<論説>氣候馴化論の学史的背景 : 十九世紀末葉に於ける当論研究の目的

Abstract

気候馴化論の学史的背景は凡そ三時期を劃して考へられる。第一期は十九世紀中葉で気候馴化てふ語辞とその研究が仏国で創始され専らアルゼリア植民政策の具とされた。第二期は本稿に取扱ふ十九世紀末葉に属する。マルサス的エピゴーネン達は欧州過剰人口を熱帯に指向けんとて当論研究を要請し、又時代思潮たる帝国主義下に実現した世界勢力均衡への脅威を気候馴化能力に秀でたる蒙古民族の素質に見出す時、黄禍論の展開が見られ、欧洲民族の中にかかる素質者を仮想する時、アフリカは勢力均衡の支撐点と迄考へられるに到つた。欧洲の世界的膨脹が欧洲民族の気候馴化詣力を考慮せざる政治経済的基底に立つものであつたが故である。かかる交に於いて当論研究が真摯に取上げられた。第三期は第一次世界大戦後に属し世界人に收容力及び世界食糧問題の渦巻く中に行はれたことは既に見た。

The history of the background of the acclimatization theory may be divided into three stages. In the first stage (middle of the XIX century) the term acclimatization was coined by French scholars, and theorizing and researches were developed, and the theory became an instrument of developing France's colonial policy in Algeria. The second stage with which the author deals in the present article was the closing years of the XIX century, when the followers of Malthus tried to develop the acclimatization thoery with a view to solving the problem of surplus population in Europe by emigration to the African Continent. "Yellow Peril" was cried, when a menace to the balance of power among the imperialist conutries was though to be found in the progress of the Mongoloid race who are capable of acclimatizing themselves easily. Those who claimed the possibility of acclimatization of the white race became to think that the future of the balance-of-power. principle depended upon the African Continent. This was dus to the fact that worldwide expansion of the European race was based on the political and economic basis without taking their capacity for acclimatization into consideration. In such circumstances was taken up the study of the acclimatization theory. The third stage falls on the period after World War I, when the theory was discussed in connection with the problem of the world's capacity for supporting population as well as with the food problem. was a failure. What was, then, the fundamental cause of the failure? The author finds it in antagonism within the empire in '71, i.e., the antagonism between Bismarck's policy on the one hand and social and economic forces associated with the Great Germany Principle as well as with provincialism supported by Catholics and others. In a word, the Germany of that period seems to have not yet become a really unified nation free from provincialism. The author is opposed to regarding Bismarck's "culture struggle" as a failure in his policy, because it was no less than an inevitable event as the result of changes in his policy in general. The author concludes that the greatness of the German statesman may be seen rather in his strategy in making his "culture strategy" terminate in a failure in appearance.