a PHD in hip hop?

[unknown]

ebonics isnt a dialect. its people who decided to make up their own language instead of paying attention in school. and then some of those ignorant apes got famous and it became "acceptable" in the eyes of young black people and stupid white kids who are struggling with their own image.

taken from dictionary.com:

Dialect:
a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

a provincial, rural, or socially distinct variety of a language that differs from the standard language, esp. when considered as substandard.

and also, the rules that govern their language were already in the forming stages before they entered school. as they went through school and met other children and experienced other outlets of communication (rap on the radio, mtv, whatever), these rules were solidified into a language.

 

[Wires & Waves]

ebonics isnt a dialect. its people who decided to make up their own language instead of paying attention in school. and then some of those ignorant apes got famous and it became "acceptable" in the eyes of young black people and stupid white kids who are struggling with their own image.

creole is completly different. like afrikaans, its the mixing of 2 real languages. ebonics is english mixed with what? ignorance. where is the influence for the word shizzle? or crunk? where is the logical step from shit to shizzle?

ebonics is just like chat typing. 1t meh mk u l00k k00l, bt 1ts jst st00p1d & thr 1z n0 resun 2 jst1fI 1t!
~gR~

welp, prominent ultimate metal forums racist "genocide_roach"'s opinions clearly trump the unanimous consensus of linguistic theory, let's pack up and go home guys. white power.

 

[genocide roach]

welp, since GR disagrees with me on a cultural issue, he must be racist. i'm an ignorant twat

yeah, that makes sense.

ive got no problem with people of any color. i DO have a problem with ignorant street culture. there are plenty of white kids who speak that trash too. this is a problem that goes beyond race
~gR~

 

[Wires & Waves]

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/Ebonics.html

If all languages and dialects are linguistically equal, why do our schools and other institutions insist that only one kind of English is 'proper' or 'correct'?

This is the result of social prejudice, the favoring or disfavoring of particular social groups. It is no accident that the varieties of a language that come to be thought of as 'proper' or 'correct' are invariably associated with the upper classes, those who wield political, economic, and social power. These classes also control the educational and publishing worlds. Whatever kind of English, French, Spanish, or German they spoke became the standard dialect. Since these classes established the educational system and require mastery of the standard dialect in order to grant access to higher learning and powerful employment or social positions, they effectively impose their dialect on anyone who aspires to education or upward mobility. They also control what gets published. It is also no accident that the varieties of language that come to be called 'substandard' are invariably associated with groups that are the targets of prejudice: inner-city poor or working-class folk (Cockney English; African American English); rural peoples (Appalachian and 'cowboy' English); ethnic minorities (Native American English, 'Spanglish', African American English). The dislike of the groups was transferred to the forms of language used by them; the dislike of those language forms then became institutionalized with the establishment of an educational system, and continues to be promulgated and enforced today.

So the notion of 'good vs. bad English' is simply one more institutionalized prejudice. The belief that some varieties of English are inherently inferior to others is no different from the belief that some skin colors are inherently inferior to others: both are beliefs that rest on historical accidents of who had privilege and power at a crucial moment in history, not on scientifically-describable superiorities of one over the other.

Over time, attitudes towards dialects have been divorced from the groups that use them, so that many people now categorize a person as undesirable from the cue of how that person speaks: a black student who speaks 'well' (read: standard English) would no doubt be judged more intelligent, cooperative, and competent than that same student speaking 'Ebonics' (read: 'bad English'). Such results have been obtained in actual studies of language and dialect attitudes in other parts of the world.

 

[Wires & Waves]

another useful link

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n12_v18/ai_20074811

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

I don't see how that matters. His point was made, and you obviously understood it.

I assume you were talking to me.

Indeed I did understand his point (I still don't agree with it, but hey). I wasn't arguing or failing to understand the point. I was laughing at the example.

 

[sceloporus]

welp, prominent ultimate metal forums racist "genocide_roach"'s opinions clearly trump the unanimous consensus of linguistic theory, let's pack up and go home guys. white power.

This is America. We have freedom of speech, we can be racist if we want and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

 

[Wires & Waves]

This is America. We have freedom of speech, we can be racist if we want and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

where did i say otherwise? how is that relevant at all? youre a fucking idiot? yes!

 

[unknown]

^.

and ditto what Wires said.

 

[entanglement]

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/Ebonics.html

If all languages and dialects are linguistically equal, why do our schools and other institutions insist that only one kind of English is 'proper' or 'correct'?

This is the result of social prejudice, the favoring or disfavoring of particular social groups. It is no accident that the varieties of a language that come to be thought of as 'proper' or 'correct' are invariably associated with the upper classes, those who wield political, economic, and social power. These classes also control the educational and publishing worlds. Whatever kind of English, French, Spanish, or German they spoke became the standard dialect. Since these classes established the educational system and require mastery of the standard dialect in order to grant access to higher learning and powerful employment or social positions, they effectively impose their dialect on anyone who aspires to education or upward mobility. They also control what gets published. It is also no accident that the varieties of language that come to be called 'substandard' are invariably associated with groups that are the targets of prejudice: inner-city poor or working-class folk (Cockney English; African American English); rural peoples (Appalachian and 'cowboy' English); ethnic minorities (Native American English, 'Spanglish', African American English). The dislike of the groups was transferred to the forms of language used by them; the dislike of those language forms then became institutionalized with the establishment of an educational system, and continues to be promulgated and enforced today.

So the notion of 'good vs. bad English' is simply one more institutionalized prejudice. The belief that some varieties of English are inherently inferior to others is no different from the belief that some skin colors are inherently inferior to others: both are beliefs that rest on historical accidents of who had privilege and power at a crucial moment in history, not on scientifically-describable superiorities of one over the other.

Over time, attitudes towards dialects have been divorced from the groups that use them, so that many people now categorize a person as undesirable from the cue of how that person speaks: a black student who speaks 'well' (read: standard English) would no doubt be judged more intelligent, cooperative, and competent than that same student speaking 'Ebonics' (read: 'bad English'). Such results have been obtained in actual studies of language and dialect attitudes in other parts of the world.

Applause.

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/Ebonics.html

If all languages and dialects are linguistically equal, why do our schools and other institutions insist that only one kind of English is 'proper' or 'correct'?

This is the result of social prejudice, the favoring or disfavoring of particular social groups. It is no accident that the varieties of a language that come to be thought of as 'proper' or 'correct' are invariably associated with the upper classes, those who wield political, economic, and social power. These classes also control the educational and publishing worlds. Whatever kind of English, French, Spanish, or German they spoke became the standard dialect. Since these classes established the educational system and require mastery of the standard dialect in order to grant access to higher learning and powerful employment or social positions, they effectively impose their dialect on anyone who aspires to education or upward mobility. They also control what gets published. It is also no accident that the varieties of language that come to be called 'substandard' are invariably associated with groups that are the targets of prejudice: inner-city poor or working-class folk (Cockney English; African American English); rural peoples (Appalachian and 'cowboy' English); ethnic minorities (Native American English, 'Spanglish', African American English). The dislike of the groups was transferred to the forms of language used by them; the dislike of those language forms then became institutionalized with the establishment of an educational system, and continues to be promulgated and enforced today.

So the notion of 'good vs. bad English' is simply one more institutionalized prejudice. The belief that some varieties of English are inherently inferior to others is no different from the belief that some skin colors are inherently inferior to others: both are beliefs that rest on historical accidents of who had privilege and power at a crucial moment in history, not on scientifically-describable superiorities of one over the other.

Over time, attitudes towards dialects have been divorced from the groups that use them, so that many people now categorize a person as undesirable from the cue of how that person speaks: a black student who speaks 'well' (read: standard English) would no doubt be judged more intelligent, cooperative, and competent than that same student speaking 'Ebonics' (read: 'bad English'). Such results have been obtained in actual studies of language and dialect attitudes in other parts of the world.

wow, fascinating stuff.

no matter what you say though, whether is correlative or not, you can't deny that those who speak ebonics tend to be of lower intelligence and of lower education than those who speak proper english. For some reason, I don't think some street thug or a wigger is going to be more intelligent/educated than a college professor.

 

[Ender Rises]

wow, fascinating stuff.

no matter what you say though, whether is correlative or not, you can't deny that those who speak ebonics tend to be of lower intelligence and of lower education than those who speak proper english. For some reason, I don't think some street thug or a wigger is going to be more intelligent/educated than a college professor.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with intelligence, you'd be amazed how smart a "thug or wigger" can be. They simply speak the English they were taught by their environment. OBVIOUSLY a street kid isn't going to be as educated as a professor, since they have a fucking P.H.D., but there are some very dull professors out there and some very bright "wiggers".

 

[Ender Rises]

We should be using the term "standard" rather than "proper." Even "academic" speech would be a better term.

This is true, proper implies that what others speak is wrong, which is a completely stupid way of thinking. I get bugged when, for example, someone says "I seen" instead of "I saw", but only because it makes them sound like an idiot, I don't think they're stupid for saying it.

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

It has nothing to do whatsoever with intelligence, you'd be amazed how smart a "thug or wigger" can be. They simply speak the English they were taught by their environment. OBVIOUSLY a street kid isn't going to be as educated as a professor, since they have a fucking P.H.D., but there are some very dull professors out there and some very bright "wiggers".

yea, I suppose you are right.

I just despise this mainstream street culture where black people are called out as "acting white" or being "nerds" when they take a passionate interest in better themselves by education. Do you not agree that this is absurd?

 

[King Richard]

What are you talking about Dave? I don't know anyone who "makes fun" of people like that. If anything, they are more respected for doing such. Also, what the hell do you know about mainstream street culture involving black people?

 

[Ender Rises]

Yes, I do agree. Anyone who calls someone else a nerd is a fucking idiot.

 

[Ender Rises]

What are you talking about Dave? I don't know anyone who "makes fun" of people like that. If anything, they are more respected for doing such.

Happens all the time, especially in black communities.

 

[King Richard]

You live in a trailer, how the fuck do you know?


Btw, I'm not slamming you for living in a trailer, just saying I don't know of many trailer park street gangs.

 

[Wires & Waves]

the problem is that in order for blacks to succeed its generally necessary for them to denigrate their native culture and adopt a foreign one because their native culture is deemed inferior

i don't think cultural homogeneity is something to strive for personally

 

[Ender Rises]

I suppose I don't, it was an assumption. I see it a lot with Hispanics though.