 |
 |
|
||||
   |
LETTERS | JANUARY 19, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 3 |
|---|---|---|
Letters
BAD TO THE BONE?
No one knows for sure if certain beef products are dangerous or
not [Dec. 15], but it is better to ban them now rather than find
out too late. The problem is that the people in charge are not
liable for the decisions they make, so they often take the easy
route of not upsetting commercial interests. How could the
expert committee conclude in 1988 that it was "most unlikely"
that bovine spongiform encephalopathy would have any
implications for human health when it knew almost nothing about
the disease? Agriculture Minister Jack Cunningham's courage in
banning beef on the bone deserves our respect. It won't bring
him votes, but it might save the health of the British people.
As a beef farmer, I found your report a refreshing and
well-balanced contrast to some of the antifarmer and antimeat
articles I've seen elsewhere. There is a need for balance in the
coverage of the crisis. The Sunday roast is a cornerstone of our
culture, but people are more likely to die from the alcohol
consumed with the meal than from the beef. Should we ban beer
and wine also? We should outlaw cigarettes and crossing the road
long before we ban beef on the bone. If consumers and farmers
combine in a campaign against this ludicrous law, maybe the
government will do a U-turn.
The panic over mad-cow disease results mainly from people's
unrealistic desire to lead a completely risk-free life and their
inability to assess the amount of risk. After Britain's latest
beef ban, I wonder how many farmers will commit suicide because
they have lost their livelihood. Compare that with the number of
consumers who would have died from eating possibly infected meat. INDIA'S ANGRY UNTOUCHABLES
The untouchables, or Dalits as they are known in Hindi, have
been discriminated against and treated inhumanely for more than
two millenniums. The Hindu caste system [Dec. 15] is still being
practiced, even though it was forbidden when India gained
independence a half-century ago. Caste is enshrined as a
fundamental characteristic of Hinduism, which is severe,
unrelenting and uncompromising in its position on the Dalits.
The Indian government is doing much to improve the education and
living standards of the untouchables, but it appears to be doing
little when it comes to dealing with atrocities committed
against them. The police are more often than not on the side of
caste Indians, thus leaving untouchables with no choice but to
try to forge a unity among themselves, improve their lot and
strike terror for terror to earn their respect in society.
Your report reflects the media's obsession with India's caste
system. But India has a policy of reserving places in college
and government jobs for members of the oppressed castes. Sadly,
the caste system and segregation prevail because of ineffective
implementation of these reforms and because of politicians who
want to maintain the support of their constituents.
Social revolution by Dalits is not against the caste system per
se but against the brutalities and injustice meted out to them
in the name of castes. Recent uprisings in several states in
India are an effort by the oppressed to better their lot and
topple a monolithic system that is deeply ingrained among
Indians. But there are very few examples in history of success
in such an effort. A social system devoid of hierarchical,
feudalistic, oppressive and subjugative tenets would be the best
bet for the 150 million Dalits and 950 million Indians.
Kudos for such a splendid story on India's oppressed people.
None among India's vast free press can afford to publish
devastating accounts like this of the social repression
legitimized by the "holy" Vedas. The untouchables may soon head
for urban areas to escape their situation, but media coverage of
them is still limited. PANAMA LOOKS AHEAD
Why would you denigrate Panama and its citizens by implying that
we will be incapable of running the Panama Canal [Dec. 15] when
it is transferred to us on Dec. 31, 1999? Understandably, the
international community would prefer that the U.S. continue to
play a role in managing the canal, but is it so unusual to try
to preserve the status quo? Was the international community not
present at the recently held Universal Congress of the Panama
Canal, whose main thrust was to reassure users that the Panama-
nian people are quite capable of running the canal? Panama, like
every other country, is a mixture of good and bad, with no
monopoly on virtue and wisdom or on vice and folly. WINNIE SAYS SHE'S SORRY
In the hearings before South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, with his marvelous
persistence and gentleness, brought the granitic arrogance of
Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to its knees [Dec. 15]. He forced her
to say "sorry," a word she probably doesn't use very often.
Since its beginning, the commission has unearthed a lot of ugly
things and horrific happenings in our country. THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE
Your feature "To Our Readers" described TIME's plans for
special issues in which the 100 most influential people of the
20th century will be named [Dec. 15]. It needs little reflection
to see that, in terms of pure influence and impact, the shadow
of Adolf Hitler looms above all. It is difficult to find a truly
significant event or situation from the mid-1930s to the early
'90s that is not the direct or indirect result of, or in some
way related to, his personal decisions. But for Hitler's war and
its sequel, all the others--surely Churchill, undoubtedly De
Gaulle, probably Roosevelt and maybe Stalin--would have remained
local phenomena or would not even have emerged. Would technology
have developed as it has? Hitler was the first person to have
true global influence. And Lenin, with all that his beliefs
imply, comes a close second. ON THE TRAIL OF NAZI LOOT
Re your coverage of the London conference on Nazi gold, called
to trace the trail of the loot [Dec. 15]: let's not forget that
the victims of the Holocaust were 6 million European Jews; 6
million other victims including Polish, Russian, Belorussian and
Gypsy prisoners of Hitler's concentration camps; and 20 million
Russian soldiers and civilians who perished in World War II. All
of them were martyrs; all lost their lives and property. Should
we decide who suffered more and who less?
Your report stated that the observers the Vatican sent to the
London conference "made no observations." Deafening silence once
more? PASSIONATE ABOUT FOXES
The number of foxes does not need to be kept in check as the
supporters of fox hunting maintain [Dec. 8]. The fox population
is controlled by the limited availability of food and the
diminishing area of undisturbed land in which to dig "earths" or
burrows. I ban hunting on my land, as do other farmers in my
locality. Yet in my years of farming, the number of foxes has
not altered perceptibly. The perfidy that banning hunting will
lead to foxes' having to be shot or poisoned to keep them in
check is a device of hunters to justify their vile activities.
Foxes are not vermin; they are useful animals in the country,
predators of rats and voles. The loss of jobs if hunting is
banned is unlikely to be anything like 15,000, but even if that
were true, so what? Protection of wildlife is vastly more
important.
It is amazing that British wildlife flourishes and that the
English countryside remains beautiful and diverse. Much of this
is due to the sporting interests of generations of farming
families who remain passionate about hunting, shooting and
fishing. They have fashioned the countryside to suit their sport
and wildlife. In recent years, the urban-based, Sunday-afternoon
car-window conservationists have wanted the countryside turned
into a theme park occupied by smiling yokels, not the working
people who live there. If the vocal and often militant British
animal-rights organizations are successful, the countryside will
take on a different shape. It will become the silent,
monoculture prairie of other countries. This shameful bill to
ban fox hunting interferes with rural life. It is politics at
its worst and democracy at its most intolerant. THE TIGERS' LAST REFUGE
I was very disappointed in your article about efforts to provide
medical assistance to victims of man-eating tigers in India's
Ganges delta [Dec. 15]. Rather than examine possible solutions
that would enable man and the Sunderbans tiger, an endangered
species, to cohabit better, the story provided a folkloric
account of the terrifying tiger. Granted, the tale of the
man-eating tiger may titillate readers, but it's only half the
story. The Bengal tiger used to be found in many parts of India
and Bangladesh, until increasing human demographic pressure
destroyed its habitat and hunting decimated its numbers. Today
the Sunderbans swamps that run along the Indian and Bangladeshi
border are the Bengal tiger's last refuge. Still relatively
inaccessible to man, these wetlands represent a fragile
ecosystem that is of enormous benefit to man, but they are also
extremely vulnerable to his activities. IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG
I am glad your Health Report recognized the Good News in our
recommendation, which promotes breast feeding babies for at
least a year [Dec. 22]. Unfortunately, by saying feeding takes
six hours a day, you neglected to mention that only newborns
require that much time for feeding (whether by bottle or
breast). As infants grow, they require fewer feedings each day
and the amount of time diminishes. We hope you have not
inadvertently discouraged women from nursing by exaggerating the
time required after the newborn period. The bottom line is that
any amount of time spent breast feeding benefits both mother and
child.
Babies fed formula in bottles should be held and attended to,
and the mother may expend even more time (heating, mixing,
shaking and testing) than she would if she were breast feeding.
We can't expect babies to zoom up to a bottle like a shiny new
car at a gas station. Surely parents who use bottles can be just
as in touch with their babies as breast-feeding mothers. So
which is it? Do bottle and breast feeding , done properly, take
the same amount of time?
|
||
time-webmaster@pathfinder.com |
||