To the Editor:

We recently saw another typical column by Irucka Embry, with slight arguments, knee-jerk labeling, and careless style. It's easy enough for a reader to dismiss such soapboxing as the non-statement it aims to be, yet some of Embry's rhetorical questions beg response.

Yes, I for one endorse capitalism. I do this primarily on moral grounds, in that I cannot think of another system which puts as much faith in the individual. But what of human rights, comes the cry, and I wonder where in history and geography you and I have been as free as we are to pursue our interests be it physics, free jazz, repairing cars, etc. and provide for ourselves in the process.

These are human rights, and those with hopes for themselves shouldn't ask for anything less (such as a philosophy which penalizes the good for what they are, in the comforting interest of being inclusive). Aggressors who dodge blow darts in some Third World country to steal coffee or whoever the oppressor du jour is do not practice capitalism; they use force, which is not a tenet of free trade. Capitalism is a philosophical topic that requires more than a connotative slur. And as far as sustainability goes, what country are you living and going to school in? Is there, hidden somewhere on the globe, an egalitarian commune celebrating their 200th year of producing ideas and raising the world's standard of living?

Second answer: Yes, I aim to reconnect with myself, and I think this has something to do with the individualism you maligned not a paragraph ago. As for reconnecting with the Earth, this is babble unless you explain what you mean.

Third: English or any language as a national standard is not something oppressive. Children don't swim overseas and learn a new tongue by themselves. One might ask why the parents came to America. To be in a more rewarding atmosphere, perhaps? Retaining the old culture is still possible, if you haven't notices. Be the judge of yourself, but not of these people.

What any of this has to do with the commercialization of the holidays is suspect, but it was your column. Sociopolitical commentary does not convince when it is incoherent. Neither does it affect change when it makes no positive suggestions. Any hack can asperse perceived evils in a sentence; the necessary next step is to detail a viable alternative. I do not doubt that you are thankful for all life.

But for you wanting each life to strive for its individual potential, in the highest arena possible, I haven't read the slightest bit of evidence.

Chris Mitchell

Freshman in Business

UT Sponsored Content