THE USE OF BAD LANGUAGE IN MILITARY CAMPS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17729, 13 September 1919, Page 7

THE USE OF BAD LANGUAGE IN MILITARY CAMPS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sip.,—A private and subsequently a non-commisione-d officer mysulf, I was rather interested in the correspondence with regard to the use of bad language in tho mibtary camps. I would like to add an observation or so of my own. One of tho instructors used in some cases anyway to use both very bad language and jokes in teaching bayonet fighting. Indeed, to teach properly a, subject of such a nature -he found it almost necessary to do so. Most swearing soldiors had their limit in swearing also, although it was puzzling how they fixed tho limit. There were very few in camp who didn't have some word that they thought it "crook" to usa! 1 remember some non-commissioned officers also pitching into one of their number who had sworn freely in front of a new chum just comc into carnp, after he knew that tho new chum's civilian occupation was that of a, parson. These non-commissioned officers, in lurid and emphatic language, swore freely at their offending- brother for having sworn in such circumstances! A company commander lectured his comoajiy one day for using filthy languago at night in tho tents. Ho complained that swearing was quite unnecessary, and sounded bad! I am afraid all tile remedies suggested would prove quite futile, if they, indeed, didn't add a zest to swearing in the aimy! I fancy myself tho best remedy, one likely to suppress the offender, and also to appeal to tho army generally, would be baptism by immersion! To get down to bedrock, I think tho real defect is underrating tho soldier's intelligence. I believe this is about tho average view of a soldier in the matter: He comes into camp to learn a murderous business, to take his part in an international brutal _ struggle for commercial supremacy. Ho -quite believed Gel-many caused the war, but also believed it must have occurred some time anyway. That is, Ormany was responsible for the -war when it happened, and perhaps for making a certainty of it that it should happen, but tho real cause is deeper, very much deeper—probably bein<* the very system we live under. ° Tho soldier then would rather fight than see tho enemy win, but he is disgusted with tho whole business. He also sees the churches (despite their kindness and attempts to modify tho brutality of tho whole business through *hoir chaplains) enthusiastically backing the respective sides, each

church backing its own nation. War is really made bv them to appear to bo miita a noble business. In camp in New Zea land for instance, the soldiej- even wears his bayonet at church parade "for style." Surely then, if the churches see no harm or has no qualms j n respect of such matters swearing is really a trifle—no evil to sprak of at all! I myself _ regularly attended church before entry into camp. Since my return to c yihan life, I have, ceased to attend church altogether Before camp I was a nonswearer. I have no love now for swearinir but in certain circumstances would be-more prone to it than before. I have no fault to find with Christianity; the war has emphasised its value and the need of humanitv tor it, but for the above reasons my faith in churches is gone utterly, and I have hoard qiuto a number of soldiers speak the samo way. I am convinced the same idea is at the bottom of swearing—a kind of discontented recklessness at "the mote" being seen and the "beam" missed in matter generally.—l am, etc., Cuip September 10. i , T ° K^ n ArV° lcl "Rett'iS told of you" take NAZOL on sugar, or inhale it at ° ar9 6im P 1 i" marvel- -