Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 26, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-09-26

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


Friday, September 26, 1986

The Michigan Daily

nord St.
MI 48109


56W59 1* VIEW MAArrY




BuT & 1VERNMEwt FuNts
SI T o '~ 1 .. i H
C t1t~.t ..af +






'Pt&bNAcNCY! z7.





Shanty disgraces the


To the Daily:
It is my belief that the
majority of the students are
not aware of all the critical
and socio-economic issues
that the Apartheid shanty is
ineptly trying to convey.
Seeing as it has been up this
long and hasn't acheived this
basic goal, then it is time that
it be dismantled. I am quite
aware of all the dangers that
come with self appointing
myself as representative of
the majority opinion:.
However, I am fully
convinced that the majority
of the student body are tired of
the shanty and would like to
see it removed from the Diag.
Since I have returned to
school it has been a constant
source of annoyance to me
and numerous others, some
of whom took it upon
themselves to tear it down. I
am not offended because of
the political beliefs that it is
physically representing but
because it is, undebateably,
an eyesore. Why should I be
forced to look at the shanty
while trying to enjoy the
unique, scenic atmosphere of
the Diag? The proponents for
the shanty may claim that it
adds to the uniqueness of our
Diag and the entire
university. I too thought that
its point was well made when
it firsj appeared. However,
it's prolonged existence is
now evoking emotions
contrary to the initial aim of
the shanty. Instead of
drawing upon sympathy and
compassion, it is stirring up
emotions of anger and
apathy. Shouldn't the
majority of the students
decide on the future existence
of the shanty and appearance
of the Diag, and not an
apparently stagnated
It may be objected that the
grafitti on the sides of the
shanty promotes the idea that
it is acceptable to spray paint
your political opinions on
university buildings. Much
of the campus is permanently
stained with identical
As to those on the shanty. I
belive that there is a
correlation between the
slogans on the shanty and the
spray paintings on our
classroom buildings. I have
no choice but to accept that

shanty to protest terrorism in
Paris. Then another group
wishes to build one to
demonstrate the importance
of the rising number of
homeless Americans. The
Diag would soon become a
cluttered slum, scattered with
dilapidated huts. It would
contain all the charm of an
abandoned tree fort
collection. At this time I
would liketo reiterate that the

purpose of this letter is not to
denounce the political beliefs
of the supporters of the
shanty. And the
afforementioned example is
not intended as an attack on
the validity of their cause. It
is merel a hypothesis of what
could happen if minority
groups are left uncontested.
Enough is enough. The
shanty has served its purpose
and should not become a

permanent fixture on the
campus. I understand their
right to protest, but when it
infringes .upon mine and
everyone's right to enjoy the
central spot of the campus,
then I think that it is time f'
the protestors to seek another
medium through which to
convey their beliefs.
Senber 18

Sick and tired of the Shanty


To the Daily:
The shanty on the Diag has
been destroyed and rebuilt
several times. Allegations
of hooliganism and racism
inevitably follow its
destruction, after which it is
rebuilt to the accompaniment
of numerous testimonies as to
its "educational value" and
essential moral goodness. I
believe it is time to set the
record straight.
The shanty was built last
spring with the approval of the
University administration,
on the condition that it would
be removed after an agreed-
upon two week period. When
the period ended, the builders
thumbed their noses at the
administration and declared
that they would not remove it
after, all. The admini -
stration, anxious to avoid a
confrontation, acceded to
their demands and did not act
to tear the shanty down. That
was exactly the response the
shanty-builders were count-
ing on. The lack of resolve
shown by the administration
allowed them to maneuver
themselves into their present
position, taking the presence
of the shanty on the Diag as a
given, and its maintenance
as their right.
They have the audacity to
label anyone who opposes the
shanty's existence as a
racist. This claim is entirely
without merit. Any
connection between the
shanty and South Africa
exists entirely in the minds
of the people who built it and
those who share their view.
The fact that one opposes its
presence on the Diag does not
mean that one supports
apartheid. What it means is
that one does not like having
the shanty on the Diag. It is a

They have forced the rest of
us to look at it for five
months. They have absolutely
no grounds for complaint
when their own tactics are
turned against them.
The shanty certainly does
not belong on the Diag, but
tearing it down is not the
proper way to go about
getting rid of it. The proper
way to get it removed is to let
the administration know that
we are sick and tired of it,

and that we want them to I
what they should have done
last April. Write letters to the
President of the .University.
He is the person with the
proper authority to tear down
the shanty. When he finally
lays down the law and has the
shanty removed, the
hoodlums won't be able to just
come back and rebuild it'
the morning.
-Bradley J. Foste,

Revolution in perspective

To the Daily:
As the revolution progressed,
the rebels soon gained an
upper hand in the war. They
controlled almost all of the
countryside, yet they could
not capture the major cities.
Many of the farmers in rural
areas supported the rebels, yet
hundreds of thousands of
people, mostly in the cities,
remained loyal to the present
government. In rebel
controlled areas, the rebels
imposed laws making it
illegal for anyone to speak
out against their rule, and
anyone supporting, or
suspected of supporting the
present government was
often tortured, jailed, or
exiled. The rebels organized
armed mobs to intimidate
any persons still faithful to
the government, and
"Committees of Censorship"
were introduced to make sure
newspapers were supportive of
the revolutionary cause, thus
gagging freedom of the
press. In time, what had
started as a small armed
uprising grew into a
massive, violent revolution,
in which the rebels, perhaps
l.. .. . .1~ 4 -1..: . - - .,. - ,-

revolutionary government
were subject to fines,
confiscation of property, lo
of all legal rights, ar
eventual imprisonment. All
supporters of the old
government were denied the
right to vote or hold public
office. As the repression
grew, thousands of people
were forced to leave, often in
makeshift boats. These "boat
people," together with those
who fled on foot, number
between 80,000 and 100,00
All fled in search" of a land
free from oppression,
persecution, and
intimidation. It seems that
the revolution had "been
betrayed," for no sooner had
the rebels taken power, did
they proceed to stifle all
voices of the opposition and
deny even the most basic
human rights to thousands of
Sadly enough, this is a true
story, none of it fabricated.
This repressive,
revolutionary regime is still
in power today, exporting its
revolutionary cancer to all
corners of the globe. We li


Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan