Race and Ethnicity

Language and Communication ANTH 2301 Race and Ethnicity A lot of government forms require people to specify their "race." Five categories are commonly seen in forms in the United States: Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Black, White, and Asian. Frequently, the term "Hispanic or Latino" is used to refer to an ethnic group rather than a race. The 2020 U.S. Census included the following 14 racial categories: Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Other Asian, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Other Pacific Islander. Once more, the question of "origin" was "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish." Many Americans were unable to locate a category that accurately reflected their racial or ethnic identity despite having access to so many possibilities. You will recall from prior chapters in this book that race is not a biological construct. The progressive range of human biological diversity is impossible to partition accurately, hence biological designations of race are purely fictitious. But we also know that racial social categories are extremely effective means of affirmative action, solidarity, subjugation, and discrimination. We looked at the way sets of categories, or "folk taxonomies," get ingrained in language earlier in this chapter. We observed how the natural world is divided into several categories by cultural groups. Similar to how ethnicity and race are folk taxonomies, they are ingrained in language and serve to neatly categorise people into groups. These classifications are valid in the sense that they have influenced our society's framework, favouring certain groups while disadvantageing others. And they are real in the sense that they influence our behaviours, attitudes, and even our ingrained habits and inclinations. Race and ethnicity are expressed via language, much as gender. Language is a tool that we use both consciously and unconsciously to communicate inclusion and exclusion based on race and ethnicity. Consider the way non-Spanish speaking Americans utilise Spanish catchphrases. When they use Spanish phrases like "hasta la vista!" and "no problemo," as well as purposefully erroneous ones like "buenos nachos" and "hasta la bye bye," many Americans intend to come out as lighthearted and humorous. Jane Hill, an anthropologist, discovered that White Americans with college degrees and a middle class background were more likely to use this "mock Spanish" to other Americans (2008). While those who employ these expressions view them as innocuous and even polite, Spanish speakers frequently take offence at the idea that their language is associated with foolishness. According to Hill, these expressions are only amusing because they subtly capitalise on misconceptions about Spanish speakers being stupid, slothful, and incompetent. Comparable claims concerning stereotyping and cultural appropriation may be made against White Americans' usage of Black vernacular speech. Many people in mostly Black neighbourhoods in the United States speak a form of English known as African American English (AAE), or African American Vernacular English. Despite knowing very little about the vernacular and the people who use it as their primary language, many White Americans have picked up phrases and grammatical elements of AAE due to the broad appeal of Black culture. Many Americans mistakenly believe that AAE is simply poor English, but as we'll see in a moment, it is not. When White folks say words like "chillin'," "lit," "on fleek," "aa'ight" (which means "alright"), "ima" (which means "I'm going to"), and "Yasss, Queen!" what are they really saying? Does using this language show respect for the Black vernacular English-speaking communities? Alternatively, does it denigrate and subjugate African Americans who speak AAE? Most people who make fun of AAE and Spanish don't aim to offend anyone. The context, not the aim, is the issue. The majority of White middle-class Americans speak standard or mainstream varieties of English (Lippi-Green 2012). The language of Anglo American immigrants really served as the historical foundation for Standard American English (SAE). It has long been believed that for immigrant and minority groups to successfully assimilate, they must embrace White Anglo-English. The ability to speak South African English (SAAE) accent-free is a common indicator of successful total integration. SAE, however, does not talk "without an accent." The accent known as SAE is that of White individuals whose ancestors left the British Isles. In American public settings like as government, the media, businesses, and schools, SAE is the language that is most commonly used. In these settings, those who speak SAE fluently and without effort or accent can communicate freely, assured that their language will be accepted and understood. Spanish- or AAE-speaking Americans frequently find it difficult to be understood and respected in American public life. In light of this, it may appear insensitive for White Americans to use AAE and Spanish as comedic props while demeaning and isolating the native speakers of these languages. The idea that AAE is just a mishmash of slang and poor grammar rather than a language at all is pervasive and persistent among White Americans (and many Black Americans as well), which further complicates the problem. This is just another linguistic dogma that is unfounded, and it is an incorrect viewpoint. According to Labov (1972b), AAE is a rule-governed variety of English that has its own regular vocabulary, syntax, and sound system. AAE is historically similar to working-class Cockney English from London and the English used by White Americans living in the South (Ahearn 2017). American English's more fundamental structure has been augmented by a unique collection of inventive linguistic traits that Black Americans have created due to their historical experiences with slavery and segregation. Take a look at these three sentences: He's upset. He was furious. He was furious. While the second and third sentences are AAE alternatives, the first sentence is SAE. This form of the verb "to be" in SAE refers to an event that is now taking place. However, the SAE present tense of "to be" is a little ambiguous because it might refer to either "this very minute, right now" or a longer-term circumstance, possibly characterising someone who is regularly or persistently furious. AAE makes a useful distinction between these two scenarios. "He be angry" denotes a longer-term issue, but "He angry" signifies angry "right now." The second case is referred to as "copula deletion" in linguistics, while the third example is termed "the habitual be." Both are frequently used to distinguish between transient and permanent problems. AAE speakers have access to expressive options not afforded to SAE speakers due to the abundance of additional regulations and features governing AAE. Put another way, AAE is a more sophisticated and sophisticated variety of English rather than just a rule-bound vernacular. Since the 1970s, linguists have attempted to communicate this idea to the American public (Labov 1972a). Language policy in the US stigmatises non-SAE vernaculars as "bad English," spoken by illiterate and stupid people, rather than appreciating the creative contributions of vernaculars like AAE. This is referred to as "linguistic profiling" by linguist John Baugh (2003). Baugh (1999) studied, with colleagues Thomas Purnell and William Idsardi, how California landlords responded to requests for apartments in SAE, AAE, and Chicano-American English (CAE). Seventy-one percent of landlords in Woodside, California, answered SAE queries. Merely 21.8 percent of AAE queries and 28.7 percent of CAE inquiries yielded answers. Language profiling has been shown to have discriminatory consequences on housing, education, and justice access, according to research conducted in American courts and schools. It's true that language may be used to marginalise and discriminate in ways other than only American English. Language practices in public areas are used by elites in various cultures to dehumanise other groups based on factors such as class, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. These speakers describe their own speech patterns as "correct" and "official." In what ways might individuals react to these instances of linguistic marginalisation? The process of becoming successful for many upwardly mobile speakers of "nonstandard" vernaculars and languages has required giving up their primary mode of speech in favour of standard, elite forms of language that are given preference in public discourses. However, there is an additional option. Speakers of nonstandard languages and vernaculars can continue to use their native tongues while navigating public discourse by code-switching between them. As we will see in the following section, some language activists strive to preserve and revitalise their "home" languages while also celebrating the brilliance of those languages. Is it possible for speakers of dominant languages to support the efforts to celebrate and revitalise minority languages? Does using terms from another language or vernacular by speakers of the dominant language necessarily imply racism or insults? According to some, yes. It is undoubtedly detrimental to employ expressions that (even subtly) allude to unfavourable stereotypes. However, what if the few words you choose to use to connect with someone from a different background actually do have some meaning? What if speakers of SAE began quoting from AAE or Spanish in ways that emphasised the good things about those speech communities? What if White people began studying AAE to promote this American vernacular's brilliance and intricacy? What if your goal is to overcome the causes of cultural isolation in your own community by learning a new language or vernacular? Such questions have no simple solutions.