thekid (02/17/83)
well, with the pilot flames idling... Mike you weren't exactly objective... (i'm not either). anyway, i feel that the whole thing was an exercise in futility. and i feel that the students were wrong. absolutely, finally wrong. 1) what was their purpose? if it was to confront Kirk's position on the issues, why not wait for the Q&A session? why not make a point of requesting that Kirk have a Q&A session? why not send her a list of the questions that they wanted answered during that Q&A session (if they didn't coincide with her talk, or just to be polite, even if they did). if the request was phrased reasonably, i can't imagine that Kirk would have refused. after all, why is she giving these lectures? i can't conceive of what political/power advantages she will derive, i suspect she enjoys it. i must conclude that the students had no desire to actually discuss/debate the issues. i've always felt that the people who do such things are trying to intimidate/panic the people who have taken no stance or an opposing stance. 2) the students have harmed the school, themselves etc. the next speaker is going to come with a song of joy in his heart? right!!! 3) it has been said that the refusal of non-violent revolution makes revolution inevitable. folks, that cuts both ways. the demonstrators have just refused non-violent revolution. 4) Mike, you made quite a point of "concrete examples". i lean with Bob, it was HER talk ... i have taught speech, and it is often a good idea to work your audience into your point ... a good speaker doesn't start a talk with "point number 1: south africa". a good lecturer does, but not a good speaker. 5) i can't claim that the "demonstration" was pointless, similar demonstrations were highly successful a la Vietnam. the question that needs to be answered is if this one was successful, or if other, non-violent means would have been as or more successful in making the point. i think most people, however, tend to immediately close their minds to any argument that is forced upon them. 6) i'm NOT advocating "shut up, johnny, you'll know better when you grow up". as a reasonably intelligent person, i knew at 16 that i was more intelligent that the average "adult" who was trying to find his way home. what you reported, Mike, was not aggressive, questioning behavior ... it was arrogance, and what's worse, unjustified arrogance. 7) Mike, i'm sure you know much more than i do about the injustices of the El Salvador/Guatemala/Phillipines situations. i make no point of the `right' or `wrong' of the demonstrators political position. it just seems that if the remedy of said situations were the real reason for such demonstrations the methods would be different. i know some very dedicated people (here in DC) who are working for El Salvador groups. they march, they protest, they form church groups, they raise money, they write congressmen, they canvass ... they DO NOT cause riots in college auditoriums. well, thanks for listening, i'd be interested in responses on or off the net. p.s. re: point 7, that's not as valid a point as it should be, ref. civil rights, and some gatherings in Watts for instance. again, the final unanswerable question is: was there a better way? thekid mcnc!rlgvax!thekid
turner (03/01/83)
#R:rlgvax:-105700:ucbesvax:2900009:000:3481
ucbesvax!turner Feb 28 03:10:00 1983
to thekid -
Without disagreeing with all you say here, I nevertheless take
exception to the following (in point 7 above):
....i know some very dedicated people (here in DC) who are working
for El Salvador groups. they march, they protest, they form church
groups, they raise money, they write congressmen, they canvass ...
they DO NOT cause riots in college auditoriums.
SAINTES is no less dedicated. They feel, however, that they have
just about exhausted marching, protesting (of the "polite" sort), forming
church groups, raising money, writing congressmen and canvassing. They
have done all those things, and the administration CONTINUES on its course.
There is a limit to what can be done "constructively" when you don't
have the resources of the government, which itself makes no more than a
pretense of acting "constructively". It is, in fact, this pretense which
is the source of the rage that led to heckling Kirkpatrick: an awful
abuse of the trust implicitly placed in her.
So what is "the better way", here? Can you think of one that hasn't
been exhausted? To suggest that we simply persevere, that we did wrong
by losing our patience, places the burden totally on us. Innocent people
will go on being maimed, killed and imprisoned because WE stepped outside
the bounds of PROPRIETY?! I respectfully and politely request a big,
fat break.
The second thing that irked me about point 7 is this: I have seen
riots. I have lived in Berkeley most of my life, and seen most of the
worst disturbances, and let me tell you: what happened in that auditorium
was nothing like a riot. There was no provocation of the kind that I
witnessed in the late 60's and early 70's on the part of both the police
and ultraleft terrorist/provocateurs. You implicitly and wrongfully put
SAINTES in the latter category when you talk of "riots". Please look
this word up in a dictionary. Then skip toward the front and find the
word "apologist". (The word "apology" will be right near by, if you feel
a sudden need for it.)
Or did you intend this meaning ? What do you think of the recent
incident at a Seven Sisters college where Kirkpatrick was "denied a
forum" because the administration there could not guarantee the police
protection that Kirkpatrick wanted? Which is to say, protection against
heckling. Are the faculty members at Vassar who signed a petition of
protest against Kirkpatrick's appearance threatening the same thing that
happened to her at Berkeley, and thus effectively "inciting to riot"?
The newspapers are willing to play up the "riot" view uncritically. So,
to avoid bad treatment at the hands of editors, we'll just slog on,
marching, canvassing, forming church groups...
In 1968 in Germany, the student movement was heavily slandered by the
main newspaper publisher, Axel Springer. Students were "drug addicts",
"perverts", "bums". During a state visit by the Shah of Iran, a student
died at the hands of a rightist assassin during the obligatory protest.
The killer was gleeful to have gotten one of the "perverts". Shortly
afterward, the printing plants of Springer were surrounded by an outer
ring of enraged students and an inner ring of machine-gun nests.
If it comes to that here, I know where I'll be. And you?
Afraid, But Only A Little,
Michael Turner