Posts of the Week
|
Black English. . .A Second Language? Harold Presson - 11:29am Dec 20, 1996 PST (#27 of 141)
...My fear is that recognition of Ebonics will reinforce the balkanization of the races that was begun earlier in the name of multicultural diversity. If the goal of Ebonics is to bolster esteem for black children, would the same logic not also apply for other traditionally underprivileged groups? Is the day coming when we will seek approval of Hispanola, Appalachiana, and Rouge-Nape-Onics as valid? Being from the rural South, I understand all too well the stereotypes people place on speech when deciding one's intelligence. Would the approval of Rouge-Nape-Onics in early childhood have done anything constructive to change those ideas some folks formed about me? I don't believe so. In my opinion, any child, regardless of race, needs a stable place to grow from to achieve academic progress. That stable place at a minimum must include a place to sleep, clothes to wear, regular meals, caring adult supervision, safety from physical violence. Many kids do not have these things that most of us take for granted. Who has time to learn the 3 R's when home consists of little more than a hangout for adults and dropouts to drink and be rowdy all night long? Ebonics is a well-intentioned idea that will do nothing to address the root cause of family instability. For Anyone Who Writes Patric Juillet - 05:47pm Dec 17, 1996 PST (#17 of 35) My bald theory: a few years ago, someone -I forgot who- had given me a book on the history of hats. It had hundreds of pictures and drawings of hats worn by important and less important people throughout the ages. My favorite one was the headdress that Sitting Bull wore, made out of dozens of eagle feathers stringed onto a fine length of painted leather. It had elegance, poise, and more importantly, it did not cover his hair, hence my theory on baldness. Have you ever seen a photograph of a bald Indian? Unlikely. Why? They never had to wear heavy hats, only feathers. This theory came to me last year as I was leafing through another book, a book on the Stone Age, probably looking for my editor's Neolithic equivalent, and noted the thick manes covering our distant ancestors' heads and subsequent "plumeless genus of bipeds" (from that priceless old Greek guy). They didn't have to wear helmets or heavily brocaded nonsense upon their heads up until about five thousand years ago, when some genius devised a tin hat, most likely to ameliorate the average soldier's chances of getting killed a lot quicker in a close range battle. That's when the ugly head, so to speak, of baldness appeared. Wear a kilogram of tin or lead or even gold upon your head for a few months, and your hair will stop breathing, thin out and fall, in that order. To prove to myself that my theory was valid, I wore a woolen cap for seven days, tightly around my ears, night and day. When I took it off, my hair, which is normally thick, was soft, thin and sluggish. My wife almost left me. Do the same and see for yourself. And report. In the book on hats, my prize for the most ridiculous one had gone to the Spanish police (though some venerable Japanese Lords came close, all wearing what appeared to be a bunch of warped wooden spoons tied with black spaghetti). When visiting Spain, marvel at those wonderful upside down bedpans with black wings, regal yourself at the sight of this awe-inspiring Iberian version of Mickey Mouse ears. I mean, a hat that instills such confidence in laugh-and-order ought to be given a Nobel Prize. Anything that produces giggles is worth a prize. Art History Alton D. (Al) Morris - 06:22pm Dec 19, 1996 PST (#113 of 117) ...I know that all art is, in a sense, gratuitous--that it really doesn't _do_ anything or make anything happen. But at least it can have a humanizing effect upon the maker and the viewer. What is being done today, however--with a rush of dealers and foundation "patrons" to encourage it--is a mockery of anything remotely noble in the making of art.... I guess I'll just keep on trying to make beautiful things, even though it really can't be considered art anymore by the so-called Art World's current standard. Oh well, I long ago abandoned "art for art's sake" anyway. Now, it's art for _my_ sake. |
Back to the front page of Salon | Posts of the Week Issue No. 43 | 44