Agreed, "Teaching standardized English isn't racism, it's education". I think these seven words are enough to put any counter argument to rest. Frankly, shortening the title to, "Teaching standardized English is education" should be enough, but...no it isn't enough, so you had to write an entire article on the subject. Seriously, it's ab…
Agreed, "Teaching standardized English isn't racism, it's education". I think these seven words are enough to put any counter argument to rest. Frankly, shortening the title to, "Teaching standardized English is education" should be enough, but...no it isn't enough, so you had to write an entire article on the subject. Seriously, it's absurd that an article like this is necessary. And it's even more dumbfounding that you're arguing against people who teach rhetoric... I commend you sir.
Thinking about this may have induced a minor stroke but I think it's over now so I can move on. After reading the article, I then perused Inoue's HOWL site and learned about the six "habits" contributing to "White language supremacy", I found three statements Inoue wrote that hint at how narrow-minded, pompous, and hollow Inoue's ideas about standardized English and racism in college rhetoric are based on how he structured the statements.
1. "I want to emphasize at this point that having habits of language and judgement, even ones from White racial groups, is not a problem... It’s when one group’s habits get used as the standard by which all other people are judged, regardless of their own habits or their goals as students or people." The second half of this one is interesting, Inoue's opposition to standardized English which he thinks is "White language supremacy" and his devotion to how this affects groups is clear. However, is he referring to only groups being judged or does he hint at some individuality within the groups? Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I don't know why/how people like Inoue reject individualism and favor groups when groups are comprised of individuals.
2. "Thinking and anti-sensuality are primary and opposed to feelings and emotions. Logical insight, the rational, order (often linear), and objectivity are valued most and opposed to the subjective and emotional."
In some instances this may to true to a certain degree, but I think this is a tired argument relying on his own assumptions about what white people think about objectivity vs subjectivity and logic/rationality vs emotions insofar as which should be prioritized. I think this assumed preference he thinks white people have is outdated and irritating. While some may disagree with me, I don't think objectivity/rationality and subjectivity/emotions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps Inoue thinks this as well but it's hard to tell when he's simply regurgitating an argument started 50 years ago.
3. Under the section, Rule-Governed, Contractual Relationships, Inoue writes
"This habit focuses on the individual in a contractual relationship with other individuals, either formally or tacitly... understood as benefiting the individuals in the contract, not the whole community or group".
This last statement I don't really have any questions I just think what he wrote here is utterly stupid simply because I'm not sure Inoue has any understanding of how individual relationship contracts are different from a group or social contract. Typically, the individuals and/or group in a contract are supposed to benefit from said contract because last I checked unless your part of a contract you won't benefit from one.
To conclude, my thoughts may be somewhat incoherent and I should work them out to a greater extent. Otherwise I thought the article was great and want to say keep up the good work. Inoue and his colleagues, who apparently think it's 1960, need to be called out more often for their bullshit and for saying and writing a lot on inequalities but never actually doing anything to help the people they claim to be fighting for.
Agreed, "Teaching standardized English isn't racism, it's education". I think these seven words are enough to put any counter argument to rest. Frankly, shortening the title to, "Teaching standardized English is education" should be enough, but...no it isn't enough, so you had to write an entire article on the subject. Seriously, it's absurd that an article like this is necessary. And it's even more dumbfounding that you're arguing against people who teach rhetoric... I commend you sir.
Thinking about this may have induced a minor stroke but I think it's over now so I can move on. After reading the article, I then perused Inoue's HOWL site and learned about the six "habits" contributing to "White language supremacy", I found three statements Inoue wrote that hint at how narrow-minded, pompous, and hollow Inoue's ideas about standardized English and racism in college rhetoric are based on how he structured the statements.
1. "I want to emphasize at this point that having habits of language and judgement, even ones from White racial groups, is not a problem... It’s when one group’s habits get used as the standard by which all other people are judged, regardless of their own habits or their goals as students or people." The second half of this one is interesting, Inoue's opposition to standardized English which he thinks is "White language supremacy" and his devotion to how this affects groups is clear. However, is he referring to only groups being judged or does he hint at some individuality within the groups? Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I don't know why/how people like Inoue reject individualism and favor groups when groups are comprised of individuals.
2. "Thinking and anti-sensuality are primary and opposed to feelings and emotions. Logical insight, the rational, order (often linear), and objectivity are valued most and opposed to the subjective and emotional."
In some instances this may to true to a certain degree, but I think this is a tired argument relying on his own assumptions about what white people think about objectivity vs subjectivity and logic/rationality vs emotions insofar as which should be prioritized. I think this assumed preference he thinks white people have is outdated and irritating. While some may disagree with me, I don't think objectivity/rationality and subjectivity/emotions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps Inoue thinks this as well but it's hard to tell when he's simply regurgitating an argument started 50 years ago.
3. Under the section, Rule-Governed, Contractual Relationships, Inoue writes
"This habit focuses on the individual in a contractual relationship with other individuals, either formally or tacitly... understood as benefiting the individuals in the contract, not the whole community or group".
This last statement I don't really have any questions I just think what he wrote here is utterly stupid simply because I'm not sure Inoue has any understanding of how individual relationship contracts are different from a group or social contract. Typically, the individuals and/or group in a contract are supposed to benefit from said contract because last I checked unless your part of a contract you won't benefit from one.
To conclude, my thoughts may be somewhat incoherent and I should work them out to a greater extent. Otherwise I thought the article was great and want to say keep up the good work. Inoue and his colleagues, who apparently think it's 1960, need to be called out more often for their bullshit and for saying and writing a lot on inequalities but never actually doing anything to help the people they claim to be fighting for.