04-29-2008, 12:41 AM
I wish I had the transcript. It's probably out there, maybe I'll look for it. Keep in mind he was speaking to the NAACP, a specific kind of audience. I'm not trying to hold the speech to a standard that's not consistent with the context and audience. He was making the case that African American children learn differently. His case was built on a peculiar right-brain, left-brain argument, explaining how African language, music, and culture evolved one way, and white European culture evolved another way, using examples in beat accents in musical rhythm, language orientation, etc. Not new territory, but not the most enlightened or original approach to the subject, either.
To make his examples more entertaining, Wright made fun of Lyndon Johnson's, Ted Kennedy, and JFK's speaking styles, flamboyantly mocking their Boston and southern accents. (imagine Billy Graham or Pat Robertson mocking the way black people talk, from a podium at a formal dinner) Wright would break into song, or do imaginary dialogues to make his linguistic points. It was an extension of what stand-up comedians do but when comics do it, they're not pretending to be serious and academic about it. Wright was being academic and serious about it. The message was: "white people are this way, black people are this other way, we're fundamentally different".
My problem with the subject-object-oriented learning lecture, and the African and European Heritage lecture is that A. we're not in Africa, or Europe, we're in America. And B. black kids don't have some genetic brain variation that makes their cognitive development any different than Caucasian or Asian or Indian kids. We're all born here, and our brains aren't different. Whatever link we have to our European or African distant past is no more meaningful than the distant links other peoples have to their great great grandparent's homeland. It was almost as if he was rationalizing or excusing low performance, or challenging educational standards, because they were invented by white people to measure the intelligence of other white people.
I can't imagine a speaker with great grandparents from Brazil, Iceland, or Australia, making a case for how their children are educationally "misunderstood" because of some fundamental cognitive differences. His linguistics and music lecture seemed to suggest that these are innate genetic differences, and the White Power System can't measure it because it's using the wrong tools. I think that's baloney. Here I'm inclined to agree with Bill Cosby's critique of black leadership priorities, and Cosby's educational emphasis self-reliance and strong parental involvement, over quibbling about historic inequities or systemic flaws, while not completely invalid, it's just the wrong direction to go in, it's not productive. I thought the speech showcased Wright's divisive or separatist side. Mocking the way white people talk just made him look foolish.
At the risk of oversimplifying, the ongoing theme was "us" vs. "them". Those white people who came from Europe. This may be a popular theme in academia, but it's contrary to the message of equality and unity that most of us associate with spiritual and civic leaders. Having said all that, I don't mean to suggest Wright is under any obligation to be any different than he is, if this is his message, that's his message. And whether it's the right message or the wrong message isn't for me to decide. But that's what struck me about it, it was coming from a separatist school of thought, using examples that I thought had long ago been discredited as mumbo jumbo pseudo-scientific social theory.
To make his examples more entertaining, Wright made fun of Lyndon Johnson's, Ted Kennedy, and JFK's speaking styles, flamboyantly mocking their Boston and southern accents. (imagine Billy Graham or Pat Robertson mocking the way black people talk, from a podium at a formal dinner) Wright would break into song, or do imaginary dialogues to make his linguistic points. It was an extension of what stand-up comedians do but when comics do it, they're not pretending to be serious and academic about it. Wright was being academic and serious about it. The message was: "white people are this way, black people are this other way, we're fundamentally different".
My problem with the subject-object-oriented learning lecture, and the African and European Heritage lecture is that A. we're not in Africa, or Europe, we're in America. And B. black kids don't have some genetic brain variation that makes their cognitive development any different than Caucasian or Asian or Indian kids. We're all born here, and our brains aren't different. Whatever link we have to our European or African distant past is no more meaningful than the distant links other peoples have to their great great grandparent's homeland. It was almost as if he was rationalizing or excusing low performance, or challenging educational standards, because they were invented by white people to measure the intelligence of other white people.
I can't imagine a speaker with great grandparents from Brazil, Iceland, or Australia, making a case for how their children are educationally "misunderstood" because of some fundamental cognitive differences. His linguistics and music lecture seemed to suggest that these are innate genetic differences, and the White Power System can't measure it because it's using the wrong tools. I think that's baloney. Here I'm inclined to agree with Bill Cosby's critique of black leadership priorities, and Cosby's educational emphasis self-reliance and strong parental involvement, over quibbling about historic inequities or systemic flaws, while not completely invalid, it's just the wrong direction to go in, it's not productive. I thought the speech showcased Wright's divisive or separatist side. Mocking the way white people talk just made him look foolish.
At the risk of oversimplifying, the ongoing theme was "us" vs. "them". Those white people who came from Europe. This may be a popular theme in academia, but it's contrary to the message of equality and unity that most of us associate with spiritual and civic leaders. Having said all that, I don't mean to suggest Wright is under any obligation to be any different than he is, if this is his message, that's his message. And whether it's the right message or the wrong message isn't for me to decide. But that's what struck me about it, it was coming from a separatist school of thought, using examples that I thought had long ago been discredited as mumbo jumbo pseudo-scientific social theory.