1.) The intent of the first six words of her column is to say that using polite terms while communicating with others is important, especially with others of a different race. Chavez stresses the importance the meaning of civility.A person's word choice can be interpreted in many ways unless it has background information to guide the reader in the right direction.
2.) Chavez used the term bellicose to describe how political terms have been used over the years. For instance, when we say a candidate "took his best shot," we don't mean he aimed a gun at his opponent, either does "firing a shot across the bow" mean anything more than issuing a strong warning. These terms and phrases help enrich the context of the political debates and elections.
3.) Chavez is attempting to make the reader believe that the use of words is not the problem, but it's what the context and tone used to say the word. If we discriminate on those with others who aren't equal -- by race, ethnicity, sex, religion, sexual orientation or political party -- even normal words can take a hurtful meaning. I think that her best example is when the Los Angeles Times did a style manual that restricted the use of some words: "Indian," "Hispanic," "ghetto," even "inner-city." This example shows that people are trying to get rid of words that take offense to others. Another would be the Huck Finn and how the switching of the words negro and slave change the meaning and do not allow the reader to fully understand the author's intent. I would have to agree with Chavez because she makes a valid point about how words are not offense, but it is the person that says and uses the words that creates the offensive nature of the word. Prejudice and discrimination still live on today because of the use of many words that have been claimed to be offensive to many.
No comments:
Post a Comment