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 39, Number 14, 5 July 1976.

Letters

page 30

Letters

Photo of a family standing around a table

Randall Attacks Salient over MSA

Dear John,

The week before last, two letters were printed criticising MSA. Above each letter emotive captions such as "MSA in the Shit" conveyed Salient's continued resentment of M.S.A.

Criticism of any organisation is healthy and should be encouraged but recent criticism of M.S.A. is being made without any constructive alternatives being suggested.

M.S.A. held a sports tournament in the Gym over Easter. It was free to members even though the hire of the Gym was expensive. Did those students who negatively criticise M.S.A. participate? Obviously not. No doubt they were busy writing letters to Salient complaining about M.S.A.

Three years ago M.S.A. had a restricted membership and was not affiliated to V.U. S.A. Pressure was brought to encourage it to affiliate.

Subsequent to affiliation M.S.A. has been continually harrassed by student leaders living in the middle ages with middle minded ideas.

While M.S.A. has been subject to attack, M.S.S.A. has been allowed to fade into obscurity without even an eulogy in Salient.

Salient's inability to define M.S.A. places Salient a decade behind the rest of the student community.

Bernard Randall.

Salient has not defined M.S.A., it is merely reflecting the comments of the many letters we receive criticising its leadership - a leadership which is very good at organising sports tournaments, but terrified at organising forums or educational discussion evenings. We cannot stop the dissatisfaction - we can merely reflect it - Ed.

Degenerate Kiwi has his Say

Sir.

I am writing to say that I wholly agree with the activities of that wonderful group of enlightened NZ'ers known as Hart.

As a rather degenerate Kiwi myself I too can see the need for a scapegoat on which we (the degenerates) can pass moral judgement to appease our often troublesome consciences. What I'm trying to say is that even though we (the average hypocritical Kiwi, or Hart member) can see racism in such countries as U.S.S.R. (ask a Jew with relatives there), U.S.A. (would you be black, red-Indian or Mexican there?), closer to home, Australia, many other countries and even our own wonderful society, it would be troublesome to actively oppose all the countries practising racism, so we should single out one such country, and on it unleash the wrath of our divine purge.

Our choice (mine and Hart's) is of course South Africa.

Reasons: Our fight is one against racial oppression. Now, we have this in our country along with others, but Hart's principles solve the problem nicely: "Don't dean out your own house, but see only what you want to see, and tell others how to clean out theirs" This single minded effort against S.A. may with luck divert our attention from closer, more urgent racism. "But the blacks in S.A. are terribly oppressed and deprived", say all us goons. Taking into account indisputable figures stating the black S.African standard of living as the highest of any African blacks, we strike where racism hurts most; we've got our priorities right!!!

2) We have the backing of some of the world's leading moralistic countries and their representatives, an example supreme being our fighter for equality, Idi Amin (known as "The Asian Lover") Yes with a man of his calibre our cause must surely be of divine inspiration

Yes, I thank Hart for providing my friends and me with a psychological crutch on which we can depend for support. "Feel pangs of conscience?" Take it out on S.A. You'll feel so much better.

I have just one question for onr pious kiwis: "What happens when the blacks in S.A. obtain their rule and the righteous kiwi will have to find some new diversion from his and others' inequality? What will we do?"

We may get so carried away looking for a new cause, that we forget to overlook what we don't want to see, and end up seeing a world full of oppression. Who would we use then, when we see we are all as bad as each other? Have no fears Kiwis; you are well protected. I'm sure our friends in Hart will have the foresight to not see everything (they're like that) and we can continue on our enlightened path,

Yours, A proud Kiwi.

p.s. I am interested in seeing what biased title you give my letter.

p.p.s. I also hope you do not use any printing or grammatical errors in my letter, as a point to pick me up on, as you so often do, when all else fails.

Scott Takes Round Two for Hart

Dear Sir,

D. Heath's last letter confirmed my suspicion that he is either a masochist or a fool. I would like to gently bring to people's attention some of the more glaring fuck-ups in his misguided and slightly smelly anti-Hart snipe of two weeks ago.

1.Heath says he has neither the time nor the energy to seek those elusive thousands he claims to represent but notes that in the cafeteria one day he found eight supporters of his principles. In the face of such mass support I was originally speechless but have now recovered sufficiently to point out that the fact that Heath needs Pluravit is hardly likely to persuade me to withdraw my accusation of arrogance for multiplying his known following by over 100.
2.Heath says he has concluded that anyone who has not been to S. V. cannot hold an unbiased view. He is therefore calling himself biased and admitting that Henry Isaacs may not be.
3.Heath ferociously asserts his individuality with: "I am unique in every respect except my views against Hart". Sounds like a lonely person if his views on Hart are the only ones for which he enjoys support. But perhaps his uniqueness explains why he differs from accepted historical fact so thoroughly with his claim that "the first people to arrive in S.A. were the Boers". The first people to arrive in S.A. were the bushmen and hottentots - they were treated by the Boers with the same respect and consideration for equality as is offered to South African blacks today and as a result are almost extinct as a race.
4.(quote): "As for calling me an apostle, all I can say is.... I thank you for your faith in me." Very amusing Mr Heath but I recommend glasses - self-appointed apostle was the term I used.
5.Proving himself master of the bigoted generalization Mr Heath claims that "supporters of an idea, (like the Hart concept), always consider it arrogance when non-supporters attempt to claim the support of many other people." Does Heath exclude himself from this group he disdainfully brands as "supporters of an idea"? If not then it is most interesting to observe that he himself is admitting the probability of his arrogance, since very few ideas live unopposed. It he is, then his lack of ideas would explain his letters.
6.If Heath's mildly abusive reference to my comprehensive abilities is to stand then he is claiming his original letter to have been what he calls "Pure English". A bad move for someone trying to deny arrogance Mr Heath - or to put it in Purer english -absolute fucking bullshit.
7."Anyway why is a person rascist just because he doesn't support Hart"? he asks. This in itself is quite a fair question so one can't help wondering why Mr Heath has to balls it up by in the same paragraph noting "and Isaacs certainly knows about pygmies" and referring to Mr Isaacs attitude as "typical of that sort of person" thereby exposing himself as (subconsciously) rascist. Got to be more careful than that.
8.Heath notes that the Evening Post poll showed Hart to be a 20% minority and consequentally advises us to give up. I would like to point out that, firstly, the questionaire composed by the Post was so worded as to make it quite possible for every member of that 80% majority to have been a member of Hart - not all Hart supporters are in favour of Govt intervention: our appeal is to the rugby union - so you can stick that "proven minority" shit for a start. Secondly, if you think that all minority groups should give up their beliefs for that reason alone then you are effectively condemning both change and democracy. Sure your name's not Vorster?

Jonathan Scott.

Salient Worker on South Africa

Dear John,

I wish to emphasise to SP Mark that I used the parallel of working class New Zealanders and South African Blacks to show that both were in a similar position. Namely, that they are used, or rather their labour is used, to support a small elite who, because of their position vis-a-vis the means of production, dominate all spheres of our lives.

This is exemplified beautifully in the case of of the South African tour. You state that "the majority of the working class supports the All Black tour". If this is correct, and I have severe doubts to whether it is, then we must ask why this is. It may be simply that they like their rugby, but I feel the reason is deeper than this.

The National Party always make a big show of the proverbial classless society. In order to convince people of this, they constantly play to the notion of the general will. In other words, they use mechanisms like-baiting "commy stirrers in the unions" to make people think that New Zealanders are all the same eg "we must all take a cut in living standards" "we must all work harder to get out of this economic mess" etc. What they are in fact trying to do is to prevent working class consciousness which is the wont enemy of a capitalist economy.

These techniques have worked reasonably well up to now. New Zealand workers have not been able to identify themselves with the proletariat of other countries. If they had been, the All Black tour would never have taken place.

- Salient Worker

p.s. Come up to the Salient office and we can bash these issues out, p.p s. I do not support the Labour Party. In fact they pose a greater threat to the class consciousness of the workers.

Waste of Studass Paper

Dear John,

I was sitting in the cafe on the first Monday morning of study break at 9.45am sipping my cup of coffee and reading a pamphlet outlining the present bursary situation regarding the increase in the cost of Irving increase. One of these pamphlets had been placed on every table in the cafe.

All of a sudden I noticed one of the cleaners pushing around his trolley and screwing up each notice in turn (except for the dozen or so which were being read), and placing it in his rubbish tin. At this ungodly hour in the morning not many people had had an opportunity to read them.

The point I am making is, that with everybody kicking up a rumpus saying "We haven't got enough money!" why the hell do we spend so much time and money in printing and delivering them just to keep the cleaner busy and to give the refuse-collectors something to take away.

Yours RJGM

Curse on those Lazy Students!

Dear Salient,

Balls! - Ban All Lucrative Lazy Students". No, seriously folks, we love you, but there really isn't any need to request More money from open handed Muldoon and his merry men. Our stereos, M'bikes and second cars seem to be Ok even the rent is paid and the cat is gettin fat. (Bloody thing ate my chihauhua) Let us live on our grey matter (mince?) and leave inflation to float around 500 feet above S.L. without doing our bit to worsen it. After all it's hardly fair to invest against inflation, and then join the Kiwi Dawn Chorus in demanding more money.

Yeah well!

Felicity Sryth,

Sandra Parrs

Robyn Barlow

Objection to Women's Choice $50

Dear Sir,

At the SRC meeting held on the 16th, a motion was forwarded and passed that the Exec allocate $50 to the Women's Choice Club. I object to the use of our money in this way.

The $30.50 that I paid as my Students Association fee, I was told would go to the maintenance of student services; gym, cultural groups. Exec fees etc. I fail to see how a donation to the Woman's Choice Club can be considered as aiding a student service

The Woman's Choice Club do not stage plays, field a rugby team or engage in specific and practical work around the Varisty for students. Neigher is the Women's Choice Club a charity which engages directly in offering social aid to starving, handicapped and pregnant women. Women's Choice Club members may consider that their work is an act of charity, but a substantial minority of students do not see the Women's Choice Club that way

So why not give the $50 to the IHC. No one will be able to object to that, and that way we won't see our money turned into worthless dart paper.

Yours sincerely,

S. Romijn.

p.s. I do not object to the Woman's Choice Club holding out their hats around the Varsity, to raise $50

Examinations have Educ III Students by the Short and Curlies

Dear John,

We are educ III students and are getting a little sick of the irrelevant material Jack Shallcrass lectures on. Many students feel like us that if perhaps he concentrated on the subjects we are being examined on, instead of subjects that He is interested in we would achieve better results. We would like him to come off his big ego trip and settle down to the subject in hand - education, not his particular brand of bullshit!

Love,

D.S.F.C.

Rumbles in Geography

Dear John,

The apathy that exists in Geography 101 is unbelievable I salute and admire Garth Baker for his bravery in stating how things are - a disorganised mess that students are paying for. Prof Walters may be egotistical but the complete indifference students have towards their shabby treatment leaves much to be desired.

The weeding out process in the department of students who are not majoring in this subject or those suffering from geography ignorance is apparent with various tests proving this. Lecturers will agree, but of course this makes their jobs easier. An interest is not enough, as being a geography student is turning out to be a priviledge not a right. I do not have the same amount of courage as Garth to sign my name as I am not one of the privileged.

Drawing of a person with a melting face

Signed, Apathetic No Longer.