Letters to the Editor
Posted on April 20, 2006

‘Animal Rights BBQ’ as off-color as is offbeat

I am writing in regard to the “Animal Rights BBQ,” which, according to the sponsoring JMU College Republicans’ Web site, is being held April 23 “in honor of those hard-working animals.” What’s next — a human rights lynching? I may be a member of the JMU Animal Rights Coalition, but any organization’s members would take such a blatant trivialization of their cause personally. Umbrage aside, I feel this is an indicator of the extent to which this issue is misunderstood.

I realize that the issue of animal rights is to some a little ridiculous. This is partly due to the over-generalization that equates paint-can toting extremism with animal advocacy. A 1995 Associated Press poll found two-thirds of participants in agreement that the right to live free of suffering should be just as important for animals as for humans. If this is true, then is the term “animal rights” really such a marginal concept? Is it fair to dismiss it offhand before at least looking at the facts? Animals are cruelly raised, kept and butchered in grossly inhumane conditions for the sake of our appetites.

Denial does wonders for those who don’t want to know about the things they put in their mouths. Nevertheless, perhaps humility is a smarter stance than self-righteousness, particularly for a group that preaches “sanctity of life.” If not for the sake of compassion or reason, then for the sake of not being caught with our feet in our mouths. Belittling animal rights in the interest of humor betrays a lack of respect for the misunderstood, like those jokes you hear that reduce all Republicans to idiots and jerks because it’s easy to get away with and it’s funny. The reality is that we won’t understand Republicans or animal rights by taking that approach.

Jared Prunty, senior philosophy and psychology major

Religious holidays don’t warrant time off

In response to Thursday’s editorial on not getting an Easter break, I whole-heartedly agree with the school’s decision not to have an Easter holiday. Why should we get out for a solely Christian holiday when other religions and cultures’ major holidays are not given the same treatment? Yom Kippur, for example, is the holiest of Jewish holidays, yet JMU does not close. On the Chinese New Year we sit in class and learn just like every other day. So, why do you feel that your day warrants a school closing over any other?  I would also like to point out that as a publicly funded institution, JMU cannot close for purely religious holidays as mandated by the separation of church and state. However, JMU does provide you with an opportunity that allows you as an individual to take religious days off, penalty free. So, in the future, I suggest that you stop complaining, when you already have your other holidays off (i.e. Christmas). Take your own initiative to miss classes and eat chocolate bunnies.

Matthew Wolf, freshman pre-CS major

Inaccurate translations are ‘egotistical’ injustices

As a fellow student and member of the JMU community, I saw it as my duty to inform all my peers and faculty about some interesting material I came upon. As part of a project for my English class, I decided to translate, evaluate and analyze some texts and poems by Pablo Neruda that were presented in class. Pablo Neruda was a Chilean Nobel Laureate and one of the most influential poets of our time. I eventually discovered inconsistencies within the translations.

The translator was Ben Belitt, a renowned poet himself, but somewhat criticized for his translations. As I read many of the poems, I came upon several sentences that even though conveyed a similar meaning, had been modified into different words and phrases. After translating the poems myself, I came up with a very different text than that of Belitt’s. I am no poet, but living in Peru my whole life helped.

I researched and came up with interesting results. Belitt seems to change whole sentences, putting them in his own words in an attempt to retain the actual meaning. I encountered an essay written by Clayton Eshleman titled “The Translator’s Ego.” Eshleman argues that, “Belitt imposes his own poetic voice onto the Spanish text, calling it the translator’s ego.” He also points out how Belitt uses his own mannerisms, tweaking the real meaning of the texts and imposing his personal view. This consolidated my theory of an inconsistent and personal translation.

The Third World differs in many ways to the first world, so how is it possible for an American writer to pick apart a sentence which is trying to convey a person’s harsh survival circumstances, rearrange it using his own words and still convey the same meaning and emotion that Neruda was trying to express? It just doesn’t work. I am not criticizing anyone; I am just trying to express the true difficulty of teaching and understanding certain texts that are composed under totally different circumstances than those who read it find themselves in.

Juan Ignacio Labarthe, junior international business and international affairs major