Mainstream is
the new alternative

[Re: “Wimpus Olympus,” Riff-Raff, Feb. 18] Thank you for “trotting out” many of the clichés regarding alternative Gen-Xers. Did you not get the memo Raf, bro? Mainstream is the new alternative. Long ago were the days when the “uninvolved slacker” could sit back and complain about how “shitty” everything was, while simultaneously be taken seriously.

While I don’t think you’re a slacker or uninvolved, I feel that this is the persona you were going for in your lil’ rant about the Olympics. First of all, why even go into the talking point/problem of “Downtown Eastside” Vancouver? All that does is make it sound like you think you know the relevant problems of Vancouver, while really anyone can draw reference to this supposed problem without even living there. And honestly, I don’t even think the homeless/junkie problems of Vancouver hold a candle to that of the likes of L.A. or San Francisco. It just looks foolish to even bring it up.

Every opening ceremony is some forgotten mainstreamed spectacle in the end, it just is so cliché to be all against it. The art of mainstream is just as complex and layered as that of the alternative. They just have different signifiers and different narratives.

The other GenX notion of the Internet changing the idea of global relations is also one to be skeptical of. I would say most of us use it as a tool for self-reflection/promotion, rather than grouping together to make a meaningful difference in the world. Don’t get all over-excited about it just because you didn’t grow up with Internet (“Bro, the Internet is totally wasted on the youth”). Honestly, I don’t see it making a headline “Tweeters Erase National Boundaries, in under 140 (blah blah)!” But Idealism is always cute, I guess. Don’t worry Raf, bro, you can still enjoy the Olympics and I’m sure your friends will still think you are a zany, unique, different, important and creative guy who writes sweet columns in the Mirror. Also, dude, the Chatroulette meme is so done. Somehow Gen-Xers are always slow to the punch, but nice reference anyways bro.

>>LAURENCE LARUE

Natives in the spotlight

[Re: “Wimpus Olympus,” Riff-Raff, Feb. 18] Your article about the Olympic opening ceremonies was dead on! I like how, when Canada puts on a show for the world, the First Nation people, who are always marginalized and cast to the periphery of our society, are suddenly plunged into the spotlight to welcome strangers into “our” country.

>>MICHAEL MALENFANT

[Re: “Games, Games, go away,” News, Feb. 11] Canada is a free, open and democratic country. As such, all people should be equal, and given equal and fair treatment. There should be no prejudice against anyone with regard to race, gender, country of origin, creed. And our laws should reflect that.

So what do we do with the aboriginal people, the original people who in a sense owned everything before “foreign” settlers invaded and took over large parts of this country?

The federal government has wisely conferred special rights and privileges to the original owners and inhabitants of this wonderful country. But as we saw recently in Kahnawake, this brings conflicts in its implementation.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to examine what these special rights and privileges mean. First, certain plots of land were “given” (or returned) to the natives. It is only right that these lands be given to them, because it was theirs to begin with. Of course, in Indian tradition, no one owned the land, because everyone simply used the land to hunt, fish, trade and farm. But the “foreigner” was used to having the “title” or ownership of land in his or her home country, so he simply brought this new concept with him. Second, special rights and privileges means that natives do not pay tax like the rest of us. This includes tax on goods (gas, furniture, food, clothes etc.) or tax on land or income. This is a considerable benefit.

So Kahnawake expelled 25 people from its territory recently. Why? Because they might benefit from tax advantages that would not be available to them outside the reserve? They might buy land and build houses cheaper in the reserve than outside? Or did the rest of the community not like these individuals? If it were the latter, that is racism or intolerance. But if it were merely some tax benefit or monetary gain, why not sit down and calculate the difference and ask those individuals to pay to the band council?

If a simple mechanism were worked out to settle this dilemma, we could resolve this conflict without expulsions. If we can’t work out a fair deal, I guess Canada will turn into a racist society to the ridicule of the whole world.

>>ED HOYER

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.