Ebonics is misunderstood

Interesting points on both sides.

I'm of the opinion that as long as a language is spoken natively then it's just as good as any other. What I mean here is that Ebonics doesn't follow the rules of standard American English (but then again neither does SAE follow the rules exactly of British English), but it's not because the speakers of it are too stupid to speak proper English and are getting it wrong. I 'learned' to speak standard american english before I ever learned about it in school, but just because I was lucky enough to grow up where my peers spoke it. Clearly, then, no one is taught to speak. The reason educated, smart blacks speak SAE is not because they're smart enough not to get it wrong, but because they either grew up where SAE was spoken or because they had the opportunity to learn it in schools in addition to the way they speak.

That said, speaking Ebonics won't get you very far in the business world, in general. That's no fault of the speaker or the language, though, just misconceptions on the employers' parts. Whether it's easier to change the opinion of the employers or teach black children SAE I don't know. In any case, Ebonics is correlated with being economically downtrodden, not the cause of it or caused because of it.

Take for example a woman who wears dresses occasionally and who can't work on a Naval submarine. It's not the dress that keeps her from working on one -- it's being a woman (because of the way subs are designed with the living quarters and all; it'd be too much work to outfit the subs to include women, too, I think). It's the same in the workplace. Blacks tend to be discriminated against because they're black. Incidentally, they tend to speak Ebonics, too. So it's not the ebonics that's holding them back -- it's being black. And the Ebonics just reminds the employer that they're black.

Well said.

If I go to learn a new language I will learn the most prestigious or the most widely used version of that language, or the version most common amongst the people I am interested in.

I see no value in diversity per se. In other words the fact that in Papua New Guinea there is a multiplicity of mutually unintelligible languages does not strike me as a great advantage. Eventually some of them will die out.

I fail to see why a utilitarain approach would cause Lazar to froth at the mouth and Travis to echo him. Nothing prevents them from learning obscure languages, but why get upset at others who consider it of little general benefit.

Gabe: I don't think the employer needs reminding that the employee is black; they can clearly see that. However, Ebonics marks them as illiterate blacks! Whether that's true or not, that's what the vast majority of people think when someone speaks Ebonics. There are quite a few blacks where I work, and they aren't discriminated against, but none of them speak Ebonics, at least not in the workplace. As the saying goes, when in Rome do as the Romans do, and the "Romans" in charge do NOT want an employee who speaks Ebonics.

What exactly do you mean by "illiterate" here? If it means simply that one is unable to read, I see no reason why speaking AAVE would have anything to do with that, obviously. Hence, your use of the term "illiterate" is unlikely literally meaning such, and is rather just a general insult used against speech forms deemed "substandard" by some, for one reason or another, and hence, is meaningless in itself as it is used.

>>Bubbler, you misread what I'd said. What I'd meant is simply that just because a lot of people *believe* a certain thing makes said *belief* no more right or no less wrong.

Mmm-hmm, so how did I misread it? You're saying just because many people *believe* Ebonics is wrong doesn't necessarily make their *belief* correct. And I'm saying this isn't a matter of *believing* the dialect has something inherently wrong with it, only that it is not socially acceptable. After all, wearing clothes doesn't mean there is something inherently wrong with the human body.

>>why don't Americans think the same of the various British dialects?

The only British dialect I can clearly distinguish is Cockney, and the rest sound like the same dialect spoken with marginally distinct accents. The one glaring difference between SAE and SBE is an accent. The same cannot be said for SAE and Ebonics.

>>So you value money and majority acceptance over linguistic diversity. Pardon my Welsh, but fuck you.
>> Lazar, agreed completely.

Mxsmanic, you know you’re doing your job well when the best counter-argument is an expletive and an affirmation of that "astute" rebuttal.

Cro Magnon, I agree, but remember that not all Ebonics speakers are black. Some are ghetto white kids as well. That’s why it has become a mark of poverty and ignorance.

Bubbler, oh, I thought you were interpreting the words "right" and "wrong" from what I'd said in a moral sense, whereas I was just speaking in terms of correctness of various beliefs.

As for the "one glaring difference between SAE and SBE", that's only because when one speaks of "SBE", they mean RP, which is probably the closest form of English English to formal Northern Central American English (aka "Standard American English"). Of course, the thing is that most English English speakers most definitely do not speak RP, and this is actually increasing with time, due to Estuary English progressively displacing RP. Another important note is that there is actually far more internal variation within English English than there is within American English, AAVE aside, even though this is being reduced over time due to Estuary English also displacing various local forms in addition to RP.

As for expletives, well, that's simply because Mxsmanic's position is purely not acceptable, and individuals like myself and Lazar have already done all we can to refute such, but of course, when the other side isn't listening to one's rational arguments in the first place, that's when simply telling them to fuck off is more suitable than rational argument.

>>The reason educated, smart blacks speak SAE is not because they're smart enough not to get it wrong, but because they either grew up where SAE was spoken or because they had the opportunity to learn it in schools in addition to the way they speak.

In economically disadvantaged areas, two dialects emerge: Ebonics (primarily black) and Hillbilly (primarily white). Those living in poor areas historically enjoy fewer educational opportunities than their wealthier counterparts; hence, one who speaks in Ebonics or Hillbilly is generally assumed less educated/intelligent. Let's not kid ourselves, there are always exceptions to the rule but overall results have shown those in economically disadvantaged areas do more poorly in school than their wealthier counterparts. You're right, blacks who speak SAE have either grown up in an area where it’s common, and hence, economically better off (nearly always due to a more highly educated populace), or have learned it in school (where SAE is prevalent, hence, not economically disadvantaged = greater chance pupil is better educated).

>>So it's not the ebonics that's holding them back -- it's being black. And the Ebonics just reminds the employer that they're black.

No, employers want employees that can effectively communicate with all costumers. If two blacks apply for the same job, one speaking SAE and one Ebonics, the former will get it hands down.

>>As for expletives, well, that's simply because Mxsmanic's position is purely not acceptable, and individuals like myself and Lazar have already done all we can to refute such, but of course, when the other side isn't listening to one's rational arguments in the first place, that's when simply telling them to fuck off is more suitable than rational argument.

Pardon, your Excellency, but who are you to say his position is “purely not acceptable” or any less rational than your own? Trust me, I weep for all the effort you and Lazar had to put into arguing when it’s blatantly clear you’re not listening to the other side, either. Here’s the problem: those with the feelings toward Ebonics Mxsmanic and myself espouse are content to state our opinion, or rather our personal observations and thoughts. You and Lazar, however, seem to have a fanatical need to convert those who disagree with you, not resting until the other side throws up their hands in defeat and declares, “You win.” When you realize this isn’t possible, you resort to expletives. From years of debate I can attest, argumentation can be a spirited exchanging of ideas, but when the opposition finds nothing more to say than “fuck off,” they’ve lost.

The thing is that changing how one speaks does not necessarily change one's social class, one way or another, even though it may happen to give outward appearances of such at times. And also, again, just because one speaks one thing at work does not mean they necessarily must speak the same thing at home. But anyways, if employers so badly wanted employees "that can effectively communicate with all costumers", can you please explain to me the willingness of employers to employ people in the southwestern US (and California) who are not fluent in English, simply because said individuals will work for less than many people native to the US? I doubt it's really who one can talk to effectively aspect which is the real concern with AAVE, but rather more its general stigmatization, of which ideas like these are but rationalizations.

Bubbler, the matter is that there is no point in rationally arguing when those whom one is arguing with won't listen to ones arguments in the first place.

>>But anyways, if employers so badly wanted employees "that can effectively communicate with all costumers", can you please explain to me the willingness of employers to employ people in the southwestern US (and California) who are not fluent in English, simply because said individuals will work for less than many people native to the US?

I'll presume you're talking about Spanish speaking individuals. They're not being employed in high-level positions, though, are they? The produce pickers, landscapers, and house keepers (i.e. those working for less than Americans) have little need to be fluent because they have limited interaction with costumers. Furthermore, those employed in the service industry (retail, fast food, etc.) primarily serve a Spanish-speaking clientele, though they're doubtfully paid any less than their white counterparts (a cashier is a cashier and must be paid minimum wage). Nonetheless, if these people don't become fluent in English, their chances for advancement are quite minimal. The same applies for those who speak Ebonics.

>>Bubbler, the matter is that there is no point in rationally arguing when those whom one is arguing with won't listen to ones arguments in the first place.

You say "listen to" and seem to mean "agree with." I’ll assume you’re not grouping me in with the people who “don’t listen” because I nearly always begin a post by quoting another’s comments.

I didn't necessarily mean "agree with", of course. By "listen to" I mean actually rationally respond to what one says, rather than just repeating what one has said before without any providing any reason for something besides that something must be so a priori, as Mxsmanic has. He has provided no /reasons/ fundamentally for his views, but rather just insists that AAVE must be "substandard", "illiterate", whatever, because such must be so, simply on the basis of his own preconceived biases and like.

And yes, I would agree that there is significantly less chance for advancement in the US, practicality-wise, if one isn't at least reasonably fluent in English, and of course, such isn't critical for such jobs. But at the same time, when you say "those who speak Ebonics", such is making the unstated presumption that someone who speaks AAVE *only* speaks AAVE, and it is not allowing room for codeswitching and so on. In turn, it implies that if someone is to speak another variety of English, they must /stop/ speaking AAVE in general, including at home, which I myself disagree with, as there is nothing that indicates that one cannot speak both AAVE and other varieties of English.

"Furthermore, those employed in the service industry (retail, fast food, etc.) primarily serve a Spanish-speaking clientele"

Untrue. Many service venues here often cater to a strikingly non-Spanish speaking clientele (at least not native speakers), which in this area is mostly native-born Americans originally of East-Asian and European descent. The workers often speak mostly Spanish, but know just enough functional English to take orders and deal with tasks appropriate to whatever job they have.

I agree with Travis on the Ebonics/AAVE issue. Some posters here are making comments that thinly veil an underlying racism (which they may not even realize themselves), which they're attempting to justify with semi-rationalized comments about how a native variety of English they simply don't like is "substandard" or "illiterate." These comments are linguistically invalid (no matter how many people say them) and such arguments should not be given even a modicum of serious consideration in this discussion.

I realize that sociologically speaking people often need to learn more standard English to advance. It may be unfortunate, but it is the truth in many cases. I have no problem with people receiving instruction on how they can meet norms for how people often need to speak in professional settings. However, the fact that many posters here still deem a native form of English that millions grow up speaking as anything but a completely valid form of communication is entirely unacceptable.

<<Trust me, I weep for all the effort you and Lazar had to put into arguing when it’s blatantly clear you’re not listening to the other side, either.>>

I am listening to the other side - I'm sorry if my temper got the better of me. You think that there is no value in linguistic diversity and that there is thus no reason to preserve marginalized languages or dialects that are not useful in mainstream society. That's your viewpoint. My viewpoint is that there is value in linguistic diversity because language is an important element of human culture. I think that while it's okay for people to learn the mainstream language or dialect, this should not interfere with their use of their native tongue outside of work. I think languages should be preserved for the same reasons that endangered species should be preserved. It may not be the most economically advantageous thing to preserve either bio- or linguistic diversity, but I think that some things are more important than mere economic expedience.