I play softball once a week. Still haven't relearned how to throw a ball up close, which is why I don't play infield...but can still play the outfield like, well I was going to say Ken Griffey, but he's had a whole host of injury problems.
So afterwards I was hanging with one of the players, a Latina teacher. She teaches a group of largely African American kids. She told me about how she tries to communicate the value of Standard English to the kids. "You don't want to sound stupid do you?" "You want to get a job don't you?" I hear this argument all the time, and it isn't just from non-blacks. My mother is a teacher and makes the same exact argument. So my friend asked me if she was being politically incorrect.
I don't know about being politically incorrect. I do know that if she wants to get kids to speak "Standard English" she's taking the wrong approach. The approach she SHOULD take could be instructive for Republican whites. Not for THIS election mind you--Bush is lucky if he gets even 10% of the black vote, and I'm thinking that black turnout is going to increase significantly this year because of Florida. But over the long term, perhaps. If they pay heed.
The problem with the way my friend, and most teachers, pitch the standard english vs. ebonics debate is twofold. The first is that it is technically inaccurate to argue that you can't make money with Ebonics. In as much as Ebonics is now synonymous with urbanity and with youth culture, you can make TONS of money using it. Why the hell do you think one of the slogans that a prominent cell company uses is "Where you at?" Why do you think the WNBA's slogan was "We got next?" Advertising execs recognize the cache in the black english vernacular. STUDENTS recognize its cache--one of the reasons I am a fairly effective and popular teacher is because I can convey dry information in a way that speaks to where kids are at. And part of that is using the BEV when required.
Ther other problem with the way it is pitched is similar. If you've got two people--one who speaks English, and one who speaks English and French--which would you say is more equipped? I'd go for the bi-lingual over the monolingual any day of the week. While I wouldn't argue that Ebonics/BEV constitutes a separate language, it does constitute a unique dialect that for some people might as well BE a separate language. So teaching kids standard English gives them a LEG UP on those kids who only KNOW standard English.
So you don't teach kids standard english so they can get "real jobs" and "sound intelligent". You teach kids standard english so they have the ability to speak more than one dialect.
I think this can be instructive for Republican whites. (I assume Republican blacks already know this...and I don't think much about black Republicans to be honest). Work on the assumption that black people KNOW what their issues are and have made a RATIONAL decision to support the DNC. If you work from there not only are you working from a much saner position (current arguments about blacks always seem to be based on some sort of pathology--black people have been duped, i.e. are too stupid to realize their TRUE interests), you are working from a position of respect. A position which, combined with sane policy proposals (significantly funding the EEOC for example to aggressively combat racism), may actually get you votes in 2012.
Posted by at August 13, 2004 06:28 PM | TrackBackMy approach would be different from your friend though, if I were a teacher. But Bill Cosby, your mama, and your friend are right: only speaking Ebonics puts black children at a major disadvantage in both education and the workplace. Particularly when it's wrapped up in the internalized oppression - promoted by far too many liberals, including celebrities - that implicitly and explicitly equate speaking standard American English to "acting white." That's foul on so many levels and sells black kids short.
Posted by: molotov at August 14, 2004 04:53 AMYet no way is putting 90%+ of our votes with one party a rational decision.
What's even less rational is giving our votes to a party that militates against our issues simply because it exists.
Posted by: P6 at August 14, 2004 05:08 AMI agree that putting all eggs in one basket is not smart in the political realm. Although no one says that about the Religious Right. Hmmm... That's intersting, ain't it?
LKS's comments concerning the starting assumption, is on point.
Posted by: EBrown at August 14, 2004 10:37 AMMolotov, my mother, Bill Cosby, and the teacher are wrong because they start with the wrong premise. Of course it is better to speak two languages than simply one...so why not use THAT as the starting point? Ebonics is the language of American popular commerce...pure and simple. It is INSANE to tell kids not to use it when everyone else does and makes millions off of it. Much better to emphasize code-switching.
Posted by: Lester Spence at August 14, 2004 12:15 PMAfrican: "What language do you speak when you at home?"
Richard Pryor: "Uhhh...English?"
African" "No, no, we all speak English, but what language do you speak when you at home?"
Richard Pryor: "Uhhh...Jive?"
I guess that's right. Multi-language flexibility and code-switching beats strictly "standard English" every day of the week.
Try as Black elites might (and as they have in some form for 100 years or more), they are not ever, ever, ever, going to stamp out Black poor- and working-class culture.
Yes, I still live. Sorry for the inactivity, fellas.
Posted by: Michael R. Hicks at August 15, 2004 07:48 PMI've said it about the religious right, and many others do also. I'd want to qualify it with one point -- the religious right, at least the really extreme ones, often threaten to vote for a third party candidate. It was Buchanan in 2000. They're saying Constitution Party now, though I've been trying to raise the issue of real racism in that party.
As for the two "languages" thing, I don't think most of the people saying kids need to learn standard English mean anything different. I don't think the popular culture argument is all that good, though, because the only way to make money of speaking Black English is to become a superstar, and the chances of that are fairly slim. A woman with a nice body has an attribute that could be used to hit it big in Hollywood, but she'll more likely only find porn gigs. I don't know if this is that extreme, but it's a similar situation.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at August 20, 2004 06:54 PMA couple of points Jeremy. When we talk about advertising execs, we're not necessarily talking about people who were one in a million (like your average NBA star). There are a number of spinoff industries that cry for bi-lingual specialists.
But secondly a number of people who tell kids to learn standard english actually ARE telling them that their "home language" is worthless. Explicitly.
Posted by: Lester Spence at August 20, 2004 09:44 PMDude Ebonics are how black people talk.
Posted by: Snake at December 19, 2004 08:28 PM
Most black folks know what our issues are. Yet no way is putting 90%+ of our votes with one party a rational decision. Especially since so many black folks inflexibly vote Democratic and allow Democrats to get away with all sorts of mess! Where's the position of respect there? And when Republicans are in power, black folks get cut out. Not sane with the GOP controlling the White House, Congress, most governorships and state legislatures.
The bloc vote doesn't trouble me so much as the fact that the bloc vote doesn't significantly fluctuate. Black Democrats don't follow through to ensure that their party's politicians keep their promises, then it's the same ol' show the next election. Then many folks complain that Democrats take our votes for granted. However, that can't happen without black folks' consent.
What would be rational is for most black folks to be independent, and vote for candidates and not the party. Given most blacks' fiscal liberalism but social moderatism to conservatism, this is where folks belong.
Posted by: molotov at August 14, 2004 04:44 AM