posted
I speak essentially American network standard English, with a bit of southern English that crops up here and there.
The girl who gets up in arms about a t or a dī (soft d) sound in the middle of a word is simply full of herself. And the concept that you can take some kind of ownership or stewardship over a language is laughable. In the case of English, it transcends merely laughable, and is in fact downright idiotic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Actually, most dogs don't chase you if you don't run.
...because they are too busy eating you.
It would be sort of pointless to chase you if you weren't running, yes.
I can't tell if this is semi-serious or not, but most of the time, if a dog starts chasing you and you simply face it and assume a dominant posture, the dog will not know what to do when it reaches you, and will lose interest.
It helps to have an umbrella, but that's not strictly necessary.
(Obviously severely disturbed/rabid dogs may be exceptions to this as well)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand where you are coming from, but there are people out there who speak English so badly that it sounds like somebody ran a lawnmower over their face. This language has since been called Ebonics, and it is almost an entirely different language from the average American or British English dialects.
But from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like you speak that way. It just sounds like you probably have a slight accent, which can't be helped. After all, Australians have very thick accents and we accept it as just being the way they are because they don't "break" the language or anything, and we can still understand them. If someone spazzes out over the way you say a single letter, maybe they have other issues going on. When you start confusing words, mixing up letters (i.e. "Aks" instead of "Ask"), or you never learned how to properly form a grammatically correct sentence("Dat phat kid don't know nuthin bout dis, mah momma ain't raise no fool!"), then it's both your own fault as well as the education system's.
Yes, because white people's accents and dialects are acceptable. Those belonging to people of color are not.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be willing to bet Jeff would be pretty frustrated with lower-class British "chav" accents, too, and that's an accent largely associated with white people (not to mention the fact that plenty of white people speak with an "urban" or "ebonic" accent).
I'm used to "urban" accents because of where I live and the people I've worked with, so they don't bother me. But to pretend that they're no worse grammatically than an Australian accent is making blatantly patronizing excuses.
But, no, you're right, it's probably just his White Male Privilege showing.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm used to "urban" accents because of where I live and the people I've worked with, so they don't bother me. But to pretend that they're no worse grammatically than an Australian accent is making blatantly patronizing excuses.
You clearly haven't been hanging out in my neighborhood. Trust me, the Australian accent comes in all shapes and sizes.
To nit pick though, it's not the accent that causes the grammatical issues. I mean, there may be a strong correlations between certain accents and misuse of grammar, but it's possible to be ungrammatical (and indeed grammatical) in any accent.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand where you are coming from, but there are people out there who speak English so badly that it sounds like somebody ran a lawnmower over their face. This language has since been called Ebonics, and it is almost an entirely different language from the average American or British English dialects.
But from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like you speak that way. It just sounds like you probably have a slight accent, which can't be helped. After all, Australians have very thick accents and we accept it as just being the way they are because they don't "break" the language or anything, and we can still understand them. If someone spazzes out over the way you say a single letter, maybe they have other issues going on. When you start confusing words, mixing up letters (i.e. "Aks" instead of "Ask"), or you never learned how to properly form a grammatically correct sentence("Dat phat kid don't know nuthin bout dis, mah momma ain't raise no fool!"), then it's both your own fault as well as the education system's.
Yes, because white people's accents and dialects are acceptable. Those belonging to people of color are not.
When did I ever say this was something that was restricted to "people of color"? Oh, right, you assumed it yourself.
This type of language is used by all races throughout the United States. It is not something that is restricted to a single race. But thank you for assuming that I was targeting an entire race by my remarks about the laziness of the "individual" and the "education system". You really showed me!
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:After all, Australians have very thick accents
Oy! What are you on about cobbler? Strewth, I don't have a thick accent.
quote:and we accept it as just being the way they are
Well, that's mighty kind of you, young man.*
*If you couldn't tell, that was said in a Blanche-esque drawl. I aim for confusion in my accents.
To clarify, an accent is different from a dialect. When I was referring to the Australian "accent", I was not talking about all of its dialects. Dialects can have words that are unique to themselves and variant grammatical structures; Accents are variations in the way a language is spoken (the sounds of how a person says the words, rather than how they arrange the sentence and their usage of the specific words).
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Actually, most dogs don't chase you if you don't run.
...because they are too busy eating you.
It would be sort of pointless to chase you if you weren't running, yes.
I can't tell if this is semi-serious or not, but most of the time, if a dog starts chasing you and you simply face it and assume a dominant posture, the dog will not know what to do when it reaches you, and will lose interest.
It helps to have an umbrella, but that's not strictly necessary.
(Obviously severely disturbed/rabid dogs may be exceptions to this as well)
I wasn't being too serious.
It would be very hard to turn around and assume a dominant posture when a large enough dog is chasing you. I'm sure most people in that situation aren't thinking clearly enough to do that. And you're essentially placing your life and/or limbs on the line to do a counterintuitive action that is for many people based on mere hearsay about how to deal with dogs.
Yet I agree, running from a dog is probably not the best thing to do (unless you can get to safety long before the dog can catch up to you).
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can understand where you are coming from, but there are people out there who speak English so badly that it sounds like somebody ran a lawnmower over their face. This language has since been called Ebonics, and it is almost an entirely different language from the average American or British English dialects.
Wikipedia:
quote: Ebonics (from the words ebony and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Since 1996, Ebonics has primarily been used to refer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE), a dialect distinctively different from Standard American English.
And later:
quote: While the term is avoided by most linguists,[18] it is used elsewhere (such as on Internet message boards), often for ridiculing AAVE, particularly when this is inaccurately parodied as differing more from Standard American English than it really does.[19]
I have no doubt that you do not intend for your comment to be racist. I have no interest in proving your intent. I actually have no hope of changing your mind or the way you phrase things on internet boards in the future. If it happens that you reconsider your phrasing, then bonus.
I just can't let it go on a public forum as being OK. I hate confrontation. I hate participating in forum & blog drama, and I hardly ever do. But if it's there, and I don't point it out as being problematic, then I am part of the problem.
That is all. Please carry on.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Actually, most dogs don't chase you if you don't run.
...because they are too busy eating you.
It would be sort of pointless to chase you if you weren't running, yes.
I can't tell if this is semi-serious or not, but most of the time, if a dog starts chasing you and you simply face it and assume a dominant posture, the dog will not know what to do when it reaches you, and will lose interest.
It helps to have an umbrella, but that's not strictly necessary.
(Obviously severely disturbed/rabid dogs may be exceptions to this as well)
I wasn't being too serious.
It would be very hard to turn around and assume a dominant posture when a large enough dog is chasing you. I'm sure most people in that situation aren't thinking clearly enough to do that. And you're essentially placing your life and/or limbs on the line to do a counterintuitive action that is for many people based on mere hearsay about how to deal with dogs.
Yet I agree, running from a dog is probably not the best thing to do (unless you can get to safety long before the dog can catch up to you).
Yeah, it's also what you're supposed to do with bears, which seems even more terrifying and counter-intuitive.
It worked for my brother, though (although it was less intentional and more just that he was stunned to see a bear charging towards him, and so didn't react).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I have no doubt that you do not intend for your comment to be racist. I have no interest in proving your intent. I actually have no hope of changing your mind or the way you phrase things on internet boards in the future. If it happens that you reconsider your phrasing, then bonus.
I just can't let it go on a public forum as being OK. I hate confrontation. I hate participating in forum & blog drama, and I hardly ever do. But if it's there, and I don't point it out as being problematic, then I am part of the problem.
That is all. Please carry on.
Well I'm glad that you don't think I was being racist, because it seemed like that was what you were saying. It seems as though my definition of the term "Ebonics" is just different from yours. Growing up, that is the term everyone used for a certain type of urban dialect and did not necessarily pertain to any particular race. However, if that is how you took it, I apologize.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Ebonics certainly does refer to language as used by African Americans. You may have grown up with people who were using the term incorrectly. Not surprising that there was some confusion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Growing up, that is the term everyone used for a certain type of urban dialect and did not necessarily pertain to any particular race.
And people use the word "French" to refer to a certain type of language and culture, one which does not necessarily pertain to any particular country.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
So when I say that French is a hilariously awful language, it would be silly for people from France to take offense. I agree!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, though, and setting aside the beating around the bush:
"Ebonics" is called what it's called because the lower-income urban accent in question is absolutely more heavily associated with black people than with white people. Lots of white people join that subculture too, when they grow up in the same environment, but it's still associated more with black people. Same way that every British accent is associated with white people, and American Southern accents are associated with white people, even though thousands of black people have those accents as well.
Criticizing an accent is not inherently racist. Sorry, but it's not. Not even when it's an accent more heavily associated with a particular race, and you say that you prefer some other accent more heavily associated with a different race.
This charge is more manufactured racism that's supposed to reveal a hidden systemic culture of inescapable racism. It's bull****. People have irrational attractions to and revulsion for all kinds of accents without it being racially motivated.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question: if somebody who is not African American speaks with the same dialect, what is it called? As Dan just said, it is more "associated" with black people, which makes sense, but can't other cultures or races adopt that way of speaking? If they do, does the term no longer apply to it, despite the fact that they are identical?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Here's a question: if somebody who is not African American speaks with the same dialect, what is it called?
The same thing. AAVE is not seriously considered dependent upon the context of the race of the person who is speaking it, it's just named that way because of its origins and patterns in distribution.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People have irrational attractions to and revulsion for all kinds of accents without it being racially motivated.
Well, yeah. Because there are plenty of accents/ dialects used within races.
I'm wiling to bet that there's a pretty strong element of classism going on in many case of "irrational...revulsion," however, even when race is not an issue.
Here's the point. If we find ourselves irritated by an accent, it's really worth the time to think about why. Sometimes we uncover some less-than-pleasant stuff.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Good point, Tom!
So when I say that French is a hilariously awful language, it would be silly for people from France to take offense. I agree!
On my authority as a French Candian, I hearby revoke Dan_Frank's rights to pastries, cheese, wine, French fries, French toast, and maple syrup.
And since Canada is America's biggest source of oil, I hearby revoke your gas rights as well. I hope you like walking. With your new diet and transportation plan, you'll be fit as a fiddle in no time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:People have irrational attractions to and revulsion for all kinds of accents without it being racially motivated.
Well, yeah. Because there are plenty of accents/ dialects used within races.
I'm wiling to bet that there's a pretty strong element of classism going on in many case of "irrational...revulsion," however, even when race is not an issue.
Oh, yeah, I think that elitism is a far more common reason than racism. That's absolutely true. I'd go so far as to say that elitism is the cause vast, vast majority of times when someone is repelled by an accent. Whether that "accent" is spoken or in written!
u no wat i mean?
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Here's the point. If we find ourselves irritated by an accent, it's really worth the time to think about why. Sometimes we uncover some less-than-pleasant stuff.
Eh, I think most cases of that elitism is rather trivial, really. But it's definitely worth correcting anyway. Makes communication much easier!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Good point, Tom!
So when I say that French is a hilariously awful language, it would be silly for people from France to take offense. I agree!
On my authority as a French Candian, I hearby revoke Dan_Frank's rights to pastries, cheese, wine, French fries, French toast, and maple syrup.
And since Canada is America's biggest source of oil, I hearby revoke your gas rights as well. I hope you like walking. With your new diet and transportation plan, you'll be fit as a fiddle in no time.
Rivka beat me to this.
But yeah, is this where I tell you to stop using a car (enjoy that gas, though!) or...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Criticizing an accent is not inherently racist. Sorry, but it's not. Not even when it's an accent more heavily associated with a particular race, and you say that you prefer some other accent more heavily associated with a different race.
This charge is more manufactured racism that's supposed to reveal a hidden systemic culture of inescapable racism. It's bull****. People have irrational attractions to and revulsion for all kinds of accents without it being racially motivated.
The problem is that seemingly irrational attractions and revulsions are not always as irrational as people claim. Negative perceptions of accent or dialect usually go hand in hand with negative perceptions of the people who use that accent or dialect. And people without the negative perceptions of the people often lack the negative perceptions of their language.
For example, the Birmingham accent of British English is often considered by English people to be very ugly, and people from Birmingham are thought of as being rather thick. But
quote:American listeners, who do not recognise a Birmingham accent when they hear one, who know nothing about Birmingham and who probably don't even know where it is, do not find the Birmingham accent unpleasant at all. And everything they know about London leads them to find London accents highly attractive. (Bad Language, page 136: Andersson and Trudgill, 1990) link
Social perceptions turn out to play a rather large role in shaping our linguistic perceptions, even when we think they don't. Robert Lane Greene's You Are What You Speak is a pretty good introduction to the topic.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally hate "Ebonics" or AAVE, as I hate any other "dialect" that butchers the English language. It doesn't help that I strongly dislike the culture that often accompanies it. The culture I refer to idolizes excess, greed, drunkenness, drug use, violence, aggressive behavior, disrespect of women, vulgarity, sexual promiscuity, selfishness, theft, noncooperation with police, etc ad nausium.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf_: In fairness, American culture isn't that bad. It can be pretty intolerant of sexual promiscuity and drug use at times.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, let me make sure I understand you:
Because Ebonics is spoken primarily though by no means exclusively by black people (and despite the fact that there are far more black people that don't speak it than do) it is therefore racist to dislike ebonics and the subculture in which it is prevalent? Did I get that right?
I ask because you never used the word racist yourself, but I did in the post you quoted.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not exactly. I'm saying that dislike of a particular language variety is usually driven by dislike of the people who speak it, even when people claim that their dislike of the variety is objective. If you hate Black English, it is probably racially motivated to some degree. Just look at the stereotypes being thrown around here about people who speak Black English.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:...dislike of a particular language variety is usually driven by dislike of the people who speak it...
I strongly disagree with this:
quote:If you hate Black English, it is probably racially motivated to some degree. Just look at the stereotypes being thrown around here about people who speak Black English.
I have no problem with anyone for the color of their skin. My theory is A-holes (and saints) come in every color.
I don't think it fair to lump a dislike of a particular subculture (not a irrational dislike mind you) with a "probable racial motivation".
I dislike "hip hop culture" (or whatever it's called, you figure out the label) and not black people. I've met plenty of members of this subculture who were non-black. And I've met plenty of well spoken, main culture African Americans who I found to be delightful individuals. It's not the amount of melanin.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy: The stereotypes you're complaining about have little to do with black people and a lot to do with a very particular black-dominated subculture. So again: does the fact that this subculture and accent are associated more with black people than any other race inherently make dislike of said subculture and accent racist?
If goths were predominantly Asian instead of white, would disliked goth subculture be racist?
Isn't that kind of absurd?
Anecdote Time: I had a job where I worked with a lot of people who spoke with at least a mild level of "Black English," (axing questions and whatnot) who were basically professional otherwise and okay people to work with. To the extent that I got used to the accent, and it doesn't bother me at all (my manager spoke that way, and she was a great lady).
But most of the people who didn't use "Black English" were generally at least a little irritated by the people who did. They felt it was unprofessional and they were disdainful of it.
Was this racially motivated? Was it motivated by classism?
Well, the problem with those ideas is that the workforce was roughly 50% black, 25% filipino, and 25% white/latino/everything else. And the demographic breakdown "Black English" speakers mirrored that pretty closely.
So... both sides had a mix of racial backgrounds. We were all the roughly the same class, as we were doing the same job (some variation due to age, of course, but not many people really thought they were "better" or whatever).
And yet there was still stigma against mispronouncing words and poor grammar.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I worked with a lot of people who spoke with at least a mild level of "Black English," (axing questions and whatnot) who were basically professional otherwise
I have to confess that I find this to be the most offensive thing you've said so far.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Do you think all or most speakers of Black English are part of hip-hop culture?
I don't think it is fair to call it "black English" anymore. This particular style of talking has spread throughout many urban areas and is certainly used by several races, including hispanics, whites, and Asians.
But to answer your question, I think you have it backwards. Hip Hop is an extension of the streets, or at least that's how it's supposed to be. It's all about the target audience. Country music is directed towards a different type of consumer, just like Hip Hop. The songs are all about making money, getting laid, selling drugs, evading the cops, and killing people. It's about getting out of the streets and making it big so you can be at the top, because money is power. You could certainly list several exceptions to this, but you'd have a hard time saying that it isn't the central theme of most of the songs. This style of music has further popularized this style of speech, because these kids (who became stars) started out poor, many on the streets, many who'd given up on their education, deciding to pursue a career through other means. They spoke to kids who were in the same position and who spoke the same language.
So as I said, it's not the cause of the language; it's an extension. It's also an extension of the lifestyle. You don't see too many lawyers or doctors who speak like rap stars. It just doesn't happen very often.
I think a lot of people are trying to be too PC with this. When you see someone write out "Dis is ta da folks who ever sed I was ghetto", there's obviously a lack of communication skills going on. I mean, this isn't just about talking, which could simply be a result of their accents; this is basic grammar and spelling. There's no excuse, except that the person just never learned how to properly write. I know many teachers, several of which have told me that a number of their kids actually write like this on their papers or tests. These are typically the problem kids, the ones who refuse to learn, who will actually say "I'm only here so that my mother can get a check" (seriously, I was told this just last week by a middle school teacher).
If you think this is just an accent, I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I worked with a lot of people who spoke with at least a mild level of "Black English," (axing questions and whatnot) who were basically professional otherwise
I have to confess that I find this to be the most offensive thing you've said so far.
Which part? Even with the small piece you chopped out I can see a few things I suppose could be offending you.
Is it "axing questions?" It's a really common mispronunciation among people who speak "Ebonics" or "Black English" or whatever the hell people want to call it. I didn't invent it, and I'm not trying to insult people who say it, either.
I think it's common even in people with fairly low-level versions of "Ebonic" accents. Sort of an equivalent of the British R or the Southern y'all, it's something that persists even in people with minimal accent.
Or was it the "professional otherwise" comment, because that's implying that speaking "Black English" is fundamentally at least a little unprofessional?
Cause, if so, I mean... sorry man, but it is. It ain't a huge deal, but it's still a mispronunciation. It's precisely as unprofessional as misspelling a word on your resume.
I'm not sure what else in the quoted segment could be offensive. That I worked? Yeah, who would hire a guy like me? I was pretty offended at the idea myself, I'll admit. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or was it the "professional otherwise" comment, because that's implying that speaking "Black English" is fundamentally at least a little unprofessional?
Yes. Would you consider "y'all" to be unprofessional? What about the word "warshed," to stand in for "washed?" Do you believe that most people who pronounce "washed" "warshed" are not educated or professional enough to spell the word correctly?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I personally hate "Ebonics" or AAVE, as I hate any other "dialect" that butchers the English language. It doesn't help that I strongly dislike the culture that often accompanies it. The culture I refer to idolizes excess, greed, drunkenness, drug use, violence, aggressive behavior, disrespect of women, vulgarity, sexual promiscuity, selfishness, theft, noncooperation with police, etc ad nausium.
What a painfully ignorant screed that was. I fell sorry for you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or was it the "professional otherwise" comment, because that's implying that speaking "Black English" is fundamentally at least a little unprofessional?
Yes. Would you consider "y'all" to be unprofessional? What about the word "warshed," to stand in for "washed?" Do you believe that most people who pronounce "washed" "warshed" are not educated or professional enough to spell the word correctly?
I have a hard time finding a starting point in addressing the very broad sort of prejudice displayed in the previous post. This one is easier: SW seems to approach language and dialect/idiolect with the baseline assumption that that which is proper and professional is that which is spoken by the highest social class. This is an unspoken assumption, naturally, but it underpins the viewpoint. Black English is demonstrably inferior *because* it is associated with criminality and poverty. The fallacious reasoning is in insisting, again through an unspoken assumption, that the fault in character or moral fortitude that ostensibly causes poverty and criminality, also produces the perceived "degradation" of language- which is perceived as degraded due primarily to an association with the living and social conditions of a major underclass.
It's kind of the central assumption of this kind of American Calvinist thinking: the actual circumstances trace their ultimate roots to moral fortitude and god-given righteousness. And you can take that as far as you want: Blacks could have done better after slavery, they could have escaped their masters, they could have avoided being pressed into slavery; centuries ago, they could have developed as a society to the point where Europeans couldn't take such advantage of them. The senseless causes of history and geography and chance are ultimately ignored in favor of a viewpoint which favors the current circumstances as the natural result of moral superiority.
There is little room left for a subtler approach to the issues of personal responsibility and social conditions. Not surprising- the social conditions favor the person making the judgement, regardless of whether he cares to make that admission. It is likely he does not wish to, or is not capable of doing so. Typically he may reject this appeal to a subtler view by saying: "then nothing is anyone's fault!" because in this system of thought there is no room at all for the idea that moral righteousness is at all relative, or is at all dependent upon the conditions necessary for it to thrive.
If you dig deeper into that, it provides the justifications for torture (as it did in Soviet Russia), because there is no admission that a person can be degraded to a subhuman state by any external force- that force instead merely reveals one's external behaviors as a facade masking moral bankruptcy. Something Alexander Soljetnitson found interesting about sleep deprivation and it's effects on him personally- his belief in his own moral righteousness as a unique entity were crushed by it.
This is why I feel bad for SW. He *hates* this culture, and one could imagine that he fears it as well. He is barred from any appreciation of the way that people so different from him think or feel or behave as anything but an abomination. That's very unfortunate,I think. I do wish I knew a solution.
posted
Don't feel sorry for me. I'm fine. Also, you included what others have said into what I have said before making giant, high horsed, elitist worded, incorrect, assumptions. And then lectured me (again) about those (again incorrect) assumptions.
I dislike a very specific subculture for good and valid reasons. I also dislike the speech patterns associated with it, which tends to butcher a language I love, lend itself to being disrespectful and crass.
It doesn't mean I'm a bubbling cauldren of hate just looking to boil over nor all that other crazy crap you attributed to me willy nilly.
You want to feel sad for someone, feel pity for children who are starving. I don't need your pity.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or was it the "professional otherwise" comment, because that's implying that speaking "Black English" is fundamentally at least a little unprofessional?
Yes. Would you consider "y'all" to be unprofessional? What about the word "warshed," to stand in for "washed?" Do you believe that most people who pronounce "washed" "warshed" are not educated or professional enough to spell the word correctly?
Sure! A little bit, anyway.
It was a job representing a large financial institution to clients over the phone. Slang, idioms, mispronunciations, all of that is at least slightly unprofessional in my opinion.
Some clients didn't care, some did. (The racist clients were the ones who did things like call a guy with the last name Lee not an American, or the people who didn't like being helped by a guy with perfect professional diction because he had a very deep "black" voice. That's racism. Getting annoyed because someone uses slang is more forgivable, to me.)
But the grammar and pronunciation stuff... it's a little unprofessional, yes. Yet it's not a big deal, though, which was also my point. You did get that, right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because the people who are speaking "unprofessionally" in this case have grown up their whole lives learning a particular dialect. This dialect is as valid and as comprehensible as any other dialect of English, and has served them well; they are not necessarily any more unlikely to misunderstand the sentence "he asked what she was thinking" just because they'd pronounce the second word "axed." Then, at some point, they have to speak across class and regional divides, and discover -- or, in this particular case, are more likely to have grown up knowing -- that the way they (and everyone to whom they are close) speak is considered somehow inferior. A symbol of ignorance. A symptom of some lack.
And so when they answer the phone, maybe up to half the people to whom they're speaking will hear them say "axed" and think, "Oh, great. I've got someone who disrespects women and police and does casual violence to our beautiful English language on the line." But those same people will then, when "axed" about it, say "but it's no big deal."
I'm not saying it's surprising. After all, broadcasters have been training for far longer than I'm alive to ditch their regional accents in favor of "American standard" -- which, luckily for me, just happens to be the predominant dialect of the area in which I was born and raised. But it is indeed a big deal, especially when your dialect is not considered merely an indicator of the region in which you were born but a predictor of whether or not you're likely to sell drugs and cheat on your child's (unmarried) mother.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Don't feel sorry for me. I'm fine. Also, you included what others have said into what I have said before making giant, high horsed, elitist worded, incorrect, assumptions. And then lectured me (again) about those (again incorrect) assumptions.
I dislike a very specific subculture for good and valid reasons.
No, your reasons are neither good nor valid. And you can deflect as much as you like by casting aspersions on me and my " high horse." You're the one who hates black American culture, and said about as much a few posts back. You are pitiable. Honestly. I understand you didn't say that you hate black people- you know better. But you forgot where you were. You forgot who you were talking to. You forgot how far your bullshit would carry you here.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
