University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor Day

Variety Of Topics Prompts Response

In this age of war and strife
those who attempt to maintain
some concern for humanity can do
little except through established
agencies, organized to dispense help
where it is needed. Perhaps no
organizations of the postwar world
has better represented the hopes of
a troubled world than UNICEF,
now involved in bringing some relief
to the starving natives of Biafra.
Certainly such an endeavor merits
the support of the American
people, among them the thousands
fortunate enough to be associated
with the University of Virginia.
Perhaps that minority willing and
able to help can do little enough. If
that minority does nothing, then
the prospects of betterment are
negligible indeed.

Biafran Farce

The current campaign here to
help the starving Biafran children is
a horrible farce, for two reasons:

1) It is merely a "Great White
Liberal" ego trip designed to provide
psychic compensation for personal
impotence in establishing a
meaningful socio-political commitment
to ending injustice on the
domestic scene. These people seek
to assuage their guilt complexes by
a mere financial donation, rather
than any sort of personal involvement.
There are at this moment
thousands of tons of food destined
for Biafra which are rotting on the
island of Fernando Pao because the
renegade Biafran government refuses
to accept it (on the absurd
grounds that the Nigerians plan to
poison it as an act of genocide - if
this charge is, indeed, true, why are
the boss who elected to remain in
Nigerian territory not only alive,
but better off, than their
treasonous brothers in Biafra?). The
Biafran government is allowing its
children to starve in a cold blooded
propagandist attempt to gain international
sympathy. While one can
only feel a deep sympathy for the
famine-stricken noncombatants,
and a great admiration for courage
of the (well-fed!) Biafran army, it is
impossible to condone the inhuman
policies of their government or the
well intentioned actions of their
dupes, particularly in this country
and Britain.

2) These "bleeding heart" liberals
are objectively neo-colonialist
imperialists insofar as they are furthering
the factionalism of already
badly splintered West Africa. By
encouraging tribal breakaways, such
as those of the Ibos and Katongonese
they are delaying, if not
irreparably damaging, the hopes of
West African unity. Only in unity
can West Africa become economically
viable and truly independent;
only through unity can she
develop her resources, nurture her
cultures, and resist foreign encroachments
(such as the machinations
of Charles DeGaulle, who
clandestinely supports Biafra in a
neo-colonial attempt to re-assert
French hegemony over West Africa).

These people's short term aims
are laudable; the long term results
of them would be to perpetuate
chaos, poverty, and foreign dominance
over an area of the world all
too long exploited by the west (for
example, it was the homeland of
virtually all the Africans so brutally
enslaved by our Founding Fathers).
Why do not these people end their
tacit support of the puppet Biafran
government and concentrate their
efforts on aiding bona fide liberation
movements from poverty, ignorance,
and oppression, such as
are occurring in our ghettos?

Black Athletes

Like many Cavalier Daily
readers I have been following Mr.
Robert Cullen's fairly insightful
comments on black athletes and
Virginia athletics. And, I was happy
to note that the consensus among
coaches and recruiters seems to be
in favor of an all out drive to
integrate Virginia teams.

Therefore, it was somewhat puzzling
to read in the December 5th
issue of the Daily Progress that the
athletes chosen for the fifth annual
All-Central Virginia high school
football squad were feted Saturday
(December 7th) at Buddy's:

"Players selected on the first
team for either the large
school squad or the Group
Two squad plus head football
coaches and principals at
the 14 schools in the Progress'
circulation area will be
honored at a dinner
Saturday night at Buddy's.
Guest speaker will be George
Blackburn of Virginia, the
ACC Coach of the Year for
1968."

For those who have wondered
about that "Closed to the Public"
sign that graces Buddy's, the reason
for its being there is that the
management preferred to turn its
original restaurant operation into a
catering service rather than serve
Negroes. Now, even though
Buddy's may have changed its
policy in regard to whom it will and
will not serve and though it may be
that there are no Negro high school
athletes involved, the fact remains
that Buddy's has a less than savory
reputation (deserved in this writer's
opinion) among both the entire
Charlottesville black community
and many whites as well. In fact
this reputation for racism forced
the football team in the recent past
to remove its training table from
Buddy's. That the training table
was put there in the first place is of
course almost unbelievable. At any
rate, I am curious to know why Mr.
Blackburn, if he is concerned with
recruiting blacks, was willing to
attend a dinner whose location is an
affront to the very athletes he
hopes to lure here?

Proud Christian

I wish to take this opportunity
to commend the efforts of the
Mary Washington Bullet in helping
to bring across a point of view
seldom expressed on this campus,
much less on those of our neighboring
institutions. There is much
to be learned from a close examination
of Christian ethics, and unfortunately,
the majority of
"Christians" are revealing their ignorance
more and more each day.
Many Christians I have come in
contact with are so hypocritical
that they would come out of
church and rebuke Jesus Christ
Himself. After all, He represents
everything the Establishment
loathes - love for all men (including
Communists), peace, minority
groups, long hair and beards, and a
non-capitalistic economy, among
other things, As for groups like the
SDS, they are indeed "the true
saints of today." They practice
Christian ethics every day, not just
for an hour on Sunday (if that).
They stand for what Jesus stood for
and are willing to continue to stand
up for these values despite the
heckling of their contemporaries.
I'm proud to be a Christian and a
member of SDS, and would like
some of my fellow students to take
a close look at themselves and see if
they can be as proud.

Blatant Blasphemy

I was amazed to read that blatant
blasphemy has reached the
pages of The Bullet, Mary Washington's
student newspaper. How long
will it be until all student editors
realize that allowing any articles
that can possibly be considered
offensive to any alumnus or state
representative can come to naught
but justified criticism and repression?
We must do nothing that
might raise the ire of our elders.
Cavalier Daily, take heed! Do not
change your ways - continue setting
the example for all others to
follow.

Joseph H. Sydnor, III

P.S. Beware, advocates of coeducation.
What will happen if dangerously
radical coeds a la Bullet
are admitted to the University?
Nothing but change, change.
Resist!

Boyish Behavior

This morning, while walking up
the East side of the Lawn, I witnessed
another event which makes
me wonder how many of us students
at the University are really
gentlemen. Three boys (not men)
were walking ahead of me, no
doubt in a hurry to get back to
their fraternity houses after classes.
They were walking three abreast
and managing quite nicely to occupy
the whole of the sidewalk.
The wife of Mr. Mayo, one of our
distinguished professors, a distinguished
lady in her own right, was
approaching from the opposite
direction, keeping well to the right-hand
side of the walkway. To my
surprise and shock, the boy to the
left of the other two not only did
not move over behind his fellows to
allow Mrs. Mayo to pass, but proceeded
to barrel into the unnerved
lady with the finesse of a steamroller,
mumble something to the
effect that he was sorry (I think, or
perhaps just hope), and proceed on
his way as before, joking with the
other two, and causing various
other perambulators moving in the
opposite direction either to step
aside or be mowed down. All
stepped aside. None should have
had to. Mrs. Mayo assumed that she
would not have to - and was
rewarded for her trust in Virginia
gentlemanliness by a collision.

We as students owe Mrs. Mayo
an apology on behalf of our
thoughtless and ungentlemanly
brother. But that is not enough.
The boy owes the lady (who lives in
Pavilion IV) an apology of his own.
I hope that he will have the desire
and courage to make it - and
because I cannot conceive of anyone,
let alone a Virginia student,
who would have struck the lady on
purpose, I trust that he will.

Interlude

Dow Questions

An open letter to Dow Chemical
Corp. was passed out in front of
Minor Hall by a representative of
the Students for a Democratic Society
on Tuesday. To those who
received it and read it, it ought to
raise a few good questions.

Dow manufactures napalm. This
chemical is being used now in Viet
Nam and has caused a great many
deaths and horrible mutilations to
the people there. To quote R. E.
Lapp, from The Weapons Culture,
"If all are compliant and feel no
responsibility, then our democracy
is in jeopardy." One of the most
sacred ends of American society is
the preservation of human life; it is
also at the core of the Judeo-
Christian philosophy. No true
American can be complacent about
the use of napalm; nor can a true
Jew or Christian.

But the open letter of the SDS
shows only part of the answer, only
one alternative, to the bloodshed
caused by Dow-manufactured
napalm. General condemnations are
liberally strewn about, against "a
firm that traffics in blood," against
"profit based on the deaths of
others;" and against "science
wrongly used." Dow is told it has
"no right to recruit people for such
a corporation," that it must "take a
stand" and "justify itself." Perhaps
this would be good. But a greater
teaching experience could be enjoyed
if SDS itself would really
speak up and tell us, the students at
the University, what it is protesting.
Sure, Dow makes napalm and
napalm kills - but it is by no means
clear that Dow's cancellation of the
contract would prevent the use of
napalm. What is SDS really condemning?
Is it the fact that napalm
burns and maims that makes it
"criminal" to produce it? If so,
what about the Marines in World
War II who used flame-throwers to
clear out the caves in the islands in
the Pacific in which Japanese soldiers
were hidden? What about the
incendiary bombs we dropped on
Tokyo which burned out whole
blocks of frame buildings? Teach
us, O SDS - we want to know what
we should protest!! It is "science
wrongly used?" Perhaps the engineers
at Colt who developed the
M-16 are also equally guilty of
"trafficking in blood." And what
about the workers in the Cadillac
tank plant in Ohio? If we must
"disassociate ourselves" from contribution
to such horrors, perhaps
we must disassociate ourselves from
the weaponry of war entirely.
Where is the line to be drawn,
otherwise? Surely it is not the
emotional and sense impact of a
burning body that generated SDS
criticism - an M-16 bullet can kill
just as easily, can shatter a limb or
pulverize a man's guts just as painfully.
Let us ask the SDS - where,
please tell us, do we start justifying
weapons of mass destruction?? Why
not be completely honest with the
students who read the open letter
and tell them that it is blatantly
immoral to use any kind of
weapons at all for the taking of
human life?

Because you must start somewhere,
the answer will be - otherwise
we wouldn't have beaten
Germany in World Wars I and II,
otherwise we wouldn't have been
able to stop Japan's expanding empire
in the Pacific. But where do we
draw the line, SDS? We killed civilians
in the bombing raids on Stuttgart
and on the Polestar oil fields. We
massacred thousands in dropping
conventional bombs on Japan.
Where does the moral course lie?

It is easy to condemn a sensational
weapon like napalm. But if
you do, you must also condemn
weapons which kill a great many
more people in Viet Nam now -
rifles and conventional bombs. And
how can you seriously say, then,
that such weapons of mass destruction
were once justified, twenty-five
years ago? It is unfortunate
that the course of foreign affairs is
not simpler, for the sake of the
SDS. But we are still waiting for
them to teach us - if you must
attack napalm as a weapon of mass
destruction, O SDS, PLEASE tell us
where to draw the line!!!

Dow Answers

To the SDS:

I read with soulful sympathy
the open letter you have recently
circulated for the dubious enlightenment
of Dow Chemical Co. and
its napalm morality. Since Dow
doubtless considers you beneath
contempt and will view your condemnation
with Olympian disdain
(if at all), I should like to take this
opportunity to answer for them.

I must give you credit for a
colorful presentation. Your fiery
words evoke images of a veritable
tossed salad of shredded Vietnamese
flesh, (medium well done), and the
pictures you painted of the greedily
slobbering blood-flecked butchers
behind the Dow Conspiracy would
have done credit to Edgar Allen
Poe. You are to be commended.

Still, somehow ... somehow despite
the impressive quotes and
purple prose ... somehow despite
the fervid force of your righteous
indignation ... somehow despite
the intimidating implication of a
noble band of saints, stumbling in
the darkness of contemporary
money-mad morality, sputtering
their helpless rage ... somehow, in
the end, when all the bleeding and
screaming was done, I don't think
you won many converts.

Perhaps you ought to wait
around for a generation or so,
because this one just does not seem
to have your kind of conscience.
Few people; especially at the University
of Virginia, really give a
damn about Dow Chemical and its
napalm. Why should they?

Why should they give a damn?
After all, Oh Ye of Too Much
Faith, this is the big bad world and
you are but poor lost idealists set
adrift in it ... adrift where you will
remain as long as you want to rock
the boat ... adrift where you will
drown sooner or later if you insist
on remaining outside the System.
Dow Chemical knows that, I know
it, I think even you know (after all,
Christ knew it).

Besides, by the one and only
great contemporary yardstick, Dow
is right and you are wrong. No
matter what the issue is, nor how
proudly you carry your faultless
vision into battle, Dow is right and
you are wrong, Dick Nixon is right
and you are wrong, Edgar Shannon
is right and you are wrong, I,
speaking for the great apathetic
masses with all the power of their
holy inertia, I am right and you are
wrong.

Why? Because MIGHT makes
right, here in the big bad world -
an axiom that has always proven
true and doubtless always will (due
to the curious phenomenon of its
unequivocal support by whatever
clique happens to hold power regardless
of said clique's political
affiliation). MIGHT is always right
and SDS is always wrong (except
for one brief shining moment in
Camelot, er, Columbia).

It might help if you think of
American society as a giant jackass,
made up of the disoriented taxpaying
class attending masses,
plunging madly down its primrose
path, with The Dick Nixons, the
Dow Chemicals and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff firmly in the saddle.
You of SDS are certainly not
pushing forward on this particular
path, indeed we may credit you
with doing no more than perhaps
bringing up the hindquarters, but
this is precisely where the riding
crop, or billy club, falls hardest and
most frequently.

The Powers That Be are always
right, because they say so and they
are the Powers That Be and that's
the way it is.

Now the corollary to this (because
every eternal truth must have
its corollary or you haven't written
a proper letter) is that, IF the
powers that be are right, Then what
the Powers That Be say is right, is
right. Morality is a function, not of
God, but of guns.

What do the Powers That Be say
is right?

It is right to kill Viet Cong.

It is right to use any available
means (except nuclear weapons
which, in some ill-defined manner,
threaten the entire world and thus
the Powers themselves) to kill Viet
Cong, including napalm.

Be sure that you appreciate the
amoral, as opposed to immoral,
nature of the killing itself. Thus,

The Death of Vietnamese
children is simply irrelevant.

The starvation of a few Vietnamese
peasants is irrelevant.

The death of an American soldier,
however, is bad. It is the only
really bad death that we have encountered.

Therefore anything, such as
napalm, which produces the
morally good result of dead Viet
Cong, and the morally good result
of live Americans (who might have
been killed by the V.C.) will
NEVER Be abandoned simply because
it carries the morally irrelevant
side-effect of charcoaled
children.

That, gentlemen, good or bad, is
the way it is, when you buy the
world ... then you can change it.