UNFORTUNATELY, I did not see the letter from L Spiteri referred to by I M Jarvis (Worcester News, October 14) but despite that, I cannot agree with Mr Jarvis's judgement.

Certain aspects of his retort, I felt, were probably as much a matter of opinion as the comments he was condemning. Surely, one person's opinion has as much authoritative right of passage as another?

It seems to me that one area of knowledge often underestimated is history. By underestimated, I mean that of history's habit of repeating itself.

I thought because of the political and warlike pre-dispositions of Europe, evident in its history, though not unique in this world, great intellects of the past saw a way of placating, at best, controlling as an ideal, the forces inherent in all mankind for the greater good.

It seems obvious to me, for instance, that revolutions do not work, but evolution does. Could it be then that if the great and the good can engineer into place, through democracy, an embryo of political egalitarianism that would be represented in the world, by the former colonial powers of Europe, something could begin to grow and evolve? This could happen despite the nationalistic tendencies of its individual participating members.

I also believe this to be true of religion. To treat people as outcasts because of their faith has been shown historically to exacerbate their anger, and such intolerance breeds a reciprocal response from them, whoever they may be.

Theory and practice are very fluid bedfellows, but history shows us today's minority are tomorrow's majority.

PAUL A F WILSON,

Worcester.