Proposition 227 (was Re: NP Ebonics)

[Abdiel OAbdiel]

--- Malignd <malignd at yahoo.com> wrote:
> <<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.>>
> 
> And why is this peculiar?

Because it is a devisive device used by people like
Millison. While we have all come to expect this kind
of crap from him must we now come to accept it from
you too? 



> 
> <<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.>>
> 
> I don't follow this.  Are you saying that lessons in
> SAE are not prescriptive?

Everything that is taught in public schools in the USA
is prescribed. Students are to be taught SAE. How it
is taught, what methods are used, what languages are
used, is another matter. If you live in NYC you know
that when you walk into a public school in Manhattan
chances are you are going to find a very diverse
population of students. Walking into some schools you
are more likely to hear, read, and if you can, speak,
a language other than English. If SAE were the only
language that teachers could use in a New Comers
School 
where the students don't speak English, how much SAE
do you expect is going to be taught? Not a hell of a
lot. 

> 
> <<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.>>
> 
> That Afro-Americans are genetically programmed to
> speak Ebonics is an idea in need of study and
> research, yes.  One might say that.  One might also
> say it's ludicrous and in need of no further study.

This would fall under "others that needed to be
eliminated." Who is the author of this foul theory? 

> 
> <<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.>>
> 
> This is undoubtedly true, but it is another issue. 
> That Ebonics is not ignorant ghetto slang is not the
> same thing as saying it's a good idea to teach and
> encourage in schools.  Or that teaching a
> prescriptive
> grammar is a bad idea.

Teaching prescriptive grammar doesn't work. If your
objective is to improve the writing skills of
students, prescriptive grammar is nearly a waste of
time. 



> 
> <<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.>>
> 
> The kindest thing that can be said about this
> statement is that its very debatable.

Debate it. It's a language. 

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