THE EDITOR, Sir:
'IMPERTINENCE(!?)'. THAT word. I am still trying to recuperate after reading Dawn Ritch's article in your Sunday Gleaner, where she referred to the Prime Minister's 'impertinence' for questioning the United States' version of Aristide's removal from Haiti.
Webster's dictionary defines impertinence as boldly rude or disrespectful. Dawn Ritch either had something cheap to smoke, or she harbours a passionate hate for Jamaica which I believe is where she was born.
Dawn's response to an exchange between the democratically elected head of a sovereign nation (her own) and the official of another sovereign nation, be it America or Zimbabwe, confirms most of what I have read about her in the past. One would have expected Dawn to present a position, reflecting a clear and rational disagreement with the Prime Minister's decision, rather than to take the childish approach to 'stick it to P.J.', no matter the circumstance.
Impertinence. Dawn: did you really mean to use this word? Are you saying that developing or smaller nations must never question what is said by the developed or large nations? If that is the case, how do you explain the denial by the US in September, 1973, that it had anything to do with the overthrow of Salvador Allende, only having to admit its involvement later. I could go on to mention several more, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo (see recent HBO documentary of U.S. involvement).
I am, etc.,
MARK DENTON
cumberland53@aol.com
Olney, MD, USA
Via Go-Jamaica
