This debate is a two edged sword that will cut you no matter which way you turn. Let me start with this. When my father came to this country from Norway some 60 years ago, he spoke some English. He served in the US Army (82nd Airborne), and was obliged to learn the language if he was to get along. So it was for many thousands of emigrants who became US citizens. When I discuss this issue of language with him, he becomes very frustrated with me. He insists that when one makes the decision to come here, one must assimilate. That means learning the customs, the language, and the “ins and outs” of the newly adopted society. This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that one must forget one’s heritage. Learning the new ways does not betray one’s ancestral culture. Obliging diversity at every turn weakens what makes us American.
Now, from my “enlightened” viewpoint, I would suggest that diversity makes us stronger. Our melting pot society enables individuals to present their uniqueness; cultural differences allow us to discover new and interesting facets of our people, adding to the richness of our lives. The imperialistic conquest or colonization of one people by another is not the same as making the choice to emigrate. It is when one culture attempts to dominate another that we begin to see growing friction and intolerance between peoples. Marginalizing a whole sector of society, pushing any group or ethnicity to the status of “other” is what caused Dowdy to constantly remember whom her audience was. “The white way …was the right way…” The choice between oppressive imperialism or to embrace the Queen’s English rather than be in the margin doesn’t seem to be such a difficult one. “Embracing the creed of colonization” may seem like a betrayal to some, but I see it as a matter of survival. The author calls it the “mask of language”. The indigenous tongue is deemed useful only for the arts, for poetry, songwriting, and entertainment. To get ahead, one must learn the “discourse”, whatever arena that discourse may be in. The author’s siblings could not embrace the Queen’s English, and it came to represent for them all the troubles and oppressions Britain imposed on the people of Trinidad. By asserting their Afrocentricity, they publicly rejected the idea that their mother tongue was substandard, that they were somehow deficient. Dowdy, however, chose to function in dual realities. Her carefully crafted success was a cover, a camouflage of the inner struggle the author was enduring. The speaker alone must come to grips with the worth of both tongues, each being equally worthy for public communications and self-expression. It is the speaker who must decide which is a better fit solely on who she is, not who she is speaking to.
The code switching of Maya and her school friends is the flip side to this debate. Those kids could choose how and when to use the lingo and jargon of either dialect “to get ahead” that is, to fit in, to be cool, or simply to communicate with friends. The ability to speak the dialect of those one identifies with is the ability to make a connection. Those kids could assimilate and dissimilate at will. Is this so very different from “sounding white”? Using language for a purpose other than pure communication? So then, if the Standard English is required on a college entrance essay, or some other practical use, why would it be wrong to expect students to learn and use “this other code” in school applications? Again, it is the rejection of the speaker due to what the language represents (or is perceived to represent) that is the problem. I don’t think Michelle Obama sees her “white sounding” language as a problem. There is no stigma attached to the dialect she or our new president speaks. It is simple a means of communication, and an insight into who they are as individuals. We need to recognize that one form of language is not superior to another. To think otherwise, is to label the speaker as deficient. In the classroom, allowing students to express themselves in terms of their own intimate language is a given. To try to erase or change it would deny our students the opportunity to be themselves. We must allow them to connect, to build bridges with language and meaning. By doing this, we begin to learn from each other.
Annie Croon
Comments (4)
I agree with your grandfather: He insists that when one makes the decision to come here, one must assimilate. That means learning the customs, the language, and the “ins and outs” of the newly adopted society.
If I were to decided to pick up and live somewhere else, in order to survive, I would have to do the same. In order to embrace the place I have moved for whatever reason I would have to learn the language and customs. This does not mean I would totally abandon my own. I could not expect for the other culture to adapt to my language at the get go.
Posted by Tamera Wilson | June 8, 2009 8:37 PM
Posted on June 8, 2009 20:37
Annie, there is some really thoughtful, chunky stuff here. I appreciate your recognition and understanding of the many angles at which we come to this debate. Your dad's point of view is a reflection of his generation and the strong belief and pride American citizens used to have in this country and our constitution. I believe the comment about "obliging diverstiy at every turn weakens what makes us American" is a very common belief among folks of our parents' and grandparents' generation. It's reflected, in part, in our Pledge of Allegience--"one nation...indivisible..." I think this is the part of the pledge that the earlier generations value most--and perhaps what we should still value today. Now, it's like we're the United States of the Ungrateful, Offended and Complaining. The problem then, I believe, comes in at the "liberty and justice for ALL" part. Perhaps some people choose to believe this liberty and justice isn't for them--for whatever reason. The truth, however, is that the soldiers who have fought and died to protect our country's freedom and constitution, fought and died for EVERY US Citizen--whether every US Citizen wants to recognize it or not. There is wisdom in what your dad has to offer.
Posted by erin farrington | June 8, 2009 10:32 PM
Posted on June 8, 2009 22:32
I see your point about letting children express themselves and use their language to show who they are. I don't think that we should take that away from our students but I do think that it is important to teach them that if they are going to use their two different ways of speaking they need to be able to code switch. It is also our jobs to prepare them for the real world and in the real world if they do not speak standard english they may be looked down upon and passed over for jobs, or other important posistions. We have to make sure that our students understand that even though it is not right that that is how society has become. I see it in my classroom every day. Kindergarten studnets have not yet learned that when the teacher corrects them they are supposed to try to change how they speak. I am not doing this to change who they are or where they are from. I am doing it because I love these children and I want the best for them. I give them many other times outside the classroom to express themselves and talk in their special code.
Posted by Megan Machuga | June 9, 2009 6:42 PM
Posted on June 9, 2009 18:42
Code switching definitely makes connections between our peers and those to whom we must communicate various other forms of information. Students must be engaged in a comfort zone to allow ideas, thoughts, and feelings to flow. Their creativity depends upon it. Like you, I believe that they must also operate in dual realities. The job market is much too tough for rejection to happen just because they have not been taught to properly express themselves in the realm of greater society.
Posted by Janet Gross | June 9, 2009 9:23 PM
Posted on June 9, 2009 21:23