EBONICS - RushOnline.com
Ebonics - My 10 year old daughter said it best.
My wife and I were talking about the "Ebonics" issue.
My daughter asked what it was. As I explained it she got a very
puzzled look on her face. When I asked her what the confusion was
about, she asked me the following question: "Why do they have
to teach them to talk wrong to teach them to talk right?"
She is a straight A student in the gifted/advanced
program. Her vocabulary and reading skills reflect the careful nurturing
on the part of my wife and I with all three of our children to encourage
a love of reading and correction of her grammer and speach.
As concerned parents, we dare not leave her eductation
solely to the school system. It is my belief that the schools should
concentrate less on kow-towing to special interests and so-called
"deprivations" and instead teach the children correctly
in the first place. I would propose the following course materials
for schools, beginning in Kindergarten and continuing through college.
1. The FOUR R's. Reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and
RESPONSIBLITY. Personal responsiblity is key to a good self-image
and success in life.
2. More emphasis on PROVABLE science. The theory
of evolution and the big bang are just that, THEORY! The religious
belief in Creationism is equally valid from a scientific standpoint
and deserves to be taught just as in-depth as both the other theories.
3. All "family units" are not as viable
and stable equally. The traditional nuclear family was the stable
basis for thousands of years of progress and growth. It is amazing
only with the destabilization of the nuclear family unit has American
society devolved to the predator riddled, hollow-shelled caricature
of what it once was, and MUST be again.
4. All children will not advance at the same pace.
Holding back academically gifted students results in bored students
that don't pay attention in school. Students must be required to
think and work for their grades. An unchallenged mind is a the same
as an unused muscle, it will atrophy.
5. Some students earn an "F".
6. Teachers must be qualified in the subjects they
are teaching. If a teacher can't pass a 12th grade math course,
then he/she has no business teaching math.
My wife and I are alarmed with the government reducing
education to the lowest common denominator. This is desirable in
math, not in education.
Ebonics should rapidly go the way of the dodo bird,
before our children's desire to learn does.
Alan
* * *
I received through the mail. It is the Gettysburg
Address having passed through the Ebonics filter. The last line
is a hout! --
Fosco'e and seven years ago our faders brought fo'd
on dis continent some new nashun, conceived in liberty and dedicated
t'de proposishun dat all dudes are created equal. Now we are engaged
in a great civil war, testin' wheda' dat nashun o' any nashun so's
conceived and so's dedicated kin long endure. What it is, Mama!
We are met on some great battlefield of dat war. Ah be baaad...
We gots' mosey on down to dedicate some po'shun uh dat field as
some final restin'-place fo' dose who here gave deir lives dat dat
nashun might live. What it is, Mama! It be altogeda' fittin' and
propuh' dat we should do dis. But in a larga' sense, we kinnot dedicate,
we kinnot consecrate, we kinnot hallow dis ground. De brave men,
livin' and wasted who struggled here gots' consecrated it far above
our poo' powa' to add o' detract. De wo'ld gots'ta little note no'
long rememba' whut we say here, but it kin neva' fo'get whut dey
dun did here. What it is, Mama! It be fo' us de livin'rada' to be
dedicated here t'de unfinished wo'k which dey who fought here gots'
dus far so's nobly advanced. It be rada' fo' us t'be here dedicated
to de great tax' remainin' befo'e us--dat fum dese hono'ed wasted
we snatch increased devoshun t'dat cause fo' which dey gave da damn
last full measure uh devoshun--dat we here highly resolve dat dese
wasted shall not gots' died in vain, dat dis nashun unda' God shall
gots' some new bird of freedom, and dat guv'ment uh de sucka's,
by de sucka's, fo' de sucka's shall not puh'ish fum de eard.
Milton
* * *
After reading an article in our local newspaper
on ebonics and West African linguistic patterns, I was shocked at
how closely it resembled the hillbilly English I learned as a child
in the backwoods of North Carolina. Utilizing the logic I learned
in the article I came to a startling conclusion. I was not a person
of Scotch\Irish descent as I had been told, but part of a heretofor
unknown, lost white African tribe. I immediately wrote my mother,
"Dear Momma, break out the Kente cloth, we not white, we be
African Americans."
David / Mobile, AL
* * *
I'm afraid I don't know how to use the internet
yet but I was trying to get this through to Rush.
It's a little late but in regards to EBONICS I thought
he should know what it really means,
Educational
Bureaucrats
Obviously
Neglecting
Intelligent
Communication
* * *
I think teaching ebonics is wrong,wrong ,and wrong!
My reason for that statement is that in the real work place we are
dealing with the majority who speak English (sometimes not in the
correct form, but neverless English) and we all want to be understood.
I am hispanic and have never thought that the schools
should teach the Tex-Mex language which I grow up listening to and
speaking as well. Once I entered school I wanted to learn the proper
way to speak English as well as the proper Spanish. I like the saying
that says "United we Stand, Divided we fall" because as
Americans we have to do whats best for the majority!!!! AMERICA
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.
Dubinda Parent
* * *
REPLY----
This is a reply to Charles's reply to Alan's comments
on ebonics and other stuff. I have not studied linguistics so if
you have and I say something that is not true, please let me know.
One of the first conflicts between your opinions
and those stated by Alan concerns the classification of ebonics
as a language. I have always thought of ebonics as a dialect of
English rather than as a seperate language, but it could also be
argued that English, French, Spanish,... started off as dialects
of Latin. Having recieved no formal training in linguistics I would
have to rely on the opinion of an expert in relation to that question.
But Charles, I think you goofed on your asessment
of Alan's statement about the Creation-Evolution debate. Alan didn't
say anything about teaching Creation INSTEAD of Evolution, but rather
he suggested representing them both as equally possible theory's
until conclusive evidence is presented for either one. I am a Christian.
I believe in the creation of the universe by the Almighty God, my
belief is based on faith and everyone knows it. The open admition
that my belief is based on faith allows people to formulate their
own decision.
While scientists admit that evolution (and thus
the big-bang) is just a theory, they constantly assert it as fact,
and acctually base other new "discoveries" on it. I personally
believe that the Bible is far more reliable than the contradictory
circular reasoning presented by the theory of evolution.
About Alan's statement concerning the "traditional
nuclear family" you said that there have been civilizations
throughout history that have survived for ages without a trace of
Christian family values. True enough, indeed many of these civilizations
thrived before Christ was even born. But would this be reason to
advicate the sacrifice of infants to pagan gods? Or throwing people
to hungry lions to be torn apart in front of thousands of enthralled
spectators at a colosseum? But never before has a nation thrived
like the United States of America has, and never in such a short
period of time. It has done so with the Christian system of family
ethics.
As for your third paragraph, it doesn't matter whether
the truth appears to be "diverse" or not. What's true
is true is TRUE, and sometimes it hurts.You state that "sameness"
didn't work in the 40's and 50's. But did the the new schooling
techniques brought on by the public cry for "diversity"
bring about any positive results in the 60's, 70's, and 80's?
I am the oldest of seven children and we are all
home-schooled, but I agree with you both that this society needs
to pay more attention to the needs of kids in the classroom. A friend
of mine was bumped from 6th to 8th grade this year so that he could
play on the Jr. High football team. He has since dropped out of
school because of his lack of ability to keep up with the work.
This sort of thing shouldn't happen in schools of any sort. Academics
must come first, sports and other activities MUST be secondary to
that goal.
I don't think that ebonics should be taught to pupils
in schools unless we are prepared to go all the way and declare
ebonics a language, and I leave that as an issue best for the experts
to decide. But why teach teachers ebonics? If a school wants to
teach calculus to a class it does not find an existing teacher and
teach him calculus, instead it finds someone who is already qualified
to teach that subject. Why don't the schools find teachers who are
skilled in both english and ebonics, and have that teacher teach
english to children who do not understand it?
Mega Dittos (sounds like a brand of corn chips,
sorry)
Nathan, age 15, Kansas City, Missouri
* * *
Ebonics
With regard to the subject of ebonics, it seems
that many people think thatgrammar is an arbitrary, conventional
set of rules--a kind of verbal etiquette, with no more objective
validity than the convention that the fork goes on the left side
of the plate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Grammatical
rules and structures serve the purpose of maintaining clarity in
thought and speech.
Ebonics is not Black English--it is Bad English.
Every civilization and every society has--and always will have--a
certain amount of people who cannot speak the dominant language
properly. (One can almost certainly tell between an educated Englishman
and an uneducated one.) Whether the cause of this inability to learn
the language properly is due to improperschooling or due to the
subject's mental capabilities is a case for theperson asking the
question, "Nature or Nurture?" In either case, the endresult--Bad
English--is the result of some sort of failure and should never
be justified to a rational public.
Furthermore, were we to justify the "language"
of a small percentage of Americans, does this then lead to justifying
the language of all minority groups? Perhaps the Hispanics in California
and Texas should have their language formalized as well. Perhaps
we should begin teaching our children to mix the letter "L"
with the letter "R," like that of certain Asian-Americans.
Also, we mustn't exclude the small percentage of Eskimos immigrating
from Alaska--no, no, let's teach our children to grunt and click
with the best of them!
However, this pathetic argument of the Democrat,
in an effort to secure more votes, is not entirely worthless. It
does serve to illustrate the crushing need for America to concrete
English as its primary language, forwithout such legislation, we
are certain to get involved in more circuses such as this.
A certain fellow named Charles posted an interesting
message on this bulletin board, one that frames the argument of
the Democrat well. In it, he asks to an advocate of the elimination
of the teaching of Ebonics, "Areyou advocating eradication
of an entire centuries-old body of linguistictradition? Do you promote
sameness of thought at the expense of diversity?" I hope I
am not overstepping my bounds, but I would like toanswer that question
as if it were posed to me, since I do share the same beliefs as
the original writer.
First, I am advocating eradication of an entire
centuries-old body of "linguistic tradition." (As if that
is what it is!) I think that we, as Americans, should collectively
move forward toward educating our public, in all educational subjects,
including grammar. And remember, Charles, the existence of bad grammar
dates much earlier than a century ago--in fact, tothe beginning
of language. There is no reason to begin justifying it now,unless
we are disgustingly interested in destroying that which has made
America great. Secondly, I do not promote "sameness of thought"
at the expense of diversity. In fact, in certain areas, "sameness
of thought" proves quite valuable. These areas include a moral
code (is it wrong to murder?), group projects, and the ways in which
we communicate.
Withoutthe use of proper grammar, advanced, intelligent
people (black, white, and everything in between) will fail to communicate
in the productive manner in which they could. One can only hope
that the presence of diversity does not--and should not--abolish
"sameness of thought" in areas where thissimilarity in
thinking is necessary, such as in the case of grammar.
Our friend Charles goes on to ask, "What about
the desire of Black kids tolearn? Typically THEIR desire wanes rapidly
when teachers insult theirintelligence, by means of implied and
explicit criticism of their abilityto speak correctly." Charles,
the experience of having a teacher struggleto teach you, to make
you smarter, to criticize your poor work, is anexperience that every
schooled person has faced, whether he or she is black, brown, white,
etc. What is truly unfortunate is the new issue we face: the continuance
of the victimization role to younger "minorities" growing
up in America.
Under rhetoric such as this, no longer should youngminorities
believe that they could actually be speaking "incorrectly,"
or adding "incorrectly," or reading "incorrectly,"
but that they should see through the facade of "help"
that this teacher projects to the underlying racism which the teacher
is obviously expressing. And nevermind that the white kid, too,
has added incorrectly, and is now getting a poor grade from the
teacher--that student has no excuse but a poor intellect.
Unfortunately this poor argument is shared by many
Americans, especially those who share my young age, and who grew
up with twisted cliches like these. These arguments do nothing but
cement the gap that differently-colored Americans are increasingly,
instead of decreasingly,facing. Continue with ideas such as Ebonics,
and we will never have aunited America, only a separated America,
in which every American is actually a hyphenated American.
* * *
As Dr. Leon Todd Jr, a black man put it so adroitly,
" Ebonics is RACIST! Since any time you deprive the Children
of Color a complete and thorough knowledge of American Standard
English, you are DEPRIVING them of the ability to COMPETE in the
modern world of the 21st Century. The INTERNET does not function
using Ebonics, thus it decreases the potential of every student
forced to learn it to improve their lives and realize the American
Dream...... but then, some Liberal Politicians find that idea quite
appealing.....
Jim
Chicago, IL
* * *
As a former British subject, I can say Ebonics is
much closer to West African linguistic forms than certain forms
of American "english" or"Yankonics" is to the
Queen's English.
Wasn't it a British actor in 'My Fair Lady,"
who said of American English, "In America, they haven't spoken
it for years..." It clearlyshows that when the common American
english is spoken, it is very much different from that spoken in
Britain. Furthermore, American English should have been easier to
understand and more like British English since a large section of
Americans are of British Isles origins.
On the other hand, Africans are from a totally different
linguistic culture.In fact, the languages spoken in Africa are closer
to Japanese and Chinese than they are to English. Most African languages
are tonal and rhythmic, as Chinese and Japanese are.
In parts of the Caribbean, particularly Jamaica,
Jamaican Patois is classified as a separate language because it
is totally different from standard British or American English.
It has english words that have been chopped and sliced to sound
like African words (just like Ebonics and Yankonics). It has African
syntax, it has the lilting and sing-song form of African languages,
it has the color, the tempo and the flavor of African languages
despite the English words.
In fact, Ebonics is much closer to languages in
Africa such as the more than ten thousand years old, Mende linguistic
family, (see the book,"Susu Economics: The History of Pan-African
Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth," published by www.iuniverse.com
also available atwww.barnesandnoble.com ). All European languages
spoken by Africans in Africa, Europe or the Americas have these
African linguistic forms, particularly those who come from lands
were the Mende-Congo languagesare spoken (from Mauritania to South
Africa).
The Jamaican government surely did not redicule
or insult the intelligence of its people who spoke the Jamaican
patwa, they fixed the problem by teaching standard English as standard
english and Jamaican Patwa as a separate language. The educators
from Oakland who wanted totake that route were not doing anything
new, they were doing something
that's done all around the world
IS YIDDISH NOT GERMAN SPOKEN WITH A GERMAN ACCENT
One example of a language being adopted and adapted
to sound like another language is Yiddish. German Jews speak Yiddish
and obviously Yiddish came from German, however because of the changes
introduced to Yiddish, it is a Jewish language, just s Portugese,
Spanish, French and Rumanian were once Latini, but after years of
changes are now separate and distinct languages (see more on culture
at http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire). In fact, Spanish,
Portugese, French and Rumanian are closer to the original Latin
tongue than Ebonics is to American English. Ebonics is much closer
to the Mende-Congo linguistic family, a language so sophisticated
and so fluid that it can be "spoken" on drums, guitars,
harps and other instruments.
In retrospect, there are many who will say the issue
is not ebonics and whether its a separate language or not. The issue
is whether people have the right to keep what they believe is their
an yet be linguistically versatile in a versatile world. As far
as the English language is concerned, it is the most mixed language
on earth and include words from, Scandinavian, Latin, ancient Egyptian,
Greek,French, African languages, Hindu, American Indian, Arabic,
and scores ofother languages. On the other hand, the Mende languages
spoken inAfrica and spread all the way to Eastern India is still
a pure language after thousands of years.
DJ Duenas
