« Response to Lauren's Question | Main | Response to Christina's Question »
December 04, 2005
James Baldwin Article
James Baldwin’s article refutes the idea of Black English as only a dialect. He continuously gives examples of languages considered dialects and why they are not only dialects. He also continuously defines what a language is. Language, in general, “reveals the speaker.” It allows the people to “evolve a language in order to describe and control their circumstances.” Baldwin’s example is of the language of French. He goes on to say a man in one part of a country does not speak the same French as another man in a different part of the country, nevertheless, these men couldn’t understand another speaker from a whole different country that speaks French. He justifies this by saying that they all have different “realities to articulate.” To Baldwin, articulation (describing) is synonymous with controlling their surroundings. Furthermore, Baldwin writes that language is a political power because of the strong resistance of each of these people to keep their language. Their determination reveals their identity that can “connect one with, or divorce one from, the larger, public, or communal identity.” Furthermore, language is power because it reveals these identities so specifically. Certain languages (all English in Baldwin’s example of England) reveal where one comes from. This area would have particular families, schools, and range of salaries. Furthermore, one’s language will reveal how young one is, one’s self-esteem, and even one’s future.
Even though one can be judged by a language, ironically, the judges will adopt the judged language. Although it will be called something new in order to make it acceptable, it is fully from these judged people. Baldwin’s examples were of the Jazz Age and Beat Generation. White people adopted Black English terms and even acted as if they were Black. This leads us directly into the controversy over whether Black English is a language.
To Baldwin, Black English is not merely a dialect. The language has effected American culture and converted it into what it is. Because it is so obvious that Black English is used, Americans cannot deny its being. Blacks came to America speaking many different languages and needed to find a similar one to unite them and to describe to each other what was happening around them. The bibles given to them were the only article that united them and thus, it was used to create communication. “A language comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey.” There was obviously a “brutal necessity” to not only speak English now that they were in an English country, but to convert it into something that united them and excluded those who tried to suppress them. Blacks needed to make the language their own to convey the emotions they felt and make it known to each other. Baldwin uses an example of himself to describe the necessity for the language. The language not only united all blacks but also protected them. The speed and unusualness (to the white people) of the language allowed for Blacks to help protect each other if they did something “wrong” such as stand in front of a white man.
Just as the languages in Wales and France and other countries defend their language for all the reasons described above, the Blacks are also fighting for the same thing. They know their language to be just so and will keep using it as thus. The reason for this wanting to call the Black English language a dialect is because of education levels. A Black child “cannot be taught by anyone who despises him” and the White people did despise the black race. Furthermore, a Black child cannot be taught to learn White English because it would force the child to “repudiate his experience” and furthermore, his/her identity as a Black child will be taken away. Because of this “failure” to learn what the White people expect but do not give, Black people are still repressed and it is blamed on dislike due to their “inability” to learn something not taught.
Personally, I believe Baldwin has a compelling argument with many truths in it. I never looked at Black English as a totally separate language because it is not separate from English. I believe Baldwin believes that a language is different if it serves a different purpose. Black English did serve a different purpose than White English but now we can understand each other and the purpose is less involved. The date of this article proves there is less evidence in this article for today’s world. Now, White English is molded by Black English and vice versa.
Questions:
1. Are Black people still looked down upon today for the same reasons? E.g. Baldwin says that Black people are looked down upon because White teachers do not want to teach them proper English.
2. Why should Baldwin say that he is appalled by the fact that White teachers do not want to teach Black children if he then says learning the language would take away identity?
3. Why is describing a language and controlling a language synonymous in the article?
4. Why does Baldwin put down the fact that White people adopted the black language? For the language’s survival, wouldn’t that be better?
Posted by lcisyeich at December 4, 2005 01:40 PM