Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Friday, March 5, 1965
Stalemate
For more than a week now, the Daily Kansan has devoted considerable space on the editorial page to comments, pro and con, on the Student Peace Union and United States' involvement in South Viet Nam.
Discussion is good, and we have attempted to give fair play to both sides. Several letters from SPU supporters have been printed as have letters critical of SPU policies and methods.
THE DIALOGUE, WE BELIEVE, has reached a stalemate. It is doubtful whether anyone has been converted to one side or the other. Letters from SPU supporters have tended to be repetitious as have some letters critical of the SPU.
Daily Kansan policy is to run all responsible letters if they are of interest and illumination to the readers.
In this case, we doubt that a continuation of
this dialogue can sustain reader interest. The SPU has had sufficient space to express its views. If the SPU has failed to improve its image, it is through no fault of ours.
We feel that a change of subject in letters would be refreshing.
IN THE FUTURE, THEN, WE WILL ATTempt to print all letters to the editor, provided the letter is responsible and not a rehash of the same old arguments which have been given adequate play.
Today, we hope to wrap up the flood of letters from the SPU and its critics. Advance notice is hereby given that a more careful selection of letters concerning this subject will be exercised by the editors.
— Gary Noland
The People Say
To the Editor:
IN REPLY TO PAUL LINDQ- quist's letter in the UDK of Monday, March 1:
The Student Peace Union, being a democratically structured group, has a wide field of diverse views. I cannot, therefore, presume to speak for the organization—what follows is merely personal commentary.
You see, Paul, there are good reasons for groups such as the SPU to protest largely (not completely, as you seem to believe) against breaches of etiquette by our side in the cold war. Not the least of these is that we claim to have justice on our side. Along with the right to make such claims goes the responsibility for operating within a just framework. This imposes limitations upon us that are not imposed upon the "bad guys."
We tell the world that we are for the self determination of all peoples, which brings us to Vietnam again. We are also losing the war. We are losing the war because the people don't care about us or what we stand for. This is not the fault of "Them." This is our own fault. We have had it within our power to help the South Vietnamese build something worth defending. Instead, we have poured in dollars and guns at the top, letting the former filter down—and expressed concern at the indifference or hostility of the people. Like it or not, Paul, it is the people who are deciding this issue.
Someone once remarked that we are engaged in a war for the hearts and minds of men. The only way we can hope to win is by enabling the undecided peoples to develop a level whereat they don't want anyone else's system, much less be forced to turn to it in desperation. The other means at our disposal are not what one expects of a proselytizing democracy. They will not work for us. This becomes a complex mixture of idealism and hard shell realism. Still it can be done—if we care, and if we believe.
While on the subject of caring and believing, I will freely grant that Hungarian patriots were betrayed, though I am haunted by the notion that they were not betrayed only by Russia. Entanglement in a lost war that prostitutes the principles which we so loudly espouse seems to constitute a still worse betrayal in which we may well yet "bury" ourselves.
Alas, Paul, it begins to seem to me that those who seek martyrdom (a healthy symptom?) are those who, with bloody saber in one hand, and tattered-but gloriously-streaming banner in the other, see such a simple solution to the conflicts of a world which is simultaneously on the brink of Utopia and the brink of a self-wrought Hell.
Briefly: "No, Paul, there is no Santa Claus."
Since print imposes limitations in time and space, I would be more than happy to continue our debate publicly and in person.
John Garlinghouse Salina junior
Dear Sir:
MY COMPILIMENTS TO MR. Paul Lindquist on his comments on the Student Peace Union and the wave of letters that have come in
from the SPU supporters. I would like to add the following quote from testimony by Defense Secretary McNamara to the House Armed Services Committee;
"Our foreign policy has been consistent over the years. We ourselves have no territorial ambitions anywhere in the world, and we insist that all nations respect the territorial integrity of their neighbors. We do not seek the economic exploitation of any nation. Indeed, since the end of World War II, we have given other nations more than $100 billion of our wealth and substance—an effort unparalleled in the history of mankind. We do not seek to overthrow, overtly or covertly, the legitimate government of any nation, and we are opposed to such attempts by others. In short, we seek a world in which each neighbor is free to develop in its own way, unmolested by its neighbors, free of fear of armed attack from more powerful nations.
"Unfortunately the Communist governments do not share our objectives." ("Time", Feb. 26, 1965)
He continued to say that it is a costly task to try to help others preserve their freedom but that we have no alternative. Of course none of us wants war, but while willing to support an honorable peace, I can see, as others have said repeatedly, that to cease firing and negotiate while the Viet Cong goes on with its subversion would be to betray South Vietnam. A neutral South Vietnam (with a government including the Communists as did the "neutralized" Laotian government) would not require neutralization of North Vietnam to prevent its endangering of the peace. We would merely be falling back to fight again, another day, in another place, and on Communist terms. In short, unilateral cease fire and negotiations would not insure peace
As far as the SPU is concerned, many writers have written complaining about "misunderstanding" of the SPU.
Let me remind both the supporters and the organization that neither the editor of the UDK nor the critics of the SPU created the organization's public image. If they want it changed, they will have to change it.
PAUL LINDQUIST, IN HIS letter to the UDK on Monday, seems unable to cope with a rational consideration of the Vietnamese situation, U.S. foreign policy, and the state of the world and has escalated the dialogue to the phase of innuendo, accusation, and
Kansas City, Kan., sophomore
Dear Sir.
Ken Reeves
slander. Of course, we can too use capital letters: you militarists are BETRAYING the interests of humanity and preparing for a WORLD WAR which would be a CRIME unparalleled in human history. See? But does this sort of thing really serve truth? I think not. Of course, if you insist, we could throw mud pies at each other or just shoot it out . . .
Concerning the Vietnamese people, would it be wrong to suggest that we might ask them what their interests are instead of trying to tell them? Those correspondents who have tried reporting that all they really want is peace, that they are not well versed in the subtleties of Marxist-Leninist dogma nor are they close students of the American Constitution. What they do know is a brutal war, and what they do want is that the major powers stop using their villages as a chessboard on which to play their bloody military games.
Concerning the SPU, as I see it,
it is a group of students who are
using their resources—time and
money, picket signs and mimeograph
machines—to convince the
American people that our country
should use its resources—propaganda, political pressure, diplomatic
statecraft, economic levers—to create
a world free of war once and
for all, a world where every people
can decide its own political destiny,
a world where nations of diverse
ideology and social structures can
live together without having to
resort to military force to solve their
conflicts, a world where human law
replaces the law of the jungle.
In this struggle, it is hardly necessary
to point out the mistakes, the evils,
and the brutality of the communist
bloce; our government and our press
do quite a good job of that.
Concerning the world, the primary question is whether its people will be able to create political, economic, social and ideological substitutes for military methods of dialogue between rival systems. Nuclear war would only destroy both combatants, and the limited war in Vietnam is only ruining the Vietnamese people. The only thing the U.S. Army is defending in Vietnam is the U.S. Army; the only thing it is achieving is hatred of the U.S. Army, both in Vietnam and throughout the third world. If we can not see the difference between democracy and the U.S. Army, how can we expect the emerging people in Vietnam, Asia, Africa, and South America to understand our point, unless our point really is only the point of a bayonet? I always thought it was something more, a lot more.
Charles Hook Lawrence sophomore
Dailij Ifänsan
University of Kansas student newspaper
sounded 1890 herausgedehrt
111 Flint Hali
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
University of Kansas student newsman
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904. triweekly 1908. daily Jan. 16. 1912
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 perious. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary Noland Co-Editorial Editors
A Slice of Cam-Pi
Coming out of the many news stories on Viet Nam these days is one phrase that sticks in my mind. It is the continuing reference to the "17th Parallel." I can remember almost 15 years ago when the big story was the crossing of the "38th Parallel" in Korea.
★
★
For those of you who are interested, it seems that every war has its humorist. Breaking this down locally, for those of you who read the Kansas City papers, have you ever noticed the resemblance between Bill Vaughan and Will Rogers.
★ ★ ★
NOW, DON'T WORRY, I M NOT FORECASTING doom and the outbreak of war. Actually, due to contrary belief they are using real bullets in Viet Nam.
★ ★ ★
Well, Rock Chalk Revue weekend has finally arrived. To quote a favorite comedian of mine, "Everybody is so happy." The little grapes on my vine of information tell me tickets are very hard to get. Some people say it's too bad they can't get to see it this year. From what I understand it's supposed to be better than ever. The vine also whispers that it's too bad they don't limit the quantity of tickets that one bloc can buy.
★ ★ ★
WHY IS IT WHEN YOU FINALLY COME to believe something, you discover it's not true. Take for instance our little ivy-covered community resting on top of this glorious mound. Those vicious money-hungry people out on the plains are beginning to find more and more ways of putting the squeeze on the college community dollar.
Now I really don't have anything against unions. It kinda goes against the grain though when people start telling me who I can hire and who I can't hire. Chances are the majority of union bands are better, according to some type of standard. It's the principle of the thing. The only bad thing about this whole issue is that we, or maybe I should take caution and just say I, have no method of recourse against this illustrious group.
★ ★ ★
I JUST FINISHED READING "CANDY." The satire may be seen, and in all honesty, I don't think I've laughed so hard at any book in my entire life. I wonder if Voltaire knew what he had created when he wrote "Candide." I wonder also where the rumor started that this was patterned after "Candide." Actually though, sports fans, I think the comparison can be seen.
I asked someone who had read the book in question what they thought of it. She said, "I've read better."
THOUGHT: If they keep writing books like "Candy" who will read the better books when they are written.
QUESTION: Will the better books be written if satires on the classics can sell like the story of our sweet little wearisome wanderer?
★ ★ ★
I SAW CONWAY TUESDAY EVENING. I asked him if he had seen the letter in that day's Kansan. He started laughing and couldn't stop. As I left him doubled up on the floor of his pad he choked out something about a letter.
★ ★ ★
On the more serious side, I often wonder why the causes people wave their banners for the hardest, are usually those causes that never make sense to a majority of the people. On the other hand, it seems that those causes the majority do seem to care about remain steady and constant. No one carries a picket sign and people never write letters to the editor about these causes.
Could it be that we realize that the things that do matter will always be there after the hullabaloo has drifted away in the breath of a truth-driven wind.
☆ ☆ ☆
Jim's Little Gem: "Men are most apt to believe what they least understand."
☆ ☆ ☆
As
A GRAPE ON MY VINE TOLD ME THAT next year a new course, Picket-carrying 65, will be offered.
(E a na stude Kans
Of terio-
perple is as
is toi astro-
part
Jim Langford
TO MISS BRAY:
The People Say...
If
astro-
cery
cann
State
dioxic
read
news
your
ALTHOUGH A REPUBLICAN by party, I believe that, in time of crisis, the people of the United States should unite behind our President; even though I realize this might be considered an unpopular stand by certain segments of the student population. Unlike the members of the S.P.U., President Johnson does not refer to loyal Americans as "warmongers," but he asks only that we place our trust in him in time of crisis, as the vast majority of the U.S. population indicated they would do in the fall elections. Christine, has it ever occurred to you that President Johnson and his advisors are in a better position to judge the situation, to strengthen our own government, to fight communism; than a relatively uninformed student.
Wh trolo that in th up. T
At place Hind what
INI
tiny
not t
In o
thing
which
thy p
to ce
tears
Indeed the pamphlet forced upon me, which accuses the U.S. of condoning atrocity, does make me mad
A Karn
the dian
bodilid
divid
ronm
pre-1
only
myst
proví
that
set o
envir
to.
"I think it would make any rea American mad. As I am also angered that you worship the obviously tinged word of Norodam Sihouk—"who long ago decided that the Red Chinese are bound to win in Asia . . ." (Time, February 26, 1965, p. 25)—rather than the word of President Johnson.
No Christine, I was neither picketer nor counter-picketer. I have better things to do with my time; such as studying and participating in activities other than getting drunk and fist fighting in the S.P.U.-sponsored Un-Military Eall (Fall, 1963). I feel it would be uneeless to publicly debate the S.P.U.: how can I use fact and reality to dispel the vague, cloud-like contentions of this pacifist group?
Yes, Christine, there is a Viet-
nam!!
Conway Kinard Lawrence resident