LETTERS to the Editor.

Offended by Day

Former Managing Editor Samuel H. Day Jr. wrote that he is "above all, ashamed of the silence, the helpless hand-wringing, even the craven collaboration of many American progressives and liberals" with regard to NATO's bombing campaign in Yugoslavia ("America at Its Worst," June issue).

I am offended by Day's remarks. I am proud to be listed among progressives and liberals who are at least as concerned about ethnic cleansing as they are about NATO's intervention. It took the intervention of impure imperialist-oriented capitalist powers such as Britain, the United States, and the oppressively Communist Soviet Union to stop Hitler and his ethnic cleansing. Like Hitler, Milosevic ultimately understands only force.

Jay D. Jurie Sanford, Florida 

I have much respect for Sam Day's commitment to nonviolence, but his breast-beating and finger-pointing over the American bombing of Serbia are too easy.

Why not deal with the hard issue that Kosovo poses for pacifists and progressives? Namely, the failure of Ibrahim Rugova, the Gandhi-inspired leader of the Democratic League of Kosovo, to rally ethnic Albanians and roll back the Serbian crackdown of the past decade.

It was Rugova, as the leader of the Albanian Kosovar shadow government, who adopted the policy of nonconfrontation and who developed a parallel system of Albanian schools and health care when the Serbs ended the province's autonomy. In the end, Rugova was discredited as an apologist for Milosevic, and his authority was supplanted by that of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Could it be that nonviolence of the sort that Day and Rugova promote is ultimately powerless when confronted by a thug like Milosevic?

It's an old question, and I fear that George Orwell got it right in 1941 when he rebutted English pacifists who refused to take up arms against Hitler. "Despotic governments can stand `moral force' till the cows come home," Orwell wrote. "What they fear is physical force."

Marc Eisen Madison, Wisconsin

Kudos to Samuel H. Day Jr. have also wanted to use the word "shame" when describing how many of us feel about our government's policy in the Balkans. We must remember, however, that this is not an isolated act. This is the same government that gave us Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm, and here at home, the attack on Waco, MOVE in Philadelphia, and the imprisonment of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Two televised comments by our leaders fill me with shame. The first was when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told 60 Minutes that "it was worth it" to kill those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children by economic sanctions in order to punish Saddam Hussein. The second time was when the President took to the airwaves after the Colorado slaughter to say that we must teach our youth to express anger with words instead of guns--all as we bombed civilians in Belgrade. I wanted to reach into the tube and shake them into understanding what they said.

It was Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928 who wrote, "Our government is the omnipresent teacher; it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law."

Day and The Progressive are exceptions. A large portion of the small "p" progressive press allowed for some form of intervention because of Slobodan Milosevic's nefarious actions. Thanks for Day's clarification.

Don Sloan New York, New York

War Is Never Justified

I applaud the finer parts of "Kosovo Conundrum" (Editor's Note, May issue). However, I wish you had been able to follow your logic about opposing U.S. interventions to its obvious conclusion, instead of mandating that force is sometimes justified.

One cannot prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by causing one. One cannot send a message about opposing war by participating in one. What happens in "tough cases"? The same thing that happens in the non-tough cases: hypocrisy, supporting allies with horrific human rights records, unconscionable acts, more death, and more destruction.

There are many possible courses of action between armed intervention (other-wise known as war) and doing nothing. Chief among them is strong support for the United Nations. When my government refuses to do the right thing, why should I support that by agreeing to war? Especially when I have little reason to think that the government is telling me the truth about the situation.

Peace and justice will come (albeit slowly) when people and government persist in behaving in peaceful and just ways. As Gandhi said, "The means are the ends in the making."

Judith Inskeep White Plains, New York 

Inherited Hatred

In the article "Reflections of a Serbian-American" by Catherine Rankovic (June issue), I feel she is still fighting her parents' war even though she was born an American.

In the past, I worked with many different ethnic groups. It always amazed me how many first-generation-born Americans are still calling themselves Polish, Ukrainian, etc. They speak with great love for "the mother country" (many have never visited there).

I think that all Americans have a right to celebrate their ethnic heritage. However, I find many immigrants pass hatred down to their children.

When immigrants come to this country, they have to understand we have peace and prosperity because of religious and ethnic tolerance. Many generations before us came here fleeing religious and ethnic hatred in Europe. We cannot allow any one group to impose its religious and ethnic agenda on another and remain in a free society.

Judith E. Stevens Lake Zurich, Illinois 

Apologize to Lessing

The editors of The Progressive were unkind to Jonah Raskin when they allowed his remark about Doris Lessing's education, for it reveals boundless ignorance on his part (Interview, June issue).

Raskin wrote: "It's an extraordinary literary achievement by anyone's standards, but perhaps especially so since Lessing ... is a high school dropout who has never received a degree in higher education."

Surely, even in the lowest and darkest realms of U.S. academe, no one really believes that "higher" education has much, if anything, to do with how mature art gets made. Raskin might ask himself why, after thirty years on Lessing's trail, he knows so little about her and the culture she comes from.

Does he really think Lessing would have been better off spending her youth fussing over her GPA and attending creative writing classes (at Sonoma State, of course) under the supervision of academics such as himself, instead of living a real life and writing the Martha Quest novels?

Incidentally, like most of us who were educated long ago beyond the borders of the United States, Lessing didn't "drop out"; she simply left school.

You owe Lessing an apology for letting such foolishness appear in print.

Patricia Connolly New York, New York

Part of the Pecking Order

When is it going to sink in? In your May issue, you have a heart-rending story about catfish farmworkers (On the Line, Howard Rambsy III, "Fired Catfish Workers Start Their Own Union"). Boo-hoo, they have miserable working conditions. What about the catfish?

These people made their living killing other living things. Humans do not need animal protein to survive, period. We want animal protein just to enjoy it.

The progressive movement is just as hypocritical as the conservative movement. Both are replete with rationalizations that appeal to each side's sensibilities. Both sides have tenets set in sand. Animal rights are human rights because humans are animals. If we deny the rights to any living thing, then rights just simply do not exist. Until we recognize our obligations as moral beings to all living things, the fight for rights will be a travesty.

The "Eye of the Beholder" illustration of pigs in a slaughterhouse becoming bacon was a good counterpoint to the story of the "downtrodden" catfish workers (as well as other slaughterhouse workers); a better message of the hypocrisy of the situation couldn't be made. These people would complain if they found themselves in a concentration camp and were relegated to the position of object. Now they are merely part of the pecking order.

Jeff Biss Elgin, Illinois

Ehrenreich Trashes Chicago

I was rather put off by Barbara Ehrenreich's remark that $400 "is barely enough for a round-trip ticket to Chicago or some even less desirable destination" (May issue).

On further thought, however, I realized that it's desirable that this city have a reputation for undesirability in certain quarters, as this will tend to keep away certain undesirable elements, particularly the self-righteous of place, and thereby make the city even more desirable.

Jeff Granger Chicago, Illinois

Rock Censorship Is Banal

Your June issue was excellent in every way except one. The article "Rock Fans Fight Censorship" (On the Line, Mary DesRosiers), complete with a posed publicity photo of a rock band, seems pretty banal in an issue dealing with bombing deaths in Yugoslavia, the assault on small farmers by agribusiness, and the impending destruction of the last gray whale sanctuary. The late Frank Zappa would have had us believe that the biggest threat to our freedom is parental advisory stickers on CD's; why not let Spin and Rolling Stone handle these "issues," since most Progressive readers have more important things to be passionate about.

Peter Ruark Grand Rapids, Michigan 

The editors welcome correspondence from readers on all topics, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material previously published in The Progressive. All letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Letters may also be e-mailed to: [e-mail]. Please include your city and state.