Linda Chavez opens her article with six key words to express her support of public civility. Throughout her article, she explains how certain phrases, although controversial, evoke more passion. Without Chavez’s first six words, the reader may skew her perspective towards thinking that she supports all emotionally charged words even vulgar statements. This is by no means Chavez intent.
After the recent events of the Tuscan murders, topics such as weapons and violence have become sensitive issues. Chavez connects this to her point by using the term bellicose. She wanted to show how phrases can become offensive under certain circumstances even though it is obvious that they are not meant literally. She also wanted to point out that warlike terms have always been linked to politics. For example, she explains that the word campaign came from the French word compagne referring to a battlefield. She shows that these phrases help describe the political aggressiveness rather than referring to actual acts of violence. By explaining her point through these bellicose examples, she shows how the recent Tuscan violence is not a result of the public’s use of these warlike metaphors. Her best example was her reference to the Los Angles Times’ style manual which restricted words such as “Hispanic” and “inner-city”. This example shows how careful people are about being politically correct. When in reality, the alteration of a society’s vocabulary won’t extinguish prejudice attitudes.
I agree with Chavez’s opinion that we should continue to use compelling language to express ourselves. However, we should not speak offensively or be uncivil to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment