By: Sada Farah, Collegian columnist.
I was listening to "Hot Thing" by Talib Kweli the other day, and I realized why I love that song. Not only is Kweli a great lyricist, someone who people would group into the "conscious rapper" category, but it seems that even when he isn't attempting to be serious, and makes a fun song, something always hits home.
"I love the way your crib smell like Votivo candle incense, the white voice you use on the phone when you handle business." That part of the song always makes me smile, probably because it rings true to me. I can't count how many times I've been told that I speak "white," simply because I don't speak in Ebonics. Usually I get away with it because I grew up in Canada, having learned English after my native language (Somali) and French. But that's just a technicality, considering I was fluent in all three by age eight.
In the United States, you're expected to speak a certain way simply because of the color of your skin, and everyone has internalized this myth. If you are a person of color and you have good grammar, speak proper English, etc. it's expected that you're either from another country or that you've had the resources to go to good schools and you're considered an exception to the rule. Similarly, your own racial group considers you for the most part to be a "sell-out," or trying to conform to the norm and assimilate to whiteness. It seems, though, that vernacular is more a product of class than it is race.
This is shown through the fact that, even in countries without a colonial past, there are differences in vernacular between the classes, and your "identity" or class is easily identifiable through your speech. In England, the most common form of English used by the British ruling class is that originating from south-east England (the area around the capital, London, and the ancient English university towns of Oxford and Cambridge). This form of the language is known as the "Received Standard," and its accent is called Received Pronunciation, which is improperly regarded by many people outside the UK as "the British accent." Earlier, it was considered better than other accents and referred to as the King's (or Queen's) English, or even "BBC English."
Now, don't get it twisted - there are many variations of "English" in Britain, there are regional dialect differences as well as the slang that youths use. The point is that even when you exclude race, or immigrants in the case of Britain, there are easily identifiable differences between people's speech and these differences are given value, based on a pre-existing vernacular hierarchy.
Then there's the hip hop culture phenomenon, which went from originating in urban areas inside the U.S., to being simulated by whites in this country, to being exported to the rest of the world via globalization. Now, all of a sudden it's cool to speak in Ebonics, wear baggy clothes and rap about money, clothes, women, drugs and violence. Lower classes and racial minorities have always had a 'sub-culture' in every country, one that historically has been looked down upon by the status quo, but now this culture is being re-enforced by the media. But even Jay-Z knows that you can only get so far without putting on a suit, educating yourself and adjusting your speech in corporate situations.
Does that mean you have to give up your identity in order to achieve success in the United States? Not necessarily. The common misconception is that you have to become white and be a sell-out in order to get far. The reality is that people have to be able to become chameleons in a sense. We all wear different hats, and even Shakespeare knew that being able to transform oneself in concordance with the situation is a virtue.
No one expects to get a corporate job walking into an interview wearing baggy jeans and a white T-shirt, and the same goes for speech. I'm not trying to say that one way of speaking is superior to another, but it seems to me that encouraging an already disadvantaged group to not become multi-faceted, and encouraging the importance of Ebonics (or similarly, "trailer trash talk," etc.) for the purpose of vernacular diversity is simply a way to make sure these classes don't have social mobility.
Acts such as the Ebonics Resolution, passed by the Oakland School Board, are ridiculous and backwards. The plan is to introduce Ebonics into the classroom, the objective being to improve the academic performance of black students by keeping them interested in their studies.
Many argue that Ebonics is based on West African languages, and that teaching it in schools would reinforce black identity. I highly doubt Ebonics has anything to do with any actual African language, and assuming that it does is discriminatory and ignorant.
According to Project 21, a non-profit organization, "Teaching Ebonics will not provide a means for an individual to acquire a job, or maintain a living. It will not provide an individual with the skills necessary to compete in an academic setting, let alone a professional setting. It does absolutely nothing positive for those to whom it is taught … Some people would prefer schools to take the easy way out and send black children into the world without basic English skills, but it is a disservice to the black community … This is a prime example of what people call 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.'"
I never thought I would agree with conservatives, but this just proves that anything is possible.
Sada Farah is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].
Source: Daily Collegian, December 03, 2007