwealth was on universal suffrage, it would be proof against the complaints that harassed older states; but in fact it turned out that there was extra hazard in that. Having solemnly resolved that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we shut our eyes and waited for the formula to work. It was as if a man with a cold should take the doctor's prescription to bed with him, expecting it to cure him. The formula was all right, but merely repeating it worked no cure. When, after a hundred years, we opened our eyes, it was upon sixty cents a day as the living wage of the working-woman in our cities; upon "knee pants" at forty cents a dozen for the making; upon the Potter's Field taking tithe of our city life, ten per cent each year for the trench, truly the Lost Tenth of the slum. Our country had grown great and rich; through our ports was poured food for the millions of Europe. But in the back streets multitudes huddled in ignorance and want. The foreign oppressor had been vanquished, the fetters stricken from the black man at home; but his white brother, in his bitter plight, sent up a cry of distress that had in it a distinct note of menace. Political freedom we had won; but the problem of helpless poverty, grown vast with the added offscourings of the Old World, mocked us, unsolved. Liberty at sixty cents a day set presently its stamp upon the government of our cities, and it became the scandal and the peril of our political system. . . , Slow work, yes! but be it ever so slow, the battle has got to be fought, and fought out. For it is one thing or the other: either wipe out the slum, or it wipes out us. Let there be no mistake about this. It cannot be shirked. Shirking means surrender, and surrender means the end of government by the people. If any one believes this to be needless alarm, let him think a moment. Government by the people must ever rest upon the people's ability to govern themselves, upon their intelligence and public spirit. The slum stands for ignorance, want, unfitness, for mob-rule in the day of wrath. This at one end. At the other, hard-heartedness, indifference, self-seeking, greed. It is human nature. We are brothers whether we own it or not, and when the brotherhood is denied in Mulberry Street we shall look vainly for the virtue of good citizenship on Fifth Avenue. When the slum flourishes unchallenged in the cities, their wharves may, indeed, be busy, their treasure houses filled―wealth and want go so together, ―but patriotism among their people is dead. As long ago as the very beginning of our republic, its founders saw that the cities were danger-spots in their plan. In them was the peril of democratic government. At that time, scarce one in twenty-five of the people in the United States lived in a city. Now it is one in three. And to the selfishness of the trader has been added the threat of the slum. Ask yourself then how long before it would make an end of us, if let alone. Put it this way: you cannot let men live like pigs when you need their votes as freemen; it is not safe. You cannot rob a child of its childhood, of its home, its play, its freedom from toil and care, and expect to appeal to the grown-up voter's manhood. The children are our to-morrow, and as we mould them to-day so will they deal with us then. Therefore that is not safe. Unsafest of all is any thing or deed that strikes at the home, for from the people's home proceeds citizen virtue, and nowhere else does it live. The slum is the enemy of the home. Because of it the chief city of our land came long ago to be called "The Homeless City." When this people comes to be truly called a nation without homes there will no longer be any nation. Hence, I say, in the battle with the slum we win or we perish. There is no middle way. We shall win, for we are not letting things be the way our fathers did. But it will be a running fight, and it is not going to be won in two years, or in ten, or in twenty. For all that, we must keep on fighting, content if in our time we avert the punishment that waits upon the third and the fourth generation of those who forget the brotherhood. As a man does in dealing with his brother so it is the way of God that his children shall reap, that through toil and tears we may make out the lesson which sums up all the commandments and alone can make the earth fit for the kingdom that is to come. ’ ’ |
