Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 38, Number 10. 22nd May 1975

Letters

page 19

Letters

Letters can be handed in at the letterbox just inside the SALIENT office or handed in to the editor personally. However if you wish to pay 4c postage then send your letters to PO Box 1347, Wellington. Letters should be double spaced and on one side of the paper only. We'll print just about anything you send in except we can't print libellous material.

Letters header

Reply To Ross Delaney

Dear Brace,

In reply to Ross Delaney ('How Others feel' 29 April) various points should be made.

Firstly, while applauding Ross's humanitarian feelings I think he has misunderstood what I said at SRC My point was that if one country is devastating another there can be no neutral position. By not supporting the peoples of Indochina one is conceeding the United States the right to interfere in their affairs. In practice, then, this position comes down to much the same thing as openly supporting the US: there is a contradiction between tow's 'I'm not pro-American Imperialism' and wishing to abstain.

Secondly, Ross writes 'I don't bloody support anybody who goes around knocking off innocent people and I think its fucking morally disgraceful for any bastard to do so'. Very much agreed — but is this an accurate picture of what is going on in Indochina at the moment? Despite the compulsive lies of Ford, Kissinger and the State Department (who said some time ago that one million South Vietnamese were marked be assassination)) it is clear that there have been no mass executions on the scale of those carried out by Thieu or his mates. The liberation fighters won in the face of American military might because of their great support from the people of Indochina — would this be so if they were callous killers? I think not.

If Ross's point on knocking off innocent people refers to the war, then I suggest he direct hit very proper anger at the people responsible for the war, the Americans, not at those justly fighting to gain independence for their country and freedom from foreign domination.

Thirdly, I quite agree with Ross's comments on the arrogance of some speakers at the meeting, and his criticism of the 'loudest mouths' is reasonably sound. However, I suggest that referring to these people as 'coons', 'idiots', 'old core of mediocrity' etc does not help matters much.

Finally, in reply to 'I see your policies as narrow-minded and the SRC meetings as platforms for minority egotistical aspirations'. If those of us who do attend SRC are narrow-minded and egotistical, then that is certainly something to be struggled against However, from the meetings to far this year, I think there has been tome attempt to analyse problems of a wider perspective and to suggest methods of attacking them, from honest concern and not from a desire to ego-trip.

I hope Ross Delaney will be prepared to attend more SRCs — many of his criticisms could be of considerable use in ensuring SRC represents students better.

Anthony Ward.

Cafe Prices Intolerable

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my concern as regards the recent increase in food prices in the ground floor cafeteria. I am perhaps labouring under a misconception when I say that it was my impression that the cafeteria was subsidized out of Student Association funds. If the cafeteria is subsidized I would like to know the reasons behind these increases which bring prices up to the level of those charged downtown. It is about time the SRC adopted a more responsible Outlook and provided for the needs of the students instead of wasting funds on causes sponsored by the elitist minority in power. Students, supposedly short of finance, do not pay ISO a year to see it squandered on donations and handouts to, in the main, useless causes. Improve the conditions for those within the university or refund our money!

Yours faithfully,

S.P. Mark.

A Simple Request of the Vice-chancellor

Dear Bruce,

Could I ask, thru the good services of your paper, the Vice-Chancellor to confirm or deny a scurrilous rumour which a little birdy told me; to wit, that the Victoria University of Wellington Budget is .... Confidential. Having been brought face-to-face with harsh reality by my birdy friend I endeavoured (naturally) to procure a copy of said Budget for myself. At length efforts were rewarded and I now possess (thru fair means not foul, I believe), a xeroxed copy of the 1975 VUW Budget. However, what intrigues me still it why this mess of almost unintelligible gobbledegook book-keeping is ... Confidential. My suspicions lead me to suspect that either a) D.B.C Taylor (Vice-Chancellor) and him cohorts X,Y,Z and C pass suffer from that modem bureaucratic disease Maxwell Smart /Brig. Gilbertian Paralysis of the filing cabinet (symptomised by a fervent desire to keep whatever isn't already widely known from becomming so); or b) that some of the contents of the Budget are highly controversial and would disturb the peace of the populace.

The former case seems, to me, the more likely, as such things as the f $5,500 set aside for Remuneration of Sir John Marshall at Visiting fellow for 1976 (Pg. 2, item B12), the peculiarities of the recurrent nature of the so-called Non-Recurring Grants (refer Pg.9), the $2,000 budgeted for the Commonwealth Vice-Chancellors fund (Pg. 9) or the staff/student ratios (Pgs.16—18 incl.) which reveal that the Arts faculty has a consistently high ratio while the Science faculty has a consistently low ratio, would, I feel, be of interest only to those students interested in their University.

I would greatly appreciate an effort to get answers from the Vice-Chancellor, Chancellor, or other appropriate filing cabinet, and publication of the outcome of such an enquiry.

I am, yours in anticipation,

Bryan Mulligan.

Reply To Cowles

Dear Sir,

I would just like to correct some of the misconceptions that John Cowles appears to be suffering from as regards the Christchurch Bursaries meeting. If Mr. Cowles had read the article in 'Socialist Action' carefully he ought have noticed that nowhere in that article was it claimed that we were the only people pushing for a demonstration but rather that we initiated a call for a march. We did this by putting forward a motion at the AGM calling for an ad hoc committee to be set up to organise a demonstration on March 26.

Perhaps Mr. Cowles should check if his source of information is talking about the right meeting, as at the meeting which I attended over half of those present clearly were in favour of a march being organised later. Or maybe it could be that Mr. Cowles does not feel that people raising their hands in agreement with what I proposed comes under his idea of responding positively. A third possibility is that hit contacts were confused by the two 'straw votes' that were held, both of which were concerned to some extent about marches.

One final! possibility that occurred to me is that Mr. Cowles it not used to factual objectivity in reporting and so he has decided to spend quite some time to try to discredit it. This would explain why although he has spent over half a column attacking 'Socialist Action' without actually being able to discredit anything in the article it attacks. Whatever the reasons for Mr. Cowles inaccuracies I would just suggest that he sorts a few facts out and use those before he bothers to launch smear campaigns.

Yours,

A. F. Ericson,

Christchurch Young Socialists.

Instrumentalism

Dear Sir,

Your editorial defending Salient's policy on arts reviews smacks of that kind of instrumentalism which requires that art should illustrate stereotyped political ideas. The implications contained in your editorial are hardly original — facist-minded citizens and dictatorial politicians of many persuasions adhere to theories of instrumentalism: i.e. art it excellent when it illustrates officially proclaimed goals; it must never be 'negative' except in dealing with hostile or competitive social systems.

Despite your personal prejudices on this matter, the chief goal of art criticism is understanding — readers seek from art criticism a way of looking at art objects which will yield the maximum of knowledge about their meanings and merits. A good art review should reveal information about the art work to the reader, and furthermore should inform the reader how that information about a work is related to its excellence. At its best, Marxist thought can be convincing in its explanations of the social relations between creators and users of art, but it tends to be unsatisfactory in the formulation of criteria of artistic excellence. Marxism also encourages the critic to seek out the social, moral, or psychological purposes art may serve. It emphasises the legitamacy of art related to the dominant concerns of life and thus acts as a corrective to the artistic tendency to become excessively involved with purely technical problems. Unfortunately, Salient's naive 'Marxist' reviewers are hardly capable of criticism of that calibre for they insist that art should represent scenes of mass class struggle, the impoverishment of the masses under capitalism, the heroism of workers, and so on. Indeed, Salient's 'Marxist' critic's arts reviews embody the most vulgar application of instrumentalism, and thus do much harm in undermining the true value of Marxist analysis. Moreover, these mealy-mouthed 'reviews' are an insult to the intelligence of even your most uninformed readers.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Griffiths.

(It is interesting to see what the points I made in my editorial look like when turned upside down.

Firstly, on the question of instrumentalism. If you are the expert you claim to be on marxism and art you will realise that what I said is the opposite of what you have described as instrumentalism. I said that all art, whether it wants to be or not, is political I tried to describe in my editorial the different ways in which art is political — you seem to have missed those points. Now, given that artists are pushing politics when they push their art, they have two choices facing them: they can ignore the political aspect or they can recognise the political aspect and from that recognition they can consciously decide on the politics in their art. So we have two artists, one who consciously directs the political content of his/her art and one who is blind to the political purpose his/her art is serving. You say that the person who consciously directs his/her art for a political purpose is illustrating 'stereotyped political ideas'. I would say he/she is far less a prisoner of a political viewpoint than an artist who is not even aware of the political ideas he/ she is propagating.

Secondly, understanding. Yes, of course art criticism is about understanding. But it is a matter of what you consider

it important to understand. I think art criticism should not just try and understand the artist and his/her art in isolation. Art criticism should be based on an understanding of society so as to place the artist and his/her art in their proper context, a context that is manifestly political.

Thirdly, I would agree that some of our so-called Marxist reviews have not been of outstanding quality but I never heard you complain of the terrible reviews we've had by people without 'marxist' pretentions. It seems even your criticisms are governed by politics - Ed.)

Right or wrong I respect your right (wrong) to write (wrong) this letter. Right! (wrong?)

Dear Sir,

I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired.

I am certainly not and am sick and tired of being told that I am.

Signed MPFC

P.S. Well I meet a lot of people and I am convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right.

A Suggestion On Saving Hunter

Dear Sir,

As a graduate who tolled in that fine library innumerable hours over several years, it occurs to me that its preservation could well lie with ourselves. If your magazine and student executive convened a special meeting, could you not pool the talents and resources of the students to come up with a Save Hunter campaign based on what students could contribute. Here is an opportunity for the science students in particular to contribute. And the accountants and those with builder's labourer experience. Surely the students could propose a cheaper plan of preservation that the $6 million the university authorities suggest. We all know that if we really started worrying about earthquake dangers, that Parliament and Government Building and half of Wellington, including those dreadful monoliths dwarfing Hunter, would have to come down. You might even be able to find some oldboys with architectural talents in a People Power Plan to Preserve Hunter. And while you're at it, what about painting those dull new university buildings yellow or red or something other than the heavy brick brooding over the harbour.

Best wishes,

David McGill.

More 'Facts' We Omitted

Dear Sir,

You have not answered the questions I asked.

1. Are we to believe that the communist regimes (you may call them what you like), are going to implement the 'Programmes for democratic freedoms of the People'. You say that 'Both the PRG and the Khmer Rouge are allowing freedom of movement and speech' but not to those with imperialist friends. If this is your idea of 'democratic freedom' then I would kindly suggest you widen your viewpoint.

As far as religious freedom is concerned, you know quite well that worship is tolerated only as long as it does not present a threat to the communist government.

2. I am not 'somehow blaming the Indochinese people for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, but rather I am pointing out the fad that we should not accept openly, statements from either side in the war in Indochina.

You point out that 'Time' 'admit' that for at least the last two years the resistance movement has been made up solely of Cambodians'. This is 1975, what about the other three years. You conveniently pasted over this.

3. You say that 'If the mud is supposed to stick because of the fact that they are 'commies' (you misquote me here, I call them communists, not commies), then again it judges people by labels and not by their deeds'. At this stage I conceed that I have pre-judged both new governments. However, you are prepared to elucidate on the question of 'democratic freedom'. Tell us just who judges whether the peasant, opposing communism, has imperialist friends or not. If you are prepared to believe such promises from both governments, then you are very naive.

4. Your arguments that 'all means of coercion were on Lon Nol's side' leaving none for the Khmer Rouge I suppose, and that had it decided the issue 'no one would have joined the Khmer Rouge' teems far fetched. For the benefit of your readers would you please explain in more detail, coercion, and while you are at it provide a detailed account of the support received by the Khmer Rouge by both Hanoi and Peking, and do the job properly and don't leave out information which will point toward blatant communist pressure and control.

Finally, my 'emotional outburst' as you call it, is the result of having read several editions of Salient which protray a definite leaning towards the 'left' through the failure to print both sides of the stories, and through its failure to examine closely the information it receives and to question it thoroughly.

Neville Wynn.

(The demand you make that we print both sides of the story will not be carried out. Firstly, you will be well aware that the other side of the story is propagated day and night by the New Zealand media. Secondly, we don't see it as a matter of there being two sides to a story but that there are two predominant ways of looking at a thing. It takes little commonsense to realise that two contradictory views cannot both be correct in their view of the situation so you must choose one view or the other. That is what Salient has done. We have not made our decision lightly, and our stand on Indochina is particularly well researched. If you would care to come into the office and go through our information. I am sure you will find the answers to all your questions — Ed.)