Whittier College Poet Commons The Rock Archives and Special Collections Spring 1984 The Rock, Spring 1984 (vol. 55, no. 3) Whittier College Follow this and additional works at: https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/rock Recommended Citation Whittier College, "The Rock, Spring 1984 (vol. 55, no. 3)" (1984). The Rock. 24. https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/rock/24 This Magazine is brought to you for free and open access by the Archives and Special Collections at Poet Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Rock by an authorized administrator of Poet Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPRING 1984 VOL. LV, NO. 3 nm 1?C(= 1 IIITIER COLLEGE Closing the Gap AMERICA AND THE SOVIET UNION HHH1 MHHHH1 H K1D1310 1IO)RA?CKOM IOMPHAHPOCCI$LA[bTA 1818 THE GK Volume LV, No. 3 Spring 1984 THE ROCK is published four times a eG-1o'wSrr11e year, Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer 1&!orrie by Whittier College, 13406 Philadelphia Avenue, Whittier, California 90601. Contents DR. KISSINGER'S SPEECH Center ROOTS OF CONFLICT 1 TRIBUTE TO JESSAMYN WEST McPHERSON 5 ON CAMPUS 7 LAW SCHOOL 13 OLD ACQUAINTANCES 14 The President's Corner n this issue of THE ROCK we are reporting on two matters, both Iimportant to the College, but otherwise very dissimilar. The first is the great success of the John Greenleaf Whittier Society Second Recognition Dinner. It was gratifying to see so many people gathered together out of their affection for and interest in this historic College. Many were alumni, many were friends, and many, we hope, who were strangers to Whittier, will become friends. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger was, of course, the "star" of the evening and his speech was both interesting and thought-provoking. You can read it in the center pages of this magazine, which will enable those of you who were not present to share something of the evening that was experienced by over 1,000 guests. We are grateful to Trustee Ruth Shannon and Mr. Shannon for their help in arranging for Dr. Kissinger to be with us. The other event to be recorded in this issue expresses our "sorrow following upon joy." The death of Jessamyn West McPherson, noted author, former Trustee and graduate of the Class of 1923, affected all of us. In her writing she had the knack of involving the reader, so that even those who did not have the privilege of knowing Jessamyn personally, felt a kinship with her. There is a tribute to her in these pages, and the next issue of the maga- zine will include some reminiscences of alumni/ae who had attended her classes, as well as comments by two members of the faculty who were among her close friends. We will not see her like again. Eugene S. Mills The Roots of Conflict "Roots of Conflict "is the title of a presentation made by Professors Mike McBride and Fred Bergerson of the political science department and moderated by Professor Joe Fairbanks of the history department. It was first presented at the Whittier Institute of International Understanding, co-sponsored by the College and the American Friends Service Committee; it also formed part of an "On Campus " television show and most recently was given at a luncheon for the John Greenleaf Whittier Society members on January 21, 1984. Fairbanks: How does a topic like time that the Americans were "Roots of Conflict" tie into what entering it, the Americans were you teach Whittier College students resentful and felt he was a threat in the classroom? to their national well-being. Also, the Communist aspect itself was a Bergerson: When I discuss United problem. There was a fear of States/Soviet relations in class, I try radicalism growing out of the labor to learn the most fundamental movement in this country in the assumptions of the students and see 1880s and 90s. whether they're sound and what they're based on. I find that most Fairbanks: That was made even undergraduates take it for granted worse, of course, by the United All this makes it difficult to nego- that the Soviets are our logical, States' intervention in Siberia after tiate, because each party regards natural, historic enemy and we World War I and the failure to the other as an enemy. should be prepared to be in conflict recognize the Soviet Union until with them and spend enormous the 1930s. Bergerson: We haven't spoken sums on arms. about the period of the 1930s, I ask them why we feel that way McBride: There are a number but at that time the Russians were about the Soviets, how long we've of things that contribute to the among those most willing to do been enemies and what brought Russian antipathy toward the something to stop the rise of this about. I point out that Russia United States too. During World Hitler, and they thought we were was actually considered a friend to War II, Russia lost well over 20 willing to let the Nazis and the the United States during and after million people and felt that the Communists kill each other off and the American Revolution. Catherine Western allies were not doing their let the Russians bear the brunt. the Great was seen by Americans share. Stalin kept asking for a Eventually they turned the tables as being friendly and Russia was second front, which only came in on the Western allies by signing regarded as having a positive rela- 1944. While we provided lend- the Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact, tionship to the United States. lease aid in considerable amounts, and made peace with the Nazis During the Civil War, the Russian they thought it was a minimal for a couple of years while both of fleet came into San Francisco contribution to the war effort. We them strengthened their hands. harbor, and it was headline news didn't agree to their demands on Finally the Nazis reneged on the that Russia was supporting the Berlin and opposed them in Iran treaty, and though the USSR Union. At a time when it was felt and in Greece with the Truman became our allies in World War II, that the Confederacy would win Doctrine. Our policy of contain- many in the Soviet Union felt the support of the British and the ment following Churchill's "Iron resentment against the Western French, Russia was seen as a Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, powers for not stopping Hitler counterweight. formed part of the roots of the when there was still time, while in American enmity towards Russia Cold War. In addition, of course, America there was the feeling that began less than a hundred years the fact that we had used nuclear we should be appreciated for ago. Their revolution had a mostly weapons in Japan, and they had sending lend-lease supplies to negative reception here; at first not yet developed them, was a Murmansk and risking our sailors' people were somewhat sympathetic cause for fear. lives. because they wanted to terminate They continue to view us as very the oppression of the Czars, but in aggressive—VietNam, the Domini- Fairbanks: So it wouldn't be World War I there was a feeling that can Republic, Guatamala, and now wrong to say that each side had Lenin was really a German stooge Nicaragua and El Salvador, only misperceptions of the other? and, because he was willing to pull confirm their negative perceptions. the Russians out of the war at the Bergerson: I'm not sure they were misperceptions, exaggerated 1 perceptions might be better. A McBride: The historical back- their ties to West Germany, are lot of our actions after World War ground is relevant, because today looked upon by the Soviet Union II were regarded as tolerance of we are in a major dialogue about as people who want the destruction German revanchism—the Russians what to do about the arms. There of their system. feel the West Germans are not that has also, of course, been a major much better than the Nazis, because change in Soviet leadership, and Fairbanks: I think this is a classic the plains between their country since Chernenko probably won't kind of confrontation, where you and Germany have been the site of be around for more than a few can state the arguments on either invasion for over 900 years and years, there will be further change. side, make a very strong case, and they felt the new West German What will the future hold? convince people that that is the government was going to re-arm, Communist ideology sees Capi- correct point of view. For both which they did, supported by talism (and in that sense the United sides it is a seemingly logical, America, and that those arms States) as an enemy that must coherent argument. would be directed at the Soviet change its ways, must disappear, Union, which they are. or must be overcome. Also, Bergerson: Another difficulty in because the Soviet Union has had negotiations is that each side has so much domestic difficulty, they different definitions of some of need an enemy to divert the the key terms. When we talk about attention of the people. It's a lot free elections, we mean one thing, easier to spend on military goods when they do it's freedom to select and weapons and heavy industry the best candidate whom the lead- and to sacrifice on domestic and ers themselves have chosen; what agricultural production if there's we mean by peace and peaceful a constant threat "out there." co-existence is different from what Then, if you look at our side, they mean, because for them it where members of the administra- exists when there is competition— tion view Communism as a real economically and socially—to show evil, certainly Russian actions in that Communism is the best system.