Media's Mass Misinterpretations

by Ellen Walsh

Last week’s articles and discussions covered the Oakland School Board Resolution regarding Ebonics education.  The public schools in Oakland, California proposed to introduce a dual language program to help improve their academic standing by maintaining AAVE and using it to facilitate standard English learning.  The proposition was faced with much opposition because of misrepresentations as well as questioning the legitimacy of AAVE as a language.  

Everyone is familiar with AAVE.  It is portrayed in the media and is a part of popular culture.  What the Oakland Ebonics Resolution advocates is “an understanding of and appreciation for the linguistic integrity of African American Vernacular English in the process of teaching another dialect” (Wolfram 116). But when put in the context of education, it is hard for people to view it as an educational tool.  When I was reading the articles and thinking about the issue at hand, I thought about the ways in which AAVE is used in the media and when it is the appropriate time to use it.  Opposers to the resolution believed that school is not the appropriate environment to use AAVE.  Is AAVE ever portrayed as being appropriate?  The debate on whether or not AAVE can be considered a legitimate language is evident in our media and popular culture.

In Wes Anderson’s film The Royal Tenenbaums, a disconnected father, Royal (Gene Hackman), is trying to reconnect with his family.  His wife, Etheline (Anjelica Huston), is now engaged to Henry Sherman (Danny Glover).  Royal is trying to get back together with Etheline and wants to remove Henry from the picture.  In this scene, Royal confronts Henry:

Royal confronts Henry and tries to act tough by speaking with AAVE.  He uses AAVE terms and phrases (e.g. woman, talkin’ jive), refers to Henry as “Coltrane,” and even speaks with a slight AAVE inflection.  It is a humorous scene because Royal, a middle-aged white male, is trying to speak in a non-standard form of English and he does this rather poorly.  What is interesting about this scene is that Henry is an educated accountant who we have never heard speak in AAVE in the rest of the film.  Henry is a serious, respectable character in the film.  Royal tries to get him upset by “talkin’ jive” with him.  Only in this situation where he is confronting, bantering, and harassing him does AAVE come up in his speech repertoire.  However funny or humorous this scene is, it does comment on others’ perceptions of when it is appropriate or typical to use AAVE.  It is not seen as something respectable but is used in a more aggressive connotation. 

Newscasters have a very specific way of speaking.  For broadcasting, the newscasters need to lose their regional dialect and speak in a neutral dialect so that they can be moved around to different cities and places.   In this next clip, we see a newscaster telling a news story and the drastic change in the way he speaks after a bug flies into his mouth.

In the beginning of the clip he is describing a story while keeping a regionless dialect, but this is broken when a bug flying in his mouth flusters him.  He goes from speaking a standard form of English to AAVE in a matter of seconds (e.g., “da fuck is that?”, “country ass”).  It is obviously not appropriate to be swearing on air, but this video has been seen as humorous because the guy “goes ghetto so fast.”  Broadcast speech is very limiting in the first place, but this shows how completely unacceptable AAVE is as a legitimate language.  He reverts to this way of speak after getting angry and frustrated.  This video feeds the image of AAVE in the media and the popular belief that AAVE is not a legitimate language.  There are negative attitudes toward the language, especially as it popularly perceived as only slang.  This video clip demonstrates this common belief of AAVE as being illegitimate and wrong; its use in the media is only seen as totally inappropriate. 

The problem with the Oakland Resolution was that it really was dealing with a quite serious issue.  53 percent of the student body was African-American, 80 percent of the children suspended from academics were African-American, and 71 percent of the African-American student population was classified as special needs (Perry 1).  The average grade point average for the African American student population was a D+.  The African American student body was in serious need of an educational reform.  It would be completely unjust to ignore the problems that were happening in the school system.  The Oakland Resolution proposed to fix these problems, allowing “equal opportunities for all of its students” (Oakland Ebonics Resolution).              

The main problem with the Resolution was that it led to different interpretations of the text, leading to misinterpretations and miscommunication.  The public misread some of the vocabulary used in the resolution when linguists meant something completely different.  The Oakland School Board of Education did re-write the proposal to fix the linguistic differences, but the media portrayal of the proposal was completely misinterpreted.  The proposal aimed to “help teachers figure out how to use the rich and varied linguistic abilities of African-American children to help them become fluent readers and writers” (Perry 1).  Media stories covered the resolution in a much harsher light, attacking it by saying it is “a decision by the school board to abandon the teaching of Standard English and in its stead to teach black Language/Ebonics” (Perry 2).  This media portrayal reminded me of the comedian George Carlin’s “Ebonics Lesson.”

I feel like Carlin’s lesson on Ebonics is how the media and public perceived the proposal.  I imagine that when they thought they were going to speak only Ebonics instead of using it as an educational tool that was intended by the proposal, this is how they might imagine the schooling to go.  It is completely ridiculous and hilarious.  The narrator—who sounds much like one who would narrate a movie trailer—gives a phrase to translate into Ebonics.  One example is “Let me borrow some money.”  This is followed by an African-American speaking with AAVE vocabulary and inflection, saying “Hey lemme hold some m’s I’ll hit you back on the first brotha,” which precedes a direct reading of the same phrase by the narrator in standard English: “Hey, let me hold some M’s I will hit you back on the first, my brother.” 

Carlin mocks the idea of teaching Ebonics, but Ebonics is not what they are trying to “teach” in the Oakland resolution.  It is a dual-language program just like a bilingual program: it would be used to improve proficiency in Standard English while also acknowledging the legitimacy and cultural significance of the language.    

Language = Culture?

Shemise Evans

I went to high school with a female student name Paula for four years. She had very pale skin, thick, dark hair, brown eyes, and in many ways possessed physical features associated with individuals of Jewish or Israeli decent. Small earrings and a nose ring were the only forms of jewelry she wore. She, like myself, was a Visual Arts major, lived around the same North West area of Philadelphia and was a Lutheran Christian. During the four years that I shared classes with her, I never heard her utter a single word in Spanish, and based on her social and linguistic performances, I had no reason to assume she spoke or knew Spanish. During my final weeks of high school however, another student informed me that Paula was Puerto Rican.  As I think back to my interactions with Paula, it’s interesting to consider why this revelation of her Hispanic identity was so surprising. I realize that my ideologies about Hispanic identity in high school were constructed around one’s use and knowledge of the Spanish language. To be Hispanic meant you spoke, read and understood Spanish to some degree. Nothing about Paula fit within this construct nor signaled or resembled norms associated with Hispanic females. She seemed very anglicized and even after learning that she was Hispanic, and that her last name was Rivera, her linguistic and social practices, specifically her unaccented English, made it difficult for me to associate her with the Hispanic or Latino culture. In her article “Whose Spanish? The tension between linguistic correctness and cultural identity,” Bonnie Urciuoli states, “linguistic and cultural identities are generated in practice, taking time to develop, and they develop in ways that index the conditions in which they develop, particularly the racial, class and institutional conditions” (5). As someone who was surrounded by native English speakers, I presumed that Paula and her friends were white, and therefore racialized her language use.

Urciuoli frames my encounter with Paula and my encounter another individual, which I’ll discuss later. She states that in the U.S. “language is [considered] “natural” to one’s cultural condition” (13) and goes on to state “language has a complicated place in these processes of identity formation. It occupies a place in the list of things one “has” when one “has” a culture. But the link is not a necessary one, it is not always there, and when it is there it may or may not signify belonging” (11).  An interesting example of this can be found in the opening scene of Michael Bay’s 2007 summer blockbuster Transformers. In the case of the Hispanic male solider, his use of Spanish creates his linguistic and cultural identity amongst non-Spanish speakers. It would be interesting to see whether his use of Spanish would align or separate him from other Spanish speakers based on variations of dialect. The nature of his Spanish could also be examined in the context of his performance as an actual Hispanic actor portraying a Hispanic character in a film. Is the Spanish he utilizes a reflection of his natural Spanish practices, or has he based his performance on some variation? 

The question, “Whose Spanish,” which is featured in the article’s title was the question I grappled with as I thought about Paula, and is the question I now currently seek to understand in the context of my own life.  Like most people, I had a folk notion of race. From an out-group perspective, I understood Hispanic identity to be directly associated the Spanish language. After the many discussions and reading from this class, the idea that language creates one’s identity no longer holds as much truth. Yet, there are still those who do assert their cultural and social identity based in language. What made my reading of Paula complex was that she identified herself as Hispanic, yet surrounded herself with Caucasians. Since none of the white students she associated with spoke Spanish, she never used the language at school. Her use of English was by far, as naturally unaccented as English can be and her lack of accent was interpreted as non-Hispanic, or standard white, American English. Her linguistic practices and outward social performance were unfamiliar to what I had come to understand as Hispanic. I encountered a similar situation with my older brother’s college roommate and best friend. Like Paula he has a traditional Hispanic name and dark hair, however, neither his linguistic practices nor social performances signaled the folk notion of Hispanic identity. Having graduated college with a degree in engineering, he uses standard, academic English and has been in a relationship with his Caucasians girlfriend for about six years. Like many of the subjects Urciuoli interviews, he was a member of a multicultural organization in college along with my brother. He, like Paula, had no problem self-identifying as Hispanic, specifically Puerto Rican. It was my interpretation that placed him in a category of whiteness, rather than Hispanic. What I don’t know about both individuals is their fluency in Spanish and how it has change after high school and college.

Within the article Urciuoli states that  “linguistic and cultural identities are generated in practice, taking time to develop, and they develop in ways that index the conditions in which they develop, particularly the racial, class and institutional conditions” (5). Once it is realized that race is social construction as apposed to a biological one, the task becomes learning how to “understand the intersection of language and culture”. Urciuoli includes statements from Latino students who grew up speaking Spanish, yet used very little Spanish in college and university setting. For these student, it is not that they do not know the language, but rather that there is no opportunity for them to use it. The cultural shift in how bilingualism is viewed directly relates to how Hispanic students view themselves. Urciuoli also discusses the conflicts regarding “regional varieties” of Spanish and how they can be use to judge and signify one’s social and economic status (16).

What’s most valuable from this article is the idea that one can personalize his or her identity, creating an alternative portrayal of self that is contrary to what others expect. Both Paula and Ricardo were able to do this and in many ways, all individuals are capable of this, and are most likely already doing this. While there are certainly linguistic and behavioral norms that link people socially, all of these practices and performances are specific to the individual.

Mock Spanish

Shemise Evans  

            Jane Hill, author of  “Covert Racist Discourse: Metaphors, Mocking, and the Racialization of Historically Spanish-Speaking Populations in the United States” presents an engaging analysis of racism, in regard to Spanish and the impact of racial discourse surrounding Spanish speakers. Racializing is defined as the process of associating groups of people to stereotypes and attributes. For Spanish speakers, these stereotypes and attributes are consistently negative, and are commonly used conversationally amongst whites. Hill equates the use of Mock Spanish by non-native Spanish speakers to “covert racism”.  She discusses the “frame, "I'm not a racist, but” discussed by van Dijk (1993), [which] provides a good test for whether an utterance is covert racist discourse or not.” In theory, “If [an utterance] does not work, but analysis can show that racist meanings must be conveyed by the phrase, we have encountered covert racist discourse” (120).  When covert racism is used for comedic purposes, it “requires that those who "get" the joke have access to a stereotype of speakers” being referenced in the joke or comment (120).  This is often seen in people’s use of Mock Spanish and the same is true for any group of people whose stereotypes in humorous remarks. The use of Mock Spanish and other forms of covert racism are only beneficial to whites, or more broadly, those who are not directly affiliated with the stereotype.  Interestingly, these individuals highlight negative qualities associated with Spanish speakers for their own social gain. The vital question to consider then becomes, what are the intentions of whites and others who use these forms of racial discourse.

             Hill argues that the negative impact associated with these common racial discussions elude white speakers, which is why the terms “covert” and “invisible” are attributed to whites in reference to their use of Mock Spanish. Amongst whites, “evidence that this language is covert and invisible as racist is the absence of public reaction” (120).  Aspects of the minority experience become malleable ideas to be played with, without any consideration toward the negative experiences racial discourse draws upon.  By using Mock Spanish, the cultural and linguistic diversity of Spanish speakers “is seldom recognized by Whites, who understand populations of Spanish-language heritage within the homogenizing framework” where “populations originating in countries as diverse as the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Colombia are assimilated to the system of White stereotypes originally developed around Mexican Americans” (121). Hill claims, “A staple of anti-Spanish rhetoric is that hearing Spanish makes "Americans" feel like aliens in their own country”.  In fact, the use of any foreign language can have the same effect. Therefore, in order to maintain white privilege, whites feel the need to control and shape Spanish for their own purposes. However, whites are not the only group of individuals who use mock Spanish as a form of racist discourse. Similarly, African Americans can use mock Spanish to separate themselves as the other and position themselves in higher social standing than those who speak Spanish.  Hill notes that there are “Americans of English-language heritage across a wide front” and that all employ these racializing practices (124).

            Ironically, as opposed to positively representing themselves by using Mock Spanish, the ignorance of many individuals is put on display as they oversimplify Spanish and minority experiences. Within in-group discourse amongst whites, Mock Spanish can remain unquestioned so long as all speakers and listeners remain recruited to the same limited ideologies about Spanish individuals. In order for any racial comment to be brought under analysis, there has to be the recognition of difference.

Unfortunately, it seems that Spanish must loose its value as a cultural language and as a symbol of the Spanish heritage and experience to be fully embraced by many Americans.

In closing Hill states, “I hope to have made clear that the cultural projects of White racism work through diverse devices”(157). Despite the “color blind” ideologies that exist today in America, it is clear that racism is still prevalent in our society, constantly changing form as opposed to truly being erased from our everyday interactions. 

Hooked on Ebonics

by Emily Hacala

In 1996, the Oakland School Board in California passed a resolution that recognized "Ebonics," or African American Vernacular English, as a legitimate language deserving of some instruction in school. The resolution stated that, "African language systems are genetically based and not a dialect of English..." and therefore it must be acknowledged that "the English language acquisition and improvement skills of African-American students are as fundamental as is application of bilingual education principles for others whose primary languages are other than English" (Resolution p. 1). In this way, the Oakland "Ebonics" Resolution was framed as a means of providing an educational tool to bridge the gap between AAVE and Standard English. In order for this to be effective, however, AAVE had to be accepted as a legitimate language (like those that would qualify for English as a Second Language education) and not as a bastardized or slang form of English as it is often portrayed in the media.

The Oakland Resolution emerged as a response to shockingly low grade averages and attendance/graduation records amongst African-American students in the school district. The school board's reasoning was that the language of these students "should not be stigmatized, and that this language should be affirmed, maintained, and used to help African-American children acquire fluency in the standard code" (Perry p. 1). By doing this, the use of "Ebonics" as a tool for school instruction was portrayed as similar to the ESL and bilingual education programs, in which non-native speakers of English are instructed in a combination of their primary languages and English, in hopes of eventually shifting to solely Standard English. Unfortunately, however, many people interpreted this to mean that teachers would be instructing their students only in AAVE, thereby abandoning the use of Standard English in classrooms (even though this was most certainly not the intent of the resolution).

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges for the Oakland "Ebonics" resolution was that it required people to view African American Vernacular English as a legitimate language and not simply a slang dialect of Standard "white" English. The difference between a dialect and a language is primarily an issue of
legitimacy; linguists often (somewhat jokingly) describe the difference by saying that "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy," because it has the power to establish itself politically, socially, and
culturally as legitimate. Elaine Richardson, in her article "The Anti-Ebonics Movement," argues that this
movement also deals with the legitimacy of the African-American person. She states that, "an overview of anti-Ebonics policies and legislation reveals more about America's problems with inherent racism and social control than our efforts to enhance the language and literacy education of African American students" (Richardson p. 167). Essentially, African American Vernacular English cannot be considered legitimate because "African Americans are not fully legitimate," (Richardson p. 158) and therefore lack the power fully establish their language as both distinct and valid.

The following video, Hooked on Ebonics, presents a mockery of "Hooked on Phonics," a program often used to teach young children legitimate English by using a variety of mediums to teach phonics, or letter-sound correlations. Hooked on Phonics will ideally teach children to speak Standard English, which they can then use to achieve success in school and eventually the workplace. Essentially, "students should work hard on acquiring the standard variety of English, and they will experience the benefits of democracy" (Richardson p. 160). In the Hooked on Ebonics video, the instructor, a white man who transforms into G. Dogg $$$ when he changes his speech from "white" English to "Ebonics," is teaching his students Ebonics because previously they didn't "get no respect" and he wants to help them "get some understanding." G. Dogg $$$ goes on to say that he wants his "youngstas to succeed in a white man's world," and that by ordering his Hooked on Ebonics program they will receive tapes and flashcards to teach them the language, as well as a pair of handcuffs and some "newfound self-respect." It is important to note that there is not a single native speaker of AAVE represented in this video (or, in fact, a single African-American person), which only serves to further perpetuate common misconceptions about the illegitimacy of AAVE as more of a slang or bastardized dialect of "white" English than a legitimate, distinct language.

The Oakland Ebonics Resolution was often very misrepresented in the media, as can be seen in the Hooked on Ebonics video. Theresa Perry's article, "I'on Know why They be Trippin," points out that "with few exceptions, mainstream media presented the Oakland resolution as a decision by the school board to abandon the teaching of Standard English and in its stead to teach Black Language/Ebonics," (Perry p. 2) despite the fact that this was very much not the intention of the resolution. However, this misunderstanding caused great controversy because AAVE was seen as a type of slang, not appropriate for school context. Even though linguists have argued that AAVE is actually a very much rule-defined language (ie. copula deletion, habitual "be"), it was still equated with an informal type of slang, which therefore rendered it illegitimate.

Only a month after the Oakland resolution was published, an amended resolution was released in response to the controversy that emerged from the misunderstanding that Standard English would be abandoned in favor of "Ebonics" for students in the Oakland school district. The amended resolution retracted the statements implying that African-Americans have a biological predisposition towards speaking "Ebonics" (even though technically the resolution was referring to linguistic, rather than biological, genetics), and replaced this with statements that established "Ebonics" as having historical African roots and not simply as a dialect of Standard English. However, the legitimacy of "Ebonics" remains a highly controversial and debated issue to this day. Richardson concludes that in the United States, "the general tendency is toward monolingual and anti-multicultural language and literacy education. This position implies that Black people have no linguistic culture worth incorporating into the classroom" (Richardson p. 167).

So By Language, You Mean Ethnicity?

By: Krystal Flores 

The Oakland School Board’s proposition on Ebonics had quite a few things wrong with it. For starters, they wanted to declare Ebonics as a whole other language in itself, rather than just a different dialect of English. Also, the school board wanted to hire educators who were fluent in Ebonics in order to teach their student body standard English. The board was also willing to teach existing educators how to speak Ebonics. The ideology of this “plan” was that teachers would know Ebonics and therefore, be able to show students how to translate it into standard forms of English. 

Below are clauses seven and eight from the Oakland School Board Ebonics Resolution:

7) Whereas, the interests of the Oakland Unified School District in providing equal opportunities for all of its students dictate limited English proficient educational programs recognizing the English language acquisition and improvement skills of African-American students are as fundamental as is application of bilingual education for others whose primary languages are other than English; and 

8) Whereas, the standardized tests and grade scores of African-American students in reading and language arts skills measuring their application of English skills are substantially below state and national norms and that such deficiencies will be remedied by application of a program featuring African Language Systems principles in instructing African-American children both in their primary language and in English. 

Clause seven seems to clearly compare bilingual education to “African-American education” in that English is not the “primary language” of these people. If this is the case, then why is Spanglish not considered a language in itself as well? From the ways in which Ebonics is portrayed in the media, it seems as if it was declared a separate language because it could not be understood by the majority of English speakers. However, Spanglish is a mix between Spanish and English, so we could apply these same ideologies of Ebonics, to Spanglish. Spanglish is only understood by people who speak both English and Spanish, but a sole English, or a sole Spanish speaker, would not understand Spanglish. This is why there was such an uproar over declaring Ebonics its own language. 

The above cartoon relates to clause eight because it portrays the misconception that speakers of Ebonics, in particularly African-American speakers, do not have the same levels of intelligibility as standard English speakers do. Making the claim that “the standardized tests and grade scores of African-American students in reading and language arts skills measuring their application of English skills are substantially below state and national norms” turns Ebonics into a race issue, rather than a social class issue. 

I think the audience member on this video said it best: 

(1:00 to 1:42)

Working off the comments of the audience member, we must now examine the underlying issue of Ebonics, which of course, is ethnicity. 

In this cartoon, the white, country farmer seems to be the main target. It is ironic though because the person who is labeled “moronics” represents an image of the type of people who complain about everything that is wrong with our society, conveniently overlooking themselves. 

Was the audience member right? Is the issue of Ebonics “coming to the forefront because it is [being used] not so much by black children, but others?”

Answer: yes, of course

Eminem, in his song “The Way I Am,” once said: 

And look where it's at

Middle America, now it's a tragedy 

Now it's so sad to see, an upper class city

Having this happening 

(2:30 to 2:39)

Even though this song is not referring to language, the overall idea behind his words is that things only become an issue of importance when white, middle class, and upper class people are affected. 

Theresa Perry, in her article “I ‘on Know why They be Trippin,” stated “ . . . African-American children accounted for 80% of the school system’s suspensions and 71% of students classified as having special needs.” I am not sure how many people are aware of how easily statistics can be twisted and turned in order to “support” one side of an argument, but here is a case of twisted statistics. “Special needs” is a term that is often misused and thrown around. It is associated with physical and/or mental disabilities when in fact, that is not the case. If “special needs” indeed referred to the physical and mental capacities of individuals, it would not be limited to mainly one ethnicity. Again, we have this issue and underlying message of social class playing a major role within this topic. 

The idea of African-American students having “special needs” is ridiculous. The fact that the Oakland Unified School District wanted to teach educators how to speak Ebonics by means of communicating with students is also ridiculous. They were treating the students at this school as if they were not smart enough to understand standard English. As if the Ebonics speaking students would not understand a standard  statement such as, “I am going to go to the bathroom,” because it was not said as “I finna go to da bafroom.” 

In August of 2010, there was a newspaper article written by Nick Allen in The Telegraph which discussed that the DEA was looking to hire “Ebonics translators . . . to interpret drug wiretaps.” 

Ebonics, unlike what we have heard in interviews with Garrad McClendon, is not portrayed as a “beautiful language” that holds value in certain social circumstances in society. Ebonics is getting connected to wiretaps with drug dealers, which essentially connects language with crime and lower classes of society.

On the one hand, we have the racial issue that if one is African-American, they must speak Ebonics, and on the other hand, we have the social class issue that African-American’s do not have jobs (jobs is bolded in the cartoon). Unlike the opinions of our society and McClendon, the issues of progression within lower class societies stem much further than the things that people say and how they say them. 

I will leave you this poem entitled “Tongue Tactics” by my favorite female poet Mayda Del Valle, to lastly tie together the connection of Ebonics in relation to Spanish, and the way properness is supposed to fit in as the ideal that all should aspire to. 

This poem has so many messages within messages that it would take me two whole days to analyze it all for you. Therefore, I will allow you to explore it on your own. 

I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream Racist...Covertly?

Shemise Evans 

In her article “Racist!”: Metapragmatic regimentation of racist discourse by Asian American youth,  Angela Reyes discusses ideologies surrounding racial discourse. She observes that by crying racist in a classroom setting, Asian American youth bring attention the ideologies of racism in regard to blackness and whiteness despite being indirectly associated with both categories. Reyes gives several examples of how Asian American youth cry “racist” within conversations in academic settings. For example, during a conversation about hair amongst Asian students, there was no accusation of racism from the students, however, during a discussion about piano keys,  a student cried “racist” and thereby bringing attention to the issues of racism based on the usage of particular words. In response to this, Reyes states in  that in different contexts, particular words that are often associated with blackness “do not invite a racist accusation” due to the fact that “Asian American youth systematically interpret only particular uses of the word “black” as racist: those that are recognized as indexically linked to negative racialized qualities” of African Americans (23).  It’s interesting how crying “racist” in a school setting takes a humorous or comedic turn for the students and is therefore never fully addressed by teachers. The teachers, who are the minority in these situations, are purposefully put in an uncomfortable situation by the student’s accusations, even if the students are not accusing the teachers of actually being racist. Reyes states that  “crying “racist” in classrooms (as well as in politics and entertainment) continually reshapes the development and movement of racial ideologies, so that what it means to be colorblind, post racial, or politically correct is in constant flux” (28). 

So why do people cry “racist”? Not simply Asian Americans or celebrities on television shows who portray interactions between people of different races, but everyday people. In what contexts do “racist cries” have substantial meaning as opposed to being used for social entertainment? 

To address this question,  I will present how three You Tubers (ordinary people who over time have gain celebrity status be creating and posting video content on the You Tube)  have handled the subject of crying racist in their videos. The You Tubers being referenced are: 

Shay Carl       Kevin Wu    Phillip Defranco

After reading Reyes’ article I was reminded of a portion of one of Shay Carl’s vlogs (video logs) on his "SHAYTARDS" Daily video diary channel entitled “Racist Chicks! 

During the vlog, Shay visits a store called Cow Ranch and comes across a section of the store where baby chickens are for sale. There, he sees white and black chickens kept in separate bins right next to each other and begins a sarcastic rant on what he calls “segregation in chickenry”. I found it interesting how our cultural notion of racism and segregation was mapped onto animals. In the spirit of the Asian American students in Reyes’ article, Shay humorously claims that the storeowners have projected  “segregation” by keeping the black and white chickens separated.  Starts at 6:09.

The second video I was reminded of is entitled “Girls are like M&M’s” and was created by Kevin Wu, better known as,  Kevjumba.

The most controversial You Tuber I’m subscribed to is Philip Defranco, who currently has a two “show” type channels and a vlog channel on You Tube.  Phil has often tackled issues of racism and class in his videos, which often spark heated debates and comments from viewers. Like the Asian American students, his videos and content are constructed to present serious issues and ideologies in a comedic fashion. As a white male openly and boldly discussing and crying “racist”, it is interesting to analyze how his experiences inform his statements and how the denotational context of his words are interpreted by viewers. His video entitled “Racism Can Be Fun!” can be found on his sxephil channel. The portion related to Reyes' article starts at 2:00 minutes in.

The top rated viewer comment for Phil’s video is as follows:  “All races are fun to talk to and play with”. It is this notion of “fun” that’s most interesting to consider.  Is there value in these kinds of videos and other comedic representation of racial interactions? 

An alternative perspective to this ideology  can be found in an African American viewer’s response video, which was posted by CoreyAllenX. His video addressees a lot of what’s been discussed in class as well as what's featured in Reyes’ article. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAbUrK-i_04&feature=related. His response video to the comments on his first video should also considered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivoigP6wJDY&feature=related

Overall, it is clear that discussions about racism are ongoing and the way in which it is discussed derives entirely from the perspectives of the speakers. White Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans and others are all taking part in the reshaping of racial ideologies, maintaining the value of racial discourse in our society.

Bed Time Stories

by Michael Han

“In the great green room, there was a telephone, And a red balloon, And a picture of the cow jumping over the moon.”

Good night!

            These are the first words of Margaret Wise’s Good Night Moon, words I am sure all of us have spoken at some point in our lives. Simplistic and clean, this book is a favorite of parents and children alike. But is it really as clean and simple as it seems? Shirley Brice Heath’s piece, What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School examines the commotion that the tradition of the bedtime story (or in some cases, lack thereof) leaves behind.
            I am positive we all have some sort of memory related to the bedtime story—or story time in general. I remember curling up in my parents’ bed, between the two of them. My mother usually read to me, as my dad snored at my side. My favorites were Chika Chika Boom Boom or Maurice Sendak’s Chicken Soup with Rice (it got to the point where I knew every line of both book by heart). I would lie there and listen to my mother read me these stories, and like Heath describes, listen intently to her questions. “What month comes after January?” (Chicken Soup with Rice is about the months of the year) or “what month were you born in?” she would ask, and I would answer. After reading this piece, these instances, these precious moments took on a new, less innocent meaning as I realized I they represented my gradual induction into society. I was being hailed as a subject (in keeping with our running ‘this is so SCA’ joke, this post is going to become very SCA, very soon).
          In Norma González’s essay, Children in the Eye of the Storm: Language Socialization and Language Ideologies, this process is addressed as seen in formal education settings. González cites Louis Althusser’s concept of ideological state apparatuses (ISAs)—societal institutions that further perpetuate dominant ideologies. Examples include the government, religious institutions and finally, schools. It is within these ISAs that subjects are formed—they are hailed and interpellated (164). She quotes Althusser who describes how ideology functions to ‘recruit subjects… transform[ing] the

Althusser!

individuals into subjects” (164). By responding to hailing, an individual is “recruited,’ and through this “identities are formed as subjects of the ideological apparatuses. “There is no room for the individual self outside of ideological formations” (164). This is clearly demonstrated in Heath’s description of bed time story telling. She describes “scaffolding” dialogue, when the mother points and asks a question to her child, who then responds to the question. This is met with verbal response, and “before the age of 2, the child is socialized into the initiation-reply-evaulation sequences repeatedly described as the central structural feature of classroom lessons” (320). Teachers ask their pupils questions, who respond and are evaluated based on their response. Furthermore, Heath writes “children learn not only learn how to take meaning from books, but also how to talk about it. In doing the latter, they repeatedly practice routines that parallel those of classroom interaction” (324). Bed time stories prepare children for schooling, and as we all know how moldable children are, this cherished childhood past time also can affect a student’s academic performance. The majority of the paper focuses on this interpellation process, specifically how different sociocultural (specifically from the three separate towns of Maintown, Trackton and Roadville) groups hail their children, and the implications this has in the classroom.
            Luckily for us, Heath consolidates her findings (pp. 337-339).  At home, Maintown are representative of mainstream families in that they maintain and establish, labeling and what-explanations during story time. This is crucial for the construction of knowledge in these children from preschool years into normal schooling. Furthermore, these children are able to draw connections, visualize patterns and compare/contrast between old and new themes. Heath writes “thus for these children, the bedtime story is simply an early link in a long chain of interrelated patterns of taking meaning from the environment” (337). In relation to this these children learn that written language “may represent not only descriptions of real events, but decontextualized logical propositions” (337)—meaning they learn to not only examine what is merely presented to them on the page, but what may be hidden in the text, like the lessons from the readings that can be applied to real world situations. It is also interesting to note that Heath mentions how both Roadville and Trackton students are not as successful academically as Maintown children.
         For Roadville children, they are provided with “labels, features, and what-explanations, and [are] prescribe[d] listening  and performing behaviors for preschoolers” (337), essentially all the same foundational tools Maintown homes provide their children. The two towns deviate however in that Roadville adults do not reinforce the ways in which the meaning of books may may be related to other aspects of their children’s environments. Decontextualization is  not encouraged (337), and parents  amongst other things, do not make any “analytic statements or assert universal truths, except those

Bedtime stories-- more significant than we thought?

related to their religious faith” (337), Consequently, children learn to “look for a specific moral  in stories and to expect that story to fit their facts of reality explicitly” (337). This effectively narrows their  point of views and critical thinking skills. Trackton, the third town, diverges from the other two towns. It is a town where there are no bed time stories (which ironically sounds like the plot of a children’s story in itself). Instead, Trackton children are immersed in various types of social interactions-- they are held, fed and talked about (337). They are not provided with “labels or names of attributes of items and events pointed out for them and they are asked for reason-explanations, not what-explanations” (338) and as a result are able to recognize patterns but are unable to explicitly indicate aspects that are similar between two items or situations (338).
            These developed traits carry over into the school setting. Because each town’s children develop differently, they enter schools and all have different educational needs. Roadville children, for example, because of their habits “learned in book reading… have not continued for them through other activities” (338) need to have practice in expanding these skills into other arenas of thought and action. Most importantly, they need experience to delineate the differences between “discourse strategies and structures” (e.g. narratives of real life events versus imaginary stories). Trackton kids, in comparison must be able to retain their story telling skills, but must also gain the ability “to recount factual events in a straightforward way and recognize appropriate occasions for reason-explanations and affective expressions” (339). These differences in development are important to acknowledge—as addressed in the González reading.
            This study is very interesting, particularly because all of us have gone through a similar process. This presents a sort of identity crisis—what if I am like a Trackton kid and not like a Maintown kid??? Although I am only kidding, this does lead to very interesting points we should consider. First, can this study be applied to every household? Is it even plausible to say that every family fits the models presented by the Maintown, Roadville and Trackton examples? Is it possible to typify child rearing to three different examples? I do not think so, BUT the study does make a very good case for an aspect of education that is often overlooked—students have individual needs because they learn at different paces and through different means (which may also have to deal with how they were raised), and this is something that should be addressed.
            Furthermore, is it plausible to attribute preschool educational development solely to bed time stories? I am certain there are other instances during these formative years in which children learn and develop these skills (Heath alludes to several of them). Although Heath makes a good case that story time can have a huge influence on development, it would have been interesting to learn more in regards to how each town differed (i.e. in regards to socioeconomics, etc.). Along the same vein, why did these three towns deviate so much in the way kids were raised? How was each town encapsulated in a bubble that allowed for them to raise their kids the same way, but differently than neighboring towns?
 The Importance of Reading to Your Children is a website I found via extensive googling. This one particular author elucidates the benefits of reading, BUT is not aware of the issues that are present throughout this reading. While reading with your children is important, Heath makes it apparent that how you read with your children is just as important as well. Do parents realize this? We know every parent has high aspirations for their children, yet is it possible to propose a “right” way of reading bed time stories, an occasion that is particularly unique and special between each child and parent?
        This reading was written in the early 80s as well, long before the proliferation of modern media as a learning tool (Sesame Street aside). How would Heath respond to the likes of Dora the Explorer or Blue (of Blue’s Clues fame)? These are both shows that prompt questions to its preschool audiences, making them think and respond. Furthermore, they teach valuable lessons with morals. For example Swiper, a rascally, cleptomaniacal fox, is presented as a metaphorical foil to the pure and kind-hearted Dora. As the antagonist of the series, Swiper is constantly trying to steal from Dora, who then is able to defeat him and retrieve whatever item is stolen. This enforces the lesson that “stealing is wrong” (and that I watch too much Nick Jr. for my own good).
            A major qualm about children and television is that it does not promote creativity, yet both shows seem to do so. Dora the Explorer features fantastical settings and talking animals, while Blue’s Clues features anthropomorphic furniture and…a blue dog. Both programs heavily feature song and dance as well, and encourage their audiences to sing along with them. With this being said, I recognize that for every great, educational television program for kids, there is a plethora of equally terrible ones out there. It is important to recognize, despite all of these things though, that the face of preschool education has been drastically affected by the use of media, and these changes must also be taken into account when kids enter school. This point adds so many different layers to Heath’s discussion—what about children who do not have access to these educational programs? What about children who read less and watch more television?

This clip is demonstrative of all the above points-- it goes as far as to help in labeling every day objects (effectively serving as the role of a parent during story time).
            Good night noises everywhere coos Wise’s legendary story time book. Are the noises really asleep, though? Although kids may out grow this book (and bed time stories altogether), its impact extends far beyond after this card-stock paged book is closed. Good Night Moon is a book that is so pervasive in American Society, yet we never seem to realize (at least until reading Heath’s piece) that within this context, there are so many different layers. Did you ever think that a story as innocent and simple like Good Night Moon could be read incorrectly?  I think, however, that the way we read to our kids should not be changed—reading is a special moment in all of our lives, even if it is done incorrectly. It allows for the special bonds to form between child, parent and book. We all have unique experiences with story time, and in promoting a “correct” way of reading, we run the risk of losing these memories forever.