Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25, No. 10. 1962.

Letters

Letters

We Protest

Sir,—Your editorial of June 18 endeavours to emphasise the sanctity of human life.

While in no way agreeing with you but respecting your right to propogate your views (however wrong) it appears necessary that one or two points should be brought to attention.

Firstly it is difficult to believe that the "we" of "we protest" included all the students of VUW.

Secondly your editorial in its layout follows the pattern of Emile Zola's "I Accuse," a noble document seeking Justice for an innocent man and containing an eloquent plea directed to stirring the conscience of mankind

Your editorial could not have been linked with a more unworthy subject and in this you evidenced a lack of judgment and damaged the cause which you espouse.

Eichmann was a very guilty person who in his early days was nurtured in a Christian home and was indoctrinated with Christian ethical values.

Dreyfus wasn't. This innocent man was indicted and convicted by those who were in view of this the format of your editorial was perhaps unwarranted and showed a lack of appreciation and tact.—Yours etc.

I. B. Harris

Letters

Letters

Sir, the Eichmann editorial which emblazoned the front page of the last issue of Salient, deserves comment.

Its headline "We Protest", was to say the least, ambiguous. The use of the front page for such an article constituted a distortion in editorial format. Nevertheless, it is the content of the article with which I am most seriously concerned.

The protest was based on two assertions:—
1.That human life is inviolable.
2.That the execution of Eichmann was a symptom of the Israeli's primeval revenge instinct.

The sanctitiy of human life is a reasonable judgment for any man to have. As an absolute through which all political and social issues must be viewed it is extremely shaky and almost impossible to apply. Nevertheless, I can grant that a man may assert this absolute as long as he asserts it consistently.

Where were the articles about N.Z.'s abolition of capital punishment, the discussions of the principles involved in Eichmann's execution during the length of his trial, protest at the execution of innocents in "rape" cases in the American south, the attack on status which can only exist by having the death penalty incorporated into their legal system? Surely while men are being executed, Eichmann, with his tally of 6 million, was a reasonable candidate?

The execution was not an example of the application of the revenge instinct. Even if it had been, this would hardly be a reasonable basis for attack. A member of any race conscious of his group identity which had undergone the horrible and bestial treatment to which the Jewish was subjected under Nazi-ism, and under continual pressure from racial persecution, whether actual or implied would hardly be human if he did not feel some stirring of revenge feelings.

Moreover it is my assertion that the decision to try Eichmann was a political one, to execute him a legal one. These two are distinct, and it is only the first which is open to examination as to motive. The motives which prompted Ben Gurion to try Eichmann were those: to re-enact the atrocities of Nazi-ism, so as to show the world where anti-semitism can and, to show the new generation in Germany and other countries the evils of Fascism to enable young Jewry to identify themselves with the victims.

The new generation in Israel is reported d to generally have felt shame at the apparent ease with which the Jews succumbed to the Nazis rather than sympathise with them. To arouse their sympathy in the interests of national solidarity was undoubtedly one of the prime motives for the long public trial.

One may be critical of Ben Gurion's assessment of the issues involved and of the decision to try Eichmann. However, think it is pointless to criticise a statesman in the void, for not acting like an advanced moralist or genial monk. It is quite clear anyway that this decision can not be classified as one inspired solely by the dictates of primeval revenge instincts.

As to whether Eichmann should or should not have been executed, this car, also be more meaningfully discussed : as a question of policy rather than principle. As a policy decision, the Israel: State can be criticised for it but not condemned. One may assert that it was not in the best interests of Israel to kill Eichmann.

As a matter of principle, there are several important questions to be settled before discussion can proceed. The question of capital punishment the question of free will and conditioning for instance. Most important of all, the question of bureaucratic responsibility of how far the bureaucrat's abdication of the whole can be tolerated.

These are questions which you did not attempt to raise.—Yours etc.,

Con O'Leary

Sir,—You may be Protesting against the taking of life, but the effect is that of a Protest For Eichmann—and so for anti-semitism and genocide. Then indeed his trial has "not benefited human society."

Will you Protest if Salan after all receives a death sentence? But why did you not Protest on every day of this year up till June, when every day innocent Algerians were killed by Salan's men? Without trial, without warning, counted by us only in numbers. These nameless, helpless, innocent deaths are the ones that cry for the protection of democratic opinion and human decency.

You Protest for Eichmann. Granted—we untouched people hate to look on while one small human being, shrivelled in the light of the world publicity, faces alone (or almost . . .) the stem faces of his accusers, the long list of almost incredible accusations, the shrieks and tears of bruised memories.

You are not old enough to Protest for 'the six million victims of Eichmann and the Nazi State machine. But it is absurd to think of Eichmann's death merely or mainly, as revenge. Revenge, in Itself is barren as only a contagious disease can be, Six million Eichmann still could not wipe out six millions' suffering that WAS, and is still part of older peoples' lives and memories.

What matters is the future, and the future is yours. What matters is that such millionfold tragedies should be banished from our human future, which is yours. But even while Eichmann's trial was reminding the world of this, a parallel kind of tragedy was, as you see, being enacted in Algeria. Not millionfold this time perhaps, but hundredfold and thousandfold. Would you have the right to Protest Salan's death when you have not protested those of his victims?

And the tragedy could be millionfold in your time. Eichmann's main line of defence for his efficient administration of the Nazi slaughter-machinery was that he merely obeyed orders. Today we are all of us (including Giles!) aware that this is no excuse if in your time some little human Eichmann "obeys orders" and presses the button that starts a nuclear war it is very probable that none of you will be left alive to Protest that he should live.

I am not arguing, of course, that tragedy is worse merely by reason of quantity. Each individual is precious to each of us. The more so because each of us, everywhere, must one day die. But it is just because we realise the inevitability of everyday tragedy that we struggle to prevent the huge unnecessary catastrophes that leave the living (like Eichmann) perverted, that warp men's characters and scar men's minds.

We must think our actions through to logical conclusions in human terms. Your We Protest recalls of course as you must be aware, the J'Accuse of Zola and Clemenceau and Anatole France. But Zola risked his all to rescue one small victim from bureaucracy, the bureaucracy of courts which travestied justice to protect a government's name. You are Protesting for the bureaucrat who, in the name of a ruthless government helped to encompass the deaths of millions of such small innocent Dreyfus victims—and went to his death unrepentant.—Yours etc.,

Ruth Lake

The Good and Bad of Criticism

Sir,—First I must take the opportunity of congratulating you on the fine quality of your paper's Fine Arts Section, there is, indeed, some excellent criticism to be found in your columns.

However I must protest against a recent (June 5) record review by R. Maconie.

Editorial

Was the heading "Clarity at All Costs" meant to be ironic?

If the subject of the review — Stravinsky — really is a model of clarity, then in Mr Maconie's own words "he would probably resent it (the article) as much as I do" Perhaps the paragraph heading "Guff" best sums up the import of the article.

"A lot of guff is written in reviews of Stravinsky," says your reviewer, and in the rest of his article he endeavours, with notable success, to continue in that tradition.

I have never read such guff in all my life as: "Low register basoon passages, punctuated by brass chords pianissimo which are so deep that one strains down with one's whole body to accommodate them."

If Mr Maconie is trying to rupture himself, I would say ho has every chance of success; at least, if he finally succeeds, we will be spared any more of such fantastic dribble.

I sincerely hope sir, that we will not be subjected again to such frenzied ramblings.

If Mr Maconie wants to indulge in such perilous physical practices in the secrecy of his own home, by all means allow him to do so; but as to the publication of such peculiar musical on forbid it, Sir. please!

Mr Maconie ought to study the style of Messrs Everard and Evans if he wishes to achieve clarity. these two critics (and it is exceptional that a University newspaper should have Arts and Cinema critics of such calibre and outside recognition as yourself and these two gentlemen) have the capacity to use their command of English to the full and delight the reader accordingly.—Yours etc.,

James Fulford.

Language Requirement

Sir,—In the days of progressive education there remains one ludicrous anomally. The requirement of a foreign language for an Arts degree can upset the planning of study. In a system where the average student cannot pass at least three units per year, an extra half unit can cause extra delay in attaining the degree.

Further, the so called half units often require as much work as a full unit. We may question the motives of the present system. If the idea is instilling culture, then there are other ways of achieving this.

I suggest that students be able to study Greek History, etc., if they have no interest in taking a language. Such a move might eliminate some of the failures that the authorities are sweating Over.—

Yours, etc, R. J. Bromby

From The Left

Sir,—We are a number of independent students including some left-wingers who to protest at Mr Maxwell's column "View from the Left." Though we do not question Mr Maxwell's to have a column we most emphatically question his right to become the self-appointed spokesman of the left.

His odd compilation of gossip with unfounded and almost McCarthy-type assertion grossly maligns not only the left but any independents and radicals who consider there are bad defects in our societies alms and attitudes. It is a pity that Mr Maxwell does not follow his cynic's practice and introduce facts and figures into his writing. One would think that a student who has been hero on and oil since 19S1 would have a more mature approach and a greater [unclear: depict] of understanding of social and political problems and happenings. Parts of his column indeed are so nasty and small-minded as to nauseate any person who sets value on objective thinking and reasoned discussion.

To quote:

1. "Persistent rumour . . . that he (Governor-General) has bought cars at factory price with overseas funds and sold them al handsome profit."

The writer then suggests that the Government should take action to squash the rumour. Perhaps the best way would be to prosecute Mr Maxwell for publishing a criminal libel.

2. What a fine bouquet of left-handed compliments ho finds for Mr Hackett.

"Colourless uninspired and unprepossessing" . . . Neither has he (Mr Hackett not Mr Maxwell) impressed thorn (Parliament). The Deputy Leader also by Implication lacks ability and intelligence

Ono hopes that his party hierarchy will not take disciplinary action against Mr Maxwell for belittling the deputy loader of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Finally, the paragraph headed "Back Stabbing." This is more startling for the ignorance it reveals than for the information it imparts. The press reactions to Menses' and Marshall's visits and statements were at best tolerant and at worst irritated by the pair's interference and concern. At this stage it is likely that Mr Marshall can do anything more than the permanent officials are already doing In fact, it is a typical political gesture beloved of both parties, one that creates an Illusion that the government is being active and enterprising when it is mere sound and fury signifying nothing.

We cannot consider Mr Maxwell as of the "Left." It is not in talking about happenings that are far away and which we can only marginally effect but it is rather in the day to day problems of the University that we can truly see whether a person is "Led" or any kind of radical. Mr Maxwell has failed dismally here, for ho has not taken a radical line himself. But ho almost always supported in autocratic and right-wing Executive; its actions and policy.

We ask that the column be renamed so that Mr Maxwell is no longer able to suggest that he has the confidence of the Loft, or to masquerade as its spokesman.—Yours, etc.

G. V. Butterworth,

M. C Rowlands.

J. F. Turner.

D. S. Tossman,

Joseph Fliegner.

W. Dwyer.

On reply:—To paraphrase Harold Laski, we are all good leftists. Mr Dwyer in his own way, others in a leftist way.—Val Maxwell.'

Sir,—Much as I might desire the existence of a revolutionary situation "at this University at the moment," I have had sufficient experience of such occasions to appreciate that the possibility does not appear even a remote one. Although I can understand Mr Maxwell confusing revolutionary individuals with such a situation I cannot accept that he is entitled in any way to speak for the Left.

It is typical of the pseudo View from the Left" that the Communists should be represented as the extreme Left. My understanding of the Loft is a revolutionary, progressive movement battling for a new and better social order and having for its inspiration the much-abused, sadly betrayed principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

While it is true that the Communist Party has masqueraded under their auspices in its efforts to grasp power, It is oven more tragically apparent that, on be coming the government, the Party destroys Liberty for the individual, perverts Equality in the erection of a Now Class and substitutes a spy-infested ruthless police state for Fraternity.

Mr Maxwell's Ideology Is far from clear. But whether he speaks for the decayed Labour Party or the state capitalist Communist Party ho will still find himself in the same camp with the conservative and reactionary parties—those selfish, stupid and oppressive elements of the Right.—Yours etc.,

W. Dwyer

Sir,—I am pleased to see that Mr Dwyer has changed his mind as to whether or not a revolutionary situation exists at this university.

It is accepted practice to include the Communist Party in the pantheon of the Loft, although it has long forfeited this honour.

My political position should be clear to any intelligent reader of this column. Unless my wife has paid my subscription I am not a member of the "decayed Labour Party," neither am I a member of the "national capitalist Communist Party." The only political groups to which I belong are the Socialist Club and Socialist Forum.—Yours etc.

Val. Maxwell