WAYS OF DEBATE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 8 October 1936, Page 9

WAYS OF DEBATE

(To The Editor)

Sir, —My opponent “Fairfight,” flatters himself when he says his letter was answered a fortnight late, “calculated no doubt to cloud the issue.” His own calculations were thirteen days out, as you, Sir, could trivialities as the meaning of my opposition were to leave alone such verify, if he has ay doubts. If the nom-de-plume, and the length of time to reply to their meaningless letters, and set themselves to disprove my arguments, they might strengthen the opinions of your readers in their favour. By avoiding the real issues they are only making themselves ridiculous. “F-F” still talks of my side tracking, while he side-tracks my request to state what he wants answering. In his support of a certain correspondent, he appoints himself as the judge of what is clean, gentlemanly debate while his protege, in addition to other samples I have repeated, refers to the Bard of Avon as “Billy” and tells a long story about Mr Nash and myself drinking two barrels of beer, with the result that we were as drunk as owls. My opinion is that the writer of such drivel—to use his own words —should share the same fate as his beer and be “sunk.” As a “drunken owl,” let me propose a toast to “Fairfight” as a critic. —Gentlemen —“The Kink.” A more harmonious note is struck by “Novice,” to whom I tender thanks for his appreciation and for his compliment in coupling the merit of my efforts, with those of Mr H. G. Berryman. Though our subjects are different, current and currency, we are both preaching from the same text. “Let there be Light.” Regarding the “smacks” of the opposition,” “Novice” need not be perturbed. I only bring my kite out when there is a “breeze” and it always rises “against” the wind.

And now “Fifty-Fifty”—Apropos of “exactly nothing,” he says he does not care whether I have had one year at school or fifty. It is possibly due to my ignorance that I cannot understand how this matter creeps into the debate. This branching away from the subject may have its roots in what is known as “higher education,” whereas mine is of the lower standards. This is a great joke in the enemy camp and I think “F-F” should tell it to your readers, because I never try to finish the other fellows’ story. Personally I have no regrets about the education I missed, because not being educated I have had to use by brains instead, and as Burns says—“ Human bodies are ‘sic’ fools. For a’ their colleges and schools.” A good way to learn is to try to teach others, and I’m sure “F-F” will learn quite a bit trying to teach “Ikona Mali.” This is what “Fairfight” calls smug self-satisfaction, but when you can get away with it, it becomes snug self-satisfaction.

My “airy” remarks about the Tibetans is claimed to be a poor sidestep, yet it was a definite answer to “F-F’s” suggestion that we should ship 90 per cent, of our goods to less favoured parts of the world. I pointed out that as far as standards of life go, the Tibetans have their own standdard and resent any imposition of the standards of others. Italy is a recent instance of taking a “higher standard” to the Abyssinians and the rest of the world disapproved. In olden times, to make a Roman holiday, Christians were thrown to the lions. Here, we have the spectacle of the African lions thrown to the Christians. I have previously stated that to meet foreign trade competition we do not need to eat rice, or live in bamboo huts. I am only concerned with the standard of living of our own race, because other races have their own standards, and as, it is their own, it is not our concern. Who are we, to tell a Chinaman he must use a knife and fork, if he prefers chopsticks? “F-F” says he has neither the ability nor the inclination to follow the shadows on bank ledgers through to their last resting place. Until he has this ability he is an imposter as a debater on this subject, and though others have already realised his ignorance, his frankness, though commendable discounts any of opinions. He asks: “How can we have a credit of 40 millions and also a debit of about 300 millions.” This he admits is beyond him. If he was a seeker after this knowledge I could tell him but I have told him a lot more important truths than this and he will not have them. He is like the boy who did not care for the bun because it had currants in it. When these were removed to please him, he said he didn’t like holes in his bun. Suppose we just say for a fact, that we have a credit in London of 40 millions and we have a National Debt of 300 millions. Why it is not deducted from our debit is the financiers’ business, and even “F-F” doesn’t seem to approve. Why not do something about it? “F-F” still continues to tell us that it is our purchase of goods that has put us in debt. Though we have always exported more by many many millions, than we have imported—that is given away more than we have received —we have been extravagant. This is the equivalent to telling a person who only spent about three parts of his income, that he was a spendthrift. Is it worth while telling “F-F” again, that it is not buying things that has got us into debt, but borrowing money—a permission to produce things—that were already ours. lam afraid it is not worth while spending time over the jumbled ideas “F-F” has about money and matters and I see better hunting in the field “Plain Facts” has thrown open. Just one further point, however, “F-F” accuses me of misquoting because he said “we had exported enough to keep twice our present population etc., and I quoted, instead, that we had exported hundreds of millions. In doing this I was giving “F-F” information he was only guessing at, and emphasising his own contention, but because I tried to help him in his own argument he holds it against me. Thinking of Zig-Zags, I’ll roll a cigarette. —I am, etc., IKONA MALI. Nelson, 6th October.