Proposition 227 (was Re: NP Ebonics)

[Abdiel OAbdiel]

--- Malignd <malignd at yahoo.com> wrote:
> With some of the dust cleared around this debate, it
> is peculiar to find people referring to Rob
> Jackson's side of this as opposed to my own.  Rob
wrote:


Here comes MaligndD riding his wooden horse, his head
in the clouds, his nose in the air, his mask of logic
strapped on tightly. His opponents in this debate now
left to the dust kicked up behind him can only mutter
rank gibberish. 

What's peculiar is not that others have tried to
divide your position from Roberts, but that you are
now attempting to argue that only minor differences
exist between your position and his. 



> 
> << The fact that people speak a language other than
> English as their first or chosen language does not 
> mean that they're stupid, or that they can't learn
> to understand and use "standard" English to
communicate in formal and informal contexts. But
appropriate educational programs - and that includes
> acknowledging and respecting individual and cultural
identities, and cultural diversity -  need to be
provided to ensure that they get the chance to do
this.>>


> 
> There is nothing in this I disagree with; he
> suggests no more or less than
teaching--prescribing--standard
> American English in schools, to blacks as well as
> whites, as well as everyone else. 

Well, he may agree or disagree with you on this, but
that's not at all what Robert says in the paragraph
you've provided. 

If Robert has argued that American schools should all
follow a program of prescription (everyone that has
participated in this debate here agrees that all
students can benefit from a program that includes
lessons in SAE)  I've not read that here. Precriptive
programs don't work. The push to return to
prescriptive programs is troublesome and it must be
exposed for what it is--failed education policy that
is often, though not always, indistinguishable from
racist educational policy. 

> 
> He also wrote:
> 
> <<A society which institutionalises failure and
> exclusion for individuals from certain backgrounds -
> whether on the basis of religion, skin colour, 
> wealth, language ability, migration status, IQ or
> whatever - is far from  democratic.>>
> 
> This is somewhat murkier.  It's not entirely clear
> whether he means by a "society which
> institutionalises
> failure and exclusion for individuals from certain
> backgrounds" one which teaches a standard American
> English/grammar/spelling or one that doesn't.  I
> assume, from context, he means the former.
> 
> He also wrote:
> 
> << The backlash against providing equity programs
> for
> students with Language Backgrounds Other Than
> English
> resurfaced in California just under five years ago:
> It
> set a nasty precedent, and similar policies have
> been
> adopted in other US states since then.>>
> 
> Here he says something far more sweeping and
> debateable.  Resistance to the Oakland Proposition
> took many forms, some of which were undoubtedly
> racist
> and/or ignorant in nature.  But there was much to
> legitimately criticize in it and no nasty precedent
> was necessarily set by those doing so.

It's true that there were ideas in need of additional
study and research, some that needed revision, others
that needed to be eliminated. There was a process.
However, the Oakland School Board proposal, generally,
was based on solid pedagogical practice and theory. In
fact, the use of the Mother Tongue as an instructional
language to teach the language of the majority or the
elite is standard around the world.  What happened in
Oakland and what is happening here in the USA, I agree
with Robert, is that the ignorant (not you MalignD)
are being persuaded that Ebonics is a degenerative
ghetto slang. They are being misled by anti-Ebonics
racists and by English Only Nationalists.  Consider
the fact that Georgia, South Carolina, and Oklahoma,
moved immediately to pass anti-Ebonics legislation. 
One of the most tragic developments of the reaction to
Oakland is that the attempt to break the very fragile
alliance of Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, is having
some success. The divide-and-rule tactic is working
under "Bush the education president" who speaks
Spanish but not Ebonics. 


> 
> He also wrote:
> 
> << Perhaps "Ebonics" wasn't the best example to
> bring
> to the debate, as it  is a derivation from (or
> subversive reappropriation of) "standard" American
> English rather than a "foreign" language ...>>
> 
> Although I agree, the authors of the Oakland
> proposition did not.  The Oakland proposition said
> that Ebonics was in fact a language with roots in
> African languages and not a derivation of standard
> American English.  

I hope Robert will explain his use of inverted commas
over the words "foreign" and "standard." But let me
say that Ebonics is a language. It is not a foreign
language in the United States as Spanish and French
clearly are. Ebonics is not broken english, is not a
degenrative form of SAE, is not a slang or a ghetto
language. It is a set of communication patterns and
practices resulting from Africans appropriation and
transformation of a foreighn tongue during the era of
American Slavery. 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com