Delpit and Smitherman

The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse by Lisa Delpit and God Don’t Never Change: Black English from a Black Perspective by Geneva Smitherman

Summary: In the first article The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse by Lisa Delpit we begin to see a position on viewing and exploring discourse. In this article Lisa Delpit argues against some of the points made in the Gee article we read earlier. Lisa argues that you can’t others nor yourself as stuck to your primary and secondary discourse. Lisa says that Gee is wrong with his argument because it is through interacting and working with other discourses that you better enact around them and especially with your own.  Lisa says that just because you are not born to the power or primary discourse doesn’t mean you can’t join it. She uses numerous examples of African Americans that grew up in a poor area or with poor education and somehow still became very successful in a white man’s world. She argues that in order to be successful in a primary discourse doesn’t mean you have to leave your own it just means you must expand and acquire theirs as well. She puts this into context when using numerous examples about blacks growing up in segregation that had to learn to write, read and communicate in the whites way while still being able to have their own voice. Lisa argues and speaks mainly to teachers asking them to acknowledge and use students own discourse but not to an extent to which falters their growth and understanding of others. Also she argues that teachers must recognize the conflict between student’s home discourse and schools and must adapt it to give the students a sense of home while more importantly engaging and growing onward/upward. Lastly she wants teachers to see and acknowledge the discourses then refute others from entry and present students with ways to “cheat” or join the discourse. In God Don’t Never Change: Black English from a Black Perspective by Geneva Smitherman we see the argument for evasion of school room grammar, critique and exclusion. Geneva talks about how many are put down, ridiculed and excluded based on competence and ability to conform to others. Geneva is arguing about the black culture revolving around the white. She discusses how blacks often are pushed away because there grammar is incorrect or they don’t make sense when they write. However, she shows examples on how the wording may be different or there may be a few mistakes but you can clearly understand and interpret the works. Geneva argues that we need to rid of this strict conformity because not even all whites fit it; she expands on this and discusses how black’s different writing is easier for whites in America to read than actual proper British writing. Geneva argues against the injustice of conformity and argues for the understanding of others and their differences.

Synthesis: I think that these two articles were highly related to each other as they both discussed black culture compared to white culture. They also argued for the acceptance and understanding that discourses are different but that doesn’t mean we can’t use them. Also that just because writing is different between discourses doesn’t eliminate the meaning and purpose which will always remain. They both critique and attack the white culture as it has tried to exclude blacks with its language and forms of writing. They both argue along this that blacks can still join and be a part of this writing while attending their own. Geneva focuses on the aspects of writing itself while Lisa focuses more on joining different discourse in order to act along with them. Both articles fight for open-mindedness and awareness of others and their potential; that it shouldn’t be excluded or faltered but understood.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling:

1. The fact that Delpit never releases her race doesn’t bother me at all really because it doesn’t affect the message behind the article. I think that by leaving her race anonymous she actually helps her article. This is because now nobody can say she is white and that it is wrong she is speaking for and about black culture for the majority of the paper. Also then if she says she is black people might think she is doing guilt trip in her article or some other nonsense. I think that her racial context does matter in the story and I do think she should be black if she is going to speak for them the way she does however if she is speaking about blacks as a culture I think it is much more acceptable for her to write this piece. I think that the message would change depending on her identity just in the way we view her and how reliable her writing is. The idea sounds racist but if a white person was speaking for a black culture and saying all the things she did I would feel annoyed and a little upset that they think they have the right or the place to do so.

3. I do agree with what Delpit is saying and I think it is very true that we can expand and it is necessary to expand ourselves to other discourse. Also that we must acknowledge other discourse and the ways they conduct themselves such as writing and communicating. I think she makes some valid points discussing how many African Americans that are successful were pushed by teachers or expanded their own knowledge to that of the white culture. I like how she argues we must be able to act not only in our home discourse but in others as well In order to be accepted and more important understood. This makes logical sense as well as reason because if blacks never did expand their discourse to whites as well then we may still have a segregated world today as sad as that is to say. I didn’t see many faults In her argument however I would say some points were very iffy or not well supported. I didn’t like how she pressured teachers and said that the home discourse is different from the school discourse. I felt bad for teachers having this pressure and need to work/apply all these discourses into your teachings and class. The fact is that would be way too hard to do as well as it would be way too hard to focus on students that “don’t want to learn”.

Applying and Exploring:

3. I saw a big generalization when she talked about students that can’t learn or don’t want to learn are the main ones to focus on. I think that she generalized based on her discourse and culture and felt that these students all have high potential but nobody is there to push them. This is unfair to other students who are working hard and attempting to understand and expand their discourse. Also how that fair if is all effort and time is given to these students over the others. I know it’s hard to conceive which is better off or which idea makes sense but the fact that she made it seem like the answer was right there and that she thought teachers had no clue was a terrible and ineffective generalization on her part.

Second Article

Pre Reading: I have judge someone based on how they spoke and I think we all have numerous times in our lives. The fact is we can’t help but do so it is our human nature as we always are comparing and contrasting people to past people, ideas and even concepts we have in our head. I think that when we hear a different form of speech or different word use we attempt to discover the source immediately. I always find myself thinking right away that they are from somewhere I am not. When I think about what elements effect how I view them or think about someone who speaks differently I think about the basics to communication. I think that I immediately begin looking and integrating myself to their speed, length, sound and rhythm.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling:

2. I think that Smitherman uses BI rhetorically by simply expanding on what it means and using the word over and over. I think that this may seem annoying or like a nuisance to some but it actually is very effective and helps explain the true difference between what she class black and white.

Applying and Exploring:

5. I think that the big difference between these two statements is not the correctness or the meaning behind it but instead the representation it illuminates. The “God don’t never change” is considered by many to be written wrong and not make sense but it actually makes more sense than not. This is a way for Smitherman to show her discourse or anyone to show their discourse as it is purposefully written this way to express the culture behind it. The true difference between these two quotes is not the word choice or the form in which they are placed but instead the culture in the formation. “God don’t never change” is significant and important to this article because it drives her point across that language isn’t all about things being correct or proper but sometimes and often more importantly about what it says or drives home if you will.

Opinion on Articles: I think these articles were very interesting to read and gave me another new perspective to view writing and language. Also it changed my view of discourses and how they work, change and accept or work with outsiders. Also how these outsiders actually can become members and indulge in the other discourse through work and processing in their forms as well as your own. I also developed a new understanding of language and how it is written in that you can’t always look at it directly but from different angles or purposes.