delpit and smitherman

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.      Does it matter to you that Delpit doesn't necessarily identify her race to her audience? Does her racial identity matter in context with this article? How does the message change depending on your perception of her identity?

No, I believe it is better because otherwise people would have preconceived ideas of her whereas now than can just judge her on her thoughts rather than her race. I believe that in this article, Delpit’s identity is important because her message can come across very strongly for the African American readers, so she is respected rather than her opinion being judged. However I believe that in this article the identity of the person is also important for the readers so that what she is saying can be trusted and valid rather than readers just saying “how would she know?”

2.      Do you agree with what Delpit is arguing? What are some effective parts of her argument? What are some weaknesses or shortcomings?

I agree with Delpit because I believe that people are born into a certain discourse community but some change and go into a different one, this may be because they wish to stay out of trouble or want to change but this implies that people are not just stuck in one community. However I do believe that most people born in a certain discourse community are likely to stay in that community because that is how they have been brought up and so it may take a lot of will power to get out of that community.

Applying and Exploring Idea

3.      In " Queer Texts, Queer Contexts, " Malinowitz suggests that generalization can be both effective and problematic. Do you see generalizations in this text? Where, and do you think they are effective, or problematic, or both?

I believe that one generalization which was made, which isn’t necessarily true is the fact that some people stay in discourse communities however in reality everyone is different and it also depends on certain situations people are in. Personally I think generalizing topics are bad because it puts many things together as one even if they are really very different, which also leads to stereotypes. However in a different context, generalizing details within a paper can help people understand making it easy for them to learn.

Smitherman

Pre reading exercises

·         Have you ever judged someone based on how they spoke without seeing them? What specific elements of their speech influenced your judgment?

I think along with most people straight away we judge people on what they look like. I believe that it is hard not to, however if I was to not see the person and just listen I think that I would pay more attention to their actual ideas and thoughts without relating it to what they look like. If I were not to see the person talking then I would definitely just judge them on what they have said rather than thinking “I wonder what they look like.” However I have not listened to a speech without knowing or seeing what the person looks like.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1.      How is Smitherman using Black Idiom (BI) rhetorically?

Smitherman repeats BI constantly. This is a positive because by the end readers understand the term however it can get very repetitive and for me personally it got frustrating because there was no variety in the writing.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1.      Compare the two statements: “God doesn’t ever change” and “God don’t never change.” Smitherman suggests that there is a vital difference; not in the inherent meaning of the sentences, but in the meaning behind how the sentences are constructed. What is that difference? What is the significance of “God don’t never change” as the title of this piece, which is about language?

The language is very noticeable between these two statements, especially the grammar. I believe these two statements are closely linked with identities. If I were to look at these statements and say who said them then I would say the second statement “God don’t never change” was said by a black person rather than a white person just because of their culture and the way they talk to each other appears to be more like this rather than with correct grammar.