Submit your letter!
LET THE PIGS BE
Our "Ghost of riots past" [[e]Mail, July 5] obviously gets a high by humiliating a Mirror writer (by calling him "asshole") and using a word for police, "pigs," that was as inappropriate in the '60s as it is now. Pigs are innocent victims of a cruel, unrelenting slaughterhouse industry. To identify pigs with police brutality is absurd and helps perpetuate the humiliating stereotypes of nonhuman animals through which their slaughter is justified.
Why not call the police brutal, sadistic or even murderous when they act that way? Do we need to call them "bastards," when that is a humiliating value judgment about children not born to formally married parents?
Finally, Mr. Ghost, are you afraid to identify yourself by name in a letter to the editor? Are you afraid to take responsibility for what you say?
-- Shloime Perel
DOWN WITH DESTRUCTION
Definitely a first to read a letter from a vandal bragging about what a rush it is to destroy other people's property for no other reason than to get a "high." People he disagrees with are "assholes," police are "pigs" with "slappable faces." How old is he, 12?
The least attention we give to such people the better, but such a letter deserves a response. Does the "Ghost of riots past" consider other people's property fair game in order that he get his rocks off? He says "it's the most exhilarating high to see and hear a huge window come crashing down on the sidewalk." Well, there are those who enjoy masturbating at the scene of a fire, too--form a support group.
The Ghost suggests that "people riot for a lot of reasons," but then doesn't mention any. He only mentions that he gets his jollies to the sound of breaking glass. Based on his letter, it seems his motivation is attention. He's obviously unhappy with the way things are here. There are many other places to live. Why doesn't he choose Singapore, Malaysia or better yet, China. Get a life.
-- Sickened
NOT TONGUE-TIED
I am writing regarding Kristian Gravenor's poorly written column entitled "Too many tongues" [July 5]. Here are some thoughts on the key points of your article on languages: if your interest is in universal communication, we should learn more about other cultures (including their languages) instead of forcing them to replicate one language just because it's easier or because our ancestors killed theirs. If you're worried about people having a good earning potential while speaking an "obscure" language, go to Nunavut and watch people pull down a six-figure income while speaking Inuktitut. How cute is that?
Do we need more than one language? Here's a thought: language is the symbolic exchange of thought. If you limit the ways thoughts can be expressed, you limit the kinds of thoughts you can communicate. No, we don't need more languages than one but, on that subject, do we really need original thought?
"Linguistic multiplicity" also leads to things like space flight, the UN and the works of people like Lorca, Neruda, Voltaire, Einstein, Freud, Moliere... But let's put your idea into play. Let's adopt one language. The subtext of the article seems to be that we should all speak the language of the majority--English. I don't know if you'll be shocked, but English speakers are not only a minority in Quebec, but also in the world (English ranks as second to fifth most spoken language globally, depending on who's playing with the numbers). If you want to decide on one language for the world based upon the language of the majority, then you'd better brush up on your Mandarin real quick.
Go read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, Kiss of the Fur Queen by Tomson Highway and Neruda's 100 Love Sonnets. Go live in a place where no one speaks your language and see how it feels, then tighten your copy and try again. Good journalism isn't a cute head shot and half-assed catchy phrases, it's the presentation of an informed opinion.
-- M. MacLennan
|
