The Language of Unrestraint, The Language of Athletes

As an athlete (currently taking a year off), I'm constantly provoked when I hear others talking about how athletes are taught disrespect and allowed to proceed through school and life unrestrained. Usually the comments referred to athletes of the pro-world, but every once in awhile it would be aimed towards young athletes like myself. Every once in awhile, I find myself torn because there is truth to these allegations; however I believe more and more athletes like myself look to be exceptions to these comments.

In reading Beverly Beckham's article in response to Reebok's endorsement of Allen Iverson saying, "That those who try to find a balance between sport and life are defeated before the opening buzzer. We respectfully disagree. Actually, we disrespectfully disagree. Actually, screw those guys," it became absolutely clear to me why this assumption is perpetuated. In this instance, athletes are basically being told to ignore respect and do what they want; however to the young athletes Iverson was talking to--a completely different interpretation—this would mean don't let anyone stop you from achieving your dreams.

Some might ask, why didn't Iverson just say the latter half of what I just said? Because his use of language was more efficient and more practical for communication/what he was trying to communicate to the young athletes.

Beckham took offense to Iverson's use of "Screw those guys", especially when teachers and students alike stood up and clapped. She went on to mention that this mindset is what allowed those like Michael Vick to think that they were invincible.

This raises a few questions. Where do we draw the line in efficient communication versus respectful communication? Who's allowed to say what when? When do the negative consequences transition from the speaker to the interpretation of the listener?

I don’t feel qualified enough to answer these questions and simultaneously, I feel prejudiced as an athlete. I heard prep talks like this as an athlete, but today I am not the “invincible” athlete. I do respect others. I do have a positive attitude and I know better than to take Iverson’s words to what some interpret extremely.

~1~

1844 to 2007 Part 2

In my last post, I responded to the news article discussing the use of "idiot" and "insane" in several state constitutions. Notably, I did not discuss the context of the time period in which the words were used because I assumed (unfortunately) that it would be understood that those words were acceptable in reference to 1844. However, it is 2007. To use the words "idiot" and "insane" to describe someone with mental handicaps is a.) not politically correct and b.) not correct at all in most instances. Not all mentally handicapped individuals have the mental capabilities of a two year old (as defined by the word idiot) and not all are insane--as defined by having a serious mental disorder that leaves them selective perceptive.

The problem with these words is the overarching way it is used to deem a minority of Americans. This minority includes those that only have physical disabilities such as quadriplegia--quadriplegics are fully capable of voting, they might not have the mobility to do so. And if we're going to discuss insanity--why are those deemed criminal insane, still allowed to vote?

This is not just a problem of “teenagers’ mak[ing] up words with whatever meaning they want”, especially in this case; adults are the ones finding offense with this word. The ramifications of using words like this in the 21st century are reflective upon American ideals and what we deem appropriate. We, whether or not we believe it or like to be defined as such, are the world's role model--a role model who must constantly improve itself and fix its faults.

Furthermore by using these words, we disenfranchise a larger group than originally meant in 1844. It's not just about these two words being "bad" words; it's about the fact that these words offend in the context of the 21st century. Originally, it obviously wasn't meant to cause injury, but now that it does cause injury--let's not be afraid of change. That's all it really comes down to. We must never be afraid to change, especially in ways that make us better.

~1~

1844 to 2007: More Than Enough Time To Change

Remember the very first time you were scolded for calling someone "stupid", "idiot" or "dumb(y)"? And as the years progressed you were scolded for calling those with mental handicaps "retarded"? I do.

It's hard to imagine a time when these words were commonly used to refer to those with mental handicaps. The use of these words was so common, that in at least eight state constitutions (New Jersey, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico and Ohio) the words "idiot" or "insane" appear to describe those with limited mental capacity--in order to keep them from voting.

In New Jersey's case, this was adopted into the Constitution in 1844--it is now 2007. It has taken more than a century and a half for New Jersey to finally decide to put the use of these words to the ballot. Advocates for the disabled contend the use of these words because it's inaccurate--not every disabled individual is mentally incapacitated--and have pushed to have these words replaced with those "lack[ing] the capacity to understand the act of voting".

New Jersey's story is a happy ending, but what about New Mexico. Their "...voters in 2002 rejected a plan to remove "idiots" and "insane persons" from that state's Constitution by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent"?

It just goes to show, how hard it is to strike certain words from our vocabulary, especially when we aren't the ones being insulted by it.

~1~

What English Lacks

Lately I've found myself in the realm of book reviews--it is not on purpose I swear--but yet again I've added another book to my Must Read List.

Michael Vex is the author of Just Nu: Yiddish for Every Occasion (When English Just Won't Do). It was that last bit at the end that caught my--how many times a day do I always complain about how English doesn't do words justice? I had to know what this book was about.

What I found was language that had me written all over it. Yiddish is simple in use, yet complex in meaning, "...consisting of equal parts disbelief, contempt and impatience." The latter is what has me wanting to learn the language. In addition to attitude through drawn-out syllables and vim through quick speech, Yiddish does justice for times when the word idiot is just not enough.

It's the meaning behind the words that causes the effect. There's a difference between calling someone an idiot and comparing them to the likes of a person who sees a wall and walks into it--the latter is visually appealing and especially when the speaker is in a state of anger does mild justice to smarting nerves.

To me this is like Yoruba, except our insults when translated literally (when one really thinks about it what they've just said) make you laugh. For instance if someone a question in which you believe they know better than to seriously ask that allowed, you respond, "Baba jo, a mbere irugbon, kil'o fa sababi?", which translates literally to "A man burned to death, do we ask him what happened to his beard?" I'm laughing right now because the added affect is the hiss and eye roll that usually come with this statement.

In this same instance, Yiddish does justice for insults--appropriating far better insults that help change the mood of the speaker into one that does justice when justice can't be done anyway but verbally.

~1~

So...umm...this is why...like..we use umm...like...yeah. You know what I mean?

In my last post, I spent a little time talking about a book I'd already read, this time I want to talk about a book that has officially become my first priority on my Must-Read...Eventually-List. I was turned on to this book, by Ted Landphair's unique review which had several um's and uhh's in the preview. I had to see what this was about--with all the warnings of every English teacher I've ever had ringing in my head--because this a piece was in Voice of America. What possible exception allowed someone to write umm, uhh, and like (my English teachers especially complained using these words verbally, much less writing them) in their work?!

What Landphair had done was play upon, Michael Erard's study on the verbal mishaps of English speakers with words such as "umm", "uhh", "like", and spoonerisms. Erard wrote about them in his book entitled Um...: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean and further went on to explain why it is that we stumble.

It is very rare to find someone who doesn't stumble to find words, "...such as the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ...It's called 'eloquence.'" It is human nature to mix up words because we compose and think while we're talking. This is essentially the most basic form of multi-tasking we do and when we can't multitask properly we fill the gaps with instead of space words like "umm", "uhh", "err", "like", and "you know what I'm sayin’?". This isn't saying that we're dumb or incompetent (although Landphair argues that today's youth is verbally lazy), but rather that we are only capable to a point. According to Erard's calculations, we rack our brain for one word every four hundred milliseconds, meanwhile we must verbalize what we're thinking.

He goes on to discuss why it is that we get so angry about our blunders. Erard discussed the consequences of linguistic blunders with public-speaking professionals and self-righteous amateurs, who in turn basically related that in certain circles language is a sign of competency and the use of umm and uhh lengthens conversations and decreases the listener’s attention. Erard uses as an example the constant blunderings of President George W. Bush; he ascertains that the media has pounced upon Bush's constant verbal blunders and helped expound upon the idea that Bush is incompetent, an argument I'll reserve for another day.

Other causalities of blunders, including bilingualism and age, help Erard conclude that malapropisms are not representative of ignorance or inability. We should be cautious about the assumptions we make about people especially in these latter two instances because at the base of it all we're all human.

~1~

Where Should We Draw the Line?

As I sat reading this thread in response to Zdenko J. Bergl's Coming to America (Letters to the Editor in the Kansas City Star), I found myself riding the fence. Initially I felt from my family's own experiences that what Bergl was saying was true--why should one ethnic group change the way America is? How is this fair to other ethnicities who have taken the time to learn English? Yet simultaneously, my sympathies lay not with Bergl, but with immigrants in general and the struggle that is called "living in America".

Then I thought to myself, put yourself in the immigrants shoes--the modern ones that is. I'm sure someone can tell me their family's personal story of rags to riches that may prove otherwise, but I personally believe that post-WWII immigrants had more to work with than modern day immigrants on the basis of being West European (that in itself is another discussion). Not saying there wasn't racism towards both groups; however modern immigrants are concerned with the survival of their family: feeding, clothing, and housing them to the best of their abilities. This means menial jobs that require hours that most Americans wouldn't dream of working. This differs from post-WWII immigrants in degree of contemporary poverty levels--most modern immigrants would be in my opinion below the level of poverty corresponding to 1940’s immigrants.

And where in these priorities does learning a new language lie? It isn't a choice for them; they are too busy--whole families working in horrendous factory conditions--to learn a new language. Yes, perhaps their priorities are misguided, but poverty and starvation will always override any other action.

Yes…I know, I know—I feel like I can hear a thousand voices simultaneously shouting, “SO WHAT?! My family came to America and we learned English!” Yeah, and so did mine. But wouldn’t life have been a lot easier for yours and my families if someone had allowed us to retain our mother tongues, in order to survive everyday living? In order to give our sick children, proper doses of medication? In situations like the latter, if not for translations in Spanish we’d be talking about “Bad Parenting on the Rise in Hispanic Populations”—or something of the sort.

I think all I’m trying to say is have pity—tender mercy—upon others. Yes, it isn’t fair that we don’t have German, Italian, or Russian (and especially don’t have many African languages) translated all over America, but perhaps its better we don’t let history repeat itself. Perhaps we’re being progressive—so let progression occur in peace. One thread said what I feel best and I'll leave at that:

"I see it somewhat differently. My grandparents were also from Sicily. My grandmother lived in an Italian enclave in New Jersey and spoke only Italian. My father spoke both English and Italian. And I speak only English. Give the Hispanic people three generations, and I suspect it will be the same for most of them. Why make a big deal about a problem time will solve?"
-"Joe Barone"

~1~

Them's Fightin' Words!

In the politically correct mania of today, some words have so much baggage, that every time they are used publicly, debate ensues. It doesn't matter if the president or your best friend used them--debate will eventually ensue, substantially more so for those in the same spotlight as the former.

For Isiah Thomas, the hot seat is just the beginning. He is accused of sexually harassing a former team executive of the Knicks, Anuche Browne Sander and referring to her as a bitch. Further tangling his predicament, in his disposition Thomas was bold enough to state that it was, "...less offensive for a black man to call a black woman a “bitch” than it was for a white man".

PEOPLE! COME ON IT’S 2007. A bitch is a bitch just like any other derogatory/insinuating word. A word meant in spite and to provoke ill-will in any situation, no matter the speaker, will STILL by the time it reaches the listener be received in spite and ill-will. Let's even break this down scientifically just in case my point is being missed. When the sound waves reverberate through the air and final bounce of the listener's eardrums, neurons transmit the message to the brain's language center and registers the sound as--wait for it--an insult!

In response, Al Sharpton (I usually don't find myself agreeing with him; however I am more than grateful that Al Sharpton said this as a black man to another black man) remarked, "We cannot have double standards for sexism and racism,” and asked that if the video was not spliced Thomas should apologize immediately.

All of this raises another issue that has been troubling the black community: the use of the word nigger. In my opinion, no matter the context of the word, nigger should never be used. Arguably, I am using the word now.* However, I believe that this is the slur of slurs--it carries so much baggage that it truly can't empower anybody--and it can't be taken back and used positively without negatively reflecting itself on those that use it. This is the same stance I have for bitch.

If you have ever have the chance, for those of you that question my opinion of the use of nigger, I strongly encourage you to read Randall Kennedy's "Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word" and quickly change your mind.

~1~


*Disclaimer: The use of derogatory terms in this post do not reflect my everyday vocabulary, but rather make sure that there is no room for ambiguity in what I am expressing.

America: the Rich Kid Slacker

Tara Ashraf, surely read my mind. She clearly vocalized (no mistake here, as I imagined a seething woman on the brink of shouting in an almost Jennifer-Hudson-singing-And-I-Am-Telling-You like fashion) her list of grievances against America was poignant, while she remained substantially American. She wasn't disloyal. She wasn't treasonous. She was an American trying to help her fellow citizens better themselves.

Ashraf doesn't directly talk about the idea of a universal language--one is likely to assume she is opposed to it--but does evoke some thought in regards to it. The idea of a universal language is an idea that can be traced as far back as the story of Babel. Ironically, back then it didn't work either.

What Ashraf proposes is that instead of snubbing the world, America should require that each student take a foreign language in order that they will become aware of the world around them. And it's not just about learning to speak language--we must learn the language in context of the contemporary world: have discussions of politics pertaining to countries speaking that language.

As we seem to be a trickle down society in terms of how we gather information, our first of information, the media (all of forms of medium), needs to play a major role in re-acclimating America to the world. America is like the nuns in Sister Act--they seemed uptight and self-righteous at first, but when taught to sing in a new way they were able to connect with their community and make strides towards strengthening their bonds with a community looking up to them for help. If only America, truly understood what it was capable of.

On a personal note: I understand that while it is a huge advancement for higher education to offer and require Latin languages or Dutch languages, it is pertinent that these languages not take complete precedence. In the one world we live in today, if we are truly concerned we should have available in our school systems the languages of third world countries, especially those in Africa and Southeast Asia. It was a struggle for my high school to bring in a Chinese curriculum, but in the end we have now fostered an exchange program with a leadership school in Shanghai.

America, be better; do best.

~1~

The Hills Are Alive With the Sounds of Language...wait Huh?

In the first of two application essays for this course, I reflected upon my experiences in speaking Yoruba and its influences on how I thought.

“Yoruba is a very pitch oriented language and to me the beauty of it is just
that--it's like music, where every note fits. When I speak Yoruba I find it easy
to express myself aesthetically, something that I'm not always capable of doing
in English. It has shaped me as a person because I like to see the beauty in
everything. When I say "beauty", I mean both things that are appealing and
unappealing to the eye. In Yoruba, things are so named to establish the sense of
"beauty" in an object; whether it is trash or rose, they are bestowed names that
fit uniquely in their own "beauty".”

In retrospect after reading Music and Language Are Processed by the Same Brain Systems, perhaps my classification of Yoruba as a musical language, both in tone and with each word representing a note equivalent (a word fittingly given to an object), was misguided. I was correct to state that Yoruba is pitch oriented as there are a whooping 21 vowel sounds; however perhaps my recognition of language and music has much more to do with the findings of this study.

According to researchers at the Georgetown University Medical Center, in both memory systems (one in the temporal lobes and the other in the frontal lobes) we learn to recognize “…words and meanings in language and familiar melodies in music” in the former and in the latter we “…unconsciously learn and use the rules that underlie both language and music, such as the rules of syntax in sentences, and the rules of harmony in music.” They tested subjects to see their reactions to common songs (i.e. Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star) and their in-key variants (different octave) and off-key deviants (disharmonious). The brain wave patterns that they recorded were the same as those discovered for previously studied brain patterns for language memory.

Another article from UC-Irvine discusses the affects of Mandarin on perfect pitch. In Mandarin there are 16 vowel sounds (correct me if I’ve misinterpreted this) with just the slightest pitch producing a different word with a totally different definition. This has helped boost the amount of Chinese students with perfect pitch and goes a step further linking language and music.

So in my case, perhaps I’ve acquired “perfect pitch” of the Yoruba language. This may sound slightly absurd to some readers, but this seems to be a perfectly logical explanation as to why I need to use certain words and why certain words sound significantly better when spoken in Yoruba rather than in English. Ironically, in the Yoruba culture there is a drum called the gangan otherwise known as the talking drum. Today, the gangan is a ceremonial drum used to communicate complex messages to the listener(s) through its changing pitch music (it used to be a common place communication device). It is obvious to me that the Yoruba language has always and is meant to be identified with music.

So yes, I was misguided in my understanding of why Yoruba and music seem interchangeable to me—why words in English don’t create the same musical symphony that words in Yoruba do. And it’s amazing because I’ve never delved so deeply into why I’ve always seen Yoruba and music in this way. This new understanding of myself has left me euphoric and unable to stop smiling.

~1~