OVER TO YOU

Rush to justify

Recently there has been much outcry over Council plans to fund flagship projects by selling Fitzroy reserve land. Just as concerning however is that these projects include proposals to concrete over the Aquatic Centre’s 50m outdoor pool and diving pool - yet this seems to be passing by without objection.

The Council’s ten year plan proposes to fill in the iconic outdoor pool to make way for car parking, a second 25m indoor pool and (another) cafe. Ironically there is a fantastic photo of the outdoor pool in the introductory pages of the plan and only a few pages later comes the proposal to demolish it. Swimming in the outdoor pool is fantastic over the summer, and for lap swimming 50m (the standard Olympic distance) is incomparably better than 25m. As for the diving board, it’s been great seeing my kids, along with many others, get up the courage to jump off the high board.

Losing the outdoor pools is a backwards step - and worse, we have to sell reserve land to pay for it. If we didn’t have water resilience and airport upgrades competing for funds then it would make sense to look around for the next flagship project, but at the moment, I can’t understand the rush to spend money on these poorly thought out ideas.

It almost feels like they’ve been rushed together to justify selling the reserve land rather than the other way around.

Andrew Hooks

New Plymouth

History moves on

Should I start frothing at the mouth or go into violent convulsions whenever I see or hear any mention of the Bayeux Tapestry? This blatantly racist piece of work, commissioned by William the Conquerer sometime after 1066, depicts the lead up to the Battle of Hastings, and the subsequent overthrow and demise of Anglo-Saxon domination of England by the Norman invaders.

My ancestors were destined to become slaves in their own country for the next few hundred years. Never mind that that we had done exactly the same to the original British inhabitants some five hundred years earlier after the Roman departure. Should Vermeer’s depictions of the Milkmaid and Girl with a Pearl Earring be regarded as sexist?

Michaelangelo’s works in the Sistine chapel, along with his rendition of the Last Supper, could both arouse controversy from people of different races and religious persuasions. Does its social comment still have the same impact today? I doubt it. History (and art) moves on. Get over it. Chris Tompkins

Bell Block

Christian comparison

As a wide-eyed 5-year-old school pupil, my lasting memory of Anzac day is the sobbing of grieving women; for me, a scary and incomprehensible scenario. Over the years I have attended many Anzac days and have always been touched by the courage and sacrifice of all who took part.

As a Christian I have often reflected on the similarities between their lives and the life of Christ. They and He, were well aware that it involved separation from their family. They and He, knew that the forces against them were horrific and formidable. They and He, were called to something that they knew would involve the sacrifice of life, but nevertheless, made the determination to do it. Men and women did this to ensure the freedoms we enjoy today. Christ did this to ensure our freedom for eternity. My prayer is that while we commemorate Anzac day, yet as a nation, we will also continue to remember the faithful love of God for us, and honour him as we honour our fallen.

Joyce Callaghan

Inglewood

Moeahu patronising

I readily accept Mr Moeahu’s opinion that William Strutt’s View of Mt Egmont, Taranaki, New Zealand is (merely) a personal, imaginative, British view of cultural life in New Zealand/ Aotearoa in 1861. I am not sure what he expected artist Strutt’s view to have been, other than that. But that issue is minor. What concerns me more is that Mr Moeahu believes, if not states, that Maori will find any exhibition of the painting unacceptable and that non-Maori New Zealanders will have any ‘‘racist’’ biases they may harbour confirmed, if not ignited, by it. Mr Moeahu’s patronising and paternalistic view of Ma¯ ori and Pakeha, that they don’t ‘‘get’’ what (Western) historical art is about and need to be protected from it, is unfortunate, and unexpected in one serving in an important advisory role to the Govett-Brewster.

Dr John Powell

New Plymouth