The Attitude of our Youth - 1941

July 4, 1941 - ALAN P. GRIMES, A. B., University of North Carolina

Delivered at the Institute of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

Alan P. Grimes delivered an important speech in 1941 titled "The Attitude of Our Young People," primarily discussing the philosophical and attitudinal state of American youth leading up to World War II. Grimes argues that this generation developed a "philosophy of disbelief" and cynicism fueled by post-WWI literature, a new rationalist education system, and disillusioning political events like the Nye Committee and minor foreign wars. He critiques how youth focused on negative critiques—such as war profiteers and propaganda—and fostered a negative concept of peace as merely the absence of conflict. However, Grimes concludes on a hopeful note, asserting that while youth were initially slow to adapt, they were rapidly reconstructing their philosophy and developing a stronger, more honest morale, committed to building a better world for the next generation.

For a detailed podcast discussion on this speech, see here:

For a quick video summary see below:

The original speech text is provided below:

THE ATTITUDE OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE

By ALAN P. GRIMES, A. B., University of North Carolina

Recipient, Bryan Prize in Political Science

Delivered at the Institute of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, July 4, 1941

“THE true battleground of this war is the minds of

the young men." So spoke Archibald MacLeish recently.

You may talk about convoys to Britain, or

embargoes on Japan, or supplies to Russia, but far more

important than the battle of the Atlantic or the battle of the

Pacific is the battle that has been going on here at home. It

is our generation's fight for a new philosophy of life.

I would not agree with Mr. Louis Fischer when he

declared in his recent speech that American youth has bad

morale. Perhaps it was true a year ago, but certainly not

today. For any observer would agree that the sequence of

events over the last year has caused a decided change in the

thinking of our youth.

Our generation is suffering a very trying period. Not in

the field of action but in the field of thought, thought which

leads to and directs action. We have been brought up in a

period during which there has been an attempt at a new system of

education. It has been a sort of renaissance of rationalism, a so-called

realistic approach to life. Much of it we have been able to swallow,

but comparatively little of it have we been able to synthesize and think

over carefully. The present crisis came upon us, like so many others,

just a little too fast. We, American youth, thinking ourselves the advance

guard of liberalism, actually proved to be a few years behind

the times. For instance, we were still mulling over Walter

Millis's book, "The Road to War," which came out in 1935.

Most of us had failed to read his "Why Europe Fights."

Let us take the former book as an example. After the last

war, many writers and teachers felt that they knew the

answer to this problem of war in Europe and America's

place. This knowledge they casually passed on to us. And

our impressionable minds were only too eager to grasp

these easy solutions. "The Road to War" became an assigned

reading in most high school and college history courses.

When this war broke out, many American youths jumped at

the chance to apply their knowledge. At least they knew the

answer. When this war began, it was only too easy to draw

a parallel between this one and the last one. Lessons of

propaganda, as taught by Mr. Millis, became the watchword

of American youth.

To support this idea, we had been taught in psychology the

nature of emotions. Mob psychology became a fertile field

for research. Above all else, we must be rational. Now, we

no longer trusted the words, but even distrusted what may

have been between the words. Patriotism, we thought, was

a covering up of an ulterior purpose.

Senator Nye conducted his famous investigation of the

munitions industries in 1934. Besides propaganda, we chalked

up another term in our vocabulary: War Profiteers. Some-

how or other, war profiteers created wars, not Hitlers or

Mussolinis. Then the U. S. retreated to a position of neutrality.

But there are other factors that entered into this

re-birth of rationalism, rationalism in which we found our-

selves to be not so rational. Rationalism by its very nature

is dependent upon a highly critical attitude. And American

youth, faithfully following the footsteps of their instructors,

became highly critical. Oh yes, we became the most outspoken

critics of them all. In nothing, it seems to me, did we become

quite so adept, as at criticising. But unfortunately, our

criticising tended to be in only one direction. We attempted

to find out what was wrong in politics, economics, and the

social order. We failed to see what was right in the

world. And so, we developed a philosophy of disbelief,

of skepticism, a negative philosophy. Oh, we had a few

obscure ideals such as peace, social equality, but peace itself

means nothing unless you are willing to take the necessary steps

to achieve that peace. We became thinkers and

agitators but not very good actors in this pageant of life.

Thus we heartily argued for aid to China, sanctions on

Italy, aid to Spain against Franco. But where were we when

the test came, how did we argue on the aid to Britain question

at the beginning of this war?

I remember how so many of us jumped at the chance to

call this an imperialist war. While Hitler pursued his bloody

course across the continent, we were still back arguing about

propaganda and war profiteers. And if anyone suggested that

this was a war between Democracy and Fascism, there would

always be some youth to jump up and say, "How can Britain

be a democracy? Look at India and Ireland." Oh yes, we

knew all the negative features. But what was said of all

the innumerable democratic achievements of the British system?

We ignored them; they were positive arguments with

which we had little concern.

To aid us in this "rational" approach to life we were fully

supplied with the realistic novels of the past two decades.

We became intimately acquainted with the sordid slums,

workingman's rights, civil liberties and the like. Now I do

not condemn this literature as such, but a little learning is a

very dangerous thing. And a philosophy built on half-truths

and omissions, gives easy rise to half-baked ideas. The vociferous

disciples of disillusionment nurtured our philosophy

of disbelief. One by one our ideals tended to slip away.

Religion was first to go. We were concerned only with

materialistic values, and emotions and religion seemed too

closely bound together. Pragmatism became our philosophy,

our religion. Absolute values just didn't seem to fit into a

changing world.

A critical attitude demands a certain degree of skepticism.

But skepticism loses its entire constructive value when it

degenerates into cynicism. Our training made it only too

easy for us to lose a healthy skeptical attitude and to become

bogged in the morass of cynicism. And the curse of cynicism

is inaction. But there were many events that assisted us in

the formation of this attitude. First, our background of literature;

Remarque, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Faulkner, and

others, had given us a blind passion for peace. The peace at

any price idea became only too prevalent in this country a

few years ago. Then there was the sequence of minor wars,

trial balloons so to speak. When the first Sino-Japanese

war broke out in 1931, many high school and college papers

demanded sanctions or some such step to stop the aggressor.

I think, for the most part, youth was quite outspoken in the

Chinese cause. But so little was actually done by the large

powers that the episode fostered the growing spirit of disillusionment

among American youth. Even the American public seemed completely

unconcerned with the problem of war in Asia. The unemployment rate

rose while The Saturday Evening Post continued to "view with alarm"

government interference with the workingman's right to work. And

youth reacted by becoming increasingly cynical about this

capitalistic democracy. Mussolini gave the battle-cry and

Italians flowed into Ethiopia, while American oil flowed into

Italy. At home, disillusionment increased.

By the time World War Two came, the attitude among

American youth had been quite firmly established. Of course,

I am using youth in a very limited sense. I am thinking only

of those who were somehow out of gear with the rest of the

nation, whether as isolationists, pacifists, appeasers, or those

just indifferent to the whole crisis. This attitude may be

briefly summarized as consisting of the following points:

1. Loss of faith, lack of ideals, a completely materialistic

philosophy.

2. Cynicism. Youth was fearful of propaganda, emotions,

war profiteers.

3. A vague sense of humanitarianism. For example, aid

to China, aid to labor unions, etc. I say a vague sense of

humanitarianism because when the actual test came, when

the conflict came close at hand, youth balked, and paused to

think it over.

4. Fear of making a mistake. There was a widespread

feeling at the beginning of this war that we shouldn't move

too quickly for we might be making a serious mistake.

5. A misunderstanding of the word peace. Many youths,

reasoning in the negative manner, felt peace was a mere

absence of war, of open conflict. Few thought then of the

positive nature of peace. The love of peace meant only peace

in the negative sense.

6. An economic interpretation of history. Not in the

strictly Marxist sense, but in a fashion which places a

premium on economic motives, to which all other motives

are subordinate.

Fortunately, there has been a considerable change of opinion

among American youth. The change has been slow, much

too slow. But it is very difficult to discard at a word, ideas

which have developed throughout the most impressionable

period of your life. Before we were able to start learning,

there was a great deal of unlearning to be done. And I can

assure you, it was not an easy task for most of us. We have

been accused of being a soft generation, of being conspicuous

by our self-concern and lack of moral fiber. But remember,

we did not grow up in a world devoid of ideas. Nor did we

initiate these ideas previously mentioned. We merely adopted

them, thinking them valid. Our generation may have been

the pupils, but which generation were the teachers? In all

fairness, I think you must admit that our generation has

shown a greater degree of intellectual honesty than some of

our more outspoken national figures. We have faced the

issue squarely, and are rapidly reconstructing our philosophy.

We are only too aware of what Mr. MacLeish says when

he states that the battleground of this war is the minds of the

young men. For many years the propaganda of nihilism has

found a foothold in our minds. Before fighting nihilism from

without, we must first be masters of our minds.

I cannot close without a comment upon our morale. Mr.

Louis Fischer charged the other night that, "The attitude of

our young people towards the war is one of bored resignation.

Dull, pained acceptance of the government's policy is more

characteristic of the young American generation than the

passionate support or an eager desire to fulfill a mission."

Yes, perhaps it was true a year ago. But I think it is a

most unfair generalization to make today. I believe that the

morale of the large majority of our youth is considerably

stronger than most people realize. It is not manifested in

blind patriotism, but it is strong, very strong because we have

a fervent desire to do for the next generation what was not

done for us. It is our hope to hand down to our children a

far better world, and with it a far better philosophy of life

than was handed down to us. This is our mission, as well

as our challenge.