Seattle Public Schools' Web Site Says Individualism is a Form of "Cultural Racism":
From "Definitions of Racism":
Cultural Racism:Also included: "Defining one form of English as standard," and "identifying only Whites as great writers or composers." I should say that assuming that only Whites can be great writers or composers is of course indeed racism; but providing a list of the greatest composers and writers that consists only of whites may be perfectly legitimate, depending on your criteria (which could be entirely fair, though not indisputable, criteria) of greatness.Thanks to Hans Bader for the pointer.
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Seattle School District Takes Down Odd Definition of "Cultural Racism"
- Seattle Public Schools' Web Site Says Individualism is a Form of "Cultural Racism":
If the former is the case, if people find it stigmatizing to be told that they speak "incorrect" or "nonstandard" English, I guess I don't see it as a huge deal for professional educators to use a different term, as long as they're still allowed to hold students to the same standard. If it's supposed to be a multicultural ideal where everyone's dialect is equally valid, then ugh, that's a tough way to run a school system.
How do countries with more formal dialect systems handle this? If I'm a Basque student at the University of Madrid, am I expected to write my papers in standard Spanish, or can I write them in Basque? What about a country like China or India with countless dialects?
Hmmm...seems that whoever wrote these definitions watched one too many Star Trek episodes:
This is supposed to be helpful?
Well, I guess to be particular, even a white person could only be racist in relation to a person who has relatively less social power than s/he does. So I guess racial animus isn't a problem as long as you're poor? What a weird and radicalized perspective to endorse.
Here is an article found on google by a Professor Josef A. Mestenhauser in Minneapolis called "Traveling the Unpaved Road to Democracy from Communism". (http://education.umn.edu/EdPA/CIDE/TRAV.html). He describes it as a criticism of educational philosophy in the 1950s, that "man is improvable".
Generally, if you look it up on google it is an expression used by Communists who discuss education. Apparently, the expression "future time orientation" is used disparagingly to criticize the capitalist/Judeo-Christian idea of achievement and personal growth. In other words, by teaching children to think about the future and make responsible life choices you are a racist. Pretty much the standard leftist line.
More proof that the comments policy has pretty much lost its meaning.
Racist mockery is racist; I don't think that having a uniform language is. Of course, if the reason for implimenting a uniform language is simply to discriminate against racial minorities, then that's racist too. But again, the simple desire for a uniform language can't be defined as racist. It's dishonest to make this kind of radical argument in the form of a "definition."
As an aside, there just seem to be so many disconnects here. If a private company defining white panty-hose as "nude" qualifies as racism, this simply can't be because other groups are politically less powerful. You can't rationally limit "racism" to actions by the politically most powerful group and then also have it include petty slights like the naming of panty hose. If we're talking about political oppression, then we're talking about political oppression; we're not talking about any sort of lack of political correctness. In fact, then we're not even talking about open race-based animus on the part of individuals or private companies. Indeed, I'd say this is a major reason why hinging the definition of "racism" on political power as opposed to actual racial hostility is so wrong.
As a Seattle resident, it's always great to see inspiring examples of my tax dollars hard at work!
I think there's also a component of institutional featherbedding here. If all dialects of English are valid, then no teacher can be held to account for the failure of their students to learn standard English, since it would be racist to force them to learn it.
(1) expecting personal survival into a future
(2) that it makes sense to plan for
(3) in a manner that strikes others (frequently rehabilitative care staff or educators) as productive and rational
and further assumes that
(4) this quality is measurable, at least in comparison to others in some group (peer group?).
I imagine the practical difficulties in ensuring this does not take on racist tones arrive with (3) and (4). Varying cultural expectations will result in how living for the moment and setting up future goals are balanced.
What happens in a predominately white, middle-class, classroom where parents and role models have generally earned at least master's degrees and where, say, a young black male from a lower-class, single-parent household in the same community plans on leaving at 16 to take his G.E.D.? What assumptions can you picture being made about his choice by teachers, parents, classmates? How would this change if the young man in question were white? This is an example of what I think a conflict involving FTO and potential racism might look like.
India has a simple solution to this problem: English. National schools are run in English and no one gets to use their own local language/dialect.
Well if there is going to be one form of English, shouldn't that be colour?
Good answer, and I guess I should have thought of that. But I still wonder about China!
This is, of course, functionally exactly opposite to your given definition, Drill Sergeant, but it is at least the sort of thing one might actually want to avoid.
The individualism=White correlation is bizarre; surely the authors are aware that modern collectivist thought is largely the product of white thinkers? (Marx, anyone?)
On the one hand we seem to have Seattle attempting to lower the bar and declare that attempting to teach "standard English" (really Standard American of course in this context) is racist.
In reality, the marketplace determines value as any economist who isn't a Marxist would tell you. Wanting to legislate an alternative value doesn't make it so.
Blacks and Whites (poor whites) in this context, though of course it applies to all) who can speak "standard English" have a much great chance of breaking out of poverty and succeeding in the broader world. Hence;
- The relative success of even first generation black immigrants from the British Caribbean colonies who come empowered with the Queen's English and an FTO orientation.
- And of course a whole sub-Continent (Indian) who recognize that success is more likely with a good education and the ability to sound like you grew up in the mid-west.
It is an interesting point, but how much application does it have in this context?
An example of a real-world problem: Many kids today (including, if not predominantly, those who are white and upper class) primarily engage in reading and writing via aim and texting. Sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling habits are formed in this environment, and kids bring them to school. Should the fact that "rubber" may have more than one meaning prevent a teacher from instructing children according to a standard model?
I remember those Franken wines with great pleasure. In Kitzigen, I once had a trockenberenauslese that was like liquid gold. :) 1971 was the vintage as I recall.
"Generally, if you look it up on google it is an expression used by Communists who discuss education. Apparently, the expression "future time orientation" is used disparagingly to criticize the capitalist/Judeo-Christian idea of achievement and personal growth. In other words, by teaching children to think about the future and make responsible life choices you are a racist. Pretty much the standard leftist line."
Hmm, not only Red-baiting, but pretty transparently lousy Red-baiting.
First, the Google-search of the expression
"future time orientation", as I expected, yields many hits, and other than references (many quite quizzical. as in "Wotthehell?") to the same Seattle schools policy statement, NONE of the first thirty or forty seem to involve references to any works by any notable communists on education policy. So the claim about the "general" use of the term is apparently false.
Next, I've skimmed Prof. Mestenhauser's piece, (it's written in an educational sociology jargon which I find painful going REGARDLESS Of the idealogical bent of the author, in this instance, clearly NOT Marxist in any sense)t) and I don't THINK even HE'S using the term in the way, or making the claim that Barry G. makes about the significance of the term.
Mestenhauser adopted the term from Clyde Kluckhohn, again, not noted mostly as a Marxist educational theorist (though I once heard a joke to the effect that "The average Dine/Navaho household consists of the nuclear family of five, extended family of four, and Dr. Kluckhohn". Anthropologist jokes. Go figure...))
So, without anyone calling anyone elseany more names, anyone, IBNLT Barry G. want to offer SOME explanation or citation in support of the name-calling?
BTW, without reference to its idelogical slant, the Seattle pice, I'll freely admit, it pretty much hooogly as well...
rfgs
My favorite was the neuwein season (basically, the Germans couldn't wait and just tapped the wines a few weeks into the fermentation process in October, early Novemeber and sold the wine in 4 litre plastic jugs and had festivals in the local villages). Watch out though--it would give you a hell of a hangover.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
As to standard English, here's my sense: One of the greatest disservies that parents and schools can do to blacks and Hispanics is not to teach them that there's a "standard English" (in America, standard American English, in Britain, standard British), and that they'd better learn it and use it if they want to get ahead. In a perfect world, that might not be so. In today's world, speaking black English, Spanglish, southern English, Brooklyn English, and the like is going to leave one at a huge disadvantage -- and the disadvantage would be greater still if one's looks already lead many people to undervalue you.
Well, if "standard" English consists of never starting a sentence with "and" or "but" or never ending a sentence with a preposition, I want none of it.
Lots of fun, but terrible hangovers.
When were you there?
As an aside, my most vivid memory was a a beer fest up near Bad Kissingen in 1978. standard bench tables, omp-pa-pa band, beer, beer maids, roast chicken and wurst. I was there with my wife, the Colonel's wife and a couple of other folks. In the middle of a set of music, the band played the Horst Wessel and folks started singing along. You have to figure that a 20 year old WWII vet was now 53 and in prime beer hall singing mode. Anyway, the 3 of us Ami, felt like the Jews at the back of the hall in Cabaret. We left quietly shortly after. A strange and memorable night.
Southern English does have one niche market. It's the preferred language for calling cadence and providing "direct corrective counseling" (read ass-chewing) by the entire Army regardless of your birth state.
Trust me on this, my nick name says it all. I was born in Northern California, but when I was a Drill Sergeant, my professional vocal voice had more than a bit of drawl to it
Writing "Standard" American English and Speaking it are two entirely different things. What is spoken standard English? Liguists agree that the accent of coastal Georgia and the Carolinas is probably closest to the "Standard" English as it was spoken in early 18th Century Southern England so is probably more "English" than English. Likewise, the "Cajun" accents of coastal Louisiana are closer to the French accents of the 17th Century than anyone alive in France today.
>Usually when I hear lefties calling someone a racist bigot, it is such an excessive and facile description as to signal damaged minds and rhetorical styles that stultify helpful public discourse and drive people to the right.<
As a lefty, I tend to agree, and I find it pretty frustrating. As much as I've tried, I just can't find any support for the idea that what America really needs, or particularly what liberals really need, is to raise the level of anger and distrust amongst minorities that we're just a country full of white closet racists. Which is exactly what this kind of policy tries to do. I think it's extremely counter-productive and damaging.
At the same time, I think this type of rhetoric is really only supported by a very small percentage of the population or even lefties. The major problem the rest of us face is that it's just really hard to counter it without things becoming even more divisive. This is exactly why this method of redefining "racism" is so effective and pernicious, because it forces others to then become "racism apologists," which people tend not to want to even sound like.
I think the real disagreement among liberals and conservatives isn't between those who support this kind of rhetoric and those who don't; it's simply a matter of whether the rhetoric should be publicized and chastized. Liberals, I think, tend to believe that we're worse of making a big deal out of it, even if they disagree with the actual sentiment.
Still, I'm with the moderate conservatives on this one; I think something has to be said. As you said, when liberals don't distance themselves from these kinds of radical accusations, I think it drives moderates to the right.
Nicely put, as long as you'll concede the same about some of the other labeling equivalents such as "sexist"
In both the PRC and Taiwan, Mandarin is the only dialect allowed in schools. In the PRC, at least until recently, it was also the only dialect allowed on TV and on the radio. I'm not sure if that is still the case. There was some Taiwanese dialect media in Taiwan under the KMT's martial law and there has been an explosion of it since martial law was lifted in the late 80s. Taiwanese is being used much more widely now on Taiwan than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. There has even been talk of making it the main dialect in schools, though this is very unlikely. On the mainland, many of the special characters used by the larger dialects, such as Cantonese, have fallen out of use because they were essentially not allowed to be printed. While the CCP obviously can't deny the existence of other spoken dialects, they have tried to pretend that the languages are written the same way. This is true only in a limited sense. I should also note that I use the term "dialect" with some hesitation. Cantonese and Mandarin are totally mutually unincomprehensible. They are far more distant phonetically than Italian and Spanish or even Italian and French. Anyway, it's a confusing situation that is increasingly in flux.
I was there much later than you ('95--'97), although you may have run into my wife (way--21 years--before I met her) and her ex-husband. Her first assignment, in 1979, as a PFC (she's a MAJ now) was to Schweinfurt, she was a medical clerk at the time. Her soon-to-be husband was either a 1LT or 2LT in the armor (either 1 or 2-64 I think).
The Seattle Public School definitions of racism are clearly absurd. But so is the notion that "by teaching children to think about the future and make responsible life choices you are a racist" is standard leftist line. Name a single national-level left-leaning politician who has said anythinhg even remotely like this. And no, simply defending social programs doesn't count. Can you name one?
The quote is interesting only for being so unbelievably ridiculous on its face.
Says the "Dog"
It was 2-64 and 3-64 Armor, Conn Barracks. I was in both but left in 78
There's another interesting section of that Seattle www page.
Me thinks from the tone, that they aren't enthusiastic supporters of Assimilation? Or am I over sensitive?
Bill Hawkins
Teaching kids that there's a form of English that it's useful and important to be able to use is very, very different from teaching that there's one form of English that's correct English, and all other forms are wrong.
Ohh give me a break. You know many people believe in many liberal causes simply because they want to maximize human happiness and minimize suffering. Given that many people are not always going to be responsible even though it would be better if they were it is perfectly reasonable to believe things like safety nets, public services and other programs to help people who aren't John Galt.
I mean look at how decent people treat their children who run into problems. A decent person will try to raise their children to be decent responsible people but if their adult child loses their job, has a mental breakdown or even runs into problems with drugs they will still step in and help them out. You shouldn't be a sucker and keep feeding your kids drug habit and you want to encourage them to be self-supporting but this doesn't mean offering them a safety net is a bad idea.
Clearly if it turned out that massive social programs and government benefits increased societal happiness then these would be the right programs. This clearly isn't absurd on a priori grounds and while some programs are clearly a bad idea (and some things done privately like police forces are a bad idea) many of these questions rest on complex economic and psychological problems that reasonable people can disagree on.
Sure there are plenty of ridiculous liberal wackos. I live in berkeley, I should know. There are also plenty of conservative wackos (e.g., moralistic crusaders who would take away your rights to free speech and people who want homosexuality to be a crime). However, it is getting kinda annoying the way so many people on this blog talk as if no one could be a reasonable sane person and also a liberal.
To put my point another way: you are treating a criticism of an actual social practice (teaching kids that one form of English is "correct," "standard" English, and all other forms are wrong and their use is evidence of stupidity) as a criticism of the most sympathetic intellectual proposition that practice might arguably be said to embody (that it's useful to know "standard" English to get along in American society, and kids should be taught that).
You write here that hat "it's useful to know 'standard' English to get along in American society, and kids should be taught that"
Under the language, it appears they would call you racist
The Seattle statement didn't say you had to define one form of English as "correct" and the others as "wrong" to be a racist; it said you could be guilty of "cultural racism" simply by saying that one form was "standard," which is pretty much what "[t]eaching kids that there's a form of English that it's useful and important to be able to use" amounts to.
I taught in a high school (Gymnasium) in Germany for a while. Even though the local dialect was Swabian, which was what most people spoke outside of school, school instruction was in high german...and parents would become upset if the teachers didn't speak high german in class.
I think that this is a completely reasonable approach - no one is denigrated for speaking Swabian (and all of the teachers spoke it as well), but it was recognized and generally accepted that people needed to be able to speak high german to be able to communicate with people from other regions. I think that the same attitude should prevail in US schools.
Right. Because a policy of the Seattle Public School system is representative of all academia.
I once spent six weeks in Dallas and came out saying "y'all." It can be a second-person plural, which ordinary English lacks. The possessive is "y'all's."
Well . . .
OK, no. But it would be ignorant or stupid to pretend like you didn't know what standard American English was or that it shouldn't be taught in school.
Name a single national-level left-leaning politician.
I see the point, but I think it is a little blunt.
Personally, the way that I speak in my office with colleagues has very little to do with the way I speak on my couch with friends. I haven't irrevocably relinquished my local mannerisms by learning how to speak to my employer and to clients.
However, I will say that my mother is an immigrant (I won't say from where), and I can't speak her native language. It isn't from her lack of effort (she taught all of my siblings), but my own. I grew up in an area where everyone spoke english, and as a boy I had very little interest in taking time to learn another language.
So, from my own experience, I think that if 2nd and 3rd generations lose the ability to speak in their (grand)parent's tongue, it isn't because a classroom forced them to learn "standard" english; but because they didn't need the mother tongue to flirt with girls or play basketball. If I had to use my mother's native language in order to be social, I would have learned it quickly; regardless of what English my teacher taught me was correct. It's overall neighborhood-level social assimilation that primarily matters, not english curriculum.
From my Army days I'm a firm user of y'all. It certainly beats the northern second person plural.
youse guys
There is a wide variety of accents and dialects in the Arab world, both by country and region. (It's hard for an untrained ear to pick them up, but it just takes experience.) However, despite all the various accents, there is still one standardized form of Arabic, called Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). MSA is what you hear on the TV news, on the radio, in business transactions, in formal education settings, among Arabs from different countries conversing with each other, and most importantly, when reciting from the Qu'ran (MSA is a modernized version of the classical Arabic used in the Qu'ran, which is quite important since they believe that the Qu'ran is the verbatim word of God himself!). In fact, my Arabic teacher, an Algerian, told us that every Arab knows both MSA and their local dialect (in his case, Maghrib Arabic, used in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.)
2) Like it or not, modern life imposes its own needs on everyone, quite apart from what closet Marxist ed-school scribblers would like to see. Having one recognized "standard" dialect in a language is a useful, perhaps even necessary concession to the fact that people are more mobile than ever before, and that people who can speak that form in addition to their native dialect enjoy a comparative advantage. The goal of education needs to be to prepare the student to be successful, not validate some pet social theory or philosophy. That's real pragmatism.
The "rule" about never ending sentences with a preposition was promulgated by linguistic elitists who thought Latin was a superior language and attempted to paste its rules onto English. As so many have found, it's non-sensical when applied to English and many schools no longer teach it (sadly, not until long after I had to suffer through it).
As a computer geek who has read most of the RFC's that underlie the internet, I'm afraid I believe the social benefit of "defining one form of English as standard" outweighs the social costs. I've an immigrant aunt who is adamant that immigrants should learn English ("because I had to, dammit!"), and insisted her kids learn to speak PROPER English (no mean trick in Staten Island; they've noticably less local accent than the rest of my cousins there). Admittedly, this shouldn't take the form of absolutely prohibiting colloquialisms such as "ain't", "y'all", and the use of "they" for the gender ambigious singular; language still evolves. (Yeah, those are white southern examples, but I've only lived in rural NY and suburban VA, so I'm not fluent enough to give examples from Jive or Ebonics.) However, use of colloquialisms should be discouraged in more formal contexts.
Identifying only whites as great writers and composers I can only half see. Music education in my school days wasn't spectacular then, and it's reportedly getting worse according to my sister (who knows from raising rug rats). By all means, encourage diversity... but not at the price of quality-- there needs to be enough focus to learn something well. If they have specific suggestions for works that should be included in the curriculum, by all means make them. If they can't be specific, they should be ignored.
"Emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" worries me. Borg jokes aside, one of Star Trek's better attempts to reconsider our own culture is their exploration of "needs of the many" versus "needs of the few". Either in extremis is destructive to a society, and it's worth constantly discussing where the balance should lie. However, pushing one or the other in particular seems dangerous; perhaps this is one case where "teaching the controversy" makes sense.
As for "having a future time orientation"... I'm going to wax offensive. Evolution is a fact; so is the Economic law of Supply and Demand. Some cultures will prosper, some won't, depending in part on the traits they pass to the members... and the members will prosper depending on how well they adapt to the environment. I believe that planning for the future is essential for a society to avoid stagnation and collapse, and that the current lack of such in this country has been the single biggest problem in the United States over my entire lifetime. I back that, by regarding the four years of my life I spent deliberately NOT planning for it (as an adaptive technique to deal with long-term depression) as one of the biggest disasters of my life. (Admittedly, it beat suicide; is that the best objective they're hoping for???) If you want to de-emphasize "future time orientation", you —ing well need to convince me that the alternative will have substantial long-term benefit. If you reject FTE so completely that you don't accept long-term benefit as a valid basis for judgement, go overdose on cocaine — it's great in the short term.
Really, the point of the linked text is to define everyone as racist. The rest is just window dressing.
everyone? or every white male? That's the subtext I get.
Practices that need to be changed are those that debilitate an individual. Correcting an "incorrect" usage of english is only debilitating if either (a) the "incorrect" english is more useful than "correct" english; or (b) the teacher sends a message that the student's inherent stupidity is revealed by their language, and they are incapable of learning "correct" english. Some teachers are guilty of (b); but the mere fact that a teacher requires a child to speak in "correct" english doesn't mean that they are. The overwhelming majority of teachers believe in their student's capacity to learn, that's why they teach.
Moreover - If we believe that "non-standard" english is just as good as "standard" english, shouldn't it be affirmatively encouraged?
For example, our President's speaking abilities are widely commented on. Some say that being "plain-spoken" conveys sincerity, and is a political asset. But even among people that I've heard argue this, I've never heard the argument that he should display a *worse* command of the English language. Apparently for the presidential role, his command of english is sufficiently poor. No more, no less.
Is it elitist to correct his mistakes? Since he's an elite, should only elites be able to correct him? Or, do we have a right to expect a certain comfort with English from him, given the role that he plays?
If we are to prepare every child to be President, we should teach them to speak like it.
Your position is very nice and gracious, but 1. I think it's still well short of what the policy says, and 2. Even so, I think it's totally unrealistic.
The policy says that it's racist to define one form of English as "standard." Do you really agree? I don't think you do. Standard doesn't mean superior. It just means standard, and the fact is that we do have a standard English language which people benefit a great deal from using.
As far as not wanting to send the message that non-standard uses of English are in any way inferior, I simply don't think that can be a priority in school. Teachers should be able to disparage use of the word "ain't" without fearing that they'll offend someone. Of course, a teacher shouldn't disparage the dialect of a certain group of people just to disparage that group, and there has to be some finesse there, but the idea that a teacher has to treat all uses of English as equally valid strikes me as a recipe for student failure.
School is school. If a teacher hears two students talking together in non-standard English, the teacher shouldn't be afraid to comment on it. They shouldn't be racist about it, by targeting specific racial groups, but they should target the use of non-standard English. This idea that actively promoting one kind of English is "indirectly racist" is, I think, an absolutely terrible idea. As the policy here seems to indicate pretty clearly, it is based in this idea that we can't really say anything is better than anything else without being racist toward the people who happen to do the less desirable thing. That doesn't work! Calling this kind of thing -- the standardization of a language -- inherently racist, is simply to entrench the race problems that we're trying to fix.
Now, if you're just talking outside of school, that people should respect those who happen to have a different dialect, I think that's great. In school, though, I think it's totally counter-productive to say that teachers have to respect all forms of English. It seems you have to recognize that at some point, that kind of respect becomes the erasure of all standards, and does become a drag on improvement. Doesn't it? Which I think is what BarryG was talking about.
Millions of Americans (and non-Americans) routinely write standard English, which is how we can make ourselves understood even though if we were speaking our mother dialects some of us would have a pretty hard time making ourselves understood.
The concept -- evidently unknown to the Seattle educators -- but mentioned somewhere upthread is 'register.' Unless you are Bill Clinton, people normally adapt their registers to the person/persons they are addressing. Lawyers might not address judges the same way they talk to the guy who mows their lawns, but switching registers is not necessarily racist.
There's another interesting phenomena. A large number of folks can recognize standard English when they hear it, and in turn think that they speak it, even when they are actually speaking something a bit less perfect than the standard.
I think it has to do with the conscious brain understanding what is standard, but when speaking, we do so (as many folks have commented: without engaging our brains) automatically using deep unconscious language skills.
It's a terrible system.
Please do. In fact, name several. (They do exist, right?) And, tell us what label we can use for other prominent Dems. Use as many categories as you'd like.
In many of these arguments, a politician gets named and then the response is "not left-leaning" or "not national-level". It would be nice to avoid that by getting an approved list in advance.
As for dialects, Mandarin is taught in school, but students might speak another dialect at home. In the South, this is usually Cantonese. Shenzhen has its own wierd combination of (mostly) Mandarin, Cantonese, and Hakka, because it has a population drawn from all over China.
The written language is what makes all of these dialects "Chinese" - the words sound different, but they are (generally) written the same (except that the PRC simplified a bunch of characters, so there are now two writing systems). This means that TV shows are subtitled, so non-Mandarin speakers can follow the dialogue. Most DVDs have two "Chinese" subtitle options - simplified, for the PRC, and traditional, for Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.
I don't think 'standard' english is as much involved with rules such as beginning sentences with conjunctions, and I think most people recognize this.
Thus, you usually shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction but you should never write a double negative to mean the negative.
India: very good solution, much better than the way that England deals with it.
People need to get over their class orientation and work the system. So what if your version of English isn't "high class", pull your head out of your posterior and adopt whatever works, in this clase the highest communicative class register you can use. Don't use aristocratic registers designed to exclude (Aristocratic English, Boston Brahmin American), instead go for TV English or American as they are communicative and broadly understood (thanks to the media).
To the people complaining abotu the shot at the leftists: do you not see how this follows the trend of Left demanded Speech Codes, the precepts of critical studies theory, and the broad agenda of Left identified groups and movements that demand mutually supportive adoptions of certain tenets. Finding ever more things that are "racist", "sexist", or "oppressive" is a project of millions of people associated with Animal Rights, Feminism, Environmentalism, Ethnic identity movements (ex White Identity KKKlukkers)... They use Marxian analysis to pursue their goals of changing/ending society. A good example of national Leftist politicans following these tactics would be Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.
"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"
Instead, it provides the ammunition to describe anybody at any time of racism for anything a 'crat may find inconvenient.
Since racism is a Very Bad Thing, the accused will be required to cease and desist under threat of process, due or not. Fired, smeared, reproached.
This is not a discussion of the place of language in society, or planning horizons, or anything else. It's a toolbox for behavioral manipulation.
The solution is to remember that, just as (you, sing. and I, and everybody else) KNOW that accusations of racism are manipulative scams, so does everybody else. So when threatened with an accusation, remember the accuser doesn't believe it any more than you do, nor does anybody who hears it. The emperor is bucknekkid.
This is not to say that a "board" of manipulators may not have actual power which can use the accusation. That's why they got appointed, elected, whatever. To have power. But as a general rule, everybody knows it's a scam.
So. Why would they do this? One commenter remarked of bilingual education (which in practice means monolingual in a language other than English)that its purpose is to provide a large supply of people unqualified for work at any but minimum wages--he blamed the hospitality industry.
Anyway, the statement from the school board requires the raspberry, not learned discussion.
I recently finished a professional degree. While I was in school, I found myself among a group of people from a different ethnic group and higher social class than mine. They were the best examples of future time orientation and extreme individualism that I have ever encountered. And they were bonkers! Just being around them was painful.
There are good alternatives (or perhaps counterweights) to a future time orientation, in my opinion. There's a sense of history, for example, and the ability to be in the moment and focus on what's in front of you. Some cultures develop these traits more than upper middle class Americans do these days, and so I question the idea that the upper middle class model is unambiguously best. The same applies to individualism. Sometimes it's good to be part of a team, or to cooperate with other people instead of competing with them. Pure competition all day, every day doesn't seem to be good for people.
Is it racist to demand that everyone follow the cultural patterns of the upper middle class? Not particularly, I would say. Is it a good idea? Definitely not. For one thing, we probably won't play, and the world doesn't need any more of that extreme anyway. Should the people at BOTH extremes move in a bit towards the middle? That's where I say yes.
It is my sincere hope that this kind of thinking only ever represents a tiny fraction of the far, far, far left.
Ryan
Standard English is spoken throughout the country with many different accents. Some of these accents are more pleasant to the ear than others. Personally, I love hearing a woman with a Southern drawl from Georgia.
As Freder noted, each dialect has its own variances from what we all agree is "standard" English, but these variances are often cherished and make our lives richer.
I have personally stopped the hiring of individuals who applied to work at my prior firm, not because I thought they didn't have the brain power to do the job, but because they used the term "axe" instead of "ask" or referred to the "libary". We all need to be taught "standard" English so that we don't have limited employment opportunities in the future.
It looks like Seattle simply copied this page from a diversity website
"...and label people of color as ... different"
Doesn't the statement itself label people of color as different to whites?
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read all of the posts (I know it's bad form), but what are these idiots thinking?
MSA is one of the tools used to keep a unified "Arab umma". Without it, the various Arab states would move apart far more quickly. But increasingly, local TV and radio are using dialects (the dominant, "standard" dialect of the country) at the expense of the pan-Arab MSA. Satellite TV, on the other hand, does use MSA, again pulling the fringes toward a center. Tension exists in all languages.
Some dialects--particularly Egyptian--are widely understood throughout the Arab world because of the early jump of the Egyptian film industry. That supremecy, however, is being whittled down as more countries produce films in their own dialects.
But again, this is more the case now than it was historically. The different vernaculars (as opposed to literary Chinese 文言文 or 古代漢語) often had a great number of unique characters, especially Cantonese. They also frequently had fairly diverse grammatical constructions. Both the PRC and the KMT in Taiwan did their best to eliminate the dialect characters because both had/have a strong vested interest in the idea of a single Chinese culture. This notion is falling apart in Taiwan for a number of reasons, many of them political.
It's also worth noting that Mandarin (or really, a standardized form of Beijing dialect) is the oddest and newest dialect in terms of phonology. The heavy influence of Mongolian from the 13th century on has resulted in the lost of consonant endings for many phonological units.
You'd be surprised how far a little bit of *subtle* southern english will get you. I'm being serious. Throw in a couple "y'all's" or "fixuns" in your next conversation and i guarantee you'll get a smile. Heck, I'm of the opinion that George W Bush won an election solely on the use of the word "folks."
Personally, my feeling is that "indirect racism" isn't racism at all, it's something entirely different, and the name shouldn't apply. This isn't to say we don't benefit from education and sensitivity in certain regards, but simply that a lack of education or sensitivity can't legitimately be called "racism."
If these liberals said that the Republican party is racially insensitive, I could totally join them. When they say that Republicans are racist, though, it just strikes me as extremely offensive and wrong. I guess these liberals feel that people like me are a small and insignificant audience, but I'm not sure they're right about that.
Could you not, however, as easily, and as correctly, say that others (i.e. those not in the Republican party, to use your delineation) suffer from racial over-sensitivity?
This is the problem with the misuse of words, intentional or not. Lines become blurred and thought muddied. Labels and sweeping generalizations are a poor substitute for reason. They are the crutches of the lazy and the dishonest.
The Seattle school administrators evidently want to teach people to be collectivists, so they are using fabricated charges of "racism" to punish any student who challenges their ideas. And if a student points out that racism is itself collectivist -- treating people according to the group they belong to, rather than according to their personal merits -- the dissident student can simply be expelled for "racist speech."
The Seattle school system has, if that document is any indication, simply an indoctrination system.
It's actually pretty trivial to look at a dialect map and find a bunch of terms or pronunciations such that (a) a majority of Americans uses that term/pronunciations and (b) a small minority of Americans use all such tersm/pronunciations. A minimal example (if you'll forgive a majority/plurality slide) would probably be "pop" (vs soda) and "you guys" (vs y'all, you, you all, etc) -- a plurality prefer each of these, and yet probably fewer than 25% of people use both.
Anyway, the point of al lthis is that I notice a fairly bizarre sentiment above which seems out-of-line with the generally individualist leaning of this blog: "we all need to be taught "standard" English so that we don't have limited employment opportunities in the future." Isn't the problem here the people discriminating on the basis of dialect? Imagine that there were a very inexpensive, safe, and painless surgery that a black person might undergo, and come out looking like an ethnic German. Would we recommend that black people do this to avoid being discriminated against? Shouldn't we instead be focussing on changing the behavior of the racists instead? Wouldn't that surgery be a form of capitulation to racism? And skin color isn't that fundamental to culture -- speaking the dialect of your peers and heros is much closer to the heart of culture.
THese same people (no doubt) urged the publication of the Mohammed cartoons because we shouldn't capitulate to threats of violence. Why should we capitulate to the more minor threat that some racist lawyer isn't going to offer us a job?
I had a similar problem in a BBQ place we went for lunch--the white guy behind the counter was a bit of a struggle for me to understand. Most other Texans I met, generally much better educated than the guy in the BBQ joint, were completely comprehensible.
The purpose of language is communication. If communication is rendered difficult, this is more than just prejudice.
By the way, I don't dispute that accent often prejudices people. Like most Americans, I hear a West Virginia hillbilly accent, and my initial reaction is, "Ignorant hick." But I recognize where this reaction comes from, and I work hard to get around it. I went on a test drive with a guy with a very strong hillbilly accent some years ago, and I told myself, "Ignore the accent. He might be a smart guy, like our Director of Hardware Engineer, who also sounds that way." Anyway, by the end of the test drive, this guy had demonstrated that he was indeed, an ignorant hick--and not because he "spoke funny."
I taught what would be called english comp at a HBCU for incoming freshmen. Even their attempts at written English were hard to understand, and their spoken English was tough, too. And these were the kids who had graduated toward the tops of their classes--albeit in Mississippi.
I developed the term "nonspecific referent" because I couldn't find the proper phrase in a grammar book. It means "him", "her" "them", includes prepositions and occasionally other words referring to specfic people or objects, or directions, or places. If you want to see how well it works, watch "Cops" when the civilians they're talking to are lower class Southern whites, or lower class blacks.
I listened hard to the kids' conversations and found at least three, if not four, times as many requests for clarification as in Standard English conversations I listened to after I got home and was interested in the subject.
Taking it as given is an act of faith unsupported by evidence.
So you're insinuating that standard English is an invention of white northerners in reaction against the language used by racial minorities?
I think there are many reasons why standard English is what it is. Essentially, it has evolved as a clear and professional way for various people to communicate. One can say it's unfair that the rich people get to choose the standard language, but guess what, if you want what the rich people have, then you have to play by their rules. You can take a principled stance and insist on speaking in a dialect that the rich people don't understand, but then you have to accept the fact that you're going to fail in the rich man's world. I don't think that's advisable. And I don't think it's a system we can change. And even if we can change it, I still don't think it's advisable until we actually do, which isn't going to happen.
Even beyond that, though, standardization is a good thing, because it allows the language to stay the same. If we go ahead and encourage the kids to come up with their own new way of speaking, pretty much us adults don't know what the hell they're talking about. That's a legitimate problem.
Now, the Seattle policy seems to propose an entirely different system. I don't throw around the term "communism," but that's really what it is. No individualism, providing for the community, no personal or cultural advancement. I guess that's one way of doing things, and under that view, it makes sense that we wouldn't encourage anybody to change anything, because I guess it's easier to just stay the same. Most of us don't seem to buy into that theory, though. We seem to accept that we live in a competitive world. That being the case, I think that encouraging the standardization of language is actually a way of leveling the playing field, not of disrespecting minorities.
To answer your question, though, surgery to change one's skin color isn't anything like learning a standard English language. Objection to skin color is pure bigotry, whereas problems resulting out of language are not. One can turn anything into an assault against "who I am as a person," but my experience is that doing so is almost always a bad idea, and that we're almost always better off learning to change. Hypothetical surgery to change the way a person looks is obviously not one of those things.
In that case, we ought to abolish vocabulary-building activities in the upper levels. I have quite a large vocabulary, and I frequently find that people don't understand me. I'm not even using very unusual words that I've learned from science fiction like uhlan, digitigrade, or struthious -- I've had problems with sartorial, which I'm sure I was quizzed on in high school.
Also, when you say "there is a problem", you seem to mean "upper class white people have a problem". The converse is true as well. If you think that the minority here ought to conform to the speech patterns of the majority, I can respect that. I personally have been looking for an excuse to learn Chinese.
So I'd say, if people want to attack the idea of "standard English," then they have to explain how we're still going to teach children to write well. My feeling would be that to teach children to write well, you need a standard language. And that it should be recognized and praised as the standard language that everyone understands.
Which isn't particularly individualistic, I guess, but then, we already know what the policy said about that.
>Also, when you say "there is a problem", you seem to mean "upper class white people have a problem". The converse is true as well.<
Except that the upper class white people don't have a problem; they're doing fine. That's the problem here, which infinite respect isn't going to change.
In any region with a specific accent understands someone with Standard American, while someone with an equally thick accent from another region is less comprehensible, especially in difficult circumstances. It's just basic signal processing, and is similar to the ability for a unilingual English speaker to make sense of written German/Dutch vs their ability to make sense of written French/Italian vs their ability to make sense of written Chinese/Japanese. As things become less familiar, you are less able to determine what it means.
One dialect WILL become the standard in a society with mass media and telecommunications, as dialect/language formation is a function of communication distance/isolation. Language formation in relatively impassable jungles in New Guinea is extreme, while we see dialect extinction in modern society thanks to technology and personal mobility. In a society with educational credentials, the flavour attached to high educational achievement will be preferred for status reasons.
It is not just the dialects of lower class blacks that are denigrated by society: middle to upper middle class white females in California (Valley Girl), middle to upper middle class white male surfers in California (Surfer), all classes in Boston and New England (High Bostonian/Boston Brahmin, etc... how many "Pahk the Cah at Hahvad Yahd" jokes are there?), lower class Appalchian whites, lower class Southern Whites, lower to middle class New York accents (Brooklyn, New Jersey). They're relatively uncommunicative, isolationist (for either elitist or solidarity reasons), and very hard to understand, almost mutually incomprehensible. They also could all function perfectly well as the standard dialect, but are not standard.
On the pop/soda... that's not a useful discussion. The southern "Coke" is a dialect change, while pop/soda is just regional synonym preference, as is the choice between sofa and couch. People will understand you either way, but unless you're Canadian Chesterfield will mean at most cigarettes, not somethign to sit on.
I think the defense of "Standard American is racist" just shows the differing attitudes amongs the left and right. The Left worry about how this makes people feel and if there are any reasons beyond power relations that we have it. Should we not do away with it as part of the class struggle (as Labour in the UK has worked against upper class accents)? The Right wonders how in the hell it matters, grow up (get a haircut and get a real job) and use the system as it exists to your advantage. The decision has been made, lets work on using the system as it exists rather than distracting ourselves worrying about coulda, woulda, shoulda.
I definitely side with the Stop Whining faction. When I'm in the South I drawl, y'all. In the northern US i avoid "eh" and change the pronunciation of about/aboot/abaht. Canada sees "eh" and "aboot", while the UK gets a change in accent and the use of brilliant and cheers. I'm a mercenary chameleon, as is almost every other person in the world, so why get worked up?
I think that Shakespeare wrote quite well, before English spelling was standardized. His dialect is as far from yours as AAVE is, and his vocabulary is farther. And as I noted, it's not the case that everyone easily understands any given dialect of English.
If you want a non-individualistic analysis, why not check out the concept of Linguistic Justice -- basically, the idea that since everyone benefits from communication, the costs of language learning should be shared equally as well.
Except that the upper class white people don't have a problem; they're doing fine. That's the problem here, which infinite respect isn't going to change.
You are intentionally taking that quote out of context -- the context was "problem understanding people with different dialects."
I wonder if the anti-language-discrimination idea sunk into some of their heads because some of them are programmers who have been instructed to follow syntax conventions unlike what they're used to (braces always go on their own line, variable names use underscores instead of capitals between words, etc.)
Also, when you say "there is a problem", you seem to mean "upper class white people have a problem". The converse is true as well.
So if the converse is true, then doesn't that mean that everyone has a problem ... and therefore "there is a problem" is a pretty clean way construction that says the same thing? So where's the beef?
Well, as it happens, I don't watch TV. And I know a number of people who listen mainly to rap music, which is in AAVE. Also, speaking as an individualist, why should I delegate my choice of language to the radio and television company executives? If they started broadcasting in Mandarin tomorrow, should I learn Mandarin?
Finally, Wikipedia tells me that the use of a uniform dialect on TV is decreasing, rather than increasing.
One dialect WILL become the standard in a society with mass media and telecommunications, as dialect/language formation is a function of communication distance/isolation.
There is no evidence of this -- AAVE is no less pronounced now than fifty years ago. Also, shouldn't communication increase dialectization by exosing people to more dialects than previously? I was born and raised in Philadelphia, but I use "y'all" because I find it convenient to have a plural for "you", and because my parents would have complained about "youse", the (lower-class) Philadelphia standard.
"On the pop/soda... that's not a useful discussion. The southern "Coke" is a dialect change, while pop/soda is just regional synonym preference, as is the choice between sofa and couch."
When other people do it, it's a dialect -- when you do it, it's just a word choice. Personally, I speak standard English, but I use the regional synonms of Japan. So, instead of saying "please speak English,", I say "kudasai hanasu eigo" That's Japanese words, but English syntax. Which reminds me: why is nobody sending teachers into North Dakota to try to eradicate the accent you hear in Fargo? Why is AAVE always the target here?
"I'm a mercenary chameleon, as is almost every other person in the world, so why get worked up?"
It's easy for you, as a non-black person, to be mercenary, since everyone will hire you.
"...distracting ourselves worrying about coulda, woulda, shoulda..."
So much for moral clarity -- if you don't care about what's right, why should you expect anyone else to follow your prescriptions, or your laws?