I am writing to protest one of the cartoon strips in The Royal Gazette .

If you carried a strip which ridiculed the Jews of central Europe during the Nazi persecution for instance, or a `funny' that humiliated Africans during the time of the slave trade, I doubt that you would have a newspaper left to sell, and quite rightly so.

Why is it, then, that it is quite acceptable to mock, belittle and humiliate another minority with impunity in the pages of your newspaper? I am of course referring to the cartoon strip `Tumbleweeds' by Tony Ryan which, on a daily basis, portrays native Americans or `Indians' in stereotypical eurocentric perspective. This strip has, on analysis, absolutely no redeeming value: it continues to portray these people as stupid, warlike and savage incompetents, whereas the opposite was largely true.

They were massacred by European invaders due to pure greed despite the fact that they were initially willing to share their land with them. It was the Europeans who introduced the custom of scalping in order to prove to the authorities that they had killed the numbers that they claimed they had killed in order to collect their bounty! The only `crimes' that these people committed were to trust the white man who broke treaty after treaty with them, gradually bringing them to their knees by killing all their food; (buffalo were almost totally annihilated and left to rot on the plains) by force-marching them at dead of winter to inhospitable and exposed `reservations', and by massacring their young warriors with superior weaponry.

Your predecessor as Editor was unable to see this point of view. In his estimable defence of my protests his erudite and considered judgment was that Tumbleweeds was, and I quote, "funny''.

Mr. Editor, I appeal to your sense of humanity to make a decision regarding this nauseating racist strip. Just because we don't actually have native Americans living here doesn't mean that it isn't offensive. I am willing to bet that this strip is not to be found in American newspapers which have a population of `Indians' among its readership.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it doesn't mean that it makes no noise.

I hope that you look upon this appeal with fresh perspective and come to the conclusion that, like 1950s cowboy movies, Tumbleweeds is indeed not only anachronistic but intrinsically offensive.

PAUL AZZARIO, Southampton P.s. Mark Trail also sucks -- can you `86' it also. Thanks! Editor's Note: We keep our comics under frequent review and would be glad to hear from other readers about which strips they like and which they would like to see dropped. For what it is worth, the cowboys in Tumbleweeds are as hopeless as the Indians, but if other readers find nothing amusing, then we would be happy to drop it and replace it with a more up-to-date strip.

Why deny the obvious? April 19, 1999 Dear Sir, I am surprised to observe the huge degree of uncharacteristic outpouring of emotion on the part of the business sector, in particular Mr. Barry Shailer of the Bank of Bermuda on a simple statement of fact. Such characteristics are normally directed by the sedate business sector against pro-Independence campaigners.

Bermuda, by any definition including that of the OECD, is unequivocally a tax haven and a harmful tax jurisdiction and has happily been referred to as such until the OECD produced its initiatives early in 1998.

A tax haven, quite simply, is a jurisdiction that aids and abets an international company to escape or avoid that company's obligation to pay taxes to its onshore, at home, jurisdiction. Bermuda does that.

A harmful tax jurisdiction is a jurisdiction that permits international companies to deprive onshore metropolitan jurisdictions, like Britain, of much-needed tax revenue required to finance their respective social programmes by accommodating this flight of capital. The savings of millions of tax dollars in this manner further permits these `off-shore companies' to `out-compete' similar onshore companies left at home because of the offer of lower-cost products and huge economies of scale. These onshore companies find the competition from Bermuda's `offshore companies' unbearable and accordingly scale down their operations or simply close their doors, thus causing unemployment and further harm to the onshore jurisdiction's level of tax revenue etc. The taxes that these OECD countries are interested in are the taxes on profits, dividends, interest etc. -- income and corporate taxes which do not exist, we are repeatedly told, in Bermuda. The taxes that international companies pay locally on payrolls, land tax, social insurance etc. are paltry in comparison and do not unduly exercise the OECD countries. Mr. Shailer knows that. Or ought to.

It is therefore misleading for Mr. Shailer, and others of like mind, to attempt to dupe Bermudians and insult our intelligence by erroneously characterising Bermuda and advising the present government that Bermuda is not a tax haven or a harmful tax jurisdiction.

It would be more honest to say that we are a tax haven or harmful tax jurisdiction and attempt to negotiate an acceptable compromise or accommodation with the OECD, G7 and EU Countries even if it means some agreeable level of taxation on our business sector income and corporate profits. The question will be WHAT is the acceptable minimum tax level that will keep us off the OECD `hit list'? Not a denial that we are a tax haven or harmful tax jurisdiction.

The issue is not whether Bermuda is a CLEAN or DIRTY tax haven or harmful tax jurisdiction. It is whether we are a tax haven or harmful tax jurisdiction or NOT. Mr. Shailer's remarks simply miss the point altogether and do not address the substantive concern. Indeed he is singularly EQUIVOCAL and vague in this regard. We should be very careful in accepting myth or fanciful wishes for reality. It's better to call a `spade a spade' and face up to it. Mr.

Shailer's remarks were applauded. But remember, many applauded, at the time, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There are none so blind as those who have eyes and yet, do not see. Adolf Hitler was applauded to his death.

PHIL PERINCHIEF City of Hamilton Hard lesson in reality April 19, 1999 Dear Sir, The `Cabinet climb down' you report today begs questions, the first being whether it was originally unanimous that the Elbow Beach manager be ejected, and second, in the face of the Saudi ultimatum, whether it was then also unanimous that the order be substantially rescinded.

If the answer to the first is a `yes it was unanimous' it can be excused as an honest step in the learning curve of people who were only projecting the credo that they, in opposition, and the unions too, have themselves instilled in much of the local work force. Having long preached the gospel that Bermudians need not perform to the same standards as Bermuda's competition, or to the demands of management who have learned in the real world what it takes to survive and make money, it is only understandable that they would practise their own preaching. Misguided and naive perhaps, but at least an honest extension of election rhetoric.

If the answer to the second question was also a `yes it was unanimous' that the ejection order be rescinded, then we are getting somewhere. It may have been a hard lesson in the school of reality, but the `yes' will signify that the lesson was learned. The Cabinet's reassessment therefore is not a climb down as you term it, but rather it is a climb up, in fact from Class 1 to at least Class 3, or even 4, in the lexicon of our reclusive Premier, and in the school of hard knocks and the real world.

Should this climb up not have been unanimous, then the minority who voted against it, or even argued against it, should be left behind in Class 1. They should be relegated to the back benches and with Mr. Derrick Burgess assigned remedial summer school to re-learn reality, and un-learn vote -getting rhetoric.

Hopefully, for this class of willing(?) learners, school lunch will not be one of sour grapes. They cannot allow people to lay in wait for some weaker employer that it is felt cannot stand up to the bullying that just may have been intended for the Elbow Beach. Those who have successfully graduated thus far will be wise indeed to see to it that this does not happen. All employees have just as much right to expert management as have those at the Elbow Beach.

Those in the Cabinet who graduate to Class 6, in these days of the real world, will encourage business to function super-efficiently. They will have learned that Bermuda must compete successfully with the resorts that are now taking our jobs from us, closing down the Lantanas, Glencoes, Bermudianas and the Marriotts, and even the Archie Browns. They will know that as each business closes, even more workers are out in the street. The workers, of course, are those who put the Cabinet in power. The Cabinet will be wise to remember that and see to it that those who voted for them also fully understand the risk of encouraging second or third rate management, happy to be paid and happy to let the past inefficiencies continue on undisturbed.

Investors, the people with the money, will not tolerate it. Remember too, that the possible investor at Marriott will be watching every move.

BOTTOM RUNG St. George's