Monday Aug 30, 2010 – By Zettler Clay
It’s been a thorn in the side of grammar snobs everywhere. Drop a wire into any conversation in any urban or informal setting in any Black American household and take note. Then try duplicating it in academic circles and see if you aren’t met with the swiftest look of consternation.
Ebonics: It’s what we’re taught to stay away from if we want to be seen as more than primitive beings that warrant dire socialization. However, the subject of debate is now a valued skill set among the federal government. Recently, the Department of Justice placed an Ebonics requirement for its Atlanta Drug Enforcement Agents, to “monitor, translate and transcribe” DEA recordings of drug dealers.
Nine agents to be exact. In addition, the Atlanta field office needs linguists of the following varieties:
144 Spanish
12 Vietnamese
9 Korean
9 Farsi
8 Laotian
4 Jamaican
4 Chinese
4 Igbo
Either White drug dealers are either already covered, or they don’t pose a threat to the Drug Enforcement Agency. If the criminal justice system didn’t lock up enough minorities before on drug charges, that is certain to change now. Seeing Ebonics on that list should make any person wary of a skewed criminal justice system become more dubious.
I guess it’s easier to snatch up dealers in doo-rags than in three-piece suits.
Are Black drug dealers not the lowest rung on the narcotics totem pole? While it’s understandable that officers need to know the language of drug dealers, this requirement is a bit overkill. Dealers speak in codes; slang even. Ebonics isn’t a language taught by Rosetta Stone. So who is going to be hired? This mandate basically states, “We need nine ni–ers who can understand this sh–. Because we can’t.”
Being specialized in deciphering Ebonics isn’t a deterrent against crime; it’s little more than profiling. It’s obvious that the DEA is fighting to lock more people up or there wouldn’t be a need to bring in “specialists.” However, this does bring to light another issue: Is Ebonics a “legitimate” language?
In the circles of many homes, the subject of whether Ebonics is a language on par with Spanish rages on—with many parents and teachers asserting that proper English is devoid of Ebonics. Slang is often lumped in with Ebonics, but there is a clear difference between the two: The former deals with syntax and is general; the latter deals with individual words and is race-specific.
http://clutchmagonline.com/lifeculture/feature/who-needs-ebonics/
It’s been a thorn in the side of grammar snobs everywhere. Drop a wire into any conversation in any urban or informal setting in any Black American household and take note. Then try duplicating it in academic circles and see if you aren’t met with the swiftest look of consternation.
Ebonics: It’s what we’re taught to stay away from if we want to be seen as more than primitive beings that warrant dire socialization. However, the subject of debate is now a valued skill set among the federal government. Recently, the Department of Justice placed an Ebonics requirement for its Atlanta Drug Enforcement Agents, to “monitor, translate and transcribe” DEA recordings of drug dealers.
Nine agents to be exact. In addition, the Atlanta field office needs linguists of the following varieties:
144 Spanish
12 Vietnamese
9 Korean
9 Farsi
8 Laotian
4 Jamaican
4 Chinese
4 Igbo
Either White drug dealers are either already covered, or they don’t pose a threat to the Drug Enforcement Agency. If the criminal justice system didn’t lock up enough minorities before on drug charges, that is certain to change now. Seeing Ebonics on that list should make any person wary of a skewed criminal justice system become more dubious.
I guess it’s easier to snatch up dealers in doo-rags than in three-piece suits.
Are Black drug dealers not the lowest rung on the narcotics totem pole? While it’s understandable that officers need to know the language of drug dealers, this requirement is a bit overkill. Dealers speak in codes; slang even. Ebonics isn’t a language taught by Rosetta Stone. So who is going to be hired? This mandate basically states, “We need nine ni–ers who can understand this sh–. Because we can’t.”
Being specialized in deciphering Ebonics isn’t a deterrent against crime; it’s little more than profiling. It’s obvious that the DEA is fighting to lock more people up or there wouldn’t be a need to bring in “specialists.” However, this does bring to light another issue: Is Ebonics a “legitimate” language?
In the circles of many homes, the subject of whether Ebonics is a language on par with Spanish rages on—with many parents and teachers asserting that proper English is devoid of Ebonics. Slang is often lumped in with Ebonics, but there is a clear difference between the two: The former deals with syntax and is general; the latter deals with individual words and is race-specific.
http://clutchmagonline.com/lifeculture/feature/who-needs-ebonics/
... please make yourself at home ... 