Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1946 Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 100, 17 July 1946, Page 4

Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1946

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nomde*plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to amend or withhold any letter or letters. BROKEN GLASS AGAIN Six’, —In continuance of this subject, it is the opinion of the writer that the suggestion made by “Public Opinion” that a representative body of leading citizens should meet the Licensing Committee and make strong representation to them, is a definite step in the right direction. This would naturally be from the Pakeha viewpoint. The Maori viewpoint could be presented simultaneously. With the newly appointed Maori committees the Maoris have increased power and authority, including the appointing of paid wardens whose main duty is the suppression of violation of the laws affecting the Maori and his drinking. This seems a golden opportunity to give these new committees the privilege of striking a decisive blow right at the source of their trouble. These committees are representative of the Maori communities concerned, are enthusiastic, and should be invited to add their influence to the Pakeha deputation. I am sure they would be only too glad to speak for their race, and that their evidence would be unanswerable. Matata and Te Teko must not be overlooked in this; there is some feeling in these districts on this question. These circumstances make it imperative that Pakeha and Maori co-operate in this vital common cause.—l am, etc. INTEGRITY.

PROBLEMS OF MAORIDOM Sir, —In answer to your correspondent “Public Opinion,” the old adage applies that “People in glass houses should not throw stones.” He is like the Kuaka bird (Godwit) whose sandbanks disappear with the flowing tides. As a Maori, Sir, I must endorse the reply by my fellow Maori subscribers, Messrs Fraser and Creeke, and also our clear-thinking friend Mr Attwood. However, I wish also to pay a tribute to “Public Opinion” for his pluck and courage. I submit, in the first plaice, that the Maori is a warrior. When a spear is cast at him, he retaliates and hits back. However, not one of your correspondents have been able to define the problems of the two races in general. Here it is: The survival of the fittest,, is the law of nature. The great question that we have to solve is how best we can suit ourselves to existing circumstances in order to survive. It is necessary to cope successfully with our present difficulties-and to continue to progress so that we shall be strong enough to meet future dangers. To stand still, is to die. When two races of unequal strength and civilisation are thrown together however friendly and well-disposed towards each others they may be, the experience of ages teaches that the weaker, gradually declines and finally disappears. Had New Zealand never been trodden - by the foot of man, the Moa would still have been lord of the forest. That

stately bird would never have had to drown itself in the water to escape the more cruel death by fire. Admirably adapted to flourish in a state of unmolested nature, it Could not survive when man invaded his domain.

The present race of Maoris supplanted a less vigorous people and now the Pakeha contends for the mastery. The lessons that both Maori and Pakeha have learned since they have been together have plainly taught them facts that it is impossible to evade. The two races cannot preserve their distinctive feature and continue for long to exist side by side. Either the Pakeha must travel to the level of the Maori, or the Maori must rise to the standard of the Pakeha. It is best that each race recognise thistruth, and profit by it, than to seek to put it to one side. However unpalatable reflection may be, it is nevertheless true, that unless the Maori strives, and strives successfully to take his place side by side with the Pakeha, our race is doomed to extinction. It may take many generations before this unhappy destiny is fulfilled, while on the other hand it may take only a short time for the Maori to prove his mental and physical ability to rise superior to the fate that has befallen so many other races, even among his white brothers.

It is the desired wish of the writer that Pakeha and Maori may stand on the one platform of knowledge, and that both should unite their energies towards the general welfare of this, our country,—l am etc. PETA R. WAIRUA.

DOMAIN ROAD CEMETERY Sir, —Will you permit me to express through your columns my deep disgust at the condition of the Domain Road Cemetery. I returned to Whakatane after 18 months’ absence owing to my becoming extremely ill on a visit south. My first visit was to the cemetery, and you might imagine my shock at finding . that to reach my husband’s grave at all I had to scramble through, grass over knee high for 100 yards. When I arrived there I found it (one of the newest slab graves in the cemetery), already half covered with twitch grass and dozens of snail shells. I placed two bowls of flowers there, tried to pull off the grass and left. I returned the following day to find that the bowls of flowers had been smashed by stones. A man was digging in the vicinity and when asked the reason for the condition of the path and graves he told me that the people concerned had left the district now and it did not matter. I said “I’m afraid you’ll find I’m very much here.” The bowl breakage was due to boys whom the sexton says make, a playground of the cemetery. I made arraigements to pay to have two overgrown graves near my husband’s cut, together with the path, Now Sir, this is not good enough! As ratepayers it is our right to expect that the cemetery should be well kept and graves which require no attention not allowed to become overgrown because of general neglect. If our councillors are unable to attend to the affairs of the Borough it is time they were changed and live members elected in their place. I intend to do my share to see that this is done.—l am, etc. THOROUGHLY DISGUSTED 'RATEPAYER.

HUNTING Sir, —Having read in your columns “Anti Peel’s” view on “The Thrill of The Hunt,” I was thoroughly amazod to think that a person could take such a mean and narrow-minded view on hunting. The writer confesses that he is not a “horseman,” so what right has he to express an opinion on a sport in which he has never taken part and has not had the opportunity to ride and feel the thrill of the jumps.

Howevre, I agree that his point on having a “Hunt Breakfast” .'is justified, but when a few enthusiastic sportsmen go out of their way to provide a healthier sport for us—the younger generation of Whakatane —need he set such an unsporting example to those who still hope to join in. So come on Whakatane. Three cheers for the Hunt Club! —I am, etc. P.J.B.

THE MALONEY REPORT Sir, —What is the matter with a man who in 1946 can repeat all the out-worn criticism of Soviet Russia that have been the stock in trade of reactionary propaganda from 1918 to 1941? Long after the man in the street has discovered the solid achievements and strength of Russia, poor fellows like “Onlooker” try to persuade themselves that the Maloney report is true. In his reply “Onlooker” has avoided all mention of the solid achievements of the U.S.S.R. which were listed in. our last letter, and to prove his point has to reply with a series of fabrications and rationalisations in face of facts that are known and have been clearly demonstrated to all' who want to see.

„He says: “Miss Sanbys is in Russia.” She is Miss Saxby and she was in Australia when she stated that Maloney’s report was' a “slanderous falsehood.” He says “The Webbs tell us of a famine in 1929 that killed five million,”. Under, the index “Famines,” they do not mention famine in 1929! But they do tell us of regularly recurring famines prior to the revolution, and under the heading “Was there a famine?” they mention an alleged famine in 1931 jand tell of. representatives, hearing of whole populations wiped out by starvation, visiting the areas, checked statistics and found 3 deaths from typhus and not one from starvation. “As to the U.S.S.R., there seems no limit to the wildness of the exaggeration” (of anti-Soviet slanders) they state. “Onlooker” talks of, the , terrible purges in 1937-38 when 60 per cent, of the Communist Party was liquidated. He does not state his authority for the figure of 6Q per Cent so it is open to gravb doubt, but all that happened was that fifth columnists were expelled from th£ party and if they were proven traitors to their country they were imprisoned ; or shot. Perhaps ‘Onlooker” prefers a system like that in France, where fifth column held power and was allowed to remain in office so that France fell like a pack of cards before the Nazis. Against the Maloney’s and their ilk one can prove names like the Dean of U; Canterbury, • Bernard Pares, and JVB.: Priestly. This last named says;’ “The-young people in the U.S.S.R. are confident that they will be able to learn, that they will be able to develop their own special skills, and that if they have particular talents they will soon have opportunities to show those talents. And they are right, for the Soviet

Union is today pre-eminently the’ land of opportunity. It is a country where the young have every right to be confident and hopeful.” “Onlooker” quotes derogatory remarks by Ambassador Davies. But he could quote dispatches from that same ambassador which show how Russia progresses. For example Despatch 1341, June 6th, 1938:. “No less interesting is the fact that concurrent with this extraordinary in-

crease in military expenditure, the outlay for social and cultural purposes kept pace and exceeded it. In 1928 the total outlay for this purpose was 1,495,500 R. (6.4 per cent.) whereas in 1937 it was 26,604,522,000 R (27 per cent, of the total). The significance of these figures is not in their absolute quality but rather in their classification and point of view. In spite of. war necessities the Government has constantly increased its outlay for these activities.” Yes, Soviet Russia is a land of opportunity and hope, but a poor disgruntled person like “Onlooker” doesn’t want to understand that. He rationalises, cooks up false evidence, and tries to cling to some lurid picture which -Soviet achievements have long ago disproved. He ignores the vast progress and rants about imaginary famines. There were 38-million . tons of marketed grain in 1940, 17-million tons more than in 1913! With planned production the U.S.S-R, i. will:-steadily

and rapidly advance, and if the plans go as they have so far, by 1960 it will have outstripped the whole of the rest of the wor : d put together. Facts will talk and . history will answer “Onlooker” and the Maloney report,—l am, ets,. ; _ \ ' SECRETARIAT, ~ • r. ; Edgecumbe Branch, N.Z.C.P. Sir, —It is difficult to differentiate between the Maloney and the Boloney reports, excepting that in the former the Russians are all in the process of dying, while in the latter they had all been killed off by massacre and cruelty prior to 1941. Correspondents in your columns including “Onlooker,” quote authorities to show that in just two years eight million people—five million in one year - and three in another—«■ were all killed off.

However, these are moderate estimates of communist brutality, for in some years as many as ten millions were killed.

Accepting all the reliable authorities including those mentioned by “Onlooker” it can be computed that the average number killed during the communist regime between 1917 and 1941 was seven million, or a total for the 24 years of 168 million.

As Russia’s population used to be estimated at 170 millions it leaves a balance of two millions. Death by natural causes would easily account for this small balance, plus any natural increase (if any), so that by the time the Germans invaded Russia the only people left alive were Stalin, Molotov, 5 generals, an urchin, and 2 females (presumably spared to wash the dishes). Now it is an astonishing thing just how fertile the Russians can be when they have a mind that way, for in no time this barren land was again teeming in millions to the relief of “Onlooker” and his authorities, and the chagrin of Hitler. Sir, the thing that puzzles me most is not the rapidity with which the Russians were “all wiped out, but the speed with which, haying all been killed, they were all reborn. The solving; of . this would make an interesting field ofS eMeavour and- research'; .for .. “Op-; ; looker” and'his authorities. Personally. I . think the Russians must be like fleas, which are reputed to ascend from puling infancy to ripe | old grandfatherhood in. the short space of minutes.-—I am, etc. v - / : BEWILDERED.. ;