To rake Harry Reid over the coals about his “no Negro dialect” comment will bring to mind the Biblical passage about trying to take a speck out of someone’s eye when you’ve got a log in your own. Pretty much all of America black and white feels exactly the way Harry Reid does about the way black people talk – and aren’t even worried about saying it out loud.
First of all, we need not pretend that by “Negro dialect” Reid meant the cartoon minstrel talk of Amos n Andy. After all, why would Reid, a rational human being under any analysis, be under the impression that any black person talks like Uncle Remus, much less be surprised that one of them does not? My guess is that he said “negro” in a passing attempt to name Black English in a detached, professional way, randomly choosing a slightly arcane and outdated term. Or, consider that Negro English was what scholars called “Ebonics” until the early seventies. Reid likely caught wind of that terminology -- he's been around a while, after all.
Second, yes there is a such thing as Black English. Sometimes one hears a claim that Black English is the same as white Southern English. We must always beware of stereotyping and be open to the counterintuitive, but here is an instance where we can trust our senses: there is a “black sound.” It’s not just youth slang: it’s sentence patterns – Why you ain’t call me? (not a white Southernism, notice) – and a “sound,” such that you’d know Morgan Freeman was black even if he were reading the phone book. The combination is what we all feel – with uncanny accuracy even without seeing faces, as linguists have found – as “sounding black.” Of course not all blacks speak Black English or have The Sound, and those that do (which is most) do to varying extents. But they do. That’s what Reid meant, we all know it, and it’s okay to know it.
Third: Reid’s comment suggests that he associates Black English with lack of polish and low intelligence, okay. But before we burn him in effigy for it or ask “What’s that all about?” as if we don’t know, let’s admit that most Americans feel like Reid does. He wasn’t being a benighted “racist” holdout; he was speaking as an ordinary American person. We have caught him in nothing we don’t most of us feel ourselves.
It’s a love/hate relationship we have with black speech. On the one hand we associate it with emotional honesty, vernacular warmth, and sex – Marvin Gaye would not have had a hit with “Why Don’t We Venture to Consummate Our Relationship?” or even “Let’s Have Sex” instead of “Let’s Get It On.” Yet it’s not a dialect – a sound – that we associate with explaining Greek verbs or cosines or engaging in complex reasoning. Black English sounds cool, and even hot, and maybe “sharp” – but note that sharp is what you call someone who you wouldn’t necessarily expect to be smart ... and who you don’t actually think is all that smart.
That’s a shame because Black English is as systematic as standard English, and what we hear as “mistakes” are just variations, not denigrations. Try telling a French person that double negatives are “illogical.” The “unconjugated” be in a sentence like Folks be tryin’ it out is used in a very particular way to indicate habits rather than current events, making explicit something that standard English leaves to context.
But in the real world, it’s very hard to hear it that way. You can get a sense of it with linguistic training or curling up with books like these by Stanford’s John Rickford and U. Mass Amherst’s Lisa Green, but otherwise, Black English will always sound to most people like mistakes, in all of its warmth. As we also feel about Southern “hick” grammar – race is not the only factor here. In both cases we spontaneously demote a dialect born in illiteracy. It’s a weird intersection: speech born in illiteracy is not “broken.” The most “primitive” society’s languages are the ones that are the most complicated; often the backwater dialects of a language are harder than the standard – out in the sticks in Bulgaria there are often three ways to say the instead of one.
That’s all very nice, but real life is that Harry Reid hears black speech as lowly. But – so do black people as often as not. In 1996 during the Oakland Ebonics controversy, black people were laughing as loud as anyone at the idea that “Ebonics” is “a language.” Or, over the transom recently I got a copy of a presentation that James Meredith, who was the first black person admitted to the University of Mississippi and caught hell for it physically and emotionally, nowadays gives to young black audiences. On the first page, Meredith spells it out:
BLACK ENGLISH LANGUAGE
PROPER ENGLISH LANGAGE
Which one do you use? Most people in this room use a lot of Black English and a little Proper English.
Anyone who wants to become an intellectual giant must learn and use a lot of Proper English and as little Black English as possible.
I am not going to argue with anyone about the matter. You can do what you want to do.
However, I will tell you that anyone who continues to use a lot of Black English will never become an intellectual giant.
So, Meredith would surely hear it as a plus that Obama has no trace of what a man of his years likely has been known to call, in all seriousness, Negro dialect.
Fourth: Reid’s feelings about Black English are likely couched in a thoroughly compassionate position. Here’s a guess, based on what I have heard countless people of all colors say:
“Black people use bad grammar so much because they were brought here as slaves and denied education. The bad grammar holds on today because too many blacks still have bad schooling, and they pass it down the generations. They would be best off if society allowed them the education and opportunities to get rid of their bad grammar. It’s not their fault.”
There are all kinds of things that are off here, if we are inclined to go pointy-headed. Humans can be bidialectal as easily as bilingual and can speak standard as well as Black English (which Obama does, and as Reid acknowledged); the dialect is now felt as a cultural hallmark within a richly ambivalent yet loving sense of its being "ungrammatical," albeit often unconsciously; and so on. But most of this is for seminars. Back to, as always, real life. I know so very many black people who would agree with the above hypothetical quotation from Reid -- many of them deeply dedicated in assorted ways to black uplift. Are they immoral? Do they hate their own people? No – upon which we can give Harry Reid a break.
Fifth: We have to really listen to what Reid said instead of getting carried away over the tangy, backwards flavor of the one word “Negro.” In mentioning that Obama doesn’t speak in “dialect,” Reid acknowledged something many blacks are hot and quick to point out, that not all black people use Black English. Okay, they don’t – and Reid knows. He didn’t seem surprised that Obama can not sound black when he talks – he was just pointing out that Obama is part of the subset of blacks who can. He knows there is such a subset. Lesson learned.
Indeed Reid implied that black dialect is less prestigious than standard, such that not speaking it made Obama more likely to become President. That is, he implied what we all think too: Black English is, to the typical American ear, warm, honest -- and mistaken. If that’s wrong, okay – but since when are most Americans, including black ones, at all shy about dissing Black English? And who among us -- including black people -- thinks someone with what I call a "black-cent" who occasionally popped up with double negatives and things like aks could be elected President, whether it's fair or not? Reid, again, deserves no censure for what he said unless we're ready to censure ourselves too.
Inevitably there will be reminiscences of Joe Biden’s comment about Obama being “articulate.” I’m less politic on that term as applied to black people who have no reason not to be articulate. A recent favorite: someone writing me a letter about one of my Teaching Company set of lectures on linguistics praised me for “enjoying yourself up there so confidently speaking standard English” – as if I have to take a deep breath and “wield” standard English and feel like I'm a pretty special fella for being able to, with my “native” ghetto inflections and expressions turning up in my speech when I’m tired.
But this isn’t the same thing. Reid implied that Black English is lesser than standard English and that it’s therefore good that Obama doesn’t use it in public. This is not about whether black people have to sweat to speak standard English; it’s about whether Black English is as good as standard English. Most of America black as well as white is at the exact same point in understanding vernacular speech and its proper evaluation as Reid is.
For which reason most of America should leave him alone about this and move on.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
So few blacks in Nevada (or any of the Western states, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, etc.), it's surprising that Sen. Reid knows anything about "Negro dialect". As a white southerner of a certain age (almost 60), I would say much the same about whites in the northeast. And the midwest. Where, until more recent times, whites had little or any contact with blacks. By comparison, white southerners of my era had regular, daily contact with blacks. As children, we played with black children. As adults, we worked along side blacks. Indeed, we lived "down the street" from blacks. That's life in a small town, which was the dominant life in the south. This is no defense of the ugly, racist histor ... view full comment
So few blacks in Nevada (or any of the Western states, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, etc.), it's surprising that Sen. Reid knows anything about "Negro dialect". As a white southerner of a certain age (almost 60), I would say much the same about whites in the northeast. And the midwest. Where, until more recent times, whites had little or any contact with blacks. By comparison, white southerners of my era had regular, daily contact with blacks. As children, we played with black children. As adults, we worked along side blacks. Indeed, we lived "down the street" from blacks. That's life in a small town, which was the dominant life in the south. This is no defense of the ugly, racist history (in the north as well as the south). This is about familiarity with "Negro dialect". It's about Hurston, and Hughes, and Wright, and Baldwin, and Ellison. Masters of "Negro dialect", and giants in American literature.
"The most “primitive” society’s languages are the ones that are the most complicated, often the backwater dialects of a language are harder than the standard – out in the sticks in Bulgaria there are often three ways to say the instead of one." Is, without a doubt, one of the dumbest things I have ever read at TNR. Please, for the love of God, 3 ways to say the is complicated, Spanish has four, so Spanish is X% more difficult, and Chinese has no the, so it must be real easy.
Balgarski (Bulgarian) is a Slavic language. Bulgaria is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle east and has been ruled over by countless empires, etc. It is not a "primitive" language ... view full comment
"The most “primitive” society’s languages are the ones that are the most complicated, often the backwater dialects of a language are harder than the standard – out in the sticks in Bulgaria there are often three ways to say the instead of one." Is, without a doubt, one of the dumbest things I have ever read at TNR. Please, for the love of God, 3 ways to say the is complicated, Spanish has four, so Spanish is X% more difficult, and Chinese has no the, so it must be real easy.
Balgarski (Bulgarian) is a Slavic language. Bulgaria is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle east and has been ruled over by countless empires, etc. It is not a "primitive" language, Bulgarian people don't run around in animal skins and live in caves, even the ones in the countryside have had contact with the outside world. The Bulgarian people also have a sophisticated and ancient society, filled with far more traditions and customs than an average American.
If you want to talk about "primitive" languages, then pidgin would be an example since pidgin was designed as a simplified form of a language, atonal, with minimal rules.
I am sorry, but that really was jaw droppingly dumb. Please don't write about something you don't know.
As to Reid, bfd. No one anywhere will take Republican criticism with a straight face and his attitude of benign condescension will come as a surprise to no one.
More twaddle for the relentlessly dopey Republicans to bloviate about on talkshows. Beats working to solve real problems I guess.
What did Reid say that was so awful again - Negro? Light skinned? Oh the horrors.
These are bad words from a man in his late 60's from Nevada? Who knew the GOP was so besotten with PC they can't stand the idea of Harry Reid saying something both innocuous and true two years ago about Barack Obama. Two bad Obama couldn't just say that, I bet he thinks it.
More twaddle for the relentlessly dopey Republicans to bloviate about on talkshows. Beats working to solve real problems I guess.
What did Reid say that was so awful again - Negro? Light skinned? Oh the horrors.
These are bad words from a man in his late 60's from Nevada? Who knew the GOP was so besotten with PC they can't stand the idea of Harry Reid saying something both innocuous and true two years ago about Barack Obama. Two bad Obama couldn't just say that, I bet he thinks it.
One should say in defense of Joel Chandler Harris that the Uncle Remus stories have a lot of humor and were able to win over children while skating past delicate adult issues (sex, race) with some elegance. It's southern black folklore mediated through a 19th-century white journalist's sensibility, but that doesn't mean it's stupid. African-American writer Charles Chesnutt's subtle parodies of Harris's stories (published at the end of the century) are themselves somewhat ambivalent about black culture and speech.
One should say in defense of Joel Chandler Harris that the Uncle Remus stories have a lot of humor and were able to win over children while skating past delicate adult issues (sex, race) with some elegance. It's southern black folklore mediated through a 19th-century white journalist's sensibility, but that doesn't mean it's stupid. African-American writer Charles Chesnutt's subtle parodies of Harris's stories (published at the end of the century) are themselves somewhat ambivalent about black culture and speech.
Not at all clear to me whether Reid's comment was about Obama or even Reid's own sensibilities so much as it was a comment about what the American electorate would tolerate at this moment in our ongoing race-attitude evolution. I tend to think it was the last of these, in which case it is completely inarguable -- an absolutely correct observation.
Re the comment in this piece about the "black sound": I am quite sure this is the case, and have even watched black actors on screen and tried to figure out what it is about their speech that I am hearing that is so readily identifiable -- although not universally the case, as with Sidney Poitier for example. It defies me. I have had as little s ... view full comment
Not at all clear to me whether Reid's comment was about Obama or even Reid's own sensibilities so much as it was a comment about what the American electorate would tolerate at this moment in our ongoing race-attitude evolution. I tend to think it was the last of these, in which case it is completely inarguable -- an absolutely correct observation.
Re the comment in this piece about the "black sound": I am quite sure this is the case, and have even watched black actors on screen and tried to figure out what it is about their speech that I am hearing that is so readily identifiable -- although not universally the case, as with Sidney Poitier for example. It defies me. I have had as little success with it as I do on the streets of Paris trying to figure out just what it is les parisiennes do differently that makes them so alluring. Is there any way to explain, in either case? Or must we fall back on Blackmun's[?] dictum about pornography, "I know it when I see it"
Roid hits the nail on the head: Reid was simply saying that a darker-skinned, more black-sounding guy would not have been elected president, which is probably true. He was not saying that the "Negro dialect" is actually inferior in some way, which is what McWhorter took him to mean. Reid's talking about political reality here and not making any sort of judgment about black ways of speaking.
So, we have the old fogey usage of the phrase "Negro dialect," which is a touch shocking on first listen to those of us young enough to have seldom encountered the now long-disfavored word "Negro" other than in racist contexts or the occasional old movie, but hardly a big deal, especially when one consi ... view full comment
Roid hits the nail on the head: Reid was simply saying that a darker-skinned, more black-sounding guy would not have been elected president, which is probably true. He was not saying that the "Negro dialect" is actually inferior in some way, which is what McWhorter took him to mean. Reid's talking about political reality here and not making any sort of judgment about black ways of speaking.
So, we have the old fogey usage of the phrase "Negro dialect," which is a touch shocking on first listen to those of us young enough to have seldom encountered the now long-disfavored word "Negro" other than in racist contexts or the occasional old movie, but hardly a big deal, especially when one considers that Reid is *not* a young man and has, it is said, been an unimpeachable proponent of civil rights throughout his career. I agree with McWhorter that he was probably trying to use a detached, intellectual designation for "how black people talk," in an effort to be precise and non-offensive.
The part of the comment that is potentially problematic isn't the "Negro dialect" part but the "when he wants to" part, which could be taken to suggest that Obama, on occasion, adopts a black manner of speaking in a calculated, cynical, and dishonest fashion in order to suit his audience. But Reid probably didn't mean it that way, and, even if he did, he was at most being insulting, not offensive.
I have lots of issues on which I disagree with Reid -- but his using a racist term is NOT one of them. For those of Reid's generation from ANY part of the country, Negro IS the proper term, both socially AND academically correct. Common academic terms for the most populous racial groups were Caucasian, Indian (American), Negro, Oriental, Pacific-Islander. It is the equivalent of someone saying Taipei is the capital of Formosa, rather than Taiwan. That terminology may be outdated, but it is not evidence for anti-Chinese racism or pro-Japanese militarism.
I have lots of issues on which I disagree with Reid -- but his using a racist term is NOT one of them. For those of Reid's generation from ANY part of the country, Negro IS the proper term, both socially AND academically correct. Common academic terms for the most populous racial groups were Caucasian, Indian (American), Negro, Oriental, Pacific-Islander. It is the equivalent of someone saying Taipei is the capital of Formosa, rather than Taiwan. That terminology may be outdated, but it is not evidence for anti-Chinese racism or pro-Japanese militarism.
Roid and jhildner more correctly read Reid's intent than McWhorter. Yet McWhorter is undoubtedly right that a black candidate who "talked black" probably could not win a presidential election. But it's not about inflection; Morgan Freeman would do just fine. It's about grammar and vocabulary. The president of the United States will probably never aks Congress to do anything. But the same can probably be said for low-status white diction. You can hear "trashy" just as clearly as you can hear "black", and in either case someone who addresses the electorate as if from behind the counter at McDonald's will not win a national election.
Anecdote: the other day on Washington's Metro system, ... view full comment
Roid and jhildner more correctly read Reid's intent than McWhorter. Yet McWhorter is undoubtedly right that a black candidate who "talked black" probably could not win a presidential election. But it's not about inflection; Morgan Freeman would do just fine. It's about grammar and vocabulary. The president of the United States will probably never aks Congress to do anything. But the same can probably be said for low-status white diction. You can hear "trashy" just as clearly as you can hear "black", and in either case someone who addresses the electorate as if from behind the counter at McDonald's will not win a national election.
Anecdote: the other day on Washington's Metro system, I heard one of the periodic announcements about escalator closures and did a mental double-take. Took a moment to realize that what threw me was that the voice was clearly both male and white, a combination that in 17 years I cannot recall ever hearing over a Metro loudspeaker. Usually the voices are female; almost always they are black or Latino. So I've become habituated to listening for a "blackcent" over the loudspeakers. Hearing the disembodied voice of a border-state white man actually made it harder for me to understand the announcement.
Since we are to some extent discussing linguistics, I recall reading quite a while ago, don't know where, an linguistic analysis to the effect that our vocabulary for disfavored groups changing periodically in order to eliminate pejorative implications, but then the new word we adopt comes over time to take on the same pejorative implications because (as one should expect) it is our attitudes that color (no pun intended) the word, rather than the word that colors our attitudes. Thus we go from colored, to negro, to black, to African-American, to people of color in our effort to shake off our bad attitudes. The anti-PC people get very irritated by this. I think it is to the good because it ... view full comment
Since we are to some extent discussing linguistics, I recall reading quite a while ago, don't know where, an linguistic analysis to the effect that our vocabulary for disfavored groups changing periodically in order to eliminate pejorative implications, but then the new word we adopt comes over time to take on the same pejorative implications because (as one should expect) it is our attitudes that color (no pun intended) the word, rather than the word that colors our attitudes. Thus we go from colored, to negro, to black, to African-American, to people of color in our effort to shake off our bad attitudes. The anti-PC people get very irritated by this. I think it is to the good because it reflects a conscious desire to get beyond our racism. But it is the racism that is the problem, not the language. Thus, in the end, intention is everything. We do still have the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, even though the language has moved on.
The Union of American Hebrew Congregations changed its name not too long ago to the Union of Reform Judaism. I was sorry about the change. The old name had an archaic, patronizing sound to some people, but I like it because it was what it was and had history behind it. In the 19th century, "Hebrew" became a more polite word for "Jew," because so much anti-semitism had come to be associated with "Jew." By some time in the 20th century, Hebrew had begun to sound pejorative, a euphemism in the same way that negro came to be experienced as a euphemism for black.
My mother's mother, one of the sweetest people who ever lived (into her 80s she was volunteering at an "old-age home" to "help the seniors" as she used to say), always referred to blacks as "the colored," into the 90s. It was the "neutral" word she learned as a girl. She never intended it to be other than a noun.
This would be a good time for Obama to make a statement embracing Reid, applauding his lifetime support for civil rights, and acknowledging that, "Having a black man as president of the United States is a new experience for our nation, part of a still ongoing journey from a race-laden past to a future in which the words of our Declaration of Independence are fully realized. We should not expect the journey to be without well-intended missteps, and we should all be willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt."
Henry Kissinger could become secretary of state despite a heavy German accent. Had he been the same man saying the same things with a heavy Yiddish accent, that never would have happened, not then, not now.
At the law firm where I had my first job, Sullivan & Cromwell, an elegant, Princeton-educated, southern Jewish senior associate explained to me early on that it was perfectly acceptable there to be Jewish (the firm had had a Jewish senior partner, Eustace Seligman, very early in its history and the current head of the firm, then a young partner, is H. Rodgin Cohen), but not to be "Yiddish." Not unlike Obama, I was perfectly capable of swinging between uninflected speech (my parents h ... view full comment
Henry Kissinger could become secretary of state despite a heavy German accent. Had he been the same man saying the same things with a heavy Yiddish accent, that never would have happened, not then, not now.
At the law firm where I had my first job, Sullivan & Cromwell, an elegant, Princeton-educated, southern Jewish senior associate explained to me early on that it was perfectly acceptable there to be Jewish (the firm had had a Jewish senior partner, Eustace Seligman, very early in its history and the current head of the firm, then a young partner, is H. Rodgin Cohen), but not to be "Yiddish." Not unlike Obama, I was perfectly capable of swinging between uninflected speech (my parents had no accents although my grandparents did) and a somewhat Yiddish dialect that is pretty much taken for granted in New York. I made sure not to do it on the job, at least until I was clear enough about the unwritten rules of conduct to understand when it was acceptable and when not (mostly not). I find even now that I can sound like a Noo Yawker, or not, as the occasion requires or permits. That is not cynicism, as someone above suggested Reid might have been attributing to Obama. It is just an acknowledgment of certain social realities relating to formality and informality.
Good points, roid. Personally, in informal settings, I speak like a character from Fargo. I'm from Miiiiihneeeeesoh-tah, doncha knohhhh. Seriously, I talk like that. Yet without making a conscious effort, in any reasonably formal setting my broad vowels and northwoods colloquial vocabulary disappear, and I sound like a radio announcer from Ohio. Yet living as I do in the South, I've also found that it's very easy, and very advantageous, sometimes to round my vowels the other way and speak with a border-state Southern accent. I don't do the full y'all, but my "you-all" is respectably close and surprisingly useful.
Good points, roid. Personally, in informal settings, I speak like a character from Fargo. I'm from Miiiiihneeeeesoh-tah, doncha knohhhh. Seriously, I talk like that. Yet without making a conscious effort, in any reasonably formal setting my broad vowels and northwoods colloquial vocabulary disappear, and I sound like a radio announcer from Ohio. Yet living as I do in the South, I've also found that it's very easy, and very advantageous, sometimes to round my vowels the other way and speak with a border-state Southern accent. I don't do the full y'all, but my "you-all" is respectably close and surprisingly useful.
As pointed out above, this entire episode says more about the American electorate, and how politicians are almost forced to react to cover their asses, than it does about Reid personally. It is interesting to note the spectacle of Reid making the rounds apologizing to Obama and other black leaders. Such apologies are more show for the delicate sensibilities of the electorate, than they are substance. It is as if the electorate, being as tightly corseted as it is, has suffered an attack of the vapors and fainted from such offensive language. The apologies are the smelling salts.
As pointed out above, this entire episode says more about the American electorate, and how politicians are almost forced to react to cover their asses, than it does about Reid personally. It is interesting to note the spectacle of Reid making the rounds apologizing to Obama and other black leaders. Such apologies are more show for the delicate sensibilities of the electorate, than they are substance. It is as if the electorate, being as tightly corseted as it is, has suffered an attack of the vapors and fainted from such offensive language. The apologies are the smelling salts.
Actually, even when the President can be heard on a radio speaking the King's English--which he obviously does well--he still seems black, kind of South Side Chicago. Not Hawaii.
Having not been to Texas did Bush 2 have authentic Texas?
Actually, even when the President can be heard on a radio speaking the King's English--which he obviously does well--he still seems black, kind of South Side Chicago. Not Hawaii.
Having not been to Texas did Bush 2 have authentic Texas?
One of my posts vanished, and I cannot re-write it. The main point was that many of the educated, perhaps most, are "bi-dialectical" and can move freely and unconsciously between a regional or ethnic patois and what is considered educated, literate speech, be we Noo Yawkers or Miiiiiihneeeesoh-tahns. As with many things, what we white folks take for granted with respect to ourselves suddenly becomes noteworthy or even controversial when applied to blacks.
One of my posts vanished, and I cannot re-write it. The main point was that many of the educated, perhaps most, are "bi-dialectical" and can move freely and unconsciously between a regional or ethnic patois and what is considered educated, literate speech, be we Noo Yawkers or Miiiiiihneeeesoh-tahns. As with many things, what we white folks take for granted with respect to ourselves suddenly becomes noteworthy or even controversial when applied to blacks.
It is amazing how certain Beltway types circle the wagons for each other in cases like
Reid's racist comments. McWhorter and Peretz sound like they have both taken leave
of their senses. The question has nothing to do with the merits of Black English Vernacular,
which if nothing else is ungrammatical and often a sign of inadequate education (although
the idea that Reid was expressing sorrow for those poor black people who never learned to talk good, like him I guess, is totally nonsensical). But the issue is that the U.S. Senate
Majority Leader, in the 21st century, is surprised and delighted that a Harvard Law School
graduate and fellow United States Senator ... view full comment
It is amazing how certain Beltway types circle the wagons for each other in cases like
Reid's racist comments. McWhorter and Peretz sound like they have both taken leave
of their senses. The question has nothing to do with the merits of Black English Vernacular,
which if nothing else is ungrammatical and often a sign of inadequate education (although
the idea that Reid was expressing sorrow for those poor black people who never learned to talk good, like him I guess, is totally nonsensical). But the issue is that the U.S. Senate
Majority Leader, in the 21st century, is surprised and delighted that a Harvard Law School
graduate and fellow United States Senator, who happens to be black, is able to (and does) speak conventional English. Would Reid, or any of his ilk, feel the need to make a
point of this information when discussing a white presidential candidate?
And I don't agree with the insulting insinuation that because Reid, McWhorter, and Peretz
think in these terms, then everyone else must do the same. Speaking for myself, my only
issue with Barack Obama is that he is not doing a very good job, and if I had to choose,
I would rather have a President who was not so good at talking but a whole lot better
at governing.
And what about the part that neither Peretz nor McWhorter addresses--Reid's additional
expression of happiness that Obama is "light-skinned" as well as articulate (no, he didn't
use the latter word, but that is exactly what he meant and only pointed it out because he
considered it unusual). Is someone also going to write an article excusing the disgusting and long-dead (except in certain quarters) practice of judging black people by the lightness
or darkness of their skin?
Since I already think the Dems should get rid of Reid as Majority Leader, I can't say for
sure whether this episode alone would make me feel the same way. But someone with
his obvious mindset does not speak for me; that much I'm sure of.
P.S. As for the use of "Negro," that term has not been considered an insult at least
during my lifetime, and so in that respect I think Reid was just showing his age and his
unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
Piggybaking on roid again, the fundamental issue with regard to linguistics is not race but social standing. Much as Americans seek a "man of the people" to lead us, we nonetheless want a man of the people who has risen to the top. We want our presidents to be born in a log cabin, not currently living in one. Which is to say, we won't vote for a social inferior for president. Yes, a person who says aks sounds black, he also sounds low-status. Ain't never, by contrast, usually sounds white, and yet it also sounds low-status. Numerous social-science studies have found that the most significant aspect in our speech judgments is not the race we hear in a person's voice, but rather ... view full comment
Piggybaking on roid again, the fundamental issue with regard to linguistics is not race but social standing. Much as Americans seek a "man of the people" to lead us, we nonetheless want a man of the people who has risen to the top. We want our presidents to be born in a log cabin, not currently living in one. Which is to say, we won't vote for a social inferior for president. Yes, a person who says aks sounds black, he also sounds low-status. Ain't never, by contrast, usually sounds white, and yet it also sounds low-status. Numerous social-science studies have found that the most significant aspect in our speech judgments is not the race we hear in a person's voice, but rather the social status.
Which is why as much as a "Negro" accent would probably have barred Obama from the presidency, so too does the fact that Sarah Palin speaks like the cashier at a cheap hair salon probably dooms her chances with a much larger percentage of the population than is widely understood. We can tolerate a thick accent, so long as the speaker's grammar and vocabulary reflect a high degree of educational and social attainment. Atticus Finch or Andy Taylor could be elected president; Gomer Pyle could not.
rhubarbs successfully explains what lies behind my point about both Kissinger and the white-shoe law firm I worked for. A Yiddish accent is low status, fine for a comedian, not for a Secretary of State or for counsel to Goldman Sachs and Exxon. A German accent can convey high status, although it does not necessarily do so -- Henry Kissinger v Sgt Schultz.
George W. Bush was an interesting case and contrast. As the grandson of a patrician senator, son of a president and, ostensibly, a graduate of Yale (a legacy to boot) and Harvard, his task was to put on a good show of reducing his status without really doing so. It helped that he is a high-functioning moron who really can't speak English ... view full comment
rhubarbs successfully explains what lies behind my point about both Kissinger and the white-shoe law firm I worked for. A Yiddish accent is low status, fine for a comedian, not for a Secretary of State or for counsel to Goldman Sachs and Exxon. A German accent can convey high status, although it does not necessarily do so -- Henry Kissinger v Sgt Schultz.
George W. Bush was an interesting case and contrast. As the grandson of a patrician senator, son of a president and, ostensibly, a graduate of Yale (a legacy to boot) and Harvard, his task was to put on a good show of reducing his status without really doing so. It helped that he is a high-functioning moron who really can't speak English.
It's also the case that some distinctively regional accents such as New Jersey seem to provoke a certain kind of negative reaction and distancing outside those regions. This happens irrespective of race (indeed, NJ screams white working class despite the fact that many black NJ-ites share the accent). My guess is that any politician with a traditionally working-class accent, for example a hard Chicago inflection, could have a lot of trouble in a presidential campaign, which is always moving upward into a national frame. A hard and distinct accent hobbles empathetic identification between speaker and audience, if that accent is "foreign" to the audience.
It's also the case that some distinctively regional accents such as New Jersey seem to provoke a certain kind of negative reaction and distancing outside those regions. This happens irrespective of race (indeed, NJ screams white working class despite the fact that many black NJ-ites share the accent). My guess is that any politician with a traditionally working-class accent, for example a hard Chicago inflection, could have a lot of trouble in a presidential campaign, which is always moving upward into a national frame. A hard and distinct accent hobbles empathetic identification between speaker and audience, if that accent is "foreign" to the audience.
i agree with Roid and Jhildner regarding what Reid was saying. Why assume that Reid himself hears Black English as "lowly" or "associates Black English with lack of polish and low intelligence" or thinks that "Black English is lesser than standard English"? Was he not merely observing that many white Americans still harbor prejudice against blacks, but might be willing to vote for a black man who has light skin and who does not "sound black"? In other words, white America has only partially transcended its racism; it is ready to elect a black man, as long as he has light skin and does not sound black.
What I find interesting is that McWhorter, as insightful as his article is, completely mi ... view full comment
i agree with Roid and Jhildner regarding what Reid was saying. Why assume that Reid himself hears Black English as "lowly" or "associates Black English with lack of polish and low intelligence" or thinks that "Black English is lesser than standard English"? Was he not merely observing that many white Americans still harbor prejudice against blacks, but might be willing to vote for a black man who has light skin and who does not "sound black"? In other words, white America has only partially transcended its racism; it is ready to elect a black man, as long as he has light skin and does not sound black.
What I find interesting is that McWhorter, as insightful as his article is, completely misses this point, i.e., that we have not become sufficiently post-racial to elect a black man a President who sounds like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, even if he otherwise had Obama's intelligence and political skills. Perhaps his thesis that that we are indeed post-racial has blinded him to that truth.
But we also haven't elected a president with a strong white working class accent, or conversely anyone with a distinctive upper class northeastern accent since JFK. The accent prejudices work all sorts of ways.
But we also haven't elected a president with a strong white working class accent, or conversely anyone with a distinctive upper class northeastern accent since JFK. The accent prejudices work all sorts of ways.
That is true irony. (Though we did in fact elect JFK, and Bush, who has a (mild) Texas accent, and Clinton, with an Arkansan accent, and Jimmy Carter with Georgian accent, and certainly the failures of Gore and John Edwars cannot be attributed to their southern accents.) But the point here, whether or not you agree with it, is that the prejudice against "Black English" is not merely prejudice against an accent, but an extension of prejudice against blacks. Speaking without a black accent is perceived in some white circles (as well as some black circles) as being less "black."
That is true irony. (Though we did in fact elect JFK, and Bush, who has a (mild) Texas accent, and Clinton, with an Arkansan accent, and Jimmy Carter with Georgian accent, and certainly the failures of Gore and John Edwars cannot be attributed to their southern accents.) But the point here, whether or not you agree with it, is that the prejudice against "Black English" is not merely prejudice against an accent, but an extension of prejudice against blacks. Speaking without a black accent is perceived in some white circles (as well as some black circles) as being less "black."