The article “The Grammar of Police Shootings” by Radley Balko gave examples of how the use of language and grammar can affect how people interpret information. The language and word choice people use can alter what actually happened in an event, and influence the audience to think in a way the speaker wants them to think. The author goes into explaining a case in Georgia when a police deputy shot a young boy in the leg. A report about the event stated “a deputy…was approaching the property when a dog ran up to him”, which made it sound like it wasn’t the deputy’s fault. In addition, the report continues “The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child.” The author of that report had to choose to leave out the part “missing the dog”, but he/she chose to include that. What can’t be changed is the fact that the deputy shot the child, but the language in the report shifted responsibility from the officer to the dog, emphasizing that the deputy was only trying to shoot the dog.
I think that if Long Soldier hypothetically wrote “everything is in the language we do not use”, she would be emphasizing how people’s explanations of an event are all different. She would encourage the audience to be aware of the language people use and keep in mind that everyone is biased. It’s better to gain information from more than one source to formulate a better picture of what actually happened in an event. However, one can never really know the exact true story of what happened because if the audience were to witness the event first-hand, they would also form their own interpretation and opinion. I think both Parker (poet) and Balko incorporated contrasting elements in their writing to convey their message. Parker claimed “He is nobody special like us. He says brothers and sisters” and Balko used police officers making mistakes as examples. Government officials such as the president and police officers are supposed to protect the people and side with them, but instead they avoid speaking about their mistakes. That’s the language they do not use. People avoid language that contradicts them and their beliefs. They want people to side with them and form opinions supporting them, and not against them.
It was really great how you tied your response back to Soldier’s statement that not everyone has the same side to a story. I also love how your response ended by saying”People avoid language that contradicts them and their beliefs.” This tied in with Soldier’s statement as a justification for why everyone doesn’t have the same side to a story.
Your statement, “What can’t be changed is the fact that the deputy shot the child” is really powerful and furthers the point that when changing how you present a situation, the situation itself does not change. I also really like your point on how each person interprets an experience differently leading them to not use certain language.
The fact that you mentioned that the writer mainly focused on the dog in the kids shooting was something i completely agreed with you on. I think it was very clear that the writer intended to take responsibility off of the officer by adding an “excuse” and also to try to keep the officer involved anonymous. I feel like if long soldier had states that :its al in the language we DONT use”, this would have been a perfect example, because it is clear that leaving out more specific information about eh officer involved and the events that occurred was key in painting a false narrative about the shooting.
“People avoid language that contradicts them and their beliefs.” This is a very powerful thesis/central idea that captures the unease and discomfort surrounding issues that we are not mentally (and morally) prepared to tackle. A Great thought within an overall great piece 🙂