Re: Ebonics

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

At 6:06 PM -0600 12/21/96, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:

>Why is it that personal freedom, sometimes expressed by choice of dialect
>or language, seemingly has such arbitrary limits?  Many on the list
>complain that they are subject to too many rules, and yet, seem to chime in
>on multi-linugual issues in this way.

You're confusing issues. As with similar confusions about "right to work"
(where the putative conflict is between Alice's right to hire whom she
chooses and Bob's putative "right to a job"), the confusion lies in what
one calls a right.

No one is disputing the "right" of anyone to speak in any language he or
she chooses. What the bulk of persons who have heard of the "Ebonics" story
in the last few days are doing is ridiculing it, satirizing it, shaking
their heads, and noting the backward steps it represents for so-called
"peeples of color."

Oh, and there's of course an undercurrent of "Why should taxpayers pay for
"Ebonics"?," which is hardly surprising, given that we also complain about
funding for lots of wasteful programs.

Finally, a civil libertarian would understand that any person and any
employer has the property right to not hire those he does not wish to hire.
(I speak in terms of basic rights, however one thinks they derive, not
current Kalifornia or Federal law, such as the Title VII nonsense or the
various racial quotas.)

In short, any person may speak in any language he or she wishes. I don't
have to accomodate this person, either personally or in my business. As to
_government publications_, I think this problem is solved by anarchy. Short
of anarchy, I don't see how any government larger than a truly tiny core
set can possibly pubish official documents, ballots, traffic signs,
driver's license tests, and so on, in the several dozen languages that the
basic brown types are now clamoring for.

I say fuck 'em.

>Crypto angle, here?  Much of Ebonics has been based upon a need or desire
>to communicate in a private way.  "5-0" was initiated as a way to
>communicate the presence of a police officer.  Surely, we are not arguing
>against the development of a low-level way to scramble language.  Or in
>fact, are you arguing that attempts to curtail the police should *not* be
>encouraged?  This seems odd coming from some members of the list (Collapse
>of Governments and all) ;-).

And just where did anyone in any of these posts call for outlawing any
particular language, pidgin, slang, creole, jive, or invented lingo?

Really, Matt, go back to Rhetoric 101 and learn how to argue.

(Where is "Logos" these days?)

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."