Page 2
University Daily Kansan Friday. Dec. 2, 1960
Apologetic America
At sometime during our lifetime, America took a decided turn in its national character that headed it toward a greater downfall than any outside threat could produce.
BUT THE ODD thing about this momentous turn is that it is hard to determine when it actually occurred. There are several events in American history that could have been that pivot point, but not one stands out significantly.
The question is:
When did the United States go on the defensive?
We are not speaking of defense in the military sense but as a national attitude — having to apologize and explain our every action.
WE ARE SORRY we dropped two atom bombs on the enemy during a total war. We are chagrined that our interests don't coincide with a petty dictator 90 miles off the coast of Florida and we humbly duck while he bids fair to stone us to death with propaganda pebbles. We are awfully sorry about flying 60,000 feet over a country that is dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. We pour money, supplies and technical aid into underdeveloped countries and stand mute when this is branded an "imperialistic tactic." Excuse us please, for attempting to protect our interests and position abroad.
Our participation in the United Nations and the ever-shrinking size of the globe notwithstanding, we have become a nation that looks to others before moving and then apologizes if things don't turn out well for all concerned.
Was it that long ago when America and her status in the world brought to mind a vision of
a strong, determined, forward-looking nation that acted — ever mindful of its responsibility — but apologized to no one for forging ahead?
What nation in the history of mankind has ever borne the brunt of responsibility for three wars fought thousands of miles from its own shores, wars to fight totalitarian forces that threatened the freedom of the world?
What nation in history won a war, then set its vanquished opponents back on their feet to become equals as fast as possible?
What nation has a record of aiding freedom-hungry people of other nations to wrest their rights from tyrants and then withdrawing to allow them to establish their own systems of government?
HAS THERE EVER been another nation whose basic concept of existence was to spread and share the freedom and prosperity that it so abundantly possessed, as has the United States of America?
Certainly we have made our mistakes.
There has not.
Certainly we are open to criticism.
But do the mistakes overbalance the achievements of this "noble experiment" that succeeded? Has this nation sought to impose its will upon a weaker nation for its own benefit?
We have nothing to apologize for. To be less than we are or to have done less than we did would have been to stunt the growth of the one hope in the world for existence of individual rights.
But now we apologize.
When did we start?
Frank Morgan
Editor:
Athletic Pot Boiling
The following is an open letter to Mr. John L. Hodge, Kansas City Senior, and any others who may hold his opinions:
In your letter to the editor which criticized the "football convocation" you closed with the words, "then our values need careful re-examination." First Mr. Hodge, I wish to re-examine your letter.
Your conception of the relationship among financial assistance, intellectual capabilities, and physical capabilities is grossly inaccurate. You first stated that athletic scholarships illustrate how athletics take priority over academic matters. You then stated that there are many people capable of doing university work who cannot afford an education. This is true!! The University of Kansas attempts to aid these people by giving them financial assistance. In fact, Mr. Hodge, last year 90,000 dollars was awarded in scholarship hall awards alone. Also, the amount of money given by the University to undergraduates for academic ability is greater than that given for athletic ability.
Your second error, Mr. Hodge, is your inference that any person with athletic ability is given financial assistance on the basis of his athletic ability alone. First there is a minimum academic standard which all high school athletes must meet in order to become eligible for financial aid.
Then, after he has been awarded a scholarship an athlete must meet an academic standard which I'm sure is at least equal to your standard of "university work." Thus, you see that the University of Kansas does not as you stated, give scholarships to football players instead of someone who deserves an education which he cannot afford. The University attempts to give financial aid to both.
I as an athlete at the University of Kansas certainly do not proclaim to be "holier than thou," Mr. Hodge. I realize that our system is not perfect. I will accept criticism and suggestions. However, Mr. Hodge, I will not permit ignorant, one-sided attacks such as yours to pass unchallenged.
Jerry Gardner
Wichita Junior
KU Basketball Team
* *
Mason Criticized
Editor:
MY MOST PERSISTENT question concerning Mr. Mason's letter is this; he is implying that American pride, originally manifest in "a handful of proud men, representing 13 small colonies . . ." has today given way to "the tolerant flock of sleeping sheep," too afraid of war to be "proud" — i.e. stick up for their rights? If this interpretation is correct, there seem to be deep seated, if not dangerous, errors in Mr. Mason's thinking. The pride that was manifest in Theodore Roosevelt seems to me to be too common today. It is the kind of "my country right or wrong" and "I will not budge an inch" philosophy that is frightening in an era when full scale war threatens in a dozen locations. Only an open mind and an ability to see past errors, and in their light amend present behavior, can keep us from a tragic future.
I can think of only one thing sadder than uneducated Chauvinism, and that is a muddled, incoherent attempt at sarcasm. Mr. Mason, in the Nov. 11 Letter to the Editor, combined both in one glorious binge. It's difficult to criticize his sarcasm, since it seemed rather confused, but I doubt if either Professor Ketzel and the "Cuban accomplice of the International Club," or H. L. Mencken has anything to worry about.
Dailu Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Extension 376, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VIking 3-2700
University of Kansas student newsletter
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Entered as second-class matter Sept. 17, 1910, at Lawrence, Kan., post office under act of March 3, 1879.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Managing Editor
Ray Miller
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
John Peterson and Bill Blundell ... Co-Editorial Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Business Manager
IM QUITE SURE Mr. Mason doesn't have to worry about a sudden dreadful hiatus of pride — that's always been the quality America possessed most abundantly — but neither do I see why pride can't be tempered with a certain amount of realistic humility. Quite often, lately, the situation has called for it.
Mrs. Deborah James Staff, Watson Library
"Why, Betty Lou! Fancy Meeting You Here In Strong!"
... Books in Review ...
By Calder M. Pickett
Acting Dean, School of Journalism
Not a very good title for what is an interesting history of St. Louis. Kirschten, an editorial writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, loves his community; and for 459 pages he rambles on, in friendly fashion, about the big city on the Mississippi.
IT'S A CITY THAT HAS HAD LARGE INTERMIxtures OF French, German and English, that has been a frontier town with somewhat of an air of sophistication almost from the beginning. It's a city that has one of the best newspapers in America, that spawned a Hegelian group that published the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, that is proud of both the "Muni" and the St. Louis Cardinals.
Shoes and beer—these have been important products of the city. Steamboats have moved down the Mississippi. Big old Gothic houses—the kind that Mark Twain loved to blame on Sir Walter Scott—were built there. Indians scaled whites. Across the river, mobs destroyed an abolitionist press and killed the editor, Elijah Lovejoy.
CATFISH AND CRYSTAL, by Ernest Kirschten. Doubleday, $5.95.
Perhaps the great name is the celebrated Thomas Hart Benton, who saw a manifest destiny for America and fought the slave power of his own party. A celebrated episode is the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which played a role in plunging the Union into war.
Instead of people reading a book, or listening to music the way they'd like to eat a hamburger, they approach it piously . . . like a bunch of damned atheists in church . . . the whole atmosphere, I say, is fakery. It makes for cultural scoutmasters and beatniks, all those second-rate people who have come into some kind of prominence. Well, I don't say there'll ever be a society where phonies will not be possible, but if people had any real feeling for literature this wouldn't be possible.—J. F. Powers
Jefferson is a hero of the drama, and Lewis and Clark are heroes. Mike Fink is a folk hero, and Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson are villains. These are names known to the larger area of American history, and as characters they move through these pages, and some of them come to life.
KIRSCHTEN TELLS OF THESE. AND EVEN GIVES US A chapter about the good St. Louis for whom the city was named.
MIDNIGHT LACE: GRANADA:
COLOR
Worth Repeating
This one must have given Alfred Hitchcock a few sharp pains in the ego. For suspense, for ingenuity of plot, for attention to scenic detail, it outfought the old master's brainchild, "Psycho," to win honors as best goose-pimpler of the year.
At the Movies
The cast lacked the dramatic talent that Anthony Perkins brought to "Psycho," but was still more than adequate. Rex Harrison plays the type of role he slips on as easily as a monocle or an Oxford accent. As the enormously wealthy husband of a terrified heiress who is sadistically tortured by a telephone crank, he shows the proper dashing gallantry and husbandly concern. The victim of
the trial by telephone is Doris Day, who powders over the freckles and dims the hundred-watt smile to take on a very demanding straight dramatic role. She lacks the power of Barbara Stanwyck in "Sorry, Wrong Number." but still gives a solid performance. Besides, the gal is so good to look at that the movie-goer can forgive her almost anything. Even Stanislavsky would have loved her.
The plot is designed to baffle even the most acute Sherlock Holmes in the audience. The professional guessers of movie endings will have a rough time in this one. Every plot development has a counterweight as the police and Harrison, joined by a very able supporting cast, desperately try to find the crank, whose threats become more real and more terrifying as the movie progresses. Before the entire complex affair is laid bare in one shocking scene, the viewer has been presented with a bewildering gaggle of suspects and motives. In the end, all are tied together. (No, I'm not going to tell you who did it.)
Settings and costumes were superb. The story unfolds in the heart of London, and we are treated to some beautiful shots of the city.
But Miss Day's gowns outshine even London. To this reviewer, who is usually as sensitive to female attire as a rhinoceros is to BB shot, they were magnificent and helped make the picture easy to look at as well as interesting to analyze.
Roll Blundell