That's right -- I caught up!

I know I haven't posted much on the blog -- Lord knows I can't seem to shut up when we chat during our Lit Circle time -- so I made it my goal to get this done and post (hopefully) something good! I thought I was all on my game until I saw that Matt was far more prepared and commented on the same idea I had... but I'll build off it best I can :)

Matt said, "What I found to be so interesting is the emphasis that is placed within the community on Standard English. When the community gathers for a BBQ, Ebonics is heard everywhere; yet, outside of that people are almost expected to speak Standard English. I find this to be a bizarre dynamic." I reacted much the same way. Joyce Hope Scott wrote about "messing up" and "shaming" her family when code-switching to Black English grammar and/or using Black English enunciations when performing in church for the holidays. Language is so engrained in culture, how could you shame your family by speaking true to its roots? Why would it be so bad to use Black English in a place, church, where your personal connection and worship are the most important as opposed to how it is said? Shouldn't a book that is meant to empower Ebonics, its use and those who use it, be promoting it rather than pointing out how so many who use it devalue it at the same time? This is a bizarre dynamic.

But then Scott talks about the private and public face and I realized that she speaks to the very heart of this debate. We all have private and public faces -- we've talked about it together in our circle as well as in the class as a whole. We "code switch" depending on whether we are speaking to our families and friends, or our professors and bosses -- we keep up our public and private faces each and everyday and rarely deviate. We have an idea of what is appropriate and in what context. That is the problem the Oakland School system encountered -- this idea of the public face. Sure, kids can talk to their parents at home however they want so long as when they are in public they speak "proper. " That is the power structure we have so engrained in our society... there is a proper way to do things, a "smart" way to do things and that most certainly includes speaking.

I believe I said at one point that people who need to read this book won't and that because we are, or are studying to be, teachers we already are aware of this. I take back that statement as I am someone who needed to read this book. I did not realize how I viewed language until I caught myself last week before correcting a student on his pronunciation. The way he pronounced the word was not "standard" but I realized as I opened and then immediately snapped shut my mouth that he was not clouding the meaning and I needed to let that go. It was like the example in the book about the teacher forcing the boy to say "brother" rather than "brudda." I further that very power struggle by focusing on the so-called proper, but admit I find it difficult to figure out how I can help to change that power struggle what with all the state standards and testing that I am responsible for helping students succeed on. But I think I have come to look at it through a different light, albeit one that is a bit frustrating at times

I wonder then, if we can criticize someone for "devaluing" Ebonics when the debate is opening doors to examine the public and private faces. It seems to me that just creating the debate, just putting these issues out for the public to see rather than keeping it private is in fact valuing Ebonics and I don't think the power can be leveled or reversed or what have you overnight -- this book is just one step closer to it, I hope.

And now that's a rant :)
--Em