Written English is or was designed for white people?

[The idea]

Consider the following exchange from another thread:

Originally posted by new drkitten
The GED is designed to be an alternative to those who cannot or did not graduate from high school under normal circumstances.

Originally posted by The idea
What prevents the government of California from issuing a statement to the effect that the standard system for writing the English language was designed as a way for white people to communicate with each other?

Originally posted by luchog
Anti-discrimination statutes.

Source:
Modern version of: Slaves incapable of literacy so it is a crime to teach them (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62095)

Does anyone disagree with any statements below or have an answer to any question below?

1. The hypothetical statement issued by the government of California is a statement about history, so it is either objectively true or objectively false.

Case a) The statement is false. Obviously a government should not issue false statements. Anti-discrimination statutes might be irrelevant.

Case b) The statement is true. Do anti-discrimination statutes prevent the government of California from issuing true statements?

2. There is a difference between a claim of the form "X is designed for Y" and a claim of the form "X was designed for Y." A claim of the form "X is designed for Y" is not a statement about historical fact, but is a statement about some authority's current intent.

3. Consider a statement of the form "X was designed for Y." If the statement is true, what is the significance of the statement? If we know that X was designed for Y, then do we have enough information to conclude that X should be used ONLY for Y?

4. Consider a statement of the form "X is designed for Y." If the statement is true, what is the significance of the statement? If we know that X is designed for Y, then do we have enough information to conclude that X should be used ONLY for Y?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea
Consider the following exchange from another thread:


Ho hum. More smoke and mirrors from someone who simply wants to rattle the forum's cages.

... and that has nothing to do with the title of the thread, either.

[Jekyll]

I hear duvets were designed for white people as well.

[Zep]

I always thought that egg-beaters were for white people.

[bigred]

:mad: stinkin racists. You know darn well Ebonics should be recogized as its own language and English classes should be optional. In fact, I think anyone who didn't do well in English classes should get reparations.

[The idea]

Originally posted by bigred
You know darn well Ebonics should be recogized as its own language and English classes should be optional. [...]
No, there should be as few options as possible. Non-whites should be prohibited from studying English. The system for writing the English language was designed for white people to communicate with each other. If it was designed for white people, then non-white people have no business using it. ;)

[Piscivore]

Patrick is back! :D

[bruto]

The issuing of GED degrees is, whether appropriately or not, the province of state governments. GED degrees have not always existed, but were indeed designed, with an underlying intention of what they would accomplish and represent (and of what they would not, as well - in this case, with the explicit intention not to discourage the completion of high school by students able to do so), and the administration of them was implemented by the authority of the state. They can control this process because they own it. Too bad. Of course, as with any government function, they can control it badly, they can **** it up royally, they can do it justly or unjustly, morally or immorally, smartly or stupidly. The GED is an artifact of government.

In contrast, although a state government or any other agency or individual can make any pronouncement it likes about the meaning and origin of the English language, it has no authority or control and such a pronouncement would be nonsensical even if it were true, which of course it would not be, since it would be fallacious to suggest that written English was "designed" at all.

[Z]

"Designed" is certainly not the word I would have used. "Slapped together willy-nilly" seems more appropriate. And with the simple and absolutely true fact that a sizeable amount of 'English' has been borrowed, corrupted, and jerry-rigged from other languages - including numerous 'non-white' tongues - I'd hardly say that it was 'slapped together willy-nilly' for whites, either.

Can anyone tell me, do other countries experience these problems? Are the Spanish considering similar situations for non-Hispanics due to the language being 'designed for Hispanics'? Are the Chinese having these issues? Why do English-speaking nations take this crap from their minorities?

I will say, though, that I find English to be one of the more absurd and difficult languages to learn to speak. But that's the 'official' language, and I don't think there's any good reason - at all - to change it now.

IMO, people who 'cry white' at things like standardized testing and the English language are essentially lazy. If it takes any work at all to learn English or study for their tests, they want to blame ethnicity or cultural bias instead of admitting that they just didn't feel like making the effort. After all, a lot of 'non-whites' do just fine learning English, passing tests, etc. Maybe not proportionally as many, but (I'm sorry) if even a tenth of non-white students can do it, I see no respectable reason why the rest can't too. (Cultural bias, IMHO, is not at all a respectable reason, as it's used too often as a politically correct way of saying, 'We's all lazy')

I'm surprised, though, that some hicks - excuse me, I meant rural Southerners - haven't pushed for the same things...

... ugh, too tired. That post probably didn't make no sense 'tall.

[The idea]

The issuing of GED degrees is, whether appropriately or not, the province of state governments. GED degrees have not always existed, but were indeed designed, with an underlying intention of what they would accomplish and represent (and of what they would not, as well - in this case, with the explicit intention not to discourage the completion of high school by students able to do so), and the administration of them was implemented by the authority of the state. They can control this process because they own it. Too bad. Of course, as with any government function, they can control it badly, they can **** it up royally, they can do it justly or unjustly, morally or immorally, smartly or stupidly. The GED is an artifact of government.

A white bus rider asks for Rosa Parks' seat. Mrs. Parks refuses to give up her seat, the police are called, and she is arrested.

Dear Mrs. Parks:

In Alabama, segregation on buses is, whether appropriately or not, the province of state and local governments. Buses have not always existed, but the mass transit systems in Alabama were indeed designed with an underlying intention of what they would accomplish and represent (and of what they would not, as well - in this case, with the explicit intention not to inconvenience white riders).

The administration of the buses is implemented by the authority of the state. They can control this process because they own it. Too bad. Of course, as with any government function, they can control it badly, they can **** it up royally, they can do it justly or unjustly, morally or immorally, smartly or stupidly. The bus system is an artifact of government.

[bruto]

A white bus rider asks for Rosa Parks' seat. Mrs. Parks refuses to give up her seat, the police are called, and she is arrested.

Dear Mrs. Parks:

In Alabama, segregation on buses is, whether appropriately or not, the province of state and local governments. Buses have not always existed, but the mass transit systems in Alabama were indeed designed with an underlying intention of what they would accomplish and represent (and of what they would not, as well - in this case, with the explicit intention not to inconvenience white riders).

The administration of the buses is implemented by the authority of the state. They can control this process because they own it. Too bad. Of course, as with any government function, they can control it badly, they can **** it up royally, they can do it justly or unjustly, morally or immorally, smartly or stupidly. The bus system is an artifact of government.


Absolutely correct, and nothing in my post says it is good, moral, appropriate, or something that should not be changed, protested, boycotted or otherwise challenged. I am only pointing out that the comparison with the evolution of written English is a poor one.

In addition, though I don't think it's really relevant, I would point out that the intention of bus segregation is at its root of course racist and discriminatory in a way that I believe the intention of the administration of the GED is not. I believe that even if it works out to be a bad decision, the intention of the state with regard to the GED (i.e. that it be designed for people who lack the opportunity to complete high school, not for those who have that opportunity but prefer to "cut to the chase") is not in the same category as an abomination such as racial segregation. If you believe it is I think you have a poor grasp of history.

[kittynh]

hmmmm. The beauty of English is the flexibility of the language. English has more words for the same things than most other languages. That's because it does constantly take in new words. One Scandinavian nation (forgot which) actually invents NEW words instead of using words like "internet" and "cell phones". The government actually does this.

The number of Spainish words, French words, and yes, cultural words from various ethinic groups that soon become "English" is part of the wonder of this language. We don't have a language police like the French speakers in Canada (and most French from France would debate if what they speak is even French).

"Bling" - that's known by my grandmother. She USED that word, without batting an eye recently! I think it's great.

[bruto]

Thinking about this a little further, I would add to my last response a couple of points.

First of all, you can plug new nouns into a statement and it may make sense and look grammatical, but it does not guarantee that the statement will be true, and even if it is true in some sense, it does not make it morally equivalent or relevant.

To suggest that there is any moral equivalency between the policy of administering the GED and segregation is silly and, I dare say, immature. It's especially ironic in this case, since the greatest beneficiaries of the GED are those who, owing to poverty, racial inequality, etc. have been prevented from finishing high school.

Not to belabor the obvious, but discrimination against the young is inherently self-limiting, since the young grow up (we hope).

I'm not sure this is really a moral issue at all, but if it is, one must consider the possibility that the GED policy is itself a moral one, even if it turns out to be inconvenient for some. Publicly funded, compulsory education is considered at least by many to be a morally defensible policy, not only for the benefits it confers on children, and the subsequent benefit to society of a well-educated population, but also because it is a fundamental defense against child labor and exploitation of the poor. Any policy that prevents children from dropping out of school has to be considered to have in it this moral component, even though, like most public policies, its utilitarian component ends up a disadvantage for some. The few bright students who would benefit from early release are, I suspect, outweighed by the many who would choose, or in some cases be compelled, to quit early and join the workforce, the very thing that compulsory public education is trying to prevent. A GED policy that provides an easy way to circumvent the intent of compulsory education would be morally indefensible if you consider compulsory education to be a moral choice.

I asked earlier if there are colleges out there that would not accept underage students without a GED, but would accept them with a GED, even though the policy makes this an impossibility. If this is the situation, I believe the onus is not on the issuers of the GED and their policy, which has a rationale which seems to me defensible, but on the colleges which cannot make exceptions for the few students for whom that policy is unfortunate.

[The idea]

I'm not sure this is really a moral issue at all, but if it is, one must consider the possibility that the GED policy is itself a moral one, even if it turns out to be inconvenient for some.

Question #1: How much do you need to know about some proposed legislation to determine whether or not it needs a moral basis?

Question #2 (a) How do you determine whether or not some proposed legislation needs a moral basis?

Question #2 (b): Is there any dice rolling or coin flipping involved?

Any policy that prevents children from dropping out of school has to be considered to have in it this moral component, even though, like most public policies, its utilitarian component ends up a disadvantage for some.
I'm wondering whether or not I am understanding this correctly. There is no justification for imposing a certain policy on some individuals and the policy restricts the opportunities of those individuals.

Question #3: To impose the policy on everyone without exception is a "moral" thing to do and the resulting unjustifiable restriction of opportunities for some individuals is a mere "utilitarian" problem?

[drkitten]

I'm wondering whether or not I am understanding this correctly.


You are not.

The utilitarian moral theory specifically provides a basis for imposing a widespread policy when the total benefit exceeds the total harm. Read up on ethical theories sometime -- for utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham is a good start.

[bruto]

Question #1: How much do you need to know about some proposed legislation to determine whether or not it needs a moral basis?

Question #2 (a) How do you determine whether or not some proposed legislation needs a moral basis?

Question #2 (b): Is there any dice rolling or coin flipping involved?


I'm wondering whether or not I am understanding this correctly. There is no justification for imposing a certain policy on some individuals and the policy restricts the opportunities of those individuals.

Question #3: To impose the policy on everyone without exception is a "moral" thing to do and the resulting unjustifiable restriction of opportunities for some individuals is a mere "utilitarian" problem?


I don't understand your questions on the first point, and what you mean by asking when legislation "needs" a moral basis. The question, I think, is whether the legislation is or is not morally acceptable. That's a matter of judgement, I guess, and depends a little on trying to understand why the legislation has been made, and what it accomplishes, tries to accomplish, and what its value is.

As for the second point, I think you do misunderstand, or at least you have a very unrealistic idea of how a society can operate. It would be wonderful if every law could be tailored to every individual, but at some point we have to make some compromises. Not only for the sake of efficiency or simplicity of administration, but also because there are very few instances in life or law where a moral choice is completely unalloyed. Even the noblest of pursuits entails the neglect of some others. What I give to him I can't always give to you. If what is good for one person is bad for another, there is a choice required. If what is good for one person is bad for many, then the choice becomes simpler (though not necessarily simple). To stick more or less to the issue at hand, I think that enabling any child at any age to take the GED would likely encourage the poorest children, those who might be considered to need education the most, to try to test out for economic reasons (and would also encourage their parents or others to induce or coerce them into doing this, against their better judgment), ending up in low paying, no-benefit jobs at too young an age, the very thing that compulsory public education seeks to avoid. To set up and administer a system which avoids this evil but still allows selected, or special, applicants to test out early entails not only the risk of corruption or favoritism, but also almost certainly greater expense, since additional personnel would be required to operate it, screen applicants, make judgments, etc. This, of course, would require either an increase in the cost to the applicant (thus harming the poorest, the very people for whom the GED is most important), or an increase in budgets and taxes to the public. None of these things are free, and none black-and-white simple.

I would certainly never say "There is no justification for imposing a certain policy on some individuals and the policy restricts the opportunities of those individuals." I think that's a bad statement, and in the case of the issue that started this thread I think it's also poor reading of the situation. The GED age requirement is limiting a benefit, not exactly imposing a policy. Of course, you can argue the relative importance of the opportunities, the restrictions, and the counterbalancing good, but it would be silly to say that absolutely any policy that restricts some opportunities must be immoral. You're fond of analogies, so let's try one: There are in this world a few very clever and responsible children who could be trusted to drive at the age of 12, and probably a few who could do better at 10 than many 16 year olds do now. Yet, any reasonable study of statistics and records shows that even the common driving age of 16 is, for the general public, a very risky compromise. Public policy has made the decision in most states to balance the risk to the public against the opportunity for young people to become mobile, get jobs, obtain valuable driving experience, etc., by setting the age at 16. Do you believe that the driving age should be reduced to 12 because it would be immoral to deprive those precocious few of their opportunity, even though it would likely lead to a dramatic increase in highway fatalities? How about 10? How about 8? Now of course this is a radical example, a reductio ad absurdum perhaps, but it is in a way analogous to your initial issue. If the authorities in charge of GED's are convinced that lowering the age of eligibility would cause an increase in high school dropouts, and a consequential decrease in the welfare of the public, including abusive conditions of child labor, then their choice is a moral one, even though it deprives a few precocious children of some theoretical opportunity for a short period of time (though I still am not sure what actual, concrete opportunity that might be). Since some of the consequences of poor education, dead end jobs, child labor, etc. are deep and long lasting, sometimes lifelong, and sometimes fatal, some might consider it a pretty good tradeoff to tell a few kids they have to wait a year or two before they can bust out.

I still have not gotten a really good answer as to what actual opportunity is being curtailed by the age restriction on the GED, other than the desire to quit school early or simply to have the satisfaction of having taken it.

I think it's important too to remember that the GED is a relatively recent invention, designed to remedy a problem that is not shared by all (and plugging segregated busing into that sentence does not change the import of this). Before this invention people who had lacked the opportunity to finish high school had no recourse. The GED was invented as a way to remedy this lost opportunity, not as an alternative to school. Specifically, at its inception, it was created by the military to provide a remedy for those whose education was interrupted by the Second World War. It was later offered to civilians as well. Is it the case, then, that an opportunity offered to some who need it must always be offered to all who want it? What about scholarships, grants, tax abatements? Why should only the poor or the smart get scholarships? I'm not poor, and who knows, maybe I ain't smart either, but I want one too. Why should only farmers get tax abatements on their land? I have land. I want one too. Why should only old people get Social Security and Medicare? And those handicap parking spaces deny me the opportunity to park near the mall entrance. And on and on.

I would never advocate pure utilitarianism, because, taken to its logical conclusion, it would require that minority interests often be discounted entirely, and would likely destroy many of the things we value in our society. "The greatest good for the greatest number" runs pretty quickly toward greater harm to a smaller number if one is not careful. But at the same time, the operation of government must have a utilitarian component. There has to be some consideration for the majority, and an acknowledgement that not every benefit can be given to everyone.

[Euromutt]

Heh. I'll bite.
Originally posted by The idea
What prevents the government of California from issuing a statement to the effect that the standard system for writing the English language was designed as a way for white people to communicate with each other?
[...]
Does anyone disagree with any statements below or have an answer to any question below?

1. The hypothetical statement issued by the government of California is a statement about history, so it is either objectively true or objectively false.Yes, I disagree. The hypothetical statement would not be a statement about history, but first and foremost a statement linking linguistic ability solely to ethnicity, without regard for a host of other factors which are no less relevant, and probably a damn sight more. The logical extension of a claim that "the standard system for writing the English language was designed as a way for white people to communicate with each other" is that written English inherently lends itself more readily to use by, say, an ethnic Russian born and raised in Siberia and with no formal education whatsoever in any language other than Russian, than to, say, a person who happened to be of Pakistani descent but who had been born and raised in the United Kingdom and educated through the British state school system. Or, alternatively, that Fyodor Dostoevsky should have had an easier time writing in English than Ralph Ellison.

It is almost superfluous to point out that this notion is too ridiculous for words, and that's leaving aside the obvious objection that languages aren't "designed."

Given the risibility of the first question, I think I can dispense with the others.

[The idea]

Heh. I'll bite.
Yes, I disagree. The hypothetical statement would not be a statement about history, but first and foremost a statement linking linguistic ability solely to ethnicity [...]
Are you sure that the hypothetical statement makes reference to ability?

[bruto]

Are you sure that the hypothetical statement makes reference to ability?

I have to agree with you on that. It seemed much more likely that you chose that hypothetical statement with the idea that it imposed a limit or implied an exclusion without regard to ability, thus presumably being analogous to a situation in which persons who might pass a test are ineligible to take it. If it were presumed they could never pass it, there would be no need for a rule: they'd fail and the affair would end there, just as if there were some actual racial inability to handle written English, it would sort itself out without intervention.

I don't think your analogy is relevant anyway, but for other reasons which I hope I've made fairly clear by now.

[hodgy]

No, there should be as few options as possible. Non-whites should be prohibited from studying English. The system for writing the English language was designed for white people to communicate with each other. If it was designed for white people, then non-white people have no business using it. ;)

What a strange and ridiculous comment - how about white people who do not speak English?

[cyborg]

There's no meaningful way in which anyone could say modern English is designed.

End of story.

[BLACK HAT]

I recall watching this series many years ago and found it to be quite fascinating. The series explored a vast array of influences on the English language.

If there is any design to English, it is out of usefulness and practicality.

I recommend this series if you haven't seen it.

A synopsis of the series is available here The Story Of English (http://homepage.mac.com/ebranscomb/courses/HEL/story.html)

[magicflute]

Any language, English or otherwise is basically created by a involuntary concensus of ALL its speakers. Any time any legislative body, governmental or academic has tried to put any type of restraints on a language it has failed. A language is as a living thing, it changes with time, no individual or group can stop it or control it. Dictionaries record their meanings, They do not fix them. Grammars notate how the language is used, not how it MUST be used. Remember the early attempts to make English fit a Latin grammar mold. The point is that a language is what it needs to be at any point in time.

[bruto]

I agree completely that English, written or otherwise, was not "designed," but would contend that even if it were, the analogy would be a poor one. Even if you could show that something like written English had been designed with a particular intent and a particular expected base of users, suggesting that that might imply the exclusion or disqualification of some group on racial grounds which are considered by the bulk of our society to be flagrantly immoral, is a very shaky comparison to the situation of limiting a remedial benefit to those who are deemed to need the remedy (even if one disagrees with the standards by which that deeming is done).

[Euromutt]

Are you sure that the hypothetical statement makes reference to ability?You know what? Why don't you tell me (and, for that matter, the other posters) what the statement does refer to, and, more importantly, what the purpose of this discussion is? You spent all that time typing up a rather lengthy series of questions, so I'm sure you have some opinions as to what the answers are, and what the logical implications of those answers are.

Once you tell us what you're actually thinking, we can decide whether we agree or not and perhaps have a discussion with a point to it.

[kittynh]

hmmm... I wonder if written Chinese is designed for Asian people?

[Nick Bogaerts]

We don't have a language police like the French speakers in Canada (and most French from France would debate if what they speak is even French).

I wouldn't say so. Quebec's dialect is closer to metropolitan French than, for example, Scouse to the Queen's English. (O.K., I'm an Anglo-Dutchman from France, so sue me). The distance is far shorter; there are far more local variations in English than in French, thanks to the revolutionaries attempts at stamping out all dialects (the original language police).

[Ducky]

hmmm... I wonder if written Chinese is designed for Asian people?


Of course it was. But the intent was actually to use as a subversive code against the west in a communist plot to boost ebonics.

[Diamond]

hmmmm. The beauty of English is the flexibility of the language. English has more words for the same things than most other languages. That's because it does constantly take in new words. One Scandinavian nation (forgot which) actually invents NEW words instead of using words like "internet" and "cell phones". The government actually does this.



A: Iceland