- Aug 9, 2003
- 13,471
- 2,163
Well, I got a whole different take than what you saw/heard/interpreted.
Chuck:
Hmmmm...
You wrote:
First I must say, the context of the title and opening comments caused me to acknowledge my experiences of being ignored, especially because of the FACT, that I went to school and learned those words with an eye towards being responsible for myself, family and community.
Chuck:
Obviously you were and are high on the ole learning curve side...
You wrote:
I'd gain knowledge and by default, power, the power to teach others which was also part of the deal. To give back to the community, as a Black person. Sooooo.....
I listened to the video and this is what I saw and heard....
Chuck:
Also you wrote...
Joe Clark was BLACKTASTICALLY poignant and on point with some Truths I have come to know. He did use a couple of words with ease I might add, that motivates me to look up...you know, study...think...
Also, I heard him cussing folk out in the "dignified" ways we are taught is acceptable. I was not sure and still am not, who he is exactly speaking to/about, I did not hear what the resolution was.
Chuck:
What he implied--i. e., as in--some articulate etc. blacks try too doggone much to relate to folk--who reveal their backwardness etc. by the way of the poor english grammar they choose to use to explain away their lack of past or present effort to truly educate themselves--therefore wind up matter excuses for what other younger (or not so younger folk) resort to as well...
On the other hand, he's obviously no formal english major, either...
So, always a good idea to not just front as something that person wasn't or isn't, too...
I. e., like Cosby did afterwards, he make some good points, but via the wrong means, etc.
His was or is a reaction to the way things are:
I strive and try to respond to a challenge...
The short version:
I do strive to try to get across to young (or not so young) folks why it is safer (and saner) to be educated (not uneducated), and folks (other than most of the panelists) were explaining the means they were (or are) using to move poorly educated young people to the level of being educated...
Others did or do misunderstand their intent and purpose entirely...
You wrote:
The host gave lot of time to Cook seems rightfully so yet, I was not clear still on what exactly oakland intends to do, how they are using the obvious, different dialectical and linguistic styles working to communicate while doing so in a foreign language.
Chuck:
Most (if not all) of us who are the descendants of African ancestors don't even know what our ancestors original languages are...
I. e., on the basis of what do you claim or say standard english is a 'foreign' language, because it's what our ancestors immediate descendants etc. have been speaking, poorly or well, for many generations since?
You wrote:
I also thought the host did a good job with bringing folk in and out and it would have been good to hear this to the end. I trust the panel discussion went on for at least an hour. We got just a almost 10 min. clip.
Chuck:
Obviously only so much I and we can or should base, merely on the basis of a ten minute clip!
You wrote:
As to the linguist. I thought she was struggling to get in her groove. Seems maybe they (Joe) was attacking her research based presentation of the problem and potential solutions. I liked the way she opened acknowledging the connections between Joe and Toni and the fact that what they are both suggesting is exactly what is supposed to happen in school anyway...
She did seem nervous and was stumbling a bit early on and I was getting like..."what the heck is she talking about"..yet she was becoming clearer and more solid in presenting what she knows.
Thanks for Sharing and listening to...
M.E.
Chuck:
I just hope and pray my take is a wee bit clearer too...