Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 38, Number 10. 22nd May 1975
Reply To Ross Delaney
Reply To Ross Delaney
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.