File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-01-05.184, message 28


From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Re: M-I: Ebonics
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:04:15 -0600 (CST)


    As I have tried to indicate in all my postings, I have no particular
opinion (yet anyhow) on Ebonics, its teaching, etc., but am only
interested in the ways in which discussion of it seems to bring out
(or not bring out) certain actual or potential succumbings to liberal
racism (which seems to be the case both with Tony and TimWetc).

    I have not read any material on Black English for many years,
and don't have the time to now, but if anyone wishes to pursue the
subject with some minimal seriousness, a good place to start is
with works by Geneva Smitherman (and some older work by Langston
Hughes, the titles of which I don't remember now). When I briefly
knew Smitherman in the early 70s she was a professor of linguistics
at Wayne State Univ.; she later went to Harvard. I'm not sure where
she is located now.

    One point is, I believe, certain: there is no such thing as
an "inferior" dialect or language, nor is there any dialect or
language in any way superior or inferior to any other dialect or
language in its capability of expressing (or thinking in) abstractions.
This concept belongs to 19th c. linguistic mysticism. All languages
(past or present) are essentially perfect. The knowledge of their
1


Doug Henwood quotes and responds to rakesh: [I've mesed up my
editing screen on elm and can't fix it. Hence the blank spaces.]

    Carrol







>
> At 2:38 AM 1/4/97, rakesh bhandari wrote:
>
> >This program seems to be suggesting that the problem of Black students is
> >Black culture or, more precisely, the maintainence of an Ebonics language.
> >The problem is specified as the absence of cultural assimilation over the
> >last 400 years as students putatively maintain a West African syntax which
> >prevents them from reasoning in standard English or understanding their
> >middle class teachers.
>
> For what it's worth, the New York Times quoted a linguist the other day who
> said that many of the characteristic features of "Ebonics" are of
> post-World War II origin - notably the use of the unconjugated "be." That
> would rather seriously undermine the African origins claim. I have no idea
> whether the Times's linguist is right, or if anyone knows. But does anyone
> have a sense of the linguistic scholarship on the origins of "Black
> English"?
>
> It's very interesting to watch the class angle here. Many middle- and
> upper-class African-Americans are deeply embarrassed by, and critical of
> the indulgence of Ebonics. The NY Times editorialist Brent Staples weighs
> in today (Saturday), harshly critical of the Ebonics party - predictable,
> for sure. Perhaps more suprising is the critical stance of Utrice Lied, the
> former publisher of Brooklyn-based black nationalist paper, The City Sun,
> and now a talk show host on WBAI (where I do my show).
>
> One point: why did the Oakland school board speak of the "genetic" origins
> of Ebonics?
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> Doug Henwood
> Left Business Observer
> 250 W 85 St
> New York NY 10024-3217
> USA
> +1-212-874-4020 voice
> +1-212-874-3137 fax
> email: <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005