Trayvon Martin's friend and a key witness made a lot more sense than you think

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
There are several possible reasons why Jeantel feigned on whether calling someone a cracker was racially-motivated. It could be because she wants to protect her dead friend. It could be because she’s extremely uncomfortable. Much of her irritable reticence is predictable of someone of modest education reacting to an unfamiliar type of interrogation on the witness stand. As natural as many educated people find direct questions, they are culturally rather unusual worldwide, an artifice of educational procedure. In oral cultures – i.e. most cultures— direct questions are processed as abrupt and confrontational. In that, Jeantel is operating at a clear disadvantage.

Yet one problem Jeantel is not having is with English itself. Many are seeing her as speaking under some kind of influence from the Haitian Creole that is her mother’s tongue, but that language has played the same role in her life that Yiddish did in George Gershwin’s – her English is perfect.

It’s just that it’s Black English, which has rules as complex as the mainstream English of William F. Buckley. They’re just different rules. If she says to the defense lawyer interrogating her “I had told you” instead of “I told you” it’s not because it’s Haitian—black people around the country use what is called the preterite “had,” which I always heard my Philadelphia cousins using when I was a kid.
<snip>
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/28/rachel-jeantel-explained-linguistically/#ixzz2XWdN26aH

She's not stupid.
She was doing the best she could which I think was fine.
Put yourself in her position.

[warrior1]

1. I understood her

she did say that she speaks low. They finally moved the microphone closer to her at the end of day yesterday.

Zimmerman's guilty, but I worry about what a jury of 5 white women and 1 (I don't know her race) will do. Why wasn't there at least one black juror?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I had problems not with the speech

But how low at times she spoke. (Which came from nervousness). English has way too many dialects.

[hlthe2b]

5. Yes... her volume was my issue.. I am surprised they didn't do something to improve the microphone

capture and amplified volume. Perhaps it was not so hard for the jurors to hear, but it surely was for me on tv.

[reusrename]

17. yep, she doesn't have much dynamic range

a good sound guy would have fixed that by adding some compression to the mic signal

[Boom Sound 416]

38. Adding compression

"To the mic signal" would not have increased the volume of the voice. There are three mics at the witness stand. One is the courtroom PA. one is for TV broadcast. And the third is a PZM or pressure zone microphone. That's the small triangle looking one. Probably the long stick mic is the courtroom PA. probably the shorter stage looking mic is the TV broadcast mic.

First of all if you talk low and you gain the mic all you end up doing is drowing out the voice even more because you add room tone to the mic. Second all broadcast tv has compression in the sound mostly to equalize the sound levels because the FCC regulates volume. That would someone can yell or talk softly and it's relatively the same volume.

There's more but I think you get the jist. If you want to hear someone on a mic and they are already a fair distance away (in this case at least a foot away (which is far for a broadcast mic)), they simply must speak up.

[reusrename]

67. Exactly correct, I think.

It sounded fine over the local tv channel.

It was the courtroom feed that was weak.

I believe the difference in sound between the two was the compressor in the broadcast chain.

[Boom Sound 416]

68. Ok

Compression reduces dynamic range. Thus, the loud is not so loud. Furthermore if you gained it with compression you squash the dialogue into the room tone.

They can only turn the court PA up so much for various reasons including feedback.

I think it would be highly unlikely for a district court PA to have a compressor in the chain, either as a rack unit or plug-in. Perhaps the amp itself may have a cheap one built in, but it's not the solution here and probably hasn't been touched since its initial setup.

I also doubt that neither the court nor the TV broadcast had a dedication "sound guy," but rather a media guy and a truck guy respectively.

Understandably she was quiet, but needed to speak up.

[Nye Bevan]

3. So is this "Black English" with "different rules" taught in schools?

Does it apply only to the spoken word, or to the written word, too?

Why would English have "different rules" depending upon one's skin color? And why do Barack and Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, and Cory Booker appear to use standard English with the normal rules?

[hlthe2b]

6. wow... your post has so many ugly undercurrents, I don't even know where to start....

[Whisp]

9. that one was the first I saw using 'Queen's English' bullshit yesterday. n.t

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Oh boy

I saw the reference but had no idea who that was. Now I know.

[TeeYiYi]

21. Thank you! +1

Jayzuss...

TYY

[tosh]

23. Ditto that!

Seriously!

[mac56]

29. ^ THIS ^

[KurtNYC]

8. It is studied in linguistics courses

Doesn't depend on skin color but rather on cultural background and where you learned to speak English or your present linguistic environment.

As you are aware, UK English is different from American English. We use adverbs improperly, even in major ad campaigns: "Think Different." It is cultural. The version of English you are surrounded by is, for any individual, the one that seems correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English

[JDPriestly]

22. The traditional Scottish brogue is pretty impossible.

And then those sweet young ladies at the computer help desks in India? They are speaking their own dialects. It is English. But sometimes I cannot understand them at all.

[backscatter712]

10. Were you born this racist or did you have to study for years to achieve it? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

64. I don't give a shit about anyone's skin color.

But I find bad grammar annoying, regardless of the race of the person using it.

So perhaps it would be more accurate to call me a "grammaticist" than a "racist". (Doesn't sound so dramatic, I admit).

[CreekDog]

72. yesterday you said you expected all of us to speak the Queen's English

even though this is not Britain and we are not subjects of the queen.

got anything else dumb to say?

[Nye Bevan]

74. There are plenty of Canadian and British DUers

who are, indeed, subjects of Her Majesty. So your use of the word "we" is a little US-centric.

[CreekDog]

82. you said it in a thread about Rachel Jeantel --are you saying she's British or Canadian?

nice try.

[CreekDog]

94. So you're saying the female witness is a subject of the queen

Remember your statement about the Queen's English was in the thread about Rachel Jeantel.

[JaneyVee]

11. Are you serious?! American dialect alone has numerous variations. North South East West.

[Deny and Shred]

13. Like, whatever.

William F Buckley - gag me. English is totally tubular 'cause hearin' me is bitchin'. Missing my point? Barf me out. Gotta jet.

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. It is a cultural trait.

Using a different set of rules is not confined to African Americans.

When I am around my cousins, "proper English" goes out the window. You would assume we crawled out of the swamps and had no schooling, but we are college graduates. When in a different situation, we can switch to the King's English.

I know many people who talk differently when around people they know. It is technically wrong by English rules, but it is not an indicator of intelligence.

You have no idea how the 3 men you mentioned speak around old family and friends. Using an informal form isn't done with strangers around.

No it is not taught in schools. That is a stupid question to say the least.

If someone hasn't internalized the rules and form of a new language, they will probably use a form that is mixed with what they previously used. This is especially true if one is nervous.

[knitter4democracy]

15. Yes, it is.

In Michigan, it's really common to teach the college-level novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, and that entire novel is written in African American English Vernacular. I always preface the novel with a mini-unit on AAEV, its history and where it came from, and how it meets the definition of a language (has a people who speak it, a grammar, a history, and a literature).

Most successful speakers of AAEV know to code-switch to a more dominant, socially acceptable American English form. Even Bill Clinton did this, as his deep Southern accent is pretty much AAEV with a white overlay.

[Are_grits_groceries]

16. Interesting.

I was referring to it's being taught in high schools and such.

I use AAEV like Clinton. That is common.

[knitter4democracy]

19. The answer is the same.

As for teaching it as a language, sure we do. We just don't call it that. We use it in examples to compare/contrast it with Standard American English, we teach kids to code switch, and in all reality, it's not that different from teaching ESL to non-English speakers some days.

[noiretextatique]

31. thank you...there is so much shame, fear, ignorance, misunderstanding and racism

associated with this vernacular, that is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about it.

[noiretextatique]

25. obviouly you know nothing about linguistics

dialects or the many variations of standard english. which means it is pointless to discuss this with you. at least some people have the good sense not to opine on a subject they clearly know nothing about.

[nolabear]

27. Well bless your heart.

Perhaps my Southern vernacular is unfamiliar to you.

But to take your post seriously in case you are actually that naive, "Black English" is just a convenient term. The number of subcultures in the US and other places where English is the predominant language is myriad, and believe it or not speaking like one's family and peers is comforting, and natural.

To be utterly pedantic, because your post seems to call for that, there are in fact many written works in various vernaculars, including "Black English" and "Ebonics" and Creole and Yiddish and Pidgin and Spanglish and Cajun and on and on and on. I'm sorry you haven't been exposed towny. They're rich and interesting and informative.

The fact that this very young woman with experience that is in some ways limited and in some very broad (she speaks three languages, English being the third) did not conform to the King's English did her some harm in a court system and social media that in spite of its high-falutin' (Southernism) trappings is outstandingly tight-assed (slang for uptight, 60s slang for constrained beyond comprehension).

[aquart]

42. Yiddish is NOT a vernacular of English.

German and Hebrew.

[nolabear]

57. Agreed. But it is often spoken in combination with English as are the others I mentioned.

Sorry if I was unclear.

[jberryhill]

30. It has different rules in England

By "standard English", what exactly do you mean?

[Nye Bevan]

50. Take any speech made by President Obama.

I consider that to be "standard English".

[bravenak]

66. He's a Harvard grad.

I find that we Americans have invented a new and constantly changing form of English.

[Scootaloo]

101. So you expect Rachel to take the stand and speak like President Obama?

You do know that very few politicians - including President Obama - deliver speeches in American Standard English, right? They're actually speaking Formal Written English.

American Standard English is, like Formal Written English, a written dialect more than a spoken one. Almost no-one speaks it casually, they use it for delivery (interviews, education, things like that)

Most of us - very certainly including you - speak some variety of dialect or "vernacular." These can stem from any number of sources - regional, racial, or even professional (the Army, fishermen, and truckers all have their own distinct varieties!) Hell, there's even a gendered dialect / pidgin, Yeshivlish, which is a mix of English, Hebrew, and Yiddish spoken mostly by male Yeshiva students in the US.

Rachel speaks just fine (oh, I'm sorry, I mean "perfectly well" :eyes and as witnesses in a trial are to speak in their own words, for her to go up and suddenly break out like she's reading from a Houghton-Mifflin standard edition grammar textbook would be very strange, and to have a problem with her not doing so is fucking deranged.

[Jazzgirl]

60. My, My...

This post has so many things wrong with it I don't know where to start. Bless your heart....

[Nye Bevan]

65. I thank you sincerely for your blessing. (nt)

[HiddenAgenda63]

62. There are a lot of English dialects.

I can't understand a damn word spoken in Lancastrian, but I'm pretty used to Lanark Twang, Franglais, Patois-Acadian and Newf (or "Newfenese&quot ...

I'm pretty sure the Obamas speak Standard American English (they are, after all, both Harvard educated). Ms. Jeantel probably speaks a variant of Cajun or Creole English mixed with some African-American Vernacular. It's pretty tough to understand if you are not immersed in the culture, just as the aforementioned Lancastrian is practically unintelligible to most North Americans.

[CreekDog]

71. you're asking why all black people aren't the same?

yes, that seems par for the course.

[Judi Lynn]

85. Why not attempt to train youself to keep your race hatred to yourself,

to cultivate it in silence might make it all the more enjoyable for you.

The only supporters you're bound to get here will be scum, as you know.

Democrats don't support seething hatred for people of various skin shades, and there's really no reason to try to pass it off as meaningful commentary. It's not worth "sharing".

[COLGATE4]

4. No, not a linguistics problem.

Her problem was getting caught having previously said "I could have heard" and now trying to say it was "I could hear". Not a problem of grammatical construction. context, supposed prior lanuage influences. It was a problem of truthfullness. Which came out when she finally relented when the tape was about to be played for the jury.

[displacedtexan]

18. So you think she had a mastery of verb tenses and was lying about what she said?

Wow! She's cunningly brilliant!

Seriously? You really believe this?

[COLGATE4]

43. Did you watch her testimony? I am an experienced

trial lawyer and I watched it live. There is no issue about verb 'tenses' - she tried to change her original statement of "I could have heard Travon" to " I could hear Travon". The original statement was on tape. When the judge agreed that the jury could hear the tape then she agreed that she had really said "I could have heard Travon". That's what's known as embellishing your testimony in my business and she got caught by a good crossp examiner (which is exactly what he's supposed to do). It goes directly to her credibility.

[COLGATE4]

44. No. I think she changed her testimony

and got caught at it. Nothing cunning about that. Witnesses frequently do it.

[COLGATE4]

96. Do I think she was changing her testimony

from previous occasions? Absolutely. (Doesn't require and particular 'mastery of verb tenses' to change an equivocal statement "I could have heard Trayvon" to an absolute "I could hear Trayvon" in an attempt to better (in her mind) the Prosecution's case. Witnesses do it all the time.

[reusrename]

20. wtf?

There was no problem of truthfulness at all, unless you consider a woman lying about her age to be a sin or something.

[Go Vols]

46. or her

lying about writing Trayvons mother a letter

In a painfully embarrassing moment, Jeantel was forced to admit that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot. It came when West asked her to read the letter aloud in court.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-read-letter-wrote-shooting/story?id=19504826

[reusrename]

77. Sure, this and the lie about going to the doctor to avoid the wake.

Maybe you can see a pattern here. Don't all of these things have to do with ego, or how she presents herself to the world? Everyone does this. Some are better at it than she is so they get away with more, but everyone lies about this kind of thing. Everyone.

So sure, if you want to say she is a liar and a cheat just like every other person on the planet, that's correct. But I believe that those terms should be reserved for a different type of behavior. Liars and cheats make shit up about other people. See the difference? Some folks, and I imagine she is in this group, would never do something like that. Basic honesty.

Ironically, I believe Zimmerman will die on this particular cross. Had he told everyone that he stalked Martin, then confronted him, then began an altercation with him, then shot him because he was getting his ass kicked, he would have been untouchable under the existing Florida stand your ground law.

The fact that Zimmerman lied and said he was jumped by Martin is probably what will send him to jail. Had he been "honest" and if he did not "bear false witness against" Martin, he would have gone completely free because what he actually did was not illegal at all.

Weird, huh?

[TorchTheWitch]

87. she dictated the letter to a friend

Whoopdie-doo. Every one of my bosses is guilty of that. Hell, most of them didn't bother to even sign themselves, and I forged their signatures for them. Gads, I even had a boss who had me forge his signature on briefs filed in court that he never bothered to read.

Every one of these "lies" are petty and reasonable and have nothing to do with her character or what she witnessed.

So she lied to Martin's family why she didn't attend the wake or the funeral. Whoopdie-doo. She freely admitted that she lied to them about it, her explanation for it was entirely reasonable, it has nothing to do with her character (in fact it speaks well of her character that she was too emotional to attend) nor does it have anything to do with her reliability as a witness. I would have done the same. Even in my mid-twenties I was emotionally incapable of attending the funeral of my grandmother who died of totally natural and expected causes and told my family I couldn't go because I was sick. So what. It says nothing about my character nor truthfulness in entirely different matters. All it shows is that I was too embarrassed to tell my own family that I was too emotional about it to go. Frankly, wakes in particular disgust me... I have no desire to look upon a dead person that I knew in life. Though I realize that some people find comfort or closure in doing so to me it is repulsive and bizarre.

I also once had someone else sign a birthday card for me and add a couple of lines I asked them to write for me. Whoopdie-doo. Nobody would consider that nefarious or some kind of blemish upon my character. Having a friend write a letter Rachel dictated to her to send to Mrs. Martin speaks well of Rachel's character in that she wanted the letter to have proper diction and penmanship for such an important and emotional document that Mrs. Martin wouldn't have difficulty deciphering nor humiliate Rachel for her lack of education. I only wish my own mother dictated her letters to me since she writes in cursive which I struggle to read and medical abbreviations I don't always remember what they mean since my mom has used such abbreviations in letters and notes to us all our lives as if we SHOULD know what they meant just because SHE did. Frankly, if my diction and penmanship and inability to write in cursive existed I would want to dictate the letter to someone else to write for me as well.

I can't even believe anyone is falling for these gross petty grasping at straws the defense has been harassing every witness over yet here they are. Good thing they aren't on the jury.

[COLGATE4]

47. No. I don't consider that a sin. But

I do consider it a hallmark of untruthfulness when a witness changes her prior testimony once on the stand.

[reusrename]

63. Then you have no understanding of truth or honesty.

No one is perfectly truthful or honest. That's just reality.

[COLGATE4]

69. Well, I've spent a whole lot of years watching

people either lie or tell the truth in a courtroom. Nice strawman though.

[reusrename]

76. I apologize for sounding confrontational, but it is not a strawman.

There are many different aspects to being an honest person. Since nobody tells the truth 100% of the time there must be some other way of distinguishing honest folks from cheats and liars.

Have you ever thought about this question?

[COLGATE4]

78. You're absolutely right that nobody tells the truth

100% of the time. And that is exactly the purpose of rigorous cross examination. It is designed to get to the actual 'truth' of a situation, slicing through the changes, evasions and sometimes deliberate untruthfulness of a given witness. That's why we have an adversarial system. It may not be pretty but it usually does work.

[reusrename]

79. Sure, and we know Zimmerman is a lying sack o' s____.

The difference between "bearing false witness" and "bearing false witness against thy neighbor" is vast. Hopefully, the jury will get this correct.

There's more in post #77, above.

[COLGATE4]

80. I don't "know" anything right now, until I've

had a chance to see and hear both sides. As to the other point you're attempting to make, I'm an attorney, not a theologian. Bearing false witness = lying in court under oath, so far as I'm concerned.

[reusrename]

81. Sorry, I thought everyone knew the original judge was recused.

Zimmerman lied to the judge. It was very well publicized.

As to your views on bearing false witness, being and attorney and all, your view kind of scares me a little.

I sure wish they would teach lawyers a little more about the principles involved in honesty. If you don't see the difference between lying to exculpate someone, and lying to implicate someone, then you just don't get the concept at all. It isn't that difficult, but it is lost on some people.

[noiretextatique]

26. another person who knows nothing about linguistics

sad that you won't educate yourself.

[COLGATE4]

45. Please enlighten me as to the linguistic issues

involved in changing that you said "I could have heard..." to "I could hear". Educate me.

[COLGATE4]

95. Still waiting to be educated, 'studied

Linguistics in College"...

[TorchTheWitch]

84. she never said the word "heard"

On the tape and on the transcript it is clear that she used the word "hear" in that sentence, and even the defense doesn't dispute that. The defense's only argument was whether or not she said "could'a" or "could've". But it is the word "hear" that matters because had she been saying that she could have HEARD Trayvon she would have used the word HEARD, and she never did - not in on the tape, not in the transcript and not in her testimony. The defense was using her dialect that is not very clear to those people who don't speak it to try and claim that "she could have heard" was what she said and more importantly what she meant. But it is her consistent and clear use of the word "hear" rather than "heard" that makes it clear that whatever that additional "ah" sound meant after the word "could" was only her style of speaking or a pause like "ah" or "um" or an expulsion of breath or whatever that in no way changes the clear meaning of what she was conveying which she made abundantly clear in her testimony.

She never lied in her testimony at all. Any lies she told previously like why she told Martin's parents she didn't go to the wake or funeral she clearly owned up to in her testimony and explained why she did which is totally understandable. At that age in particular I would have done the same - made up a "white" lie to explain why I was emotionally unable to attend so as not to offend and not to reveal what I would have considered a weakness in my own character in not feeling emotionally capable. Any lies of omission by not giving all details in front of Martin's mother were for the same reason - to not upset her needlessly and not believing such strict detail was relevant.

Defense did the same thing to other witnesses badgering them as to why they didn't give every single detail to everyone they talked to about the case, like the Asian woman and her testimony about the sound she heard moving left to right. Defense pounded her on that when anyone can clearly see that she never mentioned it before because she didn't ever consider it relevant information nor was she ever directly asked a question pertaining to the directional movement of the sound she heard until her testimony in court INCLUDING the defense counsel - they never asked her that question directly EITHER yet made a stupid big stink over it in cross examination to a point where she was nearly reduced to tears.

The end result of Rachel's testimony was that she consistently told the truth while being badgered and harassed and humiliated by West who repeatedly mischaracterized her testimony in order to confuse her and try to get her to agree with his mischaracterization (which she never allowed) and repeatedly asking the same questions that were asked and answered the same way by her again and again. Even the judge was obviously disgusted with him. Prosecution allowed him to do this without objecting because they KNEW he was coming off as a bully deliberating trying to confuse her and use her dialect against her and basically treating her as a criminal, and the jury wouldn't fail to see it.

Her lying to Martin's family and lies of omission to them she freely admitted to, reasonably explained and aren't even relevant. She never once lied in her testimony though West repeatedly and obviously tried to confuse her in the hope that she would contradict herself through misstatement, but she saw what he was doing and didn't stand for it perpetually insisting on her every answer that showed her consistency. And for that she came off even better despite her age, her woeful under-education, her dialect, her soft voice, her size and her race which was clearly used by the defense and even cretins here on DU against her.

[Saphire]

91. +1

[K Gardner]

7. Chris Hayes had a linguistics professor on last night to address just this issue, and he

did so perfectly. Yes, she was speaking "black English", which contains a lot of pluperfect and varying tenses. I won't pretend to be able to decipher what he said, but he understood her. I understood her. And for the poster above who made the ugly comments because she didn't speak just like him/her, well, we just haven't come very far in this country.

[mfcorey1]

24. There is no such thing as black English and people need to stop saying

The majority of African Americans reject this notion of "Black English". If students are taught casual or slang with use with friends and formal English for business there would be no need to invent reasons for misuse. Jeantel is and ESE student with a learning disability. The court does not recognize that. ESE students have many federal regulations that protect them. They are often issued special diplomas that take into account their learning disability. These students are often mainstreamed into classrooms with average and high performance students because parents lobbied for it and felt they could benefit from the immersion. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Jeantel reacted to the level for which her disability allows her to communicate. Maybe there is also some dyslexia present.

[noiretextatique]

28. just because some black people reject reality

does not mean, linguistically speaking, that this particular vernacular does not exist. there are many african american who speak this language, much to the chagrin of other black people. zora neale hurston wronte in about the lives of people who spoke what some call black english...in that dialect. this is an age-old debate in the black community, and frankly, the lengths some black people go to deny this language exists is absurd. it has everything to do with shame, and very little to do with lingusitics.

[jberryhill]

32. It has little to do with color

When my father was not at work, he spoke some variety of southern English.

Instead of "I had been there" - "I done been there". The use of some form of "do" for "to have" in past perfect tense was something he would turn on and off like a switch.

[noiretextatique]

33. acutally...it does. black people have a problem with the vernacular

educated ones, that is. some try to deny it exists...that it is just "poor grammar." i know there are probably similar issues with southern dialects, in general. however, the debate about so-called "black english" in the black community is what i was talking about.

[jberryhill]

34. It is about "color" as much as poverty is

There is nothing about one's skin color which leads one to speak a particular way.

The cultural and class environment in which one grows up has a lot more to do with it than skin pigmentation.

[noiretextatique]

40. i studied linguistics in college

so i have so idea of what i am talking about. black people, just like white people, who are isolated from the larger society have developed dialects, like the cajuns. in the case of african-americans, given the history of racism and segregation (isolation), the dialect known as black english developed. it is similar to other dialects, but it has been indentified as a distinct dialect. the gullah people, who happened to be black, also devleoped a distinct dialect. i don't think you and i are remotely speaking the same language now, because you clearly are not understanding me. end of discussion, but thanks.

[nessa]

73. You just made jerrybhill's point. What you describe above is culture not color.

If black people grow up in a particular culture they may develop a dialect. If white people grow up in a particular culture they may develop a dialect. It has absolutely nothing to do with the color of their skin.

[JustAnotherGen]

36. noire

Take it to the AA forum. Reference the 'talking white' thread.

I don't think folks are looking at it from WITHIN the confines of the black community. And it's okay to have a perspective and opinion that comes from first hand experience.

[noiretextatique]

41. then perhaps they need to listen

and learn

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Not going to happen!

[JustAnotherGen]

37. Exactly

I do not speak that way unless I'm parroting a show like The Boondocks. I do not speak that way ever. Even when I'm in a gathering of only black folks.

It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with education and environment. The flip of this is 'Talking White'. Notice - it's not 'speaking' - it's 'talking'.

ETA: Here's a thread where 'Talking White' was explored at DU Recently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11872794

Caucasians never seem to get accused of that - because I *think* proper American English is just normally assigned to Caucasians.

Yet - I've had non black executives at Nokia, the old Mebtel, the old Gulftel, etc. etc. from the South say to me -

I know you were wantin'.
I'm fixin' to.


And I blinked - but carried on because they aren't speaking proper English. And if it is only 'me' - then please don't reference 'all'.

[mfcorey1]

53. True linguistics study will tap Gullah and other real forms. However, what some like to refer to as

Black English is not a language.

[JustAnotherGen]

58. Is it just the word?

I remember America all up in arms over the invention of the word 'ebonics' a few years ago. Is THAT black English?

Better yet - if Black English does not exist -

Then can we eradicate the phrase Talking White and just say there is no White English Either?

[noiretextatique]

99. it is a dialect of standard english

called african african vernacular english, commonly referred to as black english or ebonics.

[Hugabear]

97. Please, tell us more about what black people do

Please educate us

[noiretextatique]

98. EDUCATE YOURSELF

do your own google search. or see the old oprah show about the subject. the distinctly remember linguists telling the audience the vernacular was legitimate, and black person after black person in the audience claiming it was just bad grammar. not too different than other issues that involve shame associated with race. i know all about this, since i am black

[aquart]

48. There damn well is.

But if Jeantel has a learning disability, it may account for her lack of code shifting.

As for the origins of Black English, I was kinda surprised (we use kinda in deep Queens) to find that the word "ask" was pronounced "aks" by America's original English settlers. So it's possible her English is closer to its roots than ours is.

[Mika]

35. Anyone here familiar with Nobel prize winner in linguistics, Noam Chomsky?

You can search "black english" in this interview ...

Language, Language Development and Reading
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1987----.htm

[Judi Lynn]

86. Thanks for adding this material. Very interesting. n/t

[aikoaiko]

93. Nobel prize in linguistics -I don't think so.

He's received many awards, but not a Nobel.

[riverwalker]

39. they jumped on her inconsistancies

yet today, defense was gentle and so sweetly understanding of John Goods changed statements.
"it didn't mean you lied, you just were not asked the question, correct?"
Yesterday they attacked Rachel for the same thing.

[apples and oranges]

49. That's awfully presumptuous of the writer to assume she was being disingenuous

when she said cracker wasn't racial. It could be that she is just now learning that the word has racial overtones. You have to be explicity taught certain things, either by example or by direct teaching. Both of her parents were from another culture and probably never weighed in on the American culture wars.

[csziggy]

54. The early cattlemen of Florida were called Crackers

It is a historic designation, no matter what color the cattlemen were. If Jeantel were taught this in her Florida history classes, she could easily not think of the term as racial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker

Florida Crackers: America’s Tropical Cowboys
Long before ranching became big business out west, Spanish colonists, Seminole Indians, and American settlers called Crackers herded free-roaming cattle in Florida.

Florida’s pioneering Spanish rancheros and vaqueros (cowboys) were long gone when Remington arrived, but sturdy scrub cattle descended from animals they introduced still roamed the back country north of the Everglades, a setting he evoked in prose nearly as vivid as his pictures: “Flat and sandy, with miles of straight pine timber, each tree an exact duplicate of its neighbor tree, and underneath the scrub palmettoes, the twisted brakes and hammocks, and the gnarled water-oaks festooned with the sad gray Spanish moss—truly not a country for a high-spirited race or moral giants.”

Proud to be ‘Crackers’
Remington was referring here to the much-maligned white Southerners called Crackers, who inherited this country from Spanish settlers and from the Seminole and other Florida Indians. The label Cracker, which originally meant “boaster” or “braggart,” may have been applied to them because of the cracking of their whips as they herded cattle or the cracking of corn that produced grits and other down-home fare they favored. In any case, the word came to define them. More than a few people in Florida and neighboring Georgia, where many of Florida’s first Anglo-American settlers emigrated from, now gladly call themselves Crackers and scoff at the notion purveyed by Yankees like Remington that Crackers are somehow morally deficient or lacking in spirit.

http://www.thehistorychannelclub.com/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/239/florida-crackers-americas-tropical-cowboys

[ReRe]

52. All things considered, I too think she did OK...

Rec & Kick

Now, that damn Nazi-looking defense lawyer has had some experience in interrogation if you ask me. He took advantage of her handicap and grilled her for all those hours, going over and over and over the same thing.

[COLGATE4]

56. "He took advantage of her handicap and grilled her"

or he pointed out her many inconsistencies from prior testimony through going over and over the same thing until the truth came out. It's called cross examination.

[ReRe]

59. Yeah, for how many hours?

That wasn't cross-examination, it was a hostile interrogation. And I repeat, he took advantage of her handicap.

[Nye Bevan]

61. He was more polite than she was (nt)

[COLGATE4]

70. For the love of God, WHAT handicap?

The witness is not 'handicapped' - and BTW cross examination is, by definition hostile. As to how many hours, as many as it takes to try and establish what the true facts are in the matter being discussed. When you have a witness who is on the record for two and sometimes three different versions of a critical fact in the case (and who is surly and non-responsive) it's going to take a long time.

[Judi Lynn]

90. He's a perverted human being, a total sadist.

What actual man or woman of value could ever lower him/herself to treat anyone like that?

He's just the kind of guy a thing like Zimmerman WOULD appreciate. Two of a kind.

[robinlynne]

55. I can not stop watching your sig line! I can't even be serious.

[Are_grits_groceries]

75. She's looking for her pony. nt

[flvegan]

83. Just so I'm sure, is "cracker" racist or not?

Don't frame it, just answer. I'm wondering as I've been called a "cracker" a few times and want to know if it's now acceptable regardless.

[Judi Lynn]

88. Instead of asking AGG to define it for you, you should take the time to make a case,

yourself, if it actually would have any meaning.

Today might be a great day to give up trying to engage people in trite, yet hostile tiny safe moments of verbal combat over your right to feel hatred.

Anyone who can't figure out why it's dead wrong for Caucasian people to call African American people that word is simply trolling to catch someone on a bad day who might try to tell him to grow up.

Well-bred adults don't act like that. If you weren't raised by dignified, self-respecting parents, you don't really want to tell other people you weren't. What would be the point? They probably can guess.

[flvegan]

92. So you don't have an answer then?

I'm not asking about any other word asked by any other person. If you can't do so without some pathetic attempt to frame it in your own trite, hostile tiny safe moment of verbal sparring then just say so.

[LanternWaste]

100. Acceptable by whom? You and a close gaggle of friends?

Acceptable by whom? You and a close gaggle of friends? It may or may not be depending on your own world-experiences. Acceptable by a region, a state, a country or the world? I dunno... I imagine a wee bit of investment of time in research could answer quite satisfactory.

I've never called anyone that myself as I err on the side of safety, and the handful of times I have been called that, it was a "insulting" to me as being called a right-handed glove. It means little to nothing.

A suggestion-- if you're unaware of whether a thing is unacceptable or not, simply don't say/do it. You lose little to nothing in erring on the side if civility.

[Judi Lynn]

89. Can't thank you enough for starting this thread. It needed to be seen.

Too bad there aren't enough places available for those of us who could see right through the dishonest, sadistic depths this human sized defense creature sank to try to shatter that young lady, just letting his viciousness rip. It was grotesque.

I'm so glad she somehow had the ability to keep herself from absorbing the harm he was trying to inflict upon her. It was unbearable watching him at "work", like the torture scene in "Reservoir Dogs".
What an ass he is, Woods.

You can never go wrong with your sig line image, as a poster earlier mentioned. It is almost hypnotically precious and endearing. It brings a moment of admiration and wonder about how even the tiniest beings can radiate so much love, play, joy at such a startlingly tiny age.