QUEERING THE GAME OF LIFE

downlo:

educatingcharlene:

For one thing, the idea that there is only one right way of doing English – and everyone else is doing it wrong – is inherently flawed. And by “flawed” I mean illogical, elitist and even oppressive. Judgements about what counts as “right”, “good” and “correct” in writing and grammar always – ALWAYS – align with characteristics of the dialects spoken by privileged, mostly wealthy, mostly white people. We make these judgements based on learned biases, as well as a certain emotional attachment to our own way of doing things. But when people study dialects in an objective, scientific way (which is what cunning linguists actually do), they find that low-prestige dialects, such as African-American Vernacular English or Cockney English, have fully-formed grammar rules of their own that make just as much sense as any others. They are perfectly valid and functional forms of communication used by millions of people. The only difference is that they don’t have people running around telling everyone else to do it their way.

This is well worth a read. I too used to be prescriptive about spelling and grammar; but living with someone who has dyslexia has made me review my stance over the years.

Oh lord, this was so me up until somewhat recently. I’ve always been at ease with language in the way some people are musically gifted or math savants and I couldn’t resist showing off like the dork I am. It’s obnoxious—don’t do it.

(via bubonickitten)

In today’s weather related indigenous etymology

selchieproductions:

the word ‘hurricane’ was borrowed into English from the Spanish huracán, which in turn comes from the Taíno word Juracán.

Anyway, Juracán was a weather god who lived upon the Puerto Rican mountain El Yunque, and who used to send storms and strong winds to punish people when they misbehaved or upset him. Shakespeare was one of the first to use the word in English, if you’ve read Troillus and Cressida, you’ll know where.

(via mermeanie)

vampirickilometer:

bonegrammaticality:

NO LISTEN, SERIOUSLY GUYS

1. What you call “correct grammar” is a social construct which is useful to know specifically because people will equate it with your level of education when you are trying to, say, apply for jobs, or get a book published, or the like. It is otherwise mainly a tool to divide people with a certain level of education from people without.
2. What you call “incorrect grammar” is colloquial language, it is the native English learned by that speaker during childhood, and it follows complex rules of its own. NO NATIVE SPEAKER OF ENGLISH SPEAKS BAD OR STUPID ENGLISH. THAT’S NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS.
3. THEREFORE, when you call people on “incorrect grammar,” the effect is often that of drawing attention to speech patterns that are perceived as signifiers of a person’s social background or education level. It is particularly important to keep this in mind when you are addressing a person’s language when they are in a space where they feel more comfortable or safe, and thus might want to use their native grammar rather than the socially imposed standard. 

I’m pretty sure that most of you don’t intentionally do that sort of thing, so you should probably be aware that that’s what you’re doing.

i used to do this a lot and i really regret it now. 

also a thought that maybe people don’t need to use formally imposed grammar because does it really matter? as long as the people they are intending to communicate with can understand what’s being said, isn’t the point of language being achieved? standardisation of language conventions is helpful for efficiency and comprehension but i rarely see criticism of grammar where the critic can’t understand what’s being said — mostly cases where they absolutely can and prove it by the way they give their criticism.

and then a thought that maybe people don’t want to speak and write a language (especially english) that they were forced into, maybe those of us who lost our native language to be more easily assimilated into cultures not our own would like to hold onto and display the ways our language differs from the standard. or maybe we want to speak and write in non-formally-standard ways because that is the way people we know speak and write. 

note that i say “we” here as a largely generalised group. though i do speak as someone who learned english second and lost their first language (spanish) to go to a usa school

also shout out to my descriptivists because even aside from all this descriptivism is just where it’s at, yo

(Source: hereincoherent, via hairypitsandtits)

oppressionisyucky:

wonkistan:

Reader Chris passes along an article about differences in American Sign Language usage between white and African-American signers. Researchers investigating what they call Black ASL found significant variations in signs, signing space, and facial cues. They explain:

Black ASL is not just a slang form of signing. Instead, think of the two signing systems as comparable to American and British English: similar but with differences that follow regular patterns and a lot of variation in individual usage.

They hypothesize that these differences began in segregated learning environments, and continue to evolve in Black social spaces. The whole article is worth a read.

Thanks, Chris, and remember — you can submit Wonk-worthy links through our ask or via email!

i’m pretty uncomfortable with the use of mainstream here, since it is othering.

(via manicpixiedreambakla)

allies-person:

Urgh, looking at some of the crap on the ableism tag today reminds me how very tautological society’s definition of “crazy” vs. “normal” is.

Defining “normal” in such a way so that only “crazy” people do things which are socially unacceptable does not actually constitute a coherent definition of craziness.  You’ve merely drawn an arbitrary Us vs. Them line which conveniently absolves all supposedly “normal” people of any possible wrongdoing.

(via nonbinarybaby)

“What’s also interesting about the kids’ language is that people — mostly academics — have been trying to introduce a gender-neutral singular pronoun into the English language for about 200 years, with very little success. And then a group of kids in Baltimore just make one up and start using it.”

(Source: motherfuckerofbabylon, via quelola)

"Janice Jackson, another team member who is also working on a Ph.D. in communication disorders, conducted an experiment using pictures of Sesame Street characters to test children’s comprehension of the “habitual be” construction. She showed the kids a picture in which Cookie Monster is sick in bed with no cookies while Elmo stands nearby eating cookies. When she asked, “Who be eating cookies?” white kids tended to point to Elmo while black kids chose Cookie Monster. “But,” Jackson relates, “when I asked, ‘Who is eating cookies?’ the black kids understood that it was Elmo and that it was not the same. That was an important piece of information.” Because those children had grown up with a language whose verb forms differentiate habitual action from currently occuring action (Gaelic also features such a distinction, in addition to a number of West African languages), they were able even at the age of five or six to distinguish between the two."

But black Children are spose to be stupid… (via howtobeterrell)

aaaaaaaaaah cool

ETA:  AAVE is a 100% valid dialect, everyone, just in case you didn’t know.  There is no such thing as “talking right.”

(via raumlet)

Oh it’s not just slang? There’s consistent grammatical structure and rules? AAE*-speaking Black kids must grow up bilingual?! YA DON’T SAY!!!!

*(I’m tryna drop the V in AAVE, cuz the connotations of “vernacular” make me suspicious…)

(via blackraincloud)

Dear cis people who say “I go by [my assigned pronouns] but anything’s okay!”

pinebark:

Please stop. You’re not helping.

I know it must seem like a very progressive thing to do and that it’s coming from a desire to be seen as an ally, but I need you to know that it’s totally fine to tell me that your preferred pronouns are your assigned ones. It won’t make me think less of you, and it doesn’t help me to know that you’re “okay” with any pronouns. Let’s face it — getting misgendered probably isn’t a daily concern for you, and when you casually tell me that any pronouns are “fine”, it comes off as an attempt to claim a connection with me where none exists.

Just tell me what you prefer, and that’s what I’ll call you! And if you want me to know you’re working in allyship with me, then show it — don’t try to tell me.

(via grrlyman)

"Nothing better exemplifies this distinction than the structure of derogatory language. Derogatory terms do not mean; they assault. Their intention is not to communicate but to harm. Thus they are not discursive signs or linguistic statements but modes of aggression. They express a structure of power and domination, a hierarchy that contextualizes them and gives them their force. As gestures of assault they reflect their users status as a member of the dominant group. The derogatory term does more than speak; it silences. That ability to silence derives from the fact that, in turning its hegemonic position to account, it turns the racialized other into a language for whiteness itself. Those situated lower on the hierarchy have no viable means of defending themselves. This, in effect, renders the derogation unanswerable in its own terms. The derogatory term obtrudes with a small daily violence whose form is gratuitous, without motivation in the situation in which it is used, and whose content is to render that situation dominated by white supremacy. If it sits at the heart of the language of racism it is because it is banal and everyday even while symbolizing racism’s utmost violence, the verbal form of its genocidal trajectory. Those who use derogatory terms repeatedly are putting themselves in a continual state of aggression; turning their objective complicity with a structured relation of white supremacist dominance into an active investment or affirmation. Such modes of assault demonstrate a specific obsession with those denigrated that characterizes the socius of white supremacy, its demands for allegiance, its conditions of membership, its residence in viciousness."

Steve Martinot and Jared Sexton, “The Avant-garde of White Supremacy”

i.e. why calling a white person “cracker” is nowhere near comparable to calling a black person “n****r.”

(via so-treu)

(via thatneedstogo)

“Needing” the Term “Homophobia” and Other Ways to Equate Mental Illness with Violence

bigotryisnotamentalillness:

[NB: we discuss the word “homophobia” in more depth than words like “lesbophobia” or “transphobia” because all post 1955 “phobia [bigotry]” words that the mods have encountered are explicitly based off of the “homophobia” model.]

“Homophobia” is not the same thing as “heterosexism,” and suggestions that we just replace former with the latter don’t completely solve the problem. Heterosexism posits that heterosexuality is the only valid sexual orientation and that all other orientations are “lesser.” Homophobia is the hatred and active persecution of queer people. Of course, actions that are heterosexist can be called “homophobic” because enforcing a hierarchy that devalues queer people is an act of persecution against queer people. And similarly, anything that’s “homophobic” is technically heterosexist because persecuting an oppressed minority does indeed enforce a heterosexist hierarchy. “Heterosexism” is a good word to use when critiquing TV networks where all the lead characters are straight.

But what activists who claim that we “need the word homophobia” are really saying is that “homophobia” is a much stronger term than “heterosexism.” And it is, and we need to be able to have a word for hate crimes and Tracy Morgan’s rant and the fact that our youth are 4 times more likely to be homeless and unaccompanied that doesn’t sound clinical or overly-academic. But the reason we don’t jump straight to terms like “hetero-suprmacy” or “anti-queer” or “queer-hate” is because none of these terms are genuinely as pathologized and suggestive of violence as a mental illness is.

The fact is, people who have spent a large amount of time arguing that “homophobia” is an irreplaceable term are either willfully ignorant or simply frustrated that none of the new suggestions—even though all of them harken back to bigotry or hatred—can convey the stigma that “lol you’re crazy” can. “Phobia” language is a way of placing the blame on the bigot and not the culture or the people who are being oppressed. But it does this by playing off of our understanding of mental illnesses as things that are embarrassing to have, likely to result in violence, and a drain or deviation from healthy, “sane” society.

(via bubonickitten)

"Such simplistic stereotypes are further perpetuated by the media’s decision to use “Islamic” as the adjective of choice: “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamic militants.” By contrast, killers, such as the “anti-abortion activists” Paul Hill and Michael Griffin, are described not merely as “Christian” but “radical Christian” or “Christian extremist” or dissociated from Christianity entirely by the use of more theologically-neutral adjectives like “anti-abortion.” The media’s willingness to acknowledge that Christianity is not inherently murderous, despite Hill’s and Griffin’s actions, shows an attention to nuance not equally applied to Muslims."

Khyati Y. Joshi (The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States)

THIS.

(via feminismduh)

(Source: mizoguchi, via thatneedstogo)

tw for ableism: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

morgandria:

Karma. People love that word. It gets thrown around a lot.

It’s really too bad that the West uses it very, very wrongly.

(This is a pretty rough, basic, “Dummies” sort of explanation, because frankly I’m a Dummy when it comes to navigating the byzantine maze that is Eastern religion.)

Karma as a concept originates from Dharmic religions. We’re talking Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. It’s somewhat complicated, and the exact emphasis on Dharma varies from sect to sect. Dharma is “natural law”. It is one’s particular path or calling, one’s duties and obligations. When a person obeys their calling and their obligations, they are upholding the natural order.

Karma plays into the system when someone does not follow their dharma. It is a realignment. It does not reward a person for doing good, or punish a person for doing bad. It is merely a reaction to a person’s deeds in life. People who follow their dharma do not gain additional karma. People who do not uphold their dharma earn additional karma.

You never want more karma. There’s no such thing as ‘good’ karma.

A person will reincarnate, upwards (or downwards) until they have discharged their karmic burden.  Since the entire goal is to liberate the soul from the eternal cycle of life and death, it logically follows that one wants to follow their dharma as much as is possible, to shorten the amount of time it takes to get out of the reincarnation cycle.

Karma doesn’t function separated from dharma. It’s connected to dharma in such a way that removing it from that context renders it rather meaningless. The Western “karma” doesn’t have much in common with its’ original. It is, sadly, yet another thing misappropriated and bastardized for common use.

I put to you that the Western use of ‘karma’ is just a non-Abrahamic version of “Ye Shall Reap What Ye Have Sown”. People want to toss a word around meaning “I hope that person gets what they deserve”, and yet somehow avoid all the dogma and baggage they may have regarding their relationship with Christianity, and its’ morality.

TL:DR?

Western ‘karma’ isn’t karma at all. It is a misappropriation of a term that has a completely different meaning and usage in its’ proper context.

(via theoceanandthesky)

“Both” vs. “All” Genders

bubonickitten:

queerteaching:

Avoid phrases like “the opposite sex” or “both genders.” This goes for any classroom setting, and is a pretty useful rule for speech and writing in general. Constructions like these reinforce a binary understanding of gender by setting external limits on the field of gender (“both” implying that there are no genders beyond these two) and by setting up male and female as irreconcilably different, oppositional entities. Phrases like “all genders” are just as simple to use and incorporate rather than invisibilize genders beyond the binary.

Also: When people say “men, women, and trans* people” and variations thereof. No.

(via 24hoursremain-deactivated201204)

nakkyy:

adailyriot:

(via Berenstain Bears Translated into Lakota Language Can Be a Game-Changer - Indian Country Today Media Network)

Check ICTMN.com Sunday mornings at 10 a.m. EST for episodes of The Berenstain Bears. And don’t be fooled by the cartoon: Adults of all ages will marvel at it.

Tune in to South Dakota Public Broadcasting Digital 3 channel in South Dakota or the Prairie Public Broadcasting Digital 4 channel in North Dakota on Sunday mornings at nine a.m. between now and the end of November, and you will see a unique program—a mainstream cartoon translated into a Native language. Mathˇó Waúŋšila Thiwáhe, or The Compassionate Bear Family, consists of 20 episodes of the world-famous Berenstain Bears animation series dubbed into Lakota. Created by Stan and Jan Berenstain 50 years ago, the series of stories featuring a family of bears has been translated into more than 20 languages, teaching life lessons on family relationships, caring, sharing and growing up.

The project began about 16 months ago, when elders from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked the nonprofit Lakota Language Consortium (LLC), to do something that would take their efforts to revitalize the Lakota language to the next level. LLC executive director Wilhelm Meya and Standing Rock Sioux tribal education manager Sunshine Carlow came up with the idea of doing a cartoon. “We approached Berenstain Enterprises and asked if they would be interested in donating the rights to a Lakota-language adaptation of a Berenstain Bears animation,” Meya says. “They thought it was a fantastic project and gave us the rights to the series.

Several considerations went into the decision to use a mainstream cartoon to teach the Lakota language instead of a story indigenous to the culture. “For starters, there was cost,” Meya says. “To re-create a cartoon of that caliber would cost millions of dollar. Second, the Berenstain Bears are animals, not people, so they would not be seen as representing one culture over another.”

In the studio (from left) Manny Iron Hawk, Dave Swenson, Renee Iron Hawk and Ben Black Bear.

Another consideration was values. “The lessons in the Berenstain Bear stories matched Lakota values,” Meya says. Carlow, the mother of four, says that the setting and topics of the show also made the series an ideal candidate for this project. “The rich context the animation provides for language that would help viewers begin to ‘de-puzzle’ the language from the cartoons,” she explains. “The Berenstain Bears episodes reflect language spoken in everyday situations—in the kitchen, the schoolyard, at home. It is language in context, in the vernacular. That wouldn’t be the case in some other modern cartoons.”

With the rights in hand and a commitment from both the South Dakota and North Dakota public broadcasting systems to air the series, Meya and Carlow took the proposition to the tribe and got the go-ahead. The next step was to find the actors who would be the bears’ Lakota voices. Ben Black Bear, the voice of Papa Bear (Atkúku in Lakota), sits on the board of the consortium. He helped organize the project, produce a trial run, translate the dialogue into Lakota and dub a sample to help sell the idea. Black Bear is a member of the Rosewood Sioux Tribe and a Native speaker. He has taught the language for more than 30 years, starting at Sinte Gleska University in Mission, South Dakota in the 1970s and now as director of the Lakota Studies Program at the St. Francis Mission in St. Francis, South Dakota. He has translated the Gospel of St. Luke, is working on the Gospel of St. John, and was instrumental in developing a dictionary of the Lakota language published in 2008.

A dozen other actors were also recruited for the project. “We made a point of representing the regional differences in the Lakota language so the program would be useful for all the Lakota tribes,” Carlow says. “Grandpa Bear is Dakota. You can tell he’s from Pine Ridge.”

“The voices represent all four of the major Sioux Reservations—Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Cheyenne River and Standing Rock,” Meya says, adding that there were differences in the translation to reflect the regional differences as well. “For example,” he says, “we would use the Pine Ridge version of ‘to be sick,’ rather than the Standing Rock version.”

“There was a lot of prerecording work done by the cast even after the translations were complete,” Carlow recalls. “One member would be recordingwhile the others were in a room working out how to say the lines in the amount of time allowed and using the intonations that would best convey the meaning.” Carlow says it was very moving to see the cast writing, discussing and working with each line of Lakota text, giving the language this kind of detailed attention. “I tried to record some of this work,” she says, “but when I turned on the camera, everyone got quiet.”

The possible impact of the project is nothing less than revolutionary, Meya says. “This project gives hope to people. People have said this is a game-changer. As a generation of young people identify with these characters, it could have deep impact, change their expectations for life. A child seeing a dentist using Lakota with perfect ease learns, ‘I can do this in my language.’ It opens up possibilities. The Lakota-speaking dentist [tells a child] you can be a professional, an educated person and still speak your language. The project is not just for kids. One young man, 35 or 40, said, ‘I’ve been speaking Lakota all my life, and I never thought I’d see the day when it was in a cartoon. I wish my grandfather was alive to see it.’ ”

Berenstain Enterprises has granted them the rights to 40 episodes. So far, 20 have been translated and dubbed. “We wanted to get people’s reactions to the first 20 before we started on the remaining episodes,” Black Bear says.

Funding is another constraint, Carlow says. “We have the rights for 40 episodes, but so far the funds to do only 20, so that’s the next phase of the project.”

Available on the LakotaBears.com are transcripts, vocabulary sheets and comprehension questions that can be used by those learning or teaching Lakota. A DVD of the 20 episodes will be released in November. There’s also a link to the project’s Facebook page on the website.

Mašté Wiŋ kičhí wówaši ečhámuŋ k’uŋ héhaŋ oíyokiphi bluhá. Líla waštéčake. Lalá Wazí Aháŋhaŋ hetáŋhaŋ kéye… k’éyaš Íŋyaŋ Woslál Háŋ hetáŋhaŋ ye! Cannonball ektá thí.

(via dammitcaleb-deactivated20130328)

lols08:

The Chitimacha Nation of Charenton, Louisiana partners with Rosetta Stone, a language learning software company, to create teaching aids for a language that has no fluent speakers. Piecing together the language from old, wax cylinder recordings, this 1,000 member strong community is relying on its determination and thriving cultural identity to awaken the Chitimacha language from its long slumber.

(via dammitcaleb-deactivated20130328)