be judged grossly inadequate.

Realize that the Negro civil rights movement made negligible progress under the leadership of "professionals" and that it didn't really get moving until "amateurs"-mere college kidsdecided to join in. Granted, the court decisions won by the professionals laid a strong base for the amateurs' efforts; the subsequent great steps must, however, be credited to the energy and drive of amateurs. Negroes had been advised to get an education, improve their manners, work hard, etc., etc., so that someday they'd be acceptable to the white community. And some made it. Meanwhile the professionals worked slowly and quietly thru the courts to gain their legal rights. And they won some important decisions. But the discriminatory laws stayed on the books, the lunch counters stayed closed to them, and the general public stayed unaware and unconcerned until impatient amateurs stepped in. Similarly, homosexuals are advised to prepare themselves thru "training"-how and to what end is not specified-before rushing in. And still the discriminatory laws stay on the books, the police raid parks and gay bars, and the general public isn't particularly involved or concerned. Is there not justification for doubting the validity of the established approach, justification for impatience and irritation?

Rationalizations concerning the splits in the homosexual organizations is perhaps interesting but nonetheless absurd. Had the thirteen colonies shown similar disregard for the need for union, the Revolution would never have gotten off the ground. The Revolution's "Join or Die" may be a bit strong, but "Join or Fail" is a motto all homosexual organizations should contemplate. It seems to me that it should not be impossible to unite unless the "leaders" involved are petty, bitchy, two-bit emperors more jealous of their prestige and position than con-

cerned with the success of the movement. If the latter is the case, union may require the emergence of one man or group of men sufficiently powerful and attractive to the people who count

-the vast, uninvolved mass of homosexuals to eclipse the present lot and force them to merge or lose whatever small importance they retain. Perhaps unfortunately, this does not seem a credible threat to hold over the heads of uncooperative leaders; but one never knows there may just be such a man or men on the sidelines, getting ready to step in if they feel they are needed. Even in their absence, however, it should not be impossible to merge existing bodies into one-a single, commodious and well-staffed headquarters in New York (as goes the West so goes the West; as goes the East so goes the nation), the various publications and newsletters merged into ONE-if the leaders and membership involved are willing to expend some energy and show a little statesmanship and intelligence.

As for foreign languages, (see Magazine, November 1965) please realize that the primary purpose of language is communication; language which does not communicate is gibberish. If you wish to exclude-and thus insult --most to accommodate a few, go right ahead; but I object. Like those of millions of others, some of my ancestors sacrificed Dutch, Gaelic and German language to communication with their new compatriots, a sacrifice of no little importance. Is it so unreasonable to expect others to make a similar sacrifice or at least to make that sacrifice worthwhile by allowing us the communication they sacrificed for?

As for British spellings, please realize that affectation, by definition, is the adoption of something not natural. That Harry Otis is a "dyed-in-the-wool Westerner" yet used a British spelling in a poem shows that that usage was affected. It is partly because my

25