From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:01:25 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Ebonics
In-Reply-To: <v03007801aee22ae61b2c@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <32BCCE8A.28EF@disposable.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> At 5:49 PM -0600 12/21/96, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
> 
> >I realize you dont agree with the tactics of some black leaders in 
> >this country, but I dont understand why you have this need to cloak 
> >your arguments in such antagonizing language.  You, of course, are 
> >free to do so, I just find it counter-productive albeit sometimes
> >humourous.
> 
> I was speaking of "Ebonics." That many "black leaders" support so
> transparent a scam and backward step is a separate issue, though, I
> confess, not an unexpected one.

No, folks, Tim doesn't generalize.

Name one "black leader" who has endorsed anything like the straw man 
you're talking about. What we have here are a couple of kooks in charge 
of a politicized school board in Oakland. The word "ebonics" appears 
exactly zero times in Stanford's library catalog and exactly zero times 
in the indices of peer-reviewed academic journals to which I have 
access, including some very "PC" ones. DejaNews had exactly one instance 
of the word "ebonics" before this September, when someone in Oakland 
started making a fuss. The recommendations of the Oakland school board, 
which bear no resemblance to the nonsense spouted here, are no more 
representative of even the most politicized elements of black studies 
departments than certain Bible Belt public schools are of "white 
leaders."

-rich