Here's the problem. Nobody with half a brain ever made moral judgements about Ebonics. It's a category mistake. Ebonics isn't a moral question--it's a pedagogical one. And sure, that has a politics, but the politics that you attribute to it buy into premises that are just plain wrong. First of all, you buy the media image that Ebonics was being supported *as a language unto itself.* That just wasn't true. Teachers were using something called Ebonics as an heuristic to teach students about the regularties of non-standard English. And that, as a way to teach "standard English." Second, you accept this incredibly stupid (and incredibly American) worldview that says that two languages can't exist in your head without there also being a moral hierarchy between or among them. If anything is condescending, it's the belief that non-native speakers of English can't understand the pragmatics of speaking money English.
So, no, I don't think just a point for campus liberals (who are evidently everywhere, and oh so powerful--be very afraid!) is at issue here. It's some basic recognition that the media got this all wrong, for the most part, and helped neocons make political hay over something that cemented good ole' American (white) cultural nationalism. It was bullshit, from start to finish, and the left should certainly say so, rather than jump on the bandwagon.
Christian
> Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> In response to all that indignation of my posting on ebonics:
>
> ok, suppose that we all agree - and use all our time and effort to convince
> our so-called elected representatives - that ebonics is morally equivalent
> or superior (or whatever) to the so-called standard english. What will
> that accomplish politically, other than scoring a point in culture wars for
> campus liberals? Will that improve access to job market, decent housing,
> health care, or child care for the speakers of ebonics?
>
> wojtek
>
>
>
>