To the Editor of the "Crimson":

It is unfortunate, I believe, to see such an eminent historian as Professor Langer, fall below his usual standard of clear-thinking in his recent article on "The Revival of Imperialism" appearing in the March Issue of the "Harvard Guardian". Professor Langer says, that "it has been shown over and over again and proved to the hilt with statistics that colonies are not a paying proposition." Does Professor Langer or anybody else suppose that colonies would be sought, and when acquired, maintained, if they were NOT paying propositions? Does anybody hang on to a hot potato, if it is burning his hand? Nations DO get something, and enough, from their colonies, so that they will hang on to them. Somebody gets the gold, or somebody gets the trade, or somebody gets the glory, or somebody gets a good naval base, etc.; and generally, while a select few pocket the pickings, we know who pays the heavy taxation to maintain the military establishment. Professor Langer may quote all the statistics he can get, and I still won't believe him.

Another thing; I believe that Professor Langer, by applying the 1898 concept of "Imperialism" to modern Italy, is grossly misleading. I don't believe it is imperialism at all that we are witnessing in the Italy of today. It is something quite different; and the correct description of what is might be "The Revival of Idealism". Mussolini and Italy are closer to Napoleon and the French Revolution. We are witnessing, in Italy's African campaigns, the first adventure of the Myth State, which has really as its basis, not the quest for raw materials, as was so in the imperialism of the last century, but the quest for glory, power, and the exaltation of the spirit. The revival, if any, is not as to imperialism, but as to the concept of the Spartan or disciplined State. I think that Professor Langer should rewrite his article. Alfred Nittle '36