In February of 1901 Mark Twain published an essay under this title criticizing the behavior of some Western nations. Twain's Persons Sitting in Darkness were those in China, the Philippines and elsewhere to whom the forces of Europe and the United States claimed they were bringing what Twain called the "Blessings of Civilization.” It is a brilliant work of satire; I encourage everyone to read it.

We have today a large contingent of Persons Sitting in Darkness—in our own otherwise well-lit country—who have put entirely too much faith in an "enlightened” minority of self-important and self-interested busybodies, with predictably mixed results.

I have written the following in a spirit of admiration for the great author of the original. Not only is my version an imitation of his style, but I have included words and whole sentence fragments from the original wherever possible.

Some of the original phrasing was changed in order to conform to more modern figures of speech, but these changes are few and merely technical. Had I been in the enviable position of proofreading Mark Twain’s essay for publication in 1901, I would not have changed a word of it.

*****

Extending the blessings of Progress to the People Who Sit in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money and power in it yet, if carefully worked. But we have been playing it badly of late, and have suffered for it; we may suffer more for it in the future.

The Blessings-of-Progress Trust, wisely and cautiously administered, is a daisy. There is more money and political power in it than any other game that is played. It has always been thus.

Until recently we have played the game well, and profited by it immensely; played the game without letting on that a game is being played. Some of the People Who Sit in Darkness may have suspected that a game was on; some fewer of them might have been sure of it; but only a few—a very few—could comprehend the depth and breadth of the game; even fewer—far fewer—could explain their suspicions readily to the others Who Sit in Darkness. And that is well.

But lately the People Who Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them, or profitable for us. We have been injudicious.

Some of the People who Sit in Darkness have noticed the game; they have noticed it, and have begun to show alarm. They have become suspicious of the blessings of Progress. More, they have begun to examine those blessings carefully. This is not well. The blessings of Progress are all right, and a good political property. In the right kind of light, and at a proper distance, with the goods a little out of focus, they furnish a desirable exhibit to Those Who Sit in Darkness:

Prosperity, Equality, Justice, Fairness, Unity; and a delightful variety of freedoms: Freedom From Poverty and Want, Freedom From Racism, Freedom From Sexism, Freedom from Responsibility—freedoms, freedoms, freedoms from cradle to grave.

Is it good? Oh, it is dandy. It will bring into camp any idiot who sits in darkness anywhere. It is a collection of words guaranteed to bring him in. But the collection must be presented properly. It is vital to be emphatic upon that point. Those words are the pretty and attractive cover of the whole project, and must be presented as if they were the whole project, and not just the book jacket.

Some of the players of the game had become too confident. The game having gone so much in our favor until recently, they became clumsy and careless, presenting the actual inside pages of the thing—playing the game with the cover off. It shows that some players of the game were not sufficiently acquainted with it.

The game must be played with subtlety; the brand must be presented carefully, craftily, tactfully. We must be sure that the rules of the game are observed, and the brand presented in the light best suited to it. A dim light.

We have been clever in our use of words, and must continue to use words with care—in ways that don’t illuminate much. Take the word Prosperity. It is a fine word; nobody objects to it. The game dictates that it must continue to conform to our definition of it. It is not necessary to acknowledge that the word may represent a multiplicity of concepts, depending on the point of view of the audience. Such details only confuse the People Sitting in Darkness, and might lead them to examine and consider points of view not in our favor. Multiple points of view are anathema to Progress—our brand of Progress.

Are there differences between the meanings of the words Prosperity, Equality, Justice, Fairness, Unity and Freedom when we say them, and when some others say them? In some of the details, yes. But it is not necessary to burden the People Who Sit in Darkness with those other ones. Not necessary, and bad for business. We must keep the language marching alongside on a short leash.

 There is the matter of this other thing: of speaking too clearly when obfuscation would provide better and more pleasing service. One of our spokesmen—at the time, the most well-known spokesman—adopted the habit of expressing a thing in unequivocal terms, when equivocation was more suitable: he began going out among the People Who Sit in Darkness promising such-and-such, “period.”

That was bad play, that “period.” Bad, and unnecessary. He could have left it off, and gotten the desired result without it. Having been caught out, he constructed excuses out of materials so inadequate and so fanciful that they made the gallery laugh. (His successors are yet trying to persuade the People Who Sit in Darkness that his promise still has a sort of dim, vague believability about it somewhere, if only they could have a chance to start over and phrase it differently.)

It is among many instances of bad play—very bad. For it exposes Those Who Sit in Darkness to discomfort, and they say: "What! Promises made over and over and not kept? Is this a case of Prosperity, Justice and all the rest?”

And this… we introduced to the electorate an example of what was a fine law, in our opinion. It was crafted in a hurry, yes—but that haste represented, on the outside cover, at least, a frenzy of concern for the People Who Sit in Darkness. The law was good, in some of the details; the intention of the law was the finest part of it. When questions arose about any of the other aspects of the law, we referred to the intention of it; and the anxieties of the People Who Sit in Darkness were calmed, mostly.

Some of the details of the manufacturing process were unpleasant in some respects, as is usual; the packaging was at variance in some particulars with the actual contents, but that is customary.

But then we had one of the foremen of the manufacturing line speaking too plainly about how the law was made, and how it was packaged for sale and consumption. The foreman said that we knew the law was one thing but said it was another; that rather than benefit all, the law would only benefit a few—maybe—at the expense of the rest; that it would cost nothing, while it would cost a great deal; and that the manufacturers and salespeople of the law have a poor opinion of the People Who Sit in Darkness.

Here the foreman betrayed the game by revealing that the Blessings-of-Progress Sausage Factory has a bright, cheerful exterior, but that the interior is a grim and unsavory place worthy of ill repute; that there were certain ingredients in the sausage that could bear close inspection, and some best left off the ingredient list; that there were certain claims printed on the wrapper of the finished product that were a true representation of the contents, and some that were not; and that there was one attitude toward the customer that always shone in the advertisements, and another that was keep hidden.

This is bad—very bad. This is more playing the game with the cover off. The People Who Sit in Darkness heard such plain speech and were troubled. They asked themselves, “Is this Progress? Is this law something better than we already possessed? Is it an improvement? Is it perhaps possible that there are two kinds of Progress—one for our consumption, and some other kind?”

And there is this: we have spent more money than all the kings who ever ruled the earth, from antiquity right down to the present day—all those kings put together. We have scattered our agents throughout the land, laden with glittering sackfuls of money acquired from the People Who Sit in Darkness. Our agents have flung great gobs of it into one place, and another, and another, with a sprightly hope that it might take root and grow into something pleasant, by and by. 

The results have been disappointing; for they show that we have squandered those vast sums just as foolishly—we admit it—as if we had shoveled it into huge furnaces, and with approximately the same result: a bit of smoke, a fair amount of heat, and nothing else. Well, nothing but Prosperity—a kind of prosperity, at least: political prosperity—for those of us who play the game.

They Who Sit in Darkness began to muse upon this, and were of course likely to say: “Progress is gracious and beautiful, for such is its reputation; but can we afford it? Is this not rapacity and extortion followed by appalling waste? Can we stand Progress at so great a cost? Is this yet another parade put on by the Blessings-of-Progress Trust, with its banner of Prosperity fluttering before it, and its banners of Costs and Regulations hidden in the rear?”

For the sake of the Business we must persuade the Person Sitting in Darkness to look at such matters in another and healthier way in the future. We must get back to arranging his opinions for him. I believe it can be done, for we have done it before. Some have suggested that we should present some of the facts, and show those confiding people what those facts mean, as we see them.

I have a bolder plan. Since so much has been said that cannot be unsaid, and so much revealed that cannot be hidden again, I propose that we present the whole of the facts, shirking none, then explain them according to our preferences. This daring truthfulness will astonish and dazzle the Person Sitting in Darkness, and he will take the explanation down before his mental vision has had time to get back into focus. Let us say to him:

“Our case is simple. We had the best of intentions, mostly. We wanted to provide things for you that you would find pleasing, and make promises that you wanted to hear. At first we were careful not to promise too much; but we quickly saw that you treasured our promises as if they were real things, and not just blather; you wanted more and grander promises still—which we provided.

“We raised an army of bureaucrats—ostensibly to help the people, and in the interest of Progress. We knew you supposed that we were fighting in your worthy causes, and we allowed you to go on thinking so; indeed we believed it ourselves, in the beginning; then we were pretty sure we believed it; then we suspected that we didn’t believe it, but we were not troubled much by that suspicion.

“We told you we fought shoulder to shoulder with you against "the common enemy" (our own phrase); praised you, petted you, lied to you a little (for your own good), told you that we came to give you the Progress you thought you wanted: Progress unencumbered by skeptics and dissenters. We clinched every opportunity, and played the game as adroitly as anyone has.”

(At this point in our frank statement of fact to the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should throw in a little more trade-taffy about Prosperity, Equality, Justice, Fairness, Unity and all the rest. It will also be well, somewhere along in here, to boast a little of our hard work and heroism on their behalf, so as to make our performance look as fine as possible; but I believe it will not be best to emphasize this too much. We must be cautious.)

We must coax the Person Sitting in Darkness, and coddle him, and assure him that the ways of Progress are always best, and that it would not become him to find fault with the results. Having now laid all the facts before the Person Sitting in Darkness, we  should say to him:

“Some of our accomplishments may look doubtful, but in reality they are not. There have been untruths, yes; but they were told in a good cause. We have been treacherous—a bit; but that was only in order that real good might come out of our ministrations—real good as we define it.”

“As to our promises… we promised to hold back the oceans and heal the planet, and you cheered. We promised to fulfill the wants and needs of every one of you at no cost or effort, and you shouted for joy. We promised to “fundamentally transform” the nation, and you rallied to our side without requiring any specifics as to what burdens that transformation would entail, and what the final outcome would be. We promised to make our country a friend to its enemies through the power of our soothing words, and you approved in a most hearty way.

“We made you happy—deliriously happy—for a while; and it was good.

“Some of our promises remain unfulfilled, yes. We came up short at home—very short, we may admit, in some cases. We showed craven weakness abroad, and debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world. But in no detail could it be proven that anyone else would have done better at the time. Suggested, yes—but not proven.

“We live today in difficult times, but our chance will come again. Our delightful accumulation of high principles cannot do a wrong thing, an unfair thing, an ungenerous thing. Give yourself no uneasiness; it is all right."

Now then, that will convince the Person Sitting in Darkness. You will see. It will restore the Business, by and by. It will give the Business a splendid new start.