NationStates Jolt Archive

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38565

Thursday, May 20, 2004
MINORITY REPORT
Bill Cosby: Poor blacks can't speak English
NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian
1:00 a.m. Eastern


In the presence of NAACP President Kweisi Mfume and other African-American leaders, comedian Bill Cosby took aim at blacks who don't take responsibility for their economic status, blame police for incarcerations and teach their kids poor speaking habits.


Cosby made his remarks at a Constitution Hall event in Washington Monday night commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision that paved the way for integrated schools, reported Richard Leiby in his Reliable Source column for the Washington Post.

Leiby said Cosby's remarks were met with "astonishment, laughter and applause."

When Cosby finally concluded, Leiby said, Mfume, Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert and NAACP legal defense fund head Theodore Shaw came to the podium looking "stone-faced."

Shaw told the crowd most people on welfare are not African American. He insisted many of the problems his organization addresses among blacks are not self-inflicted.

Cosby said, according to Leiby: "Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

He added: "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!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Those who have debated with me know that I think the world is full of reverse racism today. They give minorities so much respect because of their father's oppression, and many of these people do nothing to earn that respect.

*Applauds one of my all-time favorite comedians, being serious*

Hey hey hey! :P

I am not sure how I feel about that. He is correct, people should endeavor to learn to speak correctly, and it does hold you back (trust me on that one, I interview people all the time, and if you cannot speak english properly you do not get the job), but I do not think that anyone should be shot over pound cake. Perhaps he was just trying to illistrate a point and did it poorly.
I think very highly of Mr. Cosby, and will think on his comments.

I am not sure how I feel about that. He is correct, people should endeavor to learn to speak correctly, and it does hold you back (trust me on that one, I interview people all the time, and if you cannot speak english properly you do not get the job), but I do not think that anyone should be shot over pound cake. Perhaps he was just trying to illistrate a point and did it poorly.
I think very highly of Mr. Cosby, and will think on his comments.(yeah, I didn't quite get that last part... the first part was the important part... maybe I should omit it to remove the confusion :)

*omits it*

original omission:

The Post said Cosby also targeted imprisoned blacks.

"These are not political criminals," he said. "These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Those who have debated with me know that I think the world is full of reverse racism today. They give minorities so much respect because of their father's oppression, and many of these people do nothing to earn that respect.

*Applauds one of my all-time favorite comedians, being serious*

Hey hey hey! :P
Agreed. He's a pretty smart guy. I saw him once, at some democrat convention in WV before the 2000 election. I'm surprised that people were so "astonished" by it- he did make a comment to Wanda Sykes about how she talks at some award show.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Those who have debated with me know that I think the world is full of reverse racism today. They give minorities so much respect because of their father's oppression, and many of these people do nothing to earn that respect.

*Applauds one of my all-time favorite comedians, being serious*

Hey hey hey! :P
Agreed. He's a pretty smart guy. I saw him once, at some democrat convention in WV before the 2000 election. I'm surprised that people were so "astonished" by it- he did make a comment to Wanda Sykes about how she talks at some award show.LOL Wanda Sykes is very mock-able :P

bump

bump
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Nah, let's not bother.

Cosby is a 'class' enemy and his message must be rejected for tbe brainwashed bleached 'whitey' propaganda that it is! :shock:


*An attempt at leftist rhetoric*

Its funny because he doesnt speak good.

I'm a white guy. If I had said the same thing, I'd be villified as a racist!

He added: "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.

Exactly - they should learn to speak like White Americans, who think that 'gotten' is a word. :wink:

(Yes, I'm British.)

didnt Bill Cosby basically promote ebonic-like speech in the Fat Albert cartoon?

I agree that people are stupid to raise their kids not to speak properly (and by properly, i mean the 'white' way of speaking as that is what is expected when interviewing for a job lets say) in a society where you are judged harsly on the way you speak. Although I don't care how someone speaks as long as I can understand them, and I admit to having a hard to time understanding ebonic-style slang. I agree that those in the poorer spectrum of society do have a chance to pull themselves out of that rut and make something of themselves.

But it is also true that poor people are oppressed. not just blacks, but all poor people are oppressed. I was a poor white kid that dealt with a lot of racism againt whites because I lived in poor neighborhoods that were dominated by minorities. And it was a major struggle to finally reach my minor level of success. I had top grades my whole life, but I went to poor public schools and the education and oppotunies in such schools is are very limited. That is not an excuse to act ignorant and and become a criminal. I don't condone it and anyone should know that criminal action is more likely to get you thrown in jail and ruin your whole life rather than make you rich, or your life easier.

But unless you came from this type of world, then you just have no idea what its like. When your parents are idiots and dont care what you do and everyone around you is living it up and doing drugs and stealing and the cops only show hatred and suspicion towards you, you dont have a very good view of society and you dont wanna participate in it. It looks like an ugly world and taking part in it feels like you are selling your soul. Plus your "friends" are there only to discourage you mainly, as positive role models are scarce and often beaten up. You are looked down upon for associating yourself with them.

It's very tough and instead of chastising people for following the wrong path, the best course of action is to offer them altrernatives and hope for the best outcome. Giving up on them and condemning their actions isn't going to do anythign but hurt the situation.

yeah he made a point and many blacks and well conservatives black or white are agreeing including myself, problem is us whities are "racists" for saying so/agreeing to what he said. White folks do this stuff to, 500$ for shoes man! Its nuts I pay 40$ for shoes or around that general and I get one or two pairs a year or so. My parents biggest spending outside of giving me a home and food is not on clothes or toys etc. its on my education, tutoring when I need it (math) and I am attending an academy privately to where I get a better education. Not to mention they help me out with saving rather than blowing my cash, I actually have money for college! I'm expected to get at least B's in school and my grammar and speech (offline maybe on I am troublesome) is actually pretty excellent one of my best courses is english.

Love the cosby show on nick at night 8) :lol:

Its funny because he doesnt speak good.

He doesn't speak *well*. hehe

Ok, time for my two cents on this...and it may surprise some people who have an insight into my political views, and therefore, would anticipate, incorrectly, what my response to this would be.

Personally, liberal as I am...Cosby is dead on the money with this one! Though I agree that if a white person said the same thing, they'd get vilified as an insensitive jerk, a racist, and a pig.

Sad to say, there are certain ways in which the world works, and if you want to get along in it, there are times when you have to GO ALONG. Even if you don't want to. (This is Labrador the Pragmatist speaking here.)

On the other hand, I can see the point made by Sumamba Buwhan, that to many fo these people, society does look ugly, and that may well cause these people to not want to deal with it, or be a part of it. Problem is, if you're going to be that way, then expect society to react to your refusal to GO ALONG. there will be sanctions for it. Not saying that there ought to be, I think society could do with being a bit more tolerant, forgiving, loving, understanding and accepting...but, hey, sad to say, I do not make the rules. If I did, believe me, society would look very different than it currently does.

This particular thread attracted me, because I'm looking at something similar, but from a different angle...
I live in Central Texas, in RL...and I am currently looking for a job. Unfortunately, it seems, all of a sudden, here, everyone wants you to be freaking bilingual, fluent in Spanish, to get a job. What a load of horse hockey!! Damn it all, anyway, why the f**k should I have to learn goddam Spanish? Bullspit!! These people moved to MY country, dammit, let THEM learn to speak English! I'll be damned if I like the idea of becoming a foriegner in my own damn country! And that is what is happening. Now, I am not a racist or a bigot...but at the same time, it is awful hard not to be more than a little bitter about this. I mean, hey...if I moved to Mexico, I would not expect everyone around me to learn MY language...I'd take it on myself to learn THEIRS. And if I were to move to France, I'd expect to have to learn French. I would NOT expect all the French people to learn English (although a lot of French people know and speak better English than a lot of Americans!!)
Anyway, I think Cosby is right on the money with his comments, and I applaud hm making the comments. Sometimes, reality is a bitter pill to swallow.
And that's MY two cents.

Ok, did anyone catch the fainting conservo-creeps? Much as I don't like them, I wouldn't REALLY wanna see them split their heads open on the concrete when they faint seeing an avowed, full-tilt-boogie, radical lefty liberal coming out with remars like I just did.

Ok, time for my two cents on this...and it may surprise some people who have an insight into my political views, and therefore, would anticipate, incorrectly, what my response to this would be.

Personally, liberal as I am...Cosby is dead on the money with this one! Though I agree that if a white person said the same thing, they'd get vilified as an insensitive jerk, a racist, and a pig.

Sad to say, there are certain ways in which the world works, and if you want to get along in it, there are times when you have to GO ALONG. Even if you don't want to. (This is Labrador the Pragmatist speaking here.)

On the other hand, I can see the point made by Sumamba Buwhan, that to many fo these people, society does look ugly, and that may well cause these people to not want to deal with it, or be a part of it. Problem is, if you're going to be that way, then expect society to react to your refusal to GO ALONG. there will be sanctions for it. Not saying that there ought to be, I think society could do with being a bit more tolerant, forgiving, loving, understanding and accepting...but, hey, sad to say, I do not make the rules. If I did, believe me, society would look very different than it currently does.

This particular thread attracted me, because I'm looking at something similar, but from a different angle...
I live in Central Texas, in RL...and I am currently looking for a job. Unfortunately, it seems, all of a sudden, here, everyone wants you to be freaking bilingual, fluent in Spanish, to get a job. What a load of horse hockey!! Damn it all, anyway, why the f**k should I have to learn goddam Spanish? Bullspit!! These people moved to MY country, dammit, let THEM learn to speak English! I'll be damned if I like the idea of becoming a foriegner in my own damn country! And that is what is happening. Now, I am not a racist or a bigot...but at the same time, it is awful hard not to be more than a little bitter about this. I mean, hey...if I moved to Mexico, I would not expect everyone around me to learn MY language...I'd take it on myself to learn THEIRS. And if I were to move to France, I'd expect to have to learn French. I would NOT expect all the French people to learn English (although a lot of French people know and speak better English than a lot of Americans!!)
Anyway, I think Cosby is right on the money with his comments, and I applaud hm making the comments. Sometimes, reality is a bitter pill to swallow.
And that's MY two cents.

Ok, did anyone catch the fainting conservo-creeps? Much as I don't like them, I wouldn't REALLY wanna see them split their heads open on the concrete when they faint seeing an avowed, full-tilt-boogie, radical lefty liberal coming out with remars like I just did.

never thought I'd hear myself say this, but,

right on Labrador!

my question still stands... wasn't Bill Cosby helping to promote ebonics-like language in the Fat Albert cartoon series?

just curious

Why is it that you can't get a job if you don't speak 'good' English?

Do people who speak British English face this kind of discrimination?
Irish English speakers? Scottish? Australian?

What's the difference? Why is Black English so onerous? It's a dialectical form of English with complex syntactical, morphological, and phonological structures. Do American Southerners face this problem? Does a high class New England accent prevent you from getting a job?

What's the fucking difference?

DP

For me

I would look for someone who made my business look professional by having workers who were able to learn proper english in school and convey that to the customers.

I wouldnt want someone who says "I gotz ta git paid" or "I need y'all to sign this here form"

now I dont look down on people who talk this way, but I dont want it hurting my business. I could care less how they talk outside of my business. And a bit of an accent wouldnt bother me but not beign able to form sentences correctly would leave them jobless.

For me

I would look for someone who made my business look professional by having workers who were able to learn proper english in school and convey that to the customers.

I wouldnt want someone who says "I gotz ta git paid" or "I need y'all to sign this here form"

now I dont look down on people who talk this way, but I dont want it hurting my business. I could care less how they talk outside of my business. And a bit of an accent wouldnt bother me but not beign able to form sentences correctly would leave them jobless.

What makes a sentence formation 'correct'? Most of us don't speak proper English anyways, not even most people from England speak proper English. How does someone saying: "I gotz ta git paid" or "I need y'all to sign this here form" detract from the professionalism of the workplace?

In a side note, the second example you listed was a fine example of the Southern (American) dialect of English. Would you deny a job to someone because of a Southern accent?

Well I wouldn't look for perfection - but like I said I wouldn't want my customers to have a poor image of my company by thinking my workers are uneducated which is what it sounds like.

"gotz ta" - just sounds uneducated and reflects poorly on the companies image.

It's like wearing oversized pants to work, that hang below your ass and your boxers are showing. I dont want a sloppy gangsta image. You just have to expect certain things from your workers and if they cant comply then they dont get hired.

And I already said an accent is not objectionable.

tell me how you think "I gotz ta git paid" doesnt detract from the professionalism of the workplace. I myself use slang at home and can easily have a wierd accent - gay/southern/ebonic-like - but I can also sound how I know the employer wants me to sound like so as to foster some sort of respect or trust in my ability to make the company look like its workers are professional and educated.

I am making a distinction between sounding educated and being educated because, yes, people have pre-determined views of things and you've got to fit into those to maintain an professional image. I'm not goign to tell a customer he is "trippin'". That could be the loss of a customer. So, just because I don't hire the person because ofhow they sound doesn't mean I have anythign against the person, think they are dumb or unlikable. I just want a successful business.

In many industries, employers prefer more educated employees, and the style of English used by an applicant is an indication of their level of education (not just in the subject of English - better grammar is required in most subjects at higher levels of education). I'm *not* saying that this is a good method of deduction, just that many employers *will* use it.

In many industries, employers prefer more educated employees, and the style of English used by an applicant is an indication of their level of education (not just in the subject of English - better grammar is required in most subjects at higher levels of education). I'm *not* saying that this is a good method of deduction, just that many employers *will* use it.

Well I wouldn't look for perfection - but like I said I wouldn't want my customers to have a poor image of my company by thinking my workers are uneducated which is what it sounds like.

"gotz ta" - just sounds uneducated and reflects poorly on the companies image.

It's like wearing oversized pants to work, that hang below your ass and your boxers are showing. I dont want a sloppy gangsta image. You just have to expect certain things from your workers and if they cant comply then they dont get hired.

And I already said an accent is not objectionable.

You said it, but you also gave an example of a Southern accent as something that would prevent a person from being hired.

Why do you consider the gangsta image sloppy? I seem to recall most gangstas being very concerned with looking good.

tell me how you think "I gotz ta git paid" doesnt detract from the professionalism of the workplace.

Hmm...perhaps I asked the wrong question. Here's what I should have asked: Why is professionalism defined and perceived in such a way that it excludes the possibility of speaking Ebonics in a "professional" setting and still being professional?

I myself use slang at home and can easily have a wierd accent - gay/southern/ebonic-like - but I can also sound how I know the employer wants me to sound like so as to foster some sort of respect or trust in my ability to make the company look like its workers are professional and educated.

This is more of a rhetorical question. You do not need to respond to it if you don't want to.

Why are positive values associated so strongly with 'proper English' and negative values assigned to Ebonics? A language is simply that, a language. It cannot be bad or good, educated or uneducated, refined or unrefined.

I am making a distinction between sounding educated and being educated because, yes, people have pre-determined views of things and you've got to fit into those to maintain an professional image. I'm not goign to tell a customer he is "trippin'". That could be the loss of a customer. So, just because I don't hire the person because ofhow they sound doesn't mean I have anythign against the person, think they are dumb or unlikable. I just want a successful business.

Oh, I see. You are conforming to the societal norms concerning language simply because you need access to resources. I suppose that's reasonable. Almost everyone does it. It's not fair that you have to work harder simply because you aren't in line with what is considered by the powerful to be 'proper English', but that's life, right?

DP

the reason why black langauge is different to say most southern/english/scottish/welsh/irish is that when someone has a very ebonic way of talking it is horribly gramatic and lingusiticly..involving whole new words. those others however for the most part involve accents and the occasional different word for something. some times however those accents do put you in the same situation..i recall meeting a welsh man once while i was in england i understood perhaps 5 out of the 40 words he spoke to me. i wouldn't hire him.

Ebonics sounds uneducated because it is that. People who speak in Ebonics have had a crappy course in proper English.

Well I didn't decide why proper english is considered proper, maybe it was the educational system and the media.

As for my example of a southern line that sounded uneducated, well maybe it was a bad example, and I'll admit that I just think that the southern drawl makes people sound like they lived in teh back woods all their life having sex with their siblings. That is wrong of me and I shouldn't think that way but that is the image I get so my bad. But I still wouldn't want that image attached to my company. I don't actually believe people with southern drawls really grew up or act any other way than civilized but the sound of it conjurs up that picture in my head. I'm just being honest.

You dont think pants hanging down past someones ass looks sloppy or is that a nice look in yoru personal view? Would you hire someone that dressed like that at an interview thinkign they look nice? Maybe you don't think people shold dress nice at an interview? What would you wear to a job interview and why?

Maybe you were referring to mobsters. Yes they dress in suits so I would agree that they dress "nice". Personally I hate suits and I hate wearing them but in the interest of my company I would make people wear them if we were trying to promote a positive professional image.

Some gangstas actually do dress nice though, I will admit that.

I believe that speaking ebonics is irresponsible if you wish to show yourself in a light which makes people percieve you as educated. I don't know why it's that way and I'm sure it's debateable, but you need to convice me why it should be acceptable to get me to consider it. Otherwise I have my bias because of the reasons I have given and I can't see it in any other way. If you want to enlighten me I am always glad to learn.

And yes, that's life. We all want to make changes in teh way things are run but we have limited power in the ways of society.

I would rather things be differently but I currently still stand by my original line of thought. I don't know if this sounds racist to you but I don't equate it with that. I equate it with common sense. I love all people of all colors and even the people whos actiosn I despise I still love. We are all connected and should look out for one another. But I am not goign to let my business go to hell because some guy who talks like a fool and dresses like a slob needs a job.

What woudl you do? Who would you hire? Do you care how they talk or dress? Whats the difference in who you hire?

Well I wouldn't look for perfection - but like I said I wouldn't want my customers to have a poor image of my company by thinking my workers are uneducated which is what it sounds like.

"gotz ta" - just sounds uneducated and reflects poorly on the companies image.

It's like wearing oversized pants to work, that hang below your ass and your boxers are showing. I dont want a sloppy gangsta image. You just have to expect certain things from your workers and if they cant comply then they dont get hired.

And I already said an accent is not objectionable.

tell me how you think "I gotz ta git paid" doesnt detract from the professionalism of the workplace. I myself use slang at home and can easily have a wierd accent - gay/southern/ebonic-like - but I can also sound how I know the employer wants me to sound like so as to foster some sort of respect or trust in my ability to make the company look like its workers are professional and educated.

I am making a distinction between sounding educated and being educated because, yes, people have pre-determined views of things and you've got to fit into those to maintain an professional image. I'm not goign to tell a customer he is "trippin'". That could be the loss of a customer. So, just because I don't hire the person because ofhow they sound doesn't mean I have anythign against the person, think they are dumb or unlikable. I just want a successful business.

Quite. This falls exactly in with what I said about sometimes having to GO ALONG in order to GET ALONG. Who gives a crap how you talk on your own time, but, hey...let's face it...if I work for, say UPS...the instant I put on those brown clothes, to the customer, I'm not Labrador anymore. I', not Jane Roe anymore...I AM UPS!!! And how I speak and how I conduct myself, and how I dress and groom myself, like it or not, DOES reflect upon the professionalism of the business. And it does leave an impresion in a customers' mind...and therefore, much as we might not want them to, these things DO matter.

Again, if I were the one making the rules, they wouldn't matter. I am, as I said, a full-tilt-radical lefty liberal...BUT, I'm also enough of a pragmatist to realize that in this world there are times where, like it or not, you have to GO ALONG to GET ALONG. Again, reality is a bitter pill to swallow sometimes, but we all have to do it. And I mean we ALL do.

Example...some people might not like, say working around gay people, or transgender people like myself. Well, you know what? F**k you, that's YOUR problem, and I'l be damned if you're gonna make it MINE. Screw you, we ALL have to work with and around people we'd rather not. And who is universally loved by everyone? No one that I know of. Sure as hell, I'm not. Too opinionated, too rough, blunt, obnoxious, eccentric, and sometimes, quite frankly, downright rude and tactless. BUT...when I go to work, I have to put all that stuff aside, and go along, very unwillingly...that is if I like eating, and sleeping indoors, and not having to be a criminal to survive.

Well I didn't decide why proper english is considered proper, maybe it was the educational system and the media.

No it is not your fault that the system is the way it is, but you can change it for the better.

As for my example of a southern line that sounded uneducated, well maybe it was a bad example, and I'll admit that I just think that the southern drawl makes people sound like they lived in teh back woods all their life having sex with their siblings. That is wrong of me and I shouldn't think that way but that is the image I get so my bad. But I still wouldn't want that image attached to my company. I don't actually believe people with southern drawls really grew up or act any other way than civilized but the sound of it conjurs up that picture in my head. I'm just being honest.

The kind of honesty and self-reflection you display can help you become a better person, a person more free of the cultural biases that so often cause us to degrade our fellow human beings. I'm glad you can admit your own biases, that's a rare quality on this forum.

You dont think pants hanging down past someones ass looks sloppy or is that a nice look in yoru personal view?

It looks fine to me. It's not the way I dress, but it's not onerous in my view.

Would you hire someone that dressed like that at an interview thinkign they look nice?

If they had the qualifications for the job, yes.

Maybe you don't think people shold dress nice at an interview?

I don't really think it's that important. "Can the person do the job effectively?" is my concern, not how they talk or dress.

What would you wear to a job interview and why?

I would wear casual or business casual attire at most. My clothing has to be comfortable.

Maybe you were referring to mobsters.

Nope.

I believe that speaking ebonics is irresponsible if you wish to show yourself in a light which makes people percieve you as educated. I don't know why it's that way and I'm sure it's debateable, but you need to convice me why it should be acceptable to get me to consider it. Otherwise I have my bias because of the reasons I have given and I can't see it in any other way. If you want to enlighten me I am always glad to learn.

Things are that way because in the time before the Civil Rights movement, racism was much more overt and prevalent. Racism became embedded in the institutions of the culture. The media, the government, and the business/industrial complex were all infected with it and even now they perpetuate it. Anything even percieved as being remotely 'black' was labeled with a negative cultural value. It is likely that you recieved your understanding of the cultural diversity of this nation from the same racist institutions that influenced your parents.

And yes, that's life. We all want to make changes in teh way things are run but we have limited power in the ways of society.

Even alone, our limited power can be very effective when used properly. Together, our power is incredible.

I would rather things be differently but I currently still stand by my original line of thought. I don't know if this sounds racist to you but I don't equate it with that. I equate it with common sense. I love all people of all colors and even the people whos actiosn I despise I still love. We are all connected and should look out for one another. But I am not goign to let my business go to hell because some guy who talks like a fool and dresses like a slob needs a job.

It does sound racist, but I don't hate or despise you for it because I've been there and done that. It's hard to escape something that has existed in your culture for so long.

What woudl you do? Who would you hire? Do you care how they talk or dress? Whats the difference in who you hire?

I think I already answered this question a few lines up...

Good day to you, GB. I going to go eat dinner and get some sleep now.

Why is it that you can't get a job if you don't speak 'good' English?

Do people who speak British English face this kind of discrimination?
Irish English speakers? Scottish? Australian?

What's the difference? Why is Black English so onerous? It's a dialectical form of English with complex syntactical, morphological, and phonological structures. Do American Southerners face this problem? Does a high class New England accent prevent you from getting a job?


Why is it all of a sudden I have to speak good SPANISH to get a f**king job?!?!?
What makes a New England accent "high class??"
Reminds me of a little joke I heard once.

A man was visiting the Harvard campus, and asked a student, "Excuse me, can you please tell me where the Widener Library is at?"
The student said, rather pompously, "At Haaaavard, we do not end a sentence with a prepostion."
So the visitor said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Could you please tell me where the Widener Library is at, jackass?"

Reminds me of a little joke I heard once.

A man was visiting the Harvard campus, and asked a student, "Excuse me, can you please tell me where the Widener Library is at?"
The student said, rather pompously, "At Haaaavard, we do not end a sentence with a prepostion."
So the visitor said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Could you please tell me where the Widener Library is at, jackass?"

Of course 'at' shouldn't be used with 'where' so the student pointed out the mistake incorrectly, leading me to think that the joke's writer was someone bitter from English lessons at school. :wink:

Would you hire someone that dressed like that at an interview thinkign they look nice?

If they had the qualifications for the job, yes.

The problem is that a person who cannot speak properly does not have the qualifications for the job if they will be at all working with people. It's one thing if you are trying to be a garbage man (not to suggest anything against garbage men) where the job is pretty self-explanatory, but if you have to communicate with people and present a good image for the company, speaking poorly or dressing in a way that your undergarments are showing means that you do not have the qualifications for the job.

I don't really think it's that important. "Can the person do the job effectively?" is my concern, not how they talk or dress.

See above.

What would you wear to a job interview and why?

I would wear casual or business casual attire at most. My clothing has to be comfortable.

Yes, but would you dress like Madonna? Would you have your bra or boxers hanging out of your clothes? Would you walk in barefoot?

Things are that way because in the time before the Civil Rights movement, racism was much more overt and prevalent. Racism became embedded in the institutions of the culture. The media, the government, and the business/industrial complex were all infected with it and even now they perpetuate it. Anything even percieved as being remotely 'black' was labeled with a negative cultural value. It is likely that you recieved your understanding of the cultural diversity of this nation from the same racist institutions that influenced your parents.

This is just bullshit. When I see a guy from the north Georgia mountains speaking poorly, I think the same thing I do when I see a person (black or white) trying to get a job and speaking "ebonics". When I read a scientific paper and it has grammatical errors, I begin to wonder if I should trust the paper. If a person can't put the effort in to construct a proper sentence, can they put the effort in to conduct a proper scientific experiment? Maybe, but that's not the impression any sane person would get of them.

Even alone, our limited power can be very effective when used properly. Together, our power is incredible.

True, but I'm not going to use my power to encourage people to speak in a made-up language that they made up specifically to set them apart from the rest of the crowd.

It does sound racist, but I don't hate or despise you for it because I've been there and done that. It's hard to escape something that has existed in your culture for so long.

Again, it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with taking pride in what you do.

He added: "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.

Exactly - they should learn to speak like White Americans, who think that 'gotten' is a word. :wink:

(Yes, I'm British.)

Oh DO behave!

Brits ain't got no colloquialisms or nuthin like dat? :o
Y'all talk funny enyways. Y'all sound like ya got yer drawers on too tight.

Seriously, the Scots, Irish and Welsh along with the English all have their fair share of dialects and sub-dialects of broken English.

Chin up old chap!

Cheers,
SHL

Ok, time for my two cents on this...and it may surprise some people who have an insight into my political views, and therefore, would anticipate, incorrectly, what my response to this would be.

Personally, liberal as I am...Cosby is dead on the money with this one! Though I agree that if a white person said the same thing, they'd get vilified as an insensitive jerk, a racist, and a pig.

Sad to say, there are certain ways in which the world works, and if you want to get along in it, there are times when you have to GO ALONG. Even if you don't want to. (This is Labrador the Pragmatist speaking here.)

On the other hand, I can see the point made by Sumamba Buwhan, that to many fo these people, society does look ugly, and that may well cause these people to not want to deal with it, or be a part of it. Problem is, if you're going to be that way, then expect society to react to your refusal to GO ALONG. there will be sanctions for it. Not saying that there ought to be, I think society could do with being a bit more tolerant, forgiving, loving, understanding and accepting...but, hey, sad to say, I do not make the rules. If I did, believe me, society would look very different than it currently does.

This particular thread attracted me, because I'm looking at something similar, but from a different angle...

So far so good . . .
I live in Central Texas, in RL...and I am currently looking for a job. Unfortunately, it seems, all of a sudden, here, everyone wants you to be freaking bilingual, fluent in Spanish, to get a job. What a load of horse hockey!! Damn it all, anyway, why the f**k should I have to learn goddam Spanish? Bullspit!! These people moved to MY country, dammit, let THEM learn to speak English! I'll be damned if I like the idea of becoming a foriegner in my own damn country! And that is what is happening. Now, I am not a racist or a bigot...but at the same time, it is awful hard not to be more than a little bitter about this. I mean, hey...if I moved to Mexico, I would not expect everyone around me to learn MY language...I'd take it on myself to learn THEIRS. And if I were to move to France, I'd expect to have to learn French. I would NOT expect all the French people to learn English (although a lot of French people know and speak better English than a lot of Americans!!)
Anyway, I think Cosby is right on the money with his comments, and I applaud hm making the comments. Sometimes, reality is a bitter pill to swallow.

The reality is that you are comparing apples and oranges. American blacks were born in this country and, in part for the reasons stated above, have chosen to stay out of what they refer to as white society. To do so is as you said, to be labeled a sellout. Setting historical justifications aside, an antagonistic, hostile and defeatist attitude doesn't work for anybody. Any person who display these attitudes will get nowhere fast.

What I take Cosby's point to be is that they need to have the capacity to do both. To hold to their linguistic traditions and to be able to "talk white". "Talking white" is really the ability to communicate in a common tongue. It is generally just formal English American style. This is a basic requirement if one has any hope of getting involved in the society at large let alone improving their socio-economic position in it.

A small example might help. I have travelled a bit both in America and abroad. While in a pub in a hamlet in Scotland the locals spoke in tongues among themselves to my ear. But when they found out I was a "Yank" they would tip each other off by telling the other to "talk polite' and they said it so I understood what they were saying. These were regular work a day folks like me, not the intellectual elite. They wanted to enjoy the novel opportunity of my company. They had the capacity to do so and, very importantly to me, they included me in their conversations.

So there are your apples. Here come the oranges.

Hispanics have been entering into various regions of the USA for years. There is a huge first generation immigrant population whose first language is Spanish. It has been my experience that generally the first generation is trying hard to learn English so they can improve their lot in life. It may take a lifetime to become somewhat proficient, but overall that is the trend. Their children who are born here though tend to be fluently bilingual - or even trilingual if you include Eubonics.

The hispanics have become a strong economic force. Whether you are selling widgets or providing services it is (at least) to your advantage to be able to communicate with these folks and draw their dollars your way. It is also critical if you are going to be a supervisor of such workers. So Se Habla Espanol becomes more of a decision based upon economic necessity than a socially conscious one.

As Google says it, Uno hace lo que debe uno.

Ciao,
SHL

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38565

Thursday, May 20, 2004
MINORITY REPORT
Bill Cosby: Poor blacks can't speak English
NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian
1:00 a.m. Eastern


In the presence of NAACP President Kweisi Mfume and other African-American leaders, comedian Bill Cosby took aim at blacks who don't take responsibility for their economic status, blame police for incarcerations and teach their kids poor speaking habits.


Cosby made his remarks at a Constitution Hall event in Washington Monday night commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision that paved the way for integrated schools, reported Richard Leiby in his Reliable Source column for the Washington Post.

Leiby said Cosby's remarks were met with "astonishment, laughter and applause."

When Cosby finally concluded, Leiby said, Mfume, Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert and NAACP legal defense fund head Theodore Shaw came to the podium looking "stone-faced."

Shaw told the crowd most people on welfare are not African American. He insisted many of the problems his organization addresses among blacks are not self-inflicted.

Cosby said, according to Leiby: "Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

He added: "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!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Those who have debated with me know that I think the world is full of reverse racism today. They give minorities so much respect because of their father's oppression, and many of these people do nothing to earn that respect.

*Applauds one of my all-time favorite comedians, being serious*

Hey hey hey! :PBill Cosby is not a person who represents working class black people. The fact that hes a millionaire should give a clue about that. I have nothing to say about him being a sell out, or a tool of whitey propaganda, because hes not.

You have to remember, that while racism cuts an ugly division across society, its classism thats the real division. The thing is that most of those times those lines run side by side, and the colour of your skin is easier to see at a glance than the colour of your money. Its an easy distraction for both liberals and conservatives to see race the division.

Reminds me of a little joke I heard once.

A man was visiting the Harvard campus, and asked a student, "Excuse me, can you please tell me where the Widener Library is at?"
The student said, rather pompously, "At Haaaavard, we do not end a sentence with a prepostion."
So the visitor said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Could you please tell me where the Widener Library is at, jackass?"

Of course 'at' shouldn't be used with 'where' so the student pointed out the mistake incorrectly, leading me to think that the joke's writer was someone bitter from English lessons at school. :wink:

http://homepage.mac.com/m5comp/trekbits/trekpics/changeling/changeling17thumb.jpg
Good lord man, you are frighteningly insightful! :lol:

SHL

it has nothing to do with speaking correctly

Ebonics is a language

it's the language of their forefathers, a mix between the southern and african dialects, and it's not right to say it's incorrect

speaking ebonics does not define a black person's intelligence either. it's culture. y'all are really stereotypical

it has nothing to do with speaking correctly

Ebonics is a language

it's the language of their forefathers, a mix between the southern and african dialects, and it's not right to say it's incorrect

speaking ebonics does not define a black person's intelligence either. it's culture. y'all are really stereotypical

Modern-day ebonics has little, if anything, to do with anybody's forefathers and would not even really be considered a dialect, much less its own language. People speak ebonics to set them apart from the crowd, because many think it is *cool* to be unlearned or, in rare cases, because they have never been taught proper English. This is true of black, white, hispanic, etc. people that speak it these days.

This would be like saying, "Ya'll really is a word! After all, it's culture!"

Jumping the broom is culture, speaking ebonics in a professional setting is not.

As Dempublicents mentioned, ebonics have nothing to do with people's ancestors. Of course you mean slaves, the memorial of whom you attempt to attempt to respect. However, slaves didn't speak ebonics. After all, slavery in America officially ended in the mid-1800s, and if ebonics--or any part of modern African American culture--had anything to do with slavery, you could picture African Americans in the Roaring Twenties walking around, holding up their pants and speaking ebonics.

I respect their language and culture, as they are not necessarily direct indications as to the intelligence or moral fiber of the person. Professionalism, however, embraces some cultures more than others, and "urban" culture pertaining to any race is not exactly high up on the list. However, there are perfectly rational reasons why. Baggy pants, for example, originated in prison, where nobody had belts and the pants were designed so that everybody could wear them, regardless of the actual fit.

Therefore, do what you want on your own time, but if you expect to be successful in a professional job or give out the appearance of a self-composed individual, you can't let your culture dictate all your actions for any reason.

it has nothing to do with speaking correctly

Ebonics is a language

it's the language of their forefathers, a mix between the southern and african dialects, and it's not right to say it's incorrect

speaking ebonics does not define a black person's intelligence either. it's culture. y'all are really stereotypical

Ebonics IS NOT a f**king language!! It's a retarded, half-assed, lazy bullshit way to talk. It has everything to do with the fact that underachievment is "cool" in the ghetto. Overachievers get accused of "acting white" or "trying to be white" and get the snot beat out of them, because they are just trying to better themselves, so that perhaps, one day, they can crawl off the shitheap that is the ghetto, and make something of themselves.

Ebonics is a defiant "f**k you!!" in the face of society. And that sort of attitude will not get your far.

Sorry, in Texas, anyway, there are schools that teach ESL - this refers to ENGLISH as a Second Language...not f**king EBONICS as a Second Language.

Ebonics is horeshit, pure and simple. It sounds like shit, lazy-ass, uneducated punk, gangsta trash. And that is exactly what Ebonics is.

Now, if they wanna talk it in their own house, among their friends, etc, whatever, hey, I'm for it. But not in the working world. I have certain colloquialisms, myself, being as I live in Texas. Things I'd never say on a job interview, or in a work situation. Like "fixin' to" and "y'all." Or, "you keep steppin' in that thar prairie pie, your foot's gonna get nasty." Or, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-meter cattle-prod!"

Translations time: "Fixin' to" mean, going to, about to...as in, "I'm fixin to go to the store, y'all want anything while I'm there?"
"Y'all" short for you all. And don't give me shit about this one, it sound better than the New York alternative, which is to say "yous guys" And yes, they pluralize the "yous" in "yous guys." I know, I lived in and around New York for eight years.
"You keep steppin' in that thar prairie pie, your foot's gonna get nasty" roughly translates as "Don't go there!"
"I wouldn't touch that with a ten-meter cattle prod" roughly translates as "I'm not gonna go there" or "He's not gonna go there" (First/third party not going there) as in someone makes a comment that is way to easy to pervert, and you just say, "I ain't gonna touch that one with a ten-meter cattle prod!" Or, a third-party reference, "I wanted to sue his happy ass, but I couldn't find me a lawyer that'd touch the case on contingency with a ten-meter cattle prod!"
Anyways, there's your lesson in Texas Talk for today.

Fact is, I'd not use it in a situation that calls for me to be professional, like a work environment, or customer contact, or job interview.

When you are going for a job interview, your manner of dress, grooming, and the way you speak and conduct yourself are all a part of what we can refer to as "packaging." And in an interview situation, you're selling yourself. There is no other way to look at it, because, wnhether you know it or not, that is exactly what you are doing. Therefore, you want your "packaging" to be as appealing as possible to the interviewer (customer) to whom you are selling your labor (product.)

I don't care if anyone here thinks baggy-ass pants hanging, and showing off half your boxer shorts looks okay to you. Or you think it looks nice, or anything else. Chances are, the interviewer doesn't think so. In fact, the interviewer probably thinks..."geez, if they care so little about how they look to me, why would I hire them?"

Face it. In our lives, we all, at some point are consumers (buyers) of goods and services. Let's just take goods, because it is easier to demonstrate this. Let's say there's two boxes of cereal left on the store shelf when you go to buy cereal. One box is pristine, in perfect condition. The other box is crushed, bent, damaged in shipping, faded, maybe even has some water spots on it, etc...you get the idea. Now, in all honesty, which of those two boxes of cereal are you going to buy?

Hey, like I say, I don't make the rules in society or in the world, or this world would be a much more tolerant, loving, forgiving, understanding, and accepting than it is. This is cold, hard reality. It may not be fair, it may not be right...but it is the way it is.

Not to say we shouldn't work to root out and eliminate stereotypes and prejudices, and institutionalized racism. I think we should. But Ebonics is not the way to do it. It REINFORCES the stereotype rather than eliminating it. What we ought to be doing is, as a society, we should be putting more money, time, and effort into teaching these students, so that they have a better chance of getting off the crap pile when they do get out of school. And this is something everyone should be involved in...teachers, parents, family, friends, neighbors, complete f**king strangers! Because when you make an investment in a human being, and it pays off, then THAT is something to truly be proud of.

And THAT is what Bill Cosby is really saying here. He's saying, "C'mon folks, let's not encourage behavior that REINFORCES the stereotypes we're fighting against. Let's all work the best we can to put our best foot forward." And you do that by RAISING the standard to an acceptable minimum, and EXPECTING everyone to meet it. You do NOT do it by lowering the standard so that lazy asshole underacheivers who think Ebonics is "cool," and dressing like a bum is "cool" are thus able to meet the minimum standard with no effort on their part!

Let me try one more example here, and see if you understand where I'm going with this...

When I was a kid, my parents didn't just get me the $100 sneakers because I asked for them! No, they did this: They gave me thirty dollars. "Here's what I was going to spend on your sneakers. Now, you want to $100 sneakers? Well, there's shovel, there's snow...go earn the rest of it. Or, there's lawn mower and gas, there's lawns, go earn the rest of the money!"

What this did for me was, firstly, it taught me the value of money and hard work. Second, it taught me how to make wise budget choices with my money. Third, it gave me pride in ownership of what I eventually got, because I had worked for it and earned it. Thus, I also took much better care of it, and it lasted me longer, and it MEANT something to me. Fourth, it instilled in me a work ethic that serves me well to this day. Whatever else any previous employer may say about me, they will all say that I have a work ethic that would break a plow-horse!

The difference being...I had to put some EFFORT into my achievement, and so it meant something to me when I got it. It wasn't just given to me because I wanted it and asked for it. My parents raised their kids the right way. They cared, the took an interest, they took time and effort to teach us right and wrong, to teach us the value of money and hard work...all of which are things parents of today do not want to do, because it takes too much effort to do it that way!

I grumbled plenty about it when I was a kid, but now, at age 33, I look back over all that, and I say, "thanks, Mom!" Because my mother gave me something that cannot be bought at any price. She gave me ambition, and a desire to achieve.

Bill Cosby is wanting the same thing for black America. He wants them to have ambition, and a desire to achieve. Because he knows that is the only way that one can crawl off the shitheap that is the ghetto. One does not do it by reinforcing the stereotypes. One does not do it by catering to the shitty "f**k you, in your face" attitude that use of Ebonics really displays. One does it by setting standards, and expecting everyone to put the effort into meeting them. And expecting parents to help their children to meet them.

Now, I know, it sucks, it isn't fair, it's mean, it's intolerant, it';s racist, say what you will. There may even be some truth in those charges. BUT, the way the world works is the way it works. And in order to get along, you have to go along. I know, it sucks sometimes. Hey, I'm pissed off about everyone down here sudden;y wanting me to be bilingual Spanish when I'm not. And as a result I may very well end up having to leave Texas, and go back home to Pennsylvania, in order to get a job. It sucks, but that's also a possible reality. I can't speak Spanish for shit. I can READ it...I read maybe 50 percent of what I see in Spanish, enough that I can generally get the gist of a sign, a billboard, etc...but I can't SPEAK the shit. They talk too damn fast! I don't understand what the f**k they are saying! And I can't THINK in Spanish, so I need to listen to what is said in Spanish, mentally translate it to English so I can think about it...think about my response (in English) mentally translate it to Spanish, and do my best to then speak it without butchering it...and by that time, the other guy is three paragraphs ahead of me! Most of the time I spend speaking any Spanish is saying "MAS DESPACIAS!!" as is, "SLOW THE F**K DOWN, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND A GODDAM WORD YOU'RE SAYING!! "

Incidentally, the Spanish spoken in Texas isn't really even Spanish...it's a sort of "Ebonics" for the Hispanic race, a bastardization of real Spanish, you could literally call it Tex-Mex. And that comes from Spanish friends of mine...even THEY say that. But they all understand each other, and so it's okay.

In a business environment, however, EBONICS is NOT okay, because I have heard Ebonics "spoken" as it were, and I don't understand half of it, because it is so bastardized. It sounds like absolute shit. It's lazy, it sucks, and I'm sorry, call me a racist if you will, but when I hear Ebonics, I do four things. First, I think, "geez, what kind of neighborhood full of f**king drug-dealers did I accidentally wind up in by making a wront turn?" Second, I roll up my windows. Third, I lock my f**king car doors. Fourth, I put the pedal to the metal and get the f**k outta that neighborhood just as fast as I possibly can! Because I equate Ebonics with hoods gangsters and criminals! I value my life, I don't wanna get caught in crossfire of two drug kingpins in a turf war. And when I hear Ebonics, I assume I am at great risk of being an innocent bystander that gets shot fulla f**kin' goles by a bunch of low-life scum retard drug dealers.

And THAT is my final word on F**KING EBONICS.

Why do you consider the gangsta image sloppy? I seem to recall most gangstas being very concerned with looking good.


Do you live in a city? If so, you know this is rarely the case; "sloppy" is a more accurate word to use to describe gangstas than "professional".

Ppl just need to learn englishin general and blame themselves cus i fyoudotn improve yoruself no one else can.

I never thought I would ever say this in this lifetime ir the next but Labrador and me are on the same page and she hit the bullseye.

I never thought I would ever say this in this lifetime ir the next but Labrador and me are on the same page and she hit the bullseye.

And just when you thought you knew me, and what my response to this would be, huh?

There IS a pragmatic side to me, too. Fact is, I know how I would LIKE the world to world...and I also know how the world actually DOES work. And they aren't congruent. Even so, I make no case for the desirability of Ebonics in a professional work environment. Because it is not desireable, and has no place there.

Like I say, to my P.C. constituency, call me a racist if you like, but I've listed the four things I do when I hear Ebonics "spoken."

Why is it all of a sudden I have to speak good SPANISH to get a f**king job?!?!?

You have to speak good Spanish? I would think merely having a basic grasp of it would be enough.

What makes a New England accent "high class??"

My leading questions finally pay off!

Ask that same question replacing a couple key words...what makes Black English low-class?

A man was visiting the Harvard campus, and asked a student, "Excuse me, can you please tell me where the Widener Library is at?"
The student said, rather pompously, "At Haaaavard, we do not end a sentence with a prepostion."
So the visitor said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Could you please tell me where the Widener Library is at, jackass?"

Hehe...that sounds like something I would say. :lol:

The problem is that a person who cannot speak properly does not have the qualifications for the job if they will be at all working with people. It's one thing if you are trying to be a garbage man (not to suggest anything against garbage men) where the job is pretty self-explanatory, but if you have to communicate with people and present a good image for the company, speaking poorly or dressing in a way that your undergarments are showing means that you do not have the qualifications for the job.

I am not questioning that the reality exists, I'm questioning the reasons for that reality.

Simply stating culturally biased opinions isn't going to get you anywhere with me. I already questioned the basis of your opinions earlier in the thread. Noone has yet given me a good response.

Yes, but would you dress like Madonna? Would you have your bra or boxers hanging out of your clothes? Would you walk in barefoot?

Look, I'm a pragmatist when it comes to my clothes, but if other people wish to dress differently, whether they are wearing Armani or Southpole, it's fine by me. If they want to wear those things in the most poverty stricken area or the most wealthy area, it's fine by me. Why do you care what other people wear?

This is just bullshit. When I see a guy from the north Georgia mountains speaking poorly, I think the same thing I do when I see a person (black or white) trying to get a job and speaking "ebonics".

So you escaped being more overtly racist. That is good. Some do.

But I don't see how you being an exception to some degree invalidates my statements.

When I read a scientific paper and it has grammatical errors, I begin to wonder if I should trust the paper. If a person can't put the effort in to construct a proper sentence, can they put the effort in to conduct a proper scientific experiment? Maybe, but that's not the impression any sane person would get of them.

Why would you think it takes more effort to construct a "proper" sentence than a sentence in Ebonics?

True, but I'm not going to use my power to encourage people to speak in a made-up language that they made up specifically to set them apart from the rest of the crowd.

Would you like to provide me with an example of a language that is not made-up, whatever it's purpose?

Again, it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with taking pride in what you do.

Why do you define 'taking pride in what you do' in such a way that it excludes speaking Ebonics or wearing baggy pants below the waist?

Why do you consider the gangsta image sloppy? I seem to recall most gangstas being very concerned with looking good.


Do you live in a city? If so, you know this is rarely the case; "sloppy" is a more accurate word to use to describe gangstas than "professional".

I grew up in Houston, Texas, a city of four million people. And all I said is most gangstas are concerned with looking good, I didn't say that they conform to the dominant group's standards for professionalism. The whole point I was trying to make was that there is no good reason for professionalism to be defined in such a way that it excludes wearing baggy pants below the waist.

Modern-day ebonics has little, if anything, to do with anybody's forefathers and would not even really be considered a dialect, much less its own language. People speak ebonics to set them apart from the crowd, because many think it is *cool* to be unlearned or, in rare cases, because they have never been taught proper English. This is true of black, white, hispanic, etc. people that speak it these days.

Wow! And here I thought most people use Ebonics because it's convenient. Look, I speak Ebonics when I am in a place where that is the lingua franca, and because I grew up with it. That is true of most people who speak it, and people who speak any language for that matter. The fact that it sets one apart from the dominant culture is a fringe benefit.

The problem is that a person who cannot speak properly does not have the qualifications for the job if they will be at all working with people. It's one thing if you are trying to be a garbage man (not to suggest anything against garbage men) where the job is pretty self-explanatory, but if you have to communicate with people and present a good image for the company, speaking poorly or dressing in a way that your undergarments are showing means that you do not have the qualifications for the job.

I am not questioning that the reality exists, I'm questioning the reasons for that reality.

You want to know why you have to be able to communicate in order to do a job that involves dealing with people? I should think this is pretty self-explanatory. If you went to interview for a job in France and didn't speak French, do you think you would get it? If you were a mute and interviewed to be a radio DJ, do you think you would get the job? If you were deaf and wanted to be a 911 switchboard operator, do you think you have the qualifications? IF YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE PROPERLY, YOU DON'T GET A JOB THAT INVOLVES COMMUNICATION. Period.

Simply stating culturally biased opinions isn't going to get you anywhere with me. I already questioned the basis of your opinions earlier in the thread. Noone has yet given me a good response.

I didn't state a "culturally biased opinion." A culturally biased opinion would be "all idiots who dress in baggy pants are gang members who will shoot me and rob my store." The idea that you probably will not get a job you don't have the qualifications for is a fact.

Look, I'm a pragmatist when it comes to my clothes, but if other people wish to dress differently, whether they are wearing Armani or Southpole, it's fine by me. If they want to wear those things in the most poverty stricken area or the most wealthy area, it's fine by me. Why do you care what other people wear?

We are not talking about what area something is worn in - I don't care how someone dresses on their own time, we are talking about being professional for a job. I wouldn't hire someone who never took a shower to interact with customers. I wouldn't hire someone who looked like their clothes had never been washed either. And I would not allow someone who looked like a prostitute to be my lawyer. When I go out, I wear tank tops and jeans. When I go to work, I wear nicer clothes and less makeup to look professional.

is slang). Just about everyone uses slang of some sort on an every day basis. For instance someone might say "I ain't doing that!" Of course, if they were writing that in a professional setting, they would have to think about what they wanted to say and place it in the proper context and say "I do not feel comfortable following those instructions." or something along those lines. If you already speak in proper English, forming a proper sentence would not take more effort. However, if you turn in a paper full of slang, then it shows that (a) you don't know proper english or (b) you didn't take the time you needed to proofread it. And not being able to construct a proper sentence does get in the way. I recently struggled through a project proposal so bad that I had to read every paragraph three-four times just to figure out that not only was I unsure of what the heck they were saying, but what I could figure out was bad science.

Would you like to provide me with an example of a language that is [b]not made-up, whatever it's purpose?

No, but I would like to point out that if you make up a language specifically for the purpose of being treated differently, you should expect to be treated differently.

Why do you define 'taking pride in what you do' in such a way that it excludes speaking Ebonics or wearing baggy pants below the waist?

It doesn't exclude doing so *on your own time.* It does exclude doing so in a professional setting where such things are inappropriate. It also excludes going showerless, braless, slapping your boss on the ass, using racial slurs, spitting, and cursing. (Not to say that some jobs doing allow these things - my brother is the least professional person on the planet I think, but at least on a job interview they should be avoided.)

Modern-day ebonics has little, if anything, to do with anybody's forefathers and would not even really be considered a dialect, much less its own language. People speak ebonics to set them apart from the crowd, because many think it is *cool* to be unlearned or, in rare cases, because they have never been taught proper English. This is true of black, white, hispanic, etc. people that speak it these days.

Wow! And here I thought most people use Ebonics because it's convenient. Look, I speak Ebonics when I am in a place where that is the lingua franca, and because I grew up with it. That is true of most people who speak it, and people who speak any language for that matter. The fact that it sets one apart from the dominant culture is a fringe benefit.

And I say ya'll when it is convenient. It is not convenient in a professional setting. I would not write in a paper "Ya'll need to check this out. Look at what my cells be doing."

And many people do speak ebonics because it sets them apart. I knew a girl in high school who was black, but most of her friends were not. She dated white boys, didn't listen to rap, actually tried to do well in school, and spoke the way her friends did. She was given the nickname "oreo" by the "black crowd" because she was "black on the outside but white on the inside." She dared to step outside the racial stereotype that many members of her race were determined to keep propagating and was looked down upon for it. Is this "convenient?"

Modern-day ebonics has little, if anything, to do with anybody's forefathers and would not even really be considered a dialect, much less its own language. People speak ebonics to set them apart from the crowd, because many think it is *cool* to be unlearned or, in rare cases, because they have never been taught proper English. This is true of black, white, hispanic, etc. people that speak it these days.

Wow! And here I thought most people use Ebonics because it's convenient. Look, I speak Ebonics when I am in a place where that is the lingua franca, and because I grew up with it. That is true of most people who speak it, and people who speak any language for that matter. The fact that it sets one apart from the dominant culture is a fringe benefit.

HodRodia you disprove your point and affirm the opposing views by your proper use of the commonly accepted form of English on this forum.

We do this in order to discourse, to understand and be understood. Slang may have it's place in informal settings where it is the norm. But in a more formal setting, say a business or professional environment, the accepted norm is formal English.

That was Cosby's point. Likewise, I seriously doubt the NAACP conducted it's proceedings in Eubonics. It is hardly because of their lack of Black pride that formal American English was the lingua franca there as well.

You state that use of Eubonics has the fringe benefit of setting one apart.
I don't believe it is at all a fringe benefit. It was and is the main point - (it's being thought of as "cool" by some is a fringe benefit).

Employers are not looking to be dazzled by an applicant's hipness. They are looking for someone who is capable of performing the requirements of the position and come across in a generally accepted manner. I seriously doubt that P Diddy insists his lawyers, accountants or business advisors are selected on their unwillingness to speak formal English. I am sure he demands that they simply be the best at what they do.

Just like the rest of the real world.

SHL

HodRodia you disprove your point and affirm the opposing views by your proper use of the commonly accepted form of English on this forum.

Not really. The fact that I have to use something closely approximating the standard American English to get people to respect my opinions is rather telling. If I were to use Ebonics to make my points, most people would either disregard my statements despite their validity or ridicule me in some way.

We do this in order to discourse, to understand and be understood. Slang may have it's place in informal settings where it is the norm. But in a more formal setting, say a business or professional environment, the accepted norm is formal English.

I'm not questioning that such is the reality, just whether that reality is appropriate or fair. How many times have I said that or it's equivalent in this thread?

That was Cosby's point. Likewise, I seriously doubt the NAACP conducted it's proceedings in Eubonics. It is hardly because of their lack of Black pride that formal American English was the lingua franca there as well.

The NAACP takes a very different approach to dominant/minority group relations in the area of language than I do.

You state that use of Eubonics has the fringe benefit of setting one apart.
I don't believe it is at all a fringe benefit. It was and is the main point - (it's being thought of as "cool" by some is a fringe benefit).

Hmmm...maybe I should hunt around for some of the research articles I used in a sociolinguistics presentation on this subject. In fact, I'll get back to this thread with some research studies in a few days.

Employers are not looking to be dazzled by an applicant's hipness.

Nor should they be. They should not be looking to be impressed by a person's 'professional' manner and dress either. That was my point.

They are looking for someone who is capable of performing the requirements of the position and come across in a generally accepted manner.

That's nice. I'm saying their 'generally accepted manner' is unfairly discriminatory.

I seriously doubt that P Diddy insists his lawyers, accountants or business advisors are selected on their unwillingness to speak formal English. I am sure he demands that they simply be the best at what they do.

Well, that's a very nice example, but I don't see how it addresses my point. Look, my main point was that the culturally accepted norm is unfairly discriminatory. Almost everyone on this thread has tried to justify the norm by saying something along the lines of: "Well it's the norm, so we should obey it" or "Ebonics is simply a set of slang terms that were made up so the people who speak it could feel different and special, so it's not valid, and therefore can be discriminated against." The research articles I'll be getting should cover the second point. Noone has proposed a better reason than those so far that I've noticed, and I would really appreciate it if someone would give me one if they have it. :?

HodRodia you disprove your point and affirm the opposing views by your proper use of the commonly accepted form of English on this forum.

Not really. The fact that I have to use something closely approximating the standard American English to get people to respect my opinions is rather telling. If I were to use Ebonics to make my points, most people would either disregard my statements despite their validity or ridicule me in some way.

We do this in order to discourse, to understand and be understood. Slang may have it's place in informal settings where it is the norm. But in a more formal setting, say a business or professional environment, the accepted norm is formal English.

I'm not questioning that such is the reality, just whether that reality is appropriate or fair. How many times have I said that or it's equivalent in this thread?

That was Cosby's point. Likewise, I seriously doubt the NAACP conducted it's proceedings in Eubonics. It is hardly because of their lack of Black pride that formal American English was the lingua franca there as well.

The NAACP takes a very different approach to dominant/minority group relations in the area of language than I do.

You state that use of Eubonics has the fringe benefit of setting one apart.
I don't believe it is at all a fringe benefit. It was and is the main point - (it's being thought of as "cool" by some is a fringe benefit).

Hmmm...maybe I should hunt around for some of the research articles I used in a sociolinguistics presentation on this subject. In fact, I'll get back to this thread with some research studies in a few days.

Employers are not looking to be dazzled by an applicant's hipness.

Nor should they be. They should not be looking to be impressed by a person's 'professional' manner and dress either. That was my point.

They are looking for someone who is capable of performing the requirements of the position and come across in a generally accepted manner.

That's nice. I'm saying their 'generally accepted manner' is unfairly discriminatory.

I seriously doubt that P Diddy insists his lawyers, accountants or business advisors are selected on their unwillingness to speak formal English. I am sure he demands that they simply be the best at what they do.

Well, that's a very nice example, but I don't see how it addresses my point. Look, my main point was that the culturally accepted norm is unfairly discriminatory. Almost everyone on this thread has tried to justify the norm by saying something along the lines of: "Well it's the norm, so we should obey it" or "Ebonics is simply a set of slang terms that were made up so the people who speak it could feel different and special, so it's not valid, and therefore can be discriminated against." The research articles I'll be getting should cover the second point. Noone has proposed a better reason than those so far that I've noticed, and I would really appreciate it if someone would give me one if they have it. :?

I have. The fact is, many peole do not understand Ebonics, and are turned off by it. It quite frankly is that simple. Fair or not...that doesn't enter into this. Reality is what it is. You want to fight against the establishment? Great!! Rah, rah, go kick some ass! But, for now, the reality is what it is. Employers ARE impressed with a "professional" manner of speaking and dress and grooming...and are turned off by "unprofessional" manners of dress, speech, and grooming. Customers are also usually turned off by those things. And they will take thier business elsewhere. An employer knows this.

I'm not questioning that such is the reality, just whether that reality is appropriate or fair. How many times have I said that or it's equivalent in this thread?

Proper English is the one form of the language we know has been taught to anyone who bothered to go to school in this country (so most people) and it is thus the standard. If we made the standard ebonics, only people from certain neighboorhoods would have a chance. Just because you speak ebonics in your free time doesn't mean you don't know how to speak proper English, as you have shown more than once.

Your problem is that you say this is unfair because you think it is racist. But that is obviously untrue, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. Yet you still continute to act like having a standard is soooooo horrible.

The meter is the standard measurement of length in science, is that unfairly discriminatory against Americans, pretty much the only country not using it?

That's nice. I'm saying their 'generally accepted manner' is unfairly discriminatory.

Of course, the only people it discriminates against are those too lazy to try and make a good impression, as just about everyone in this country knows the difference between appropriate business conversation and slang.

Well, that's a very nice example, but I don't see how it addresses my point. Look, my main point was that the culturally accepted norm is unfairly discriminatory.

Which is wrong since it excludes all forms of slang, not just your particular type.

[original article snipped for length]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Those who have debated with me know that I think the world is full of reverse racism today. They give minorities so much respect because of their father's oppression, and many of these people do nothing to earn that respect.

*Applauds one of my all-time favorite comedians, being serious*

Hey hey hey! :P

for once you and i totally agree. though i wouldn't have specified just the black lower-class community, since i notice poor white and latino parents making the same self-defeating mistakes. i can't stand when the lower classes resort to blaming The Man for their own poor judgment...TRY NOT HAVING KIDS AT 14 AND MAYBE YOU WON'T BE IN SUCH DEEP SHIT. how about you don't keep having babies you can't support? how about you stop having children by men you only have known for 3 months? how about you stop taking pride in how uneducated you are and how many times you've been to prison?

sure, some people are poor through no fault of their own, and my heart (and much of my monthly paychecks) go out to them. but i have seen and lived along side so many who don't deserve an ounce of pity because they are almost entirely responsible for their situation. hell, most of them should be incarcerated for child abuse, for condemning their kids to the same pathetic downward spiral.

dp

here here Bottle!

<3

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I tried to respond a couple of days ago but I got that lovely “Invalid Session” error message. Grr.

Since I mistakenly thought (given the usual intelligent nature of your discourse on other matters) that you would eventually stop making fallacious counter-arguments if I simply gave you a bit of time, I will now make it easier on both of us and be more direct. I apologize for wasting your time by not offering more clarity in my responses initially. I also apologize for not having the research articles yet. I will get them, just give me another week or so, please. RL is very busy right now, and I’m stretching things to get this in as it is.

Proper English is the one form of the language we know has been taught to anyone who bothered to go to school in this country (so most people) and it is thus the standard.

Is this a statement of the cause for the standard? Are you saying that the standard is valid because it is the most widely taught? If so, are you familiar with the logical fallacy of Appealing to Tradition?

If we made the standard ebonics, only people from certain neighboorhoods would have a chance.

:shock: Well, true, but I wasn't advocating making ebonics the standard. I advocate broadening the standard by getting rid of certain restrictions. Way to set up a Straw Man and knock it down.

Just because you speak ebonics in your free time doesn't mean you don't know how to speak proper English, as you have shown more than once.

Well...err...thanks for the compliment.

Your problem is that you say this is unfair because you think it is racist. But that is obviously untrue, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread.

Perhaps I missed something. Would you mind humoring me and referencing where that is pointed out and why it was so obvious?

Yet you still continute to act like having a standard is soooooo horrible.

It's not the having the standard or the standard itself I have a problem with, it's what I see in its effects. Is that a bit clearer?

The meter is the standard measurement of length in science, is that unfairly discriminatory against Americans, pretty much the only country not using it?

Finally, a much better argument!

This analogy works in that:

1.)The metric system is an abritrary standard.
2.)The situation is discriminatory.
3.)Switching between the two standards requires extra work on the part of both parties.

It is lacking certain elements it needs for a complete analogy, however.

1.) The English system of measurements is not a primary vehicle for the transmission of culture. Neither is the metric system.
2.) The English system of measurements is not primarily verbal dialectical language in and of itself. It can be expressed verbally, however.
3.) The Metric system is a standard based on efficiency and ease. Standard American English (SAE) is not, and neither is Ebonics.
4.) There is a standard method for 'translating' the English system into the Metric system and vice versa. No such method exists between SAE and Ebonics.

I could go on, but I’m too lazy to try and make a good impression.

Of course, the only people it discriminates against are those too lazy to try and make a good impression, as just about everyone in this country knows the difference between appropriate business conversation and slang.

Why did you appeal to common knowledge? So what if everyone knows the standard? Even if you accept the ridiculous claim that everyone knows the standard, that knowledge does not make the standard right. You Equivocate common knowledge and correctness. Your argument is invalid.

Which is wrong since it excludes all forms of slang, not just your particular type.

Correct.

You want to know why you have to be able to communicate in order to do a job that involves dealing with people? I should think this is pretty self-explanatory. If you went to interview for a job in France and didn't speak French, do you think you would get it?

You seem to be implying by your analogy that Ebonics is a language unto itself and would prevent effective communication in a setting where the lingua franca is something else. Earlier you said it was just a set of slang terms that were made up to set people apart from the dominant culture. Which is it?

If you were a mute and interviewed to be a radio DJ, do you think you would get the job? If you were deaf and wanted to be a 911 switchboard operator, do you think you have the qualifications? IF YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE PROPERLY, YOU DON'T GET A JOB THAT INVOLVES COMMUNICATION. Period.

So now you equate ebonics with a severe and unfortunate physical deficiency? Come on! You just committed the error of Equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. Your argument is invalid.

I didn't state a "culturally biased opinion." A culturally biased opinion would be "all idiots who dress in baggy pants are gang members who will shoot me and rob my store." The idea that you probably will not get a job you don't have the qualifications for is a fact.

Oh fine. I retract my statement about it being a "culturally biased opinion". I can think of a much better reason to disregard your original argument now. Let's have a look at it shall we?



The problem is that a person who cannot speak properly does not have the qualifications for the job if they will be at all working with people. It's one thing if you are trying to be a garbage man (not to suggest anything against garbage men) where the job is pretty self-explanatory, but if you have to communicate with people and present a good image for the company, speaking poorly or dressing in a way that your undergarments are showing means that you do not have the qualifications for the job.

The problem here is that you are using the conclusion of your argument (ie. the standard for professionalism) as support for itself. Hence, you are Begging the Question, which is a logical fallacy. Your argument is invalid.


We are not talking about what area something is worn in

Oh really?

- I don't care how someone dresses on their own time, we are talking about being professional for a job.

Would not the workplace (ie. the setting of a "job") be an "area something is worn in"?

Come on, you just contradicted your statement within the same sentence. This argument is also invalid.

I wouldn't hire someone who never took a shower to interact with customers. I wouldn't hire someone who looked like their clothes had never been washed either. And I would not allow someone who looked like a prostitute to be my lawyer.

Despite my misgivings, I have to ask: why not?

It's not an exception. The conversation here is about professional vs. nonprofessional. In an interview I would look upon someone who said "I needs you to gimme a job, yo." the same way I would look upon someone who said "I'm fixin' to get me a job, Yeehaw!" the same way I would look upon someone who said "I would very much like this job, bitch." All show the same extremely low degree of professionalism.

1.) You are Begging the Question again. Another invalid argument.

2.) So you discriminate against much more than ebonics. That is good to know.

Now you really aren't thinking.

Sure I am. I just don't think the same way you do. Thanks for the Ad Hominem though. Personal attacks amuse me.

Slang is everyday speech (and yes, ebonics [not capitalized] is slang).

Here you say it is slang again…but elsewhere…

Just about everyone uses slang of some sort on an every day basis.

Agreed.

For instance someone might say "I ain't doing that!" Of course, if they were writing that in a professional setting, they would have to think about what they wanted to say and place it in the proper context and say "I do not feel comfortable following those instructions." or something along those lines. If you already speak in proper English, forming a proper sentence would not take more effort. However, if you turn in a paper full of slang, then it shows that (a) you don't know proper english or (b) you didn't take the time you needed to proofread it. And not being able to construct a proper sentence does get in the way.

You are Begging the Question, yet again. It is an invalid argument, yet again.

No, but I would like to point out that if you make up a language specifically for the purpose of being treated differently, you should expect to be treated differently.

Here again, you claim Ebonics is a language, and earlier you said it was slang.

It doesn't exclude doing so *on your own time.* It does exclude doing so in a professional setting where such things are inappropriate. It also excludes going showerless, braless, slapping your boss on the ass, using racial slurs, spitting, and cursing. (Not to say that some jobs doing allow these things - my brother is the least professional person on the planet I think, but at least on a job interview they should be avoided.)

Begging the Question again? Somehow it doesn't impress me anymore now than it did the first time.

The US does NOT have an official language. And if we did, trust me, any good Brit will take you to the GROUND pointing out that what we speak is not "English".

That said, we do have a standard dialect, and like most dialects, it should be able to be turned on and off, as appropriate. Theres a difference between using ebonics at home and using it in school/at work, just as there is a difference speaking Chinese at home and speaking it in your highly collaborative job.

I think the larger issue IS the allocation of priorities. If your family is disadvantaged, you should breed less so you can allocate more resources to the success of your offspring, and you should put more emphasis on academics and career ambition than on material things and immediate gratification.

...I believe that linguistically, Ebonics does qualify as a dialect of American English...with enough regular syntactical and phonological differences to set it apart from American English.

...I believe that linguistically, Ebonics does qualify as a dialect of American English...with enough regular syntactical and phonological differences to set it apart from American English.

Thank you! You wouldn't happen to have some research articles that state that handy would you?

Well here's my rant:

I believe that the de-segregation has accomplished what it supposed to. I don't think it's a matter of background that many African-American children aren't in all the top classes. I've observed my African-American peers. We all live in a *very* well-off town. Many African-Americans are not in higher classes (yet there are obviosly exceptions). The thing is I don't think it's a matter of the segregation aftermath; rather I think it's because they (along with TONS more whitle people) just dont try to excell in school (example: this one African American in my class last year was a huge friggin slacker)

...I believe that linguistically, Ebonics does qualify as a dialect of American English...with enough regular syntactical and phonological differences to set it apart from American English.

Thank you! You wouldn't happen to have some research articles that state that handy would you?

I don't but I know at least one professor at UCLA teaches a class that includes a study of Ebonics as a viable dialect. If you have the time, I'd suggest going to an article search engine (there's one connected to http://www.library.ucla.edu) and typing in Ebonics. Something should come up.

Well, I know I will never be going to UCLA, then. Any University that teaches that garbage ebonics as a viable language or dialect is not an institution of higher learning that I would want to attend!

Higher learning is just that, HIGHER LEARNING!!!

F**KING ebonics has NO PLACE in an institution of higher education, nor any place in a professional business environment. Period.

Ebonics is trash, it is gutter, is is gangsta talk, it is lazy shit. And I don't want to hear it. and if I'm ever in a position to hire and fire people, I sure as hell am not going to hire some gangsta-trash dude with half his damn boxer shorts showing and talking garbage ebonics.

Call me racist if you will, but I know I'm not. I merely demand a certain level of professionalism in a business environment or an institute of higher education. and ebonics has no place in either environment, as far as I am concerned.

Ebonics has it's place. And it's place is the ghetto, the corner drug dealer, and the stupid-assed gangsta trash who think they are so "cool." I don't want it around me. Because the mental image, and the feeling I get when I hear ebonics is..."oh, shit...is this guy gonna cap me or what?"

<double post. sorry>

kI like how you keep saying "call me racist if you like" as though that somehow protects you from the fact that you are. Its quite impressive, really. You call yourself a liberal, but everything I've read in this thread has espoused hate and conservative agenda.

And there are such disciplines as sociology and epidemology...you know, studying how PEOPLE LIVE AND DIE and such. And Linguistics is concerned with HOW PEOPLE SPEAK, not just how you think they ought to speak. Linguistics is a descriptive discipline, it studies regularities the human mind imposes on all languages, and yes, Ebonics falls into the definition of a dialect. Moreover, many Linguistics professors at many other institutions would agree, or did you thing that UCLA professors only teach their own research? Suck it up. Get over it.

UCLA is a damn good school, and its a fairly egalitarian institution. If you are going to blow off an ENTIRE University because you dislike one or two classes they teach, I fear you will not find many friends in academia. Any "North Campus class" (as we refer to our classes that are not "hard maths" or "hard sciences") worth its weight will explore issues outside the norm to make its point. In Psych we study the !Kung tribes to compare parenting styles and its effects on children's later behavior. In Theater they teach Noh Theater alongside Shakespeare to explore the different forms. In Anthropology, there are sections about homosexual activities among other life forms.

I've seen so much blantant stupidity and borderline racism in this post, it's not even funny. Looks, it's simple - Ebonics is a dialect of the American-English language, and contains many subsets within itself (I live in South Carolina, and we get a lot of New Yorkers down here, so I've noticed the various dialects according to region, and they do vary to a degree). Just as a Lawyer and a Businessman will have varying linguistics, the African-American community has one, as well. When people are divided, they begin to establish their own language to better suite their needs - Ebonics is more expressive and more excited than, say, "Lawyer Speak", so it's better suited for the situation. Just because it hasn't been around for a long time doesn't make it any less of a language.

Now, the problem is, should they be forced to drop the slang dialect of English in an attempt to get a job? The truth is, yes. You don't go to Japan and try to get a job without first knowing a bit of Japanese. It's sort of the same situation here. If you want a job that badly, spend a little time working on your speaking habits, and then apply. Adaptation above expiration, always.

I've seen so much blantant stupidity and borderline racism in this post, it's not even funny. Looks, it's simple - Ebonics is a dialect of the American-English language, and contains many subsets within itself (I live in South Carolina, and we get a lot of New Yorkers down here, so I've noticed the various dialects according to region, and they do vary to a degree). Just as a Lawyer and a Businessman will have varying linguistics, the African-American community has one, as well. When people are divided, they begin to establish their own language to better suite their needs - Ebonics is more expressive and more excited than, say, "Lawyer Speak", so it's better suited for the situation. Just because it hasn't been around for a long time doesn't make it any less of a language.

Now, the problem is, should they be forced to drop the slang dialect of English in an attempt to get a job? The truth is, yes. You don't go to Japan and try to get a job without first knowing a bit of Japanese. It's sort of the same situation here. If you want a job that badly, spend a little time working on your speaking habits, and then apply. Adaptation above expiration, always.

*grins and points* what he said. Except with more Linguistic background and possibly a few more comparisons to other dialects.

I've seen so much blantant stupidity and borderline racism in this post, it's not even funny. Looks, it's simple - Ebonics is a dialect of the American-English language, and contains many subsets within itself (I live in South Carolina, and we get a lot of New Yorkers down here, so I've noticed the various dialects according to region, and they do vary to a degree). Just as a Lawyer and a Businessman will have varying linguistics, the African-American community has one, as well. When people are divided, they begin to establish their own language to better suite their needs - Ebonics is more expressive and more excited than, say, "Lawyer Speak", so it's better suited for the situation. Just because it hasn't been around for a long time doesn't make it any less of a language.

Now, the problem is, should they be forced to drop the slang dialect of English in an attempt to get a job? The truth is, yes. You don't go to Japan and try to get a job without first knowing a bit of Japanese. It's sort of the same situation here. If you want a job that badly, spend a little time working on your speaking habits, and then apply. Adaptation above expiration, always.

You said it better than I did.
"Better suited for the situation..." Precisely! And Ebonics is NOT suited for the situation of a profession business atmosphere...any more than my own Texas colloquialisms I use in my own daily speech, but I turn them off when in a professional business environment, because I recognize they have no place there, either.

So, no, I'm not a racist. What I am saying is that the people who refuse to learn to speak correctly, imn proper, standard, acceptable American English are going to be disadvantaged in the job market.

And, sorry, but yes, Ebobics scares the crap outta me when I hear it, because I know the type of people who speak it are more likely to be criminals and thugs and street hoods. And I don't want to be around people like that. I value my life!

Since I mistakenly thought (given the usual intelligent
nature of your discourse on other matters)

Why, thank you.

that you would eventually stop making fallacious
counter-arguments if I simply gave you a bit of time, I will now make it easier on both of us and be more direct.

I don't think either of us can claim the other has made fallacious statements. We may have misunderstood each other on occasion, and there are certainly points we disagree on.

Is this a statement of the cause for the standard? Are you saying that the standard is valid because it is the most widely taught? If so, are you familiar with the logical fallacy of Appealing to Tradition?

I am saying that because a standard is necessary, the best standard to use is the one that is known by the most people and that the standard should actually have rules of a sort. And the standard *is* necessary for purposes of efficient communication.

If I walk into a business office in Seattle and say "Hey ya'll, I'm fixin' to
get me a job here. Whatchoo up to?" chances are I'll get a lot of stares and maybe one answer after someone spends a while trying to digest what I just said. ((Believe me, I know - I said ya'll to someone in Seattle once without thinking about where I was and they didn't answer for a full minute LOL))

By that same token, if someone writes a paper in improper grammar, chances are I will have to read it three or four times (again something I have experienced) in order to figure out what they are talking about - and then I'll still be unsure of what they were trying to say, and I will still have to decide whether or not to agree with their conclusions. This is extremely inefficient and chances are I'll just dismiss their paper because there are lots more papers I need to read.

:shock: Well, true, but I wasn't advocating making ebonics the standard. I advocate broadening the standard by getting rid of certain restrictions. Way to set up a Straw Man and knock it down.

But doing so would mean that everyone has to learn your particular version of slang in order to be able to efficientlly communicate. What is the point in that?

And there is also the fact that ebonics has no "correct" form.
"Dis be da shit, man;" "Dis is da shit, man;" and "Dis here be da shiznit;" are all equally "valid" ebonics versions of "This is the shit." They are just as actually valid as "I really like that there one, ya'll" but if you said any of them to someone who didn't speak your particular slang, they would have a much bigger chance of getting confused about what you were getting at.

Your problem is that you say this is unfair because you think it is racist. But that is obviously untrue, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread.

Perhaps I missed something. Would you mind humoring me and eferencing where that is pointed out and why it was so obvious?

It has been pointed out by myself and others numerous times that ebonics is not the only version of slang that we believe is unprofessional. Nor is the "gangsta" style of dress the only type of dress that is unprofessional. This is not based on race, it is based on having a standard.

It's not the having the standard or the standard itself I
have a problem with, it's what I see in its effects. Is that a bit clearer?


The problem is that you are ignoring the fact that it has the same effect on everyone. A black person who normally speaks in ebonics is not going to affected any more than a hispanic who often speaks another version of slang is not going to be affected any more than a Texan who speaks their version of slang. You seem to be claiming that those who tend to use ebonics are being unfairly affected.

Finally, a much better argument!

Erm...thanks.

This analogy works in that:

1.)The metric system is an abritrary standard.
2.)The situation is discriminatory.
3.)Switching between the two standards requires extra work on the part of both
parties.

I don't think it is *unfairly* discriminatory. I think that the standard was set up because a standard was needed. The fact that the US is the only country that hasn't begun using the metric system is their own fault. Besides, being able to use both is actually interesting to me. I think in feet one minute and centimeters the next, Centigrade and then Farenheit. I don't see this as unfair because I recognize the need for a standard.

#3 is the exact reason why a standard is needed.

It is lacking certain elements it needs for a complete
analogy, however.

1.) The English system of measurements is not a primary vehicle for the
transmission of culture. Neither is the metric system.

The metric system is a primary vehicle for the transmission of science
however. Using the standard of proper English is also not something you do for the transmission of culture - it is something you do to communicate a point to someone else. If ebonics is part of your culture, use it when you are not trying to communicate with someone who doesn't know your terms. I doubt that a Native American lawyer would start a traditional ceremony in front of the judge in the middle of defending his client. However, this doesn't stop him from performing that ceremony and preserving his culture outside of that courtroom.

2.) The English system of measurements is not primarily verbal dialectical language in and of itself. It can be expressed verbally, however.

An analogy is never an exact correlation, it demonstrates a similar relationship. I never claimed that a measurement system is a verbal dialectical language - I claimed that like language, it is a system that needs standards.

3.) The Metric system is a standard based on efficiency and ease. Standard American English (SAE) is not, and neither is Ebonics.

True, but not important to the analogy.

4.) There is a standard method for 'translating' the English system into the Metric system and vice versa. No such method exists between SAE and Ebonics.

Someone who understands ebonics could do it. But again, this is unimportant to the analogy.

Why did you appeal to common knowledge? So what if everyone knows the standard? Even if you accept the ridiculous claim that everyone knows the standard, that knowledge does not make the standard right. You Equivocate common knowledge and correctness. Your argument is invalid.

No, I point out the need for a standard and point out that the standard taught to everyone in this country is pretty much the best bet to use. Unless you are going to advocate that we start teaching every single form of slang in schools, that is.

Which is wrong since it excludes all forms of slang, not just your particular type.

Correct.[/quote]

So you agree that this isn't a discussion about racism? I guess maybe we are getting somewhere.

You seem to be implying by your analogy that Ebonics is a language unto itself and would prevent effective communication in a setting where the lingua franca is something else. Earlier you said it was just a set of slang terms that were made up to set people apart from the dominant culture. Which is it?

Again, an analogy is not a direct correlation. Comparing ebonics to a language does not equate ebonics to a language.

So now you equate ebonics with a severe and unfortunate physical deficiency? Come on! You just committed the error of Equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. Your argument is invalid.

Again, making an analogy does not mean equating two things.

We are not talking about what area something is worn in

Oh really?

- I don't care how someone dresses on their own time, we are talking about being professional for a job.

Would not the workplace (ie. the setting of a "job") be an "area something is worn in"?

Come on, you just contradicted your statement within the same sentence. This argument is also invalid.


This was taken out of context - and I don't remember the context exactly. The point is that actions in the workplace and outside of it are different and there is nothing racist about it.

Edit: Remembered the context. You were talking something about people wearing something in a poor neighboorhood vs. a rich one. I pointed out that what you said had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Sorry that it wasn't clear enough, but pointing this out was pretty nitpicky anyways.

I wouldn't hire someone who never took a shower to interact with customers. I wouldn't hire someone who looked like their clothes had never been washed either. And I would not allow someone who looked like a prostitute to be my lawyer.

Despite my misgivings, I have to ask: why not?

(a) If someone stinks or has stinky breath, a customer is not going to want to interact with them. Take, for instance, the restaurant business. Would you want to accept food from someone who looks like they've never seen soap?

(b) Someone who dresses like a prostitute does not look professional, thus giving the impression of not being professional. I wouldn't want to be represented by such a person in a court of law.

[1.) You are Begging the Question again. Another invalid argument.

2.) So you discriminate against much more than ebonics. That is good to know.

It is discrimination, but not in the deragatory way that denying someone a job based on race is. Race cannot be helped - the way you speak and dress can be helped. Would you hire someone who called you a bitch?


Sure I am. I just don't think the same way you do. Thanks for the Ad Hominem though. Personal attacks amuse me.

It wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was meant to point out that you asked a question with an extremely obvious answer. I am sorry that you took offense to it. You asked why forming a sentence in proper English is harder than forming one in ebonics. The answers would be that (a) Slang is every day speech and you have to think more to put together a sentence everyone would understand and (b) ebonics has no standards - it is pretty much everything goes. These are both things that anyone could see.

Here you say it is slang again…but elsewhere…

I never said it was a language, you implied that out of an analogy because you seem to think that an analogy is an equation rather than an approximation.

You are Begging the Question, yet again. It is an invalid argument, yet again.

It wasn't an argument, it was an example.

No, but I would like to point out that if you make up a language specifically for the purpose of being treated differently, you should expect to be treated differently.

Here again, you claim Ebonics is a language, and earlier you said it was slang.

Although I would say it is slang, many of those who speak it seem to view it as a language, and thus as a made-up language for the purpose of being treated differently. In this context, I would also say that pig latin is a language. Ouldshay eway ecrayoaizenay itay asay oayiffayialcay ootay? [translation: should we recognize it as official too?]

Either way, this was an example of something I used to get in trouble for in my theology class, falling into the language of your source. I apologize if it was confusing to you.

Begging the Question again? Somehow it doesn't impress me anymore now than it did the first time.[/quote]

Use of examples is a way to support a point, not an argument in and of itself.

What it comes down to is that a standard is necessary and since only a very small subset speaks ebonics, we can't make it the standard. Sorry.

Appealing to tradition isn't a logical fallacy. Leastways, not in the case of language, where strict convention is necessary in order for one speaker to understand another. Standard English is important in that it sets a definitive model for the lexico-grammatical aspects of the language and consequentally the cohesion necessary for many people within a nation to understand each other. Broadening these restrictions leads to a weaker coherence and therefore the increased probability of any two random speakers imperfectly understanding each other.

I feel in many ways there is a certain value to accents. They represent the history of the language in that particular region and can tell much about how languages themselves develop and can alter in particular environments. They certainly make things more interesting.

The problem I have with ebonics is that it isn't, strictly speaking, an accent: it's spoken largely by black people purely to set them apart from whites, and has been mimicked by "wigger" chaps, as opposed to being a regional deviation from the standard. It's intentional, unlike most accents, and I can only see this kind of intentional derivation as counter-productive to any idea of integration. Which is fair enough if you want to be annoying. Furthermore sometimes ebonics is incredibly hard to understand, much like Cockney rhyming slang, and intentionally speaking in a way one knows will confuse the listener speaks of incredible arrogance and elitism which one frankly deserves to be called to task for.

Oh, and equivocation is where one alternates between different definitions of a word, it is not when one equates two things. Furthermore equating between two things is not necessarily a logical fallacy anyway, otherwise the function of an allegory (to expand the given logic of an argument to different scenarios,) would be useless. The logical fallacy is that ebonics does not constitute a marked physiological handicap to a person, since it has nothing to do with the physiological make up of a person to begin with.

And I doubt considerably whether anyone here can conduct a serious debate about the difference between a dialect and a language. :P

Why, thank you.

You're quite welcome. I tried to put up a link to the journal articles, but after a few minutes I realized that they are on a database that one has to pay for in order to be able to access them. I have access to the databases through my university tuition, but you most likely do not so I’m not sure how I’m going to be able to show them to you other than the old cut n paste method.

I don't think either of us can claim the other has made fallacious statements. We may have misunderstood each other on occasion, and there are certainly points we disagree on.

Both of us have made fallacious arguments/statements, whatever you want to call them.

I am saying that because a standard is necessary,

A standard is very convenient.

the best standard to use is the one that is known by the most people

Common Knowledge=Best? Common Practice=Best? Then shouldn’t we be speaking Chinese or something?

and that the standard should actually have rules of a sort.

Ok. Although I would think a standard would have to have rules (or be a rule) for it to be a standard at all.

And the standard *is* necessary for purposes of efficient communication.

The (as in the current standard) standard is necessary? I don't think so. Have fun trying to demonstrate that the standard is necessary. Convenient for some, certainly. Of course, the problem would be that I think the ideal of equality would trump convenience any day. Unless of course you prefer inequality, in which case you needn’t worry about the discrepancy between the earnings of men and women, or homosexuals not being allowed to get married in most places. Now not having to worry about all that would be incredibly convenient indeed.

If I walk into a business office in Seattle and say "Hey ya'll, I'm fixin' to get me a job here. Whatchoo up to?" chances are I'll get a lot of stares and maybe one answer after someone spends a while trying to digest what I just said.

It would be good for them to expand their understanding of English (and language in general) anyway. I find that every new vernacular or dialect or language learned increases a person's effectiveness as a communicator overall.

((Believe me, I know - I said ya'll to someone in Seattle once without thinking about where I was and they didn't answer for a full minute LOL))

I've noticed that people from out west do (in general, not always) tend to have alot of trouble with country grammar at first. I'm not sure why. My stepfather, for example, moved to southeast Kentucky and at first he could hardly understand the natives at all. After a few weeks, he suddenly found that he understood them perfectly. He now has an increased ability to understand all sorts of English dialects and accents as a result of his experiences.

By that same token, if someone writes a paper in improper grammar, chances are I will have to read it three or four times (again something I have experienced) in order to figure out what they are talking about - and then I'll still be unsure of what they were trying to say, and I will still have to decide whether or not to agree with their conclusions.

Why not go ahead and make the effort to find out how to understand them in order to improve your abilities with reading comprehension? Are you not being just as lazy as those who fail to learn the ‘standard’ English?

This is extremely inefficient and chances are I'll just dismiss their paper because there are lots more papers I need to read.

Why not ask them to explain it to you? Or send them a note asking for clarifications on their points? Are you really that lazy?

But doing so would mean that everyone has to learn your particular version of slang in order to be able to efficientlly communicate. What is the point in that?

Equality, plain and simple. I would rather have everyone be inconvenienced than have a few people be convenienced and everyone else be inconvenienced to various degrees. Also you would be increasing the overall effectiveness of the employers and employees as communicators, making them more suitable for work in all sorts of environments.

And there is also the fact that ebonics has no "correct" form.
"Dis be da shit, man;" "Dis is da shit, man;" and "Dis here be da shiznit;" are all equally "valid" ebonics versions of "This is the shit."

:shock: "Dis here be da shiznit" sounds like it needs a pronoun to complete it. Maybe: "Dis here be da shiznit, dawg" or “Dis here be da shiznit, y’all” if you wanted to make it plural, would be more correct, though the others would be acceptable. Ebonics is very flexible, much like Standard American English, in that it has many correct forms, rather than just one. "Hey" "Hello" "Hi" are all correct forms of greeting that mean approximately the same thing in SAE.

“How are you?” “How are you doing?” “How is it going?” “How are things going?” These all mean the same thing. Ya know, maybe we should get rid of SAE too. It has the same problem as Ebonics.

They are just as actually valid as "I really like that there one, ya'll" but if you said any of them to someone who didn't speak your particular slang, they would have a much bigger chance of getting confused about what you were getting at.

Ultimately, this still falls under Begging the Question. People can’t understand other people because they’ve learned the standard exclusively, and they learned it because…it was the standard! What a coincidence! The hierarchy perpetuates itself.

The problem is that you are ignoring the fact that it has the same effect on everyone.

Really? Now that is an interesting statement.

I'll use a visual aid. I'll call "the standard for professionalism" Norm. 1 represents one standard deviation from the norm. Each additional number indicates the corresponding number of deviations from Norm. Because of the page width I'll limit the number of types of discrimination based on the Norm to three.

Norm 1 2 3

No discrimination Low Discrimination Medium Discrimination High Discrimination

Now I'll give a hypothetical situation as an example. Let’s say you wish to hire a lawyer. You have four lawyers to choose from who are all equally qualified. The first is dressed in a pinstripe suit and has a good smile. The second is dressed in what is considered appropriate business attire, but is wearing garish and poorly applied makeup. The third is dressed in casual attire, jeans and a polo shirt. The fourth is wearing no clothing at all.

My bet is that you would discriminate most against the third and fourth lawyers because they deviate from the norm to a greater degree than the first and second. Or do you treat all deviance as equally reprehensible? If you do, you are a rare creature indeed. You would be most likely to choose the one who follows the norm over the others as well.

The only standard that would have the same effect on everyone is an inclusive standard that requires everyone to understand all the other persons’ languages.

You seem to be claiming that those who tend to use ebonics are being unfairly affected.

My claim is that they are the *most* unfairly affected, perhaps with the exception of some of those who are immigrants and have very thick accents. Others are unfairly affected as well, but they aren’t the topic of discussion here.

I don't think it is *unfairly* discriminatory. I think that the standard was set up because a standard was needed. The fact that the US is the only country that hasn't begun using the metric system is their own fault. Besides, being able to use both is actually interesting to me. I think in feet one minute and centimeters the next, Centigrade and then Farenheit. I don't see this as unfair because I recognize the need for a standard.

*whistles innocently*

The metric system is a primary vehicle for the transmission of science however.

Point conceded. Good one. I should have thought of that.

Using the standard of proper English is also not something you do for the transmission of culture

Perhaps that is not the express purpose, but it is most certainly an effect.

If ebonics is part of your culture, use it when you are not trying to communicate with someone who doesn't know your terms. I doubt that a Native American lawyer would start a traditional ceremony in front of the judge in the middle of defending his client. However, this doesn't stop him from performing that ceremony and preserving his culture outside of that courtroom.

1.) The Native American lawyer would not begin a traditional ceremony in the middle of defending his client because the jurors and perhaps the judge would not appreciate such a dramatic violation of the social norms and might consciously or subconsciously show their displeasure at the violation by being less inclined toward leniency in the verdict or the sentencing. Thus the client could be affected negatively by the lawyers’ actions, something the lawyer would wish to avoid. It is impressive how effectively social standards are enforced.

2.) So, since it is not limiting our freedoms of expression entirely, we shouldn't whine about it. Is that it?

An analogy is never an exact correlation, it demonstrates a similar relationship.

Yes, I know. That seems to pertain to a point a few lines up where I said "complete" when I should have said "sufficient." My sincere apologies for my error.

I never claimed that a measurement system is a verbal dialectical language - I claimed that like language, it is a system that needs standards.

I never claimed that you claimed any such thing. I was pointing out what I saw as a problematic difference between your analog and the subject of debate. I will concede that this difference probably wasn’t all that problematic, anyway.

3.) The Metric system is a standard based on efficiency and ease. Standard American English (SAE) is not, and neither is Ebonics.

True, but not important to the analogy.

Oh no? Considering that one of the secondary arguments you have tried to make is that SAE is better than Ebonics, it would seem that this point would be quite relevant. The Metric system has characteristics (quite apart from the fact that it is the most widely used standard) that make it a better standard. SAE does not, and you have failed to demonstrate that it does by your method of pointing out “flaws” that you see in Ebonics.

4.) There is a standard method for 'translating' the English system into the Metric system and vice versa. No such method exists between SAE and Ebonics.

Someone who understands ebonics could do it. But again, this is unimportant to the analogy.

It is important to the analogy in regards to the unfairness issue. The English system of measurements is treated as roughly equal (in that people go to the trouble of making a translation system and using it) to the Metric system (at least here in the U.S.), even though it is not. SAE is treated as being much better than Ebonics, even though they are roughly equal. That’s pretty bassackwards.


No, I point out the need for a standard and point out that the standard taught to everyone in this country is pretty much the best bet to use.

The old convenience argument, eh? Begging the Question again. It is amazing how many forms of this same fallacious argument you have managed to come up with. You have given me many examples of how bad things happen when we deviate from the norm, whether it be a norm governing language use, clothing, etc. My response to that is quite simple: No shit, Sherlock. That is precisely the nature of the standard. What happens when we violate any social rule? We pick our nose in public, and we get disgusted looks and comments. We talk about death in a comfortable and nonchalant way, and we get labeled by others as cold. If we don’t wash the dishes when our parents say to, we get grounded. If we don’t speak proper English in a job interview, we don’t get the job. That is how the standard is enforced and perpetuated. If we don’t follow the standard, there are negative consequences built into the social structures that will be applied to us in an effort to make us think that to conform is our best option. It is precisely that negative consequence that I question because it perpetuates inequality. Your point that it is our best bet to use the most widely taught standard is also Begging the Question. It is the most widely taught because it is the standard. In the end, your main argument (in conjunction with the examples used to support it) that the standard is convenient, given the fact that it is convenient by virtue of it being the standard (as you have helped to demonstrate), comes down to this basic statement:

“We should keep the standard because the standard is the standard.”

The problem is, if we start accepting that sort of reasoning as a justification for social standards, we run into some serious problems. I’ll give a couple of relevant examples. Let’s say the standard is slavery. Would you accept the argument that slavery should continue to be the standard because having a standard is necessary and the best bet is to use the standard that is already in place? Would you accept the argument that the English system of measurements is the best system to use simply because it is the most widely used? Of course not. Well, I certainly hope you wouldn’t.

Unless you are going to advocate that we start teaching every single form of slang in schools, that is.

I do, actually. Learning how to communicate with people of a variety of different cultural backgrounds is very important for everyone who lives in a society where there are many different cultures present.

So you agree that this isn't a discussion about racism?

Nothing quite so broad as all that. This is a discussion about a racist aspect of a cultural standard; unless you wish to discuss the unfair discrimination based on perceived class differences in general, which might require another topic entirely.

I guess maybe we are getting somewhere.

I’m not so sure, myself.

Again, an analogy is not a direct correlation. Comparing ebonics to a language does not equate ebonics to a language.

Point conceded.

Again, making an analogy does not mean equating two things.

No, but my calling it Equivocation when it is more appropriately called Begging the Question does not make the analogy any less fallacious, either.

This was taken out of context - and I don't remember the context exactly.

Yes, I took it out of its context, but only so the Mods don't delete us for making massive quote pyramids and overly long posts. :D

The point is that actions in the workplace and outside of it are different

OK. How are they different? If they are different, should they be?

and there is nothing racist about it.

All you have demonstrated in regards to the question of whether the standard is racist is that the standard discriminates on things other than race, which does not exclude the possibility of the standard being racist.

Edit: Remembered the context. You were talking something about people wearing something in a poor neighboorhood vs. a rich one. I pointed out that what you said had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Sorry that it wasn't clear enough, but pointing this out was pretty nitpicky anyways.

Probably. The point of going through your posts like that was to get your attention and get you thinking. It was partially successful, I think.

(a) If someone stinks or has stinky breath, a customer is not going to want to interact with them. Take, for instance, the restaurant business. Would you want to accept food from someone who looks like they've never seen soap?

Probably not unless I was very hungry. There are serious health concerns that make me wary of doing such a thing.

(b) Someone who dresses like a prostitute does not look professional, thus giving the impression of not being professional. I wouldn't want to be represented by such a person in a court of law.

*sigh* I figured that would be your attitude. Damn, this thread makes me cynical.

Maybe people just aren’t ready to deal with deeper cultural issues and question some of the strong hierarchical values. I probably shouldn’t have bothered to waste my time with this. There is no reason to be disappointed again and again by trying to help people escape their cultural chains only to have them reject the freedom they could have because they have grown attached to the chains and can’t give them up.

Oh well, at least I got some good practice in deconstructing arguments using more formal logic. I have learned from my mistakes in this debate and have improved my abilities for the future, which is the main point of debating on this forum at all. Thanks for playing with me, Dempublicents.

It is discrimination, but not in the deragatory way that denying someone a job based on race is. Race cannot be helped

It seems that you are defining race as a biological reality. Is that the case? I think race is cultural reality that most people strongly associate with obvious physical characteristics, and culture can indeed be changed. The question is, do we have the right to force our culture on other people, especially after denying them the ability to assimilate for so long?

- the way you speak and dress can be helped. Would you hire someone who called you a bitch?

1.) It depends primarily on their qualifications.
2.) I might be a bit confused as to why they had done so and object to that word because of it being demeaning to women.
3.) If I explain to them my problem with that word and they see why it is in poor taste to use it and agree not to use it anymore then I would certainly have no problem with hiring them as long as they had the skills for the job.

You asked why forming a sentence in proper English is harder than forming one in ebonics. The answers would be that (a) Slang is every day speech and you have to think more to put together a sentence everyone would understand

We do? Hmmm...I never realized that it took any more thought. Does it seriously take more processing capacity for you to make a sentence in proper English? That is very interesting.

and (b) ebonics has no standards - it is pretty much everything goes.

Ebonics has many standards, as you demonstrated in an earlier post.

These are both things that anyone could see.

I'm sure they could.

It wasn't an argument, it was an example.

Fine. The example that you used to support your fallacious argument was quite lovely.

Although I would say it is slang, many of those who speak it seem to view it as a language, and thus as a made-up language for the purpose of being treated differently.

See my response to Kahrstein.

In this context, I would also say that pig latin is a language. Ouldshay eway ecrayoaizenay itay asay oayiffayialcay ootay? [translation: should we recognize it as official too?]

If there are people who grew up speaking it as their primary language, then sure.

Either way, this was an example of something I used to get in trouble for in my theology class, falling into the language of your source. I apologize if it was confusing to you.

What is confusing to me is how even the “shining standard” SAE can be misinterpreted so easily because words can have multiple meanings and that leads to people not being able to understand you properly, leading to the question of whether it is all that effective for communication in the first place, and by the sort of reasoning you have been using in regards to ebonics we could not hold it as the standard because of this horrific defect.

Use of examples is a way to support a point, not an argument in and of itself.

Ok. The examples supported your fallacious argument quite nicely.

What it comes down to is that a standard is necessary and since only a very small subset speaks ebonics, we can't make it the standard. Sorry.

Of course, I never advocated making ebonics *the* standard, so your *point* is null. Again.

Appealing to tradition isn't a logical fallacy. Leastways, not in the case of language, where strict convention is necessary in order for one speaker to understand another.

Necessary or merely convenient/helpful? I would agree that a standard is convenient and helpful, in that it offers increased efficiency in communication, but necessity is a bit more iffy. Strict convention will certainly help with language maintenance, if that’s your goal.

Standard English is important in that it sets a definitive model for the lexico-grammatical aspects of the language and consequentally the cohesion necessary for many people within a nation to understand each other. Broadening these restrictions leads to a weaker coherence and therefore the increased probability of any two random speakers imperfectly understanding each other.

In the short-term, yes, there would be drawbacks. In the long term, however, given the increased interaction between people of various linguistic backgrounds (and them making the effort to understand one another rather than saying u t4lk5 funny!1!!!111), the elimination of a linguistic heirarchy in the cultural institutions, and widespread educational improvement, there would be greater unification of peoples and cultural understanding. Whether you think the unification of peoples and cultural understanding are really such great things is a whole 'nother issue.

I feel in many ways there is a certain value to accents. They represent the history of the language in that particular region and can tell much about how languages themselves develop and can alter in particular environments. They certainly make things more interesting.

Indeed.

The problem I have with ebonics is that it isn't, strictly speaking, an accent: it's spoken largely by black people purely to set them apart from whites, and has been mimicked by "wigger" chaps, as opposed to being a regional deviation from the standard. It's intentional, unlike most accents, and I can only see this kind of intentional derivation as counter-productive to any idea of integration.

Why do you think that all or even most persons who speak ebonics are intentionally setting themselves apart from "whites"? Did you do a survey? Do you have historical research that supports such a claim? And even if you do, can you blame them for not wanting much association with their oppressors? Do you speak whatever your primary language is for the purpose of setting yourself apart from most of the people of the world? Do you seriously think that for the majority of people who speak ebonics, they do it for the sole purpose of spiting the dominant culture? Such an assertion is the height of arrogance. More likely the fact that there is such a high correlation between skin color and language in the U.S. stems from the long history of segregation based on skin color in said country.

You (not necessarily you specifically now, I'm on a general rant here) keep a group of people separate from the dominant culture based on a standard of skin color, they have the temerity to develop a language they find more appealing (in their largely separate environment that you imposed and then perpetuate) that deviates from the dominant culture's, and then you come whining about them trying to set themselves apart.

Which is fair enough if you want to be annoying.

I like to annoy people. And then preferably have them question whether or not the annoyance is justified.

Furthermore sometimes ebonics is incredibly hard to understand, much like Cockney rhyming slang,

You poor dear you. Unless you can validate your linguistic standard apart from the fact that it is the standard you can just stop your complaining right now.

Oh, and equivocation is where one alternates between different definitions of a word, it is not when one equates two things.

Indeed. I was using the word "equivocation" equivocally. I don't suppose you caught the irony of that, did you? *sigh* I do have a terribly strange sense of humour.

Furthermore equating between two things is not necessarily a logical fallacy anyway, otherwise the function of an allegory (to expand the given logic of an argument to different scenarios,) would be useless.

Not necessarily, but equating a language with a physiological handicap is certainly fallacious with respect to that analogy, whether the appropriate title for said fallacy is Begging the Question or Equivocation, as I wrongly labelled it.

The logical fallacy is that ebonics does not constitute a marked physiological handicap to a person, since it has nothing to do with the physiological make up of a person to begin with.

You could say it that way too.

And I doubt considerably whether anyone here can conduct a serious debate about the difference between a dialect and a language. :P

Your doubt is noted, and I find it interesting that the difference between a dialect and a language is debatable. I could certainly see that it might be debatable that a particular form of speech qualifies as a dialect if the evidence for claiming it as such were questionable, but are the very definitions of 'language' and 'dialect' also in doubt? So much for strict convention if they are.