Britain, Bombs and Bad Temper

I have no intention of following "E.W." in his bull-like rampage about the landscape of Imperialism (your Issue of June 15th). while he tramples underfoot the old school [unclear: tie] which he quite gratuitously, introduces to help make a Wellington holiday. I made three points and three only: that Britain warned the objects of military bombings, that there was considerable opposition to this policy in Britain, and that the fact that such a policy was openly discussed was a sign of freedom of opinion. I ventured to suggest that these conditions might be placed to Britain's credit. That was all I said, and the position of negroes in the West Indies or forced labour in Kenya has no more to do with it than the shape of Mr. Eden's hat. I did not condone the bombing. I did not say or imply anything about "[unclear: niggahs]." and "E.W's." suggestion to the contrary is simply a stupid and very offensive assumption. I am pretty familiar with the darker side of British Imperialism: I was reading and writing about it probably before "E.W." was [gap — reason: illegible][unclear: n]. Britain may be a villain, but [gap — reason: illegible] villains are entitled to justice, and all I did was to suggest mildly a direction In which Justice could be applied. "If 'A.M.' can think with any honesty on fundamental issues. . . ." How familiar this style of argument is! It is like a caste mark.