Thanks for your comments last week. We had a great discussion on the themes of communication, violence, connection, and survival. To recap, I’d like to highlight three students comments from last week’s chat:
Marissa, commenting on the parallels between “Speech Sounds” and the current pandemic:
“Personally, at this present moment, this situation is not too dystopian to me and far away from reality. As hundreds of people have died in the United States due to Coronavirus, and thousands worldwide, there is fear among citizens. Growing up, I used to read novels like this all the time and I often felt anxiety in relation to them, as well as the science fiction genre. I believe this is because it is apparent how science fiction plays on the most grotesque components of humanity. It seems inevitable that pandemics, wars, and famine are universal experience that no one is immune to. However, throughout time, we have prevailed against illness, war, and natural disaster. But, ultimately, times like these make one wonder about all the dystopian tales and the critique on society. The question of our own nature is apparent in these stories. When you strip someone of comfort and title (such as the lack of organizations in Rye’s dystopian world, and how she said there was no longer a police department), how far will people go?”
Hannah, connecting “Speech Sounds” to another dystopian narrative:
Butler’s “Speech Sounds” reminds me of another dystopian narrative, “1984” by Orwell. In Butler’s story, we see that language is important for ideology. “Law and order were nothing—not even words any longer” (Butler 4). Since the world in “Speech Sounds” has no idea of law or order, the words for these concepts disappear. Similarly, in “1984”, the government deletes words from the language in order to brainwash society. I think that we can think of these narratives in relation to one another because they both demonstrate the power of language and the consequences of losing words.
Azhar with a hopeful note on the ending of “Speech Sounds:”
“I feel as if her discovery of children being able to use language reignites her flame to live, and now provides her with a purpose which is all she was longing for. With a purpose in mind, and several resources at her disposal, I believe she can help raise the kids with normalcy and possibly even create a community to create a sense of civilization. In addition, with kids waiting to be taught, Rye gets her life as a teacher back, which will definitely help her cope with the complexity of a post-apocalyptic life.”
Our reading for this week, to quote Hannah’s comment, also centers on “the power of language and the consequences of losing words.” This time however, the loss of language does not take place in the hypothetical future, but in the American past. (Here I use the word “American” to encompass all of the Americas, not just the United States.)
Kamau Brathwaite’s essay “Nation Language” provides a history lesson as well as a manifesto for the future. The lesson begins in 1492, with Columbus’ so-called discovery of the Caribbean and the subsequent “destruction of the Amerindians” and the “fragmentation” of native culture. Brathwaite details the rapid loss of life (due, in part to the spread of viruses brought from Europe) but also the loss of native languages—though some remnants have still survived.
The second wave of linguistic fragmentation came with the slave trade. It’s important first of all to acknowledge the linguistic diversity of Africa (today there are still an estimated 1500-2000 African languages). Enslaved people were not a homogenous group. Those who survived the forced journey over the Atlantic ocean brought their languages with them. And yet, as Brathwaite explains:
“What these languages had to do, however, was to submerge themselves, because officially the conquering peoples—the Spaniards, the English, the French, and the Dutch—insisted that the language of public discourse and conversation, of obedience, command and conception should be English, French, Spanish, or Dutch.” (309)
Part of the strategy of colonial dominance was the forced adoption of European languages. But note the specific way that Brathwaite describes this: “They did not wish to hear people speaking Ashanti or any of the Congolese languages.” Language is not only spoken, but also heard. It is part of the soundscape of the Americas, and a huge part of how we experience the world. To police language is to wield power over what the Americas “sound” like. Nevertheless, as Brathwaite explains, the African languages (and the ideas and values that came with them) did not disappear, but became submerged, continuing to exert a profound influence: “That underground language was itself constantly transforming into new forms” (310)
From this underground language emerges “nation language,” a term Brathwaite uses to describe the oral culture of the descendants of enslaved Africans. Brathwaite, who is from Barbados, critiques the British colonial system that shaped his own early life and education and offers nation language as an alternative mode of expression to standardized English. But given the way that English was violently imposed as a language, an ideology, and a way of life, Brathwaite asks: “can English be a revolutionary language?” (311)
“It may be in English, but it is in an English which is like howl, or a shout or a machine-gun or the wind or a wave. It is also like the blues.”
Edward Kamau Brathwaite was a poet, scholar and philosopher. He completed his schooling in Barbados (the island of his birth) as well as Cambridge and the University of Sussex. His upbringing in Barbados meant that he experienced a colonial education firsthand. The British educational system, Brathwaite writes, “insisted that not only would English be spoken in the anglophone Caribbean, but that the educational system would carry the contours of an English heritage. Hence Shakespeare, George Eliot, Janes Austen—British Literature and literary forms, the models which had very little to do, really, with the environment and reality of non-Europe” (310).
Brathwaite makes a shift from speech to written language in order to emphasize the impact of colonial education on Caribbean writing. He argues, “in terms of what we write, our perceptual models, we are more conscious (in terms of sensibility) of the falling snow, for instance” (310). Aside from the obvious fact that it doesn’t snow in the Caribbean, European perceptual models alienate Caribbean writers from the poetic possibilities of their own environment: “In other words, we haven’t got the syllables, the syllabic intelligence, to describe the hurricane, which is our own experience, whereas we can describe the important alien experience of the snowfall.”
Based on the every-day speech of Caribbean folk, nation language provides an alternative: “It may be in English, but it is in an English which is like howl, or a shout or a machine-gun or the wind or a wave. It is also like the blues.” Nation language, Brathwaite points out, is different from dialect, and in our discussion questions I’ll ask you to explore the significance of that contrast. (311).
According to Braithwaite, nation language:
· Is an oral tradition. “The poetry, the culture itself, exists not in a dictionary but in the tradition of the spoken word. It is based as much on sound as it is on song. That is to say the noise…is part of the meaning, and if you ignore the noise…then you lose part of the meaning.” (311)
· “Largely ignores the pentameter” in favor of the rhythms of the calypso and other local forms (the fact that Brathwaite says “largely” leaves some room for contradiction. We will come back to this.)
· Is a communal form: "it is part of what may be called total expression” demanding “the audience to complete the community.” (312)
Three Examples:
Brathwaite references the calypso singer Mighty Sparrow in his essay. The calypso “Dan is the Man in the Van” (1963) is a critique of the “education you get when you small,” and it also demonstrates the stylistic qualities of nation language: “He is rhyming on ‘n’s’ and ‘l’s’ and he is creating a cluster of syllables and a counterpoint between voice and orchestra, between individual and community within the formal notion of “call and response’ ; which becomes typical of our nation in the revolution” (312).
Next I present to you Louise Bennet’s “Colonization in Reverse.” (1966) Louise Bennett (known as Miss Lou in her home country of Jamaica) was a folk poet, performer, and educator. Her poem “Colonization in Reverse” references Caribbean migration to Europe during what is called the Windrush period (19481970), when over 500,000 Caribbean journeyed to Britain to fulfill labor shortages after WWII:
Wat a joyful news, Miss Mattie,
I feel like me heart gwine burs'
Jamaica people colonizin
Englan in reverse.
By de hundred, by de t'ousan
From country and from town,
By de ship load, by de plane-load
Jamaica is Englan boun.
Dem a-pour out o'Jamaica,
Everybody future plan
Is fe get a big-time job
An settle in de mother lan.
What a islan! What a people!
Man an woman, old and young
Jusa pack dem bag an baggage
An tun history upside dung!
Some people don't like travel,
But fe show dem loyalty
Dem all a-open up cheap-fare-
To-England agency.
An week by week dem shipping off
Dem countryman like fire,
Fe immigrate an populate
De seat o' de Empire.
Oonoo see how life is funny
Oonoo see de tunabout,
Jamaica live fi box bread
Outa English people mout'.
For wen dem catch a Englan,
An start play dem different role,
Some will settle down to work
An some will settle fe de dole.
Jane say de dole is not too bad
Bacause dey payin she
Two pounds a week fe seek a job
Dat suit her dignity.
Me say Jane will never find work
At the rate how she dah look,
For all day she stay pon Aunt Fan couch
And read love-story book.
Wat a devilment a Englan!
Dem face war an brave de worse,
But I'm wonderin how dem gwine stan
Colonizin in reverse.
I feel like me heart gwine burs'
Jamaica people colonizin
Englan in reverse.
By de hundred, by de t'ousan
From country and from town,
By de ship load, by de plane-load
Jamaica is Englan boun.
Dem a-pour out o'Jamaica,
Everybody future plan
Is fe get a big-time job
An settle in de mother lan.
What a islan! What a people!
Man an woman, old and young
Jusa pack dem bag an baggage
An tun history upside dung!
Some people don't like travel,
But fe show dem loyalty
Dem all a-open up cheap-fare-
To-England agency.
An week by week dem shipping off
Dem countryman like fire,
Fe immigrate an populate
De seat o' de Empire.
Oonoo see how life is funny
Oonoo see de tunabout,
Jamaica live fi box bread
Outa English people mout'.
For wen dem catch a Englan,
An start play dem different role,
Some will settle down to work
An some will settle fe de dole.
Jane say de dole is not too bad
Bacause dey payin she
Two pounds a week fe seek a job
Dat suit her dignity.
Me say Jane will never find work
At the rate how she dah look,
For all day she stay pon Aunt Fan couch
And read love-story book.
Wat a devilment a Englan!
Dem face war an brave de worse,
But I'm wonderin how dem gwine stan
Colonizin in reverse.
And finally, "Inglan is a Bitch." (lyrics here.) Linton Kwesi Johnson was a Jamaican pioneer of dub poetry, a form of performance poetry popularized in the 1970s. It is named after dub music, a form of electronic music derived from reggae that mainly consists of “versions” (remixes) of existing songs. Dub poets often perform to musical accompaniment. Think about the politics of remixing (or ‘versioning’) and how it might serve as a metaphor for the way Caribbean poets transform language and ideas. (also, this poem has a great title.)
Discussion Questions:
1. What is the distinction that Brathwaite draws between nation language and “dialect?” and why is this distinction significant? Are these merely different names for the same thing or is Brathwaite trying to call attention to a conceptual difference as well? Be sure to quote the essay in your response.
2. Comment on the critique of British colonialism in “Dan is the Man in the Van” “Colonization in Reverse” OR “Inglan is a Bitch” (or any combination). What strategies do these works use to challenge the dominance of British culture? Be sure to reference a specific example (word choice, sound, structure) in your response.
3. Comment on the relationship between sound and writing in this essay. Brathwaite affirms the spoken word, but writing is obviously a central part of his poetic practice (since after all, we are reading an essay.) Is there a tension between these two forms? How do these two forms work together to produce meaning?
4. Brathwaite writes the nation language largely “ignores the pentameter.” Are we to take him literally on this? After all, we read a Jamaican poet, Claude McKay who does write in pentamer “Tropics in New York”, and also wrote poems in Jamaican patois. Is writing in pentameter (or other Europeans forms) inherently conformist? What are some reasons why Caribbean writers might use both pentameter and nation language?
2. "Dan the Man" provides a strong critique as to how colonial Britain would control the social hierarchy through education. In the song Mighty Sparrow comments on how one's education would effect the perception of his social hierarchical placement in society and he is quoted saying "They teach me like a fool" implying that the British would teach black people in a way to make them inferior to that of their white counterpart. This provides a strong critique to the education system and the hierarchical system of British colonial cultural as one's education being restricted is making them less educated and then being used as an excuse to make them out to be inferior.
ReplyDeleteThis was written by Matthew Gessner
DeleteWhen listening to "Dan Is The Man In The Van" I was thinking the same thing so I completely agree, Britain used education to dominate over its people and create a social hierarchy. He continues to speak out about how what he has been taught has been utterly useless in his education and how it pushed him down the social ladder making him (black people) inferior. I think just speaking out challenges the dominance of the British culture as he says "who cares about Peter, Peter was a pumpkin eater" which further emphasizes the unnecessary information taught to black people harming their education.
DeleteThis is an excellent connection to make. On the one hand, people under British rule were not only being robbed of their cultural heritage and autonomy, but they were also being brainwashed by the British through indoctrination to blindly follow the British way of things. It’s like the metaphor in Plato’s Cave. It states how powerless and blinded we are without a proper education in the way of things, and people who were living under British rule were certainly cut off to other ways of thinking. This, in turn, allowed the British to take advantage of and exploit them to turn a profit, and further promote the false ideas of British Imperialism and Ethnic Superiority in colonial holdings.
DeleteI agree with both of you on the connection of how Britain used education to serve as the ladder to a social hierarchy. However, before the British's manipulation of education, Europeans created this social hierarchy through alteration of life. This parallel relates back to the first paragraph in Brathwaite's essay in which Brathwaite explains that through the Slave Trade, the language that came in with the slaves was treated as inferior and they were "conceived of as inferiors-- non-human, in fact" (309). This showed that not only through education but through life and language itself, within the hierarchy, the British controlled over those who they deem to be "powerless." The British did not only manipulate the people int believing the falsities of the British Imperialism, but changed the way of life for the people in the Caribbean, through language as well.
DeleteYour connection made me better understand the poem, so thank you. Going back and rereading the poem, after a string of rhetorical questions based off the nursery rhymes he speaks of, it states, "Dey beat me like ah dog to learn dat in school." Your comment on the social hierarchy and the divide between the Europeans and the colonized helped me better understand the abuse they experienced. They were taught nursery rhymes, songs sang to children, representing the lack of respect the British gave them, where they were not even taught fully fleshed mature ideas. Not only that, they were forced to "learn" this useless information, and were treated poorly until they did, but this knowledge and way of life made them subordinate, making them less educated and forever inferior to the British as you mentioned.
Delete1. The first time reading the article, I believe that Brathwaite was trying to draw a clear distinction between the difference between "dialect" and "nation language." After rereading certain sections it became more clear to me that the "difference" almost seemed sarcastic. He speaks of dialect as "pejorative overtones" and "bad English" which is often used to make fun of another. He gives history to the word saying it originates from "plantations where peoples dignity is distorted through their language." Then when he talks about nation language, it sort of seems like he echos the same point calling it a "howl, or a shout..." of the English language which is the same thing he said about dialect. I think he is using different names which give the same meaning to emphasize on their similarities.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to “Dan is the Man in the Van” I looked up the lyrics to get a better meaning. You can then see how he is criticizing the the colonial education system for teaching the kids a different culture and one that is not their own. Just like how he mentions the nursery rhymes, "Humpy-Dumpty sat on a wall!
ReplyDeleteHumpy-Dumpy did fall!" and also he mentions the "hickory-dickory-dock" rhyme. Not everything you learn in school will always be about your own culture or your surroundings and sometimes in the case where what you learn in school can't be applied to a student's regular daily life, makes it harder for them to learn when it can't be applied to real life. Especially when the student is young.
Hi Abby,
DeleteI agree with your explanation about how it can be difficult for students to grasp certain concepts that do not culturally adhere to their own. This idea has been very controversial in English and History classes where the curriculum sometimes fails students of different ethnic minorities. This is why schools should try to implement more classes that introduce students to different cultures. By doing this, students will be more culturally aware making less likely to offend other cultures.
Caroline Prophete
From reading your analysis, I was able to see the connection to Brathwaite's essay and understand the reason why he referenced the singer Mighty Sparrow. I find it a shame how children like them were unable to fully get a sense of and experience their own culture. They end up knowing more about the history and lifestyles of other people than they do themselves. By being forced to learn about another culture and their experiences, instead of appreciating their own customs and everyday life, they long to encounter more of the culture they are learning about. Brathwaite mentions in his essay how the Caribbean educational system caused the people to be more excited about English literary models than than they are by those of their own culture. He claims they are also able to describe the falling of snow, something that is foreign to them, better than the common occurrence of hurricanes in their area. But because of what they learn, the idea of snow no longer seem that foreign to them anymore.
DeleteCaroline Prophete
ReplyDelete1.The distinction Brathwaite draws between nation language and “dialect” is that nation language reveals the authenticity and beauty of the Caribbean language that was removed by dialect. Brathwaite clearly proves this by stating how the word dialect is synonymous with using, ‘inferior English,’ or ‘bad English,’ (Brathwaite, 311). It became necessary for him to make this distinction within the text because without it his claim would be trivial. However, by making this distinction, Brathwaite not only adds evidence to support his claim he also initiates the audience to alter their opinions about “dialect”. By introducing the readers to this concept of nation language he is showing this hidden world of Caribbean language that was subdued by colonizers who wanted to control how America sounded. More importantly, he is displaying the substance of nation language for Caribbean people. For most immigrants, English is just words with dictionary definitions. However, when it comes to their “nation language” there is a life that is brought into these words causing Caribbean people to have ownership and control over how they sound.
Hi Caroline,
DeleteYou do a good job of distinguishing nation language and dialect! I think that your explanation of how nation language embodies the beauty of Caribbean language that dialect removed is a well thought out idea.
I agree that nation language reflects the hidden language bogged down by colonization. Overall, yes, nation language is more than words, it is a way of life!
1. Brathwaite refers to the language of Caribbean people as ‘nation language’, making it distinct from the term ‘dialect’. He claims that the word “carries very pejorative overtones, is ‘inferior English’, and is the language used when you want to make fun of someone.” While both ‘nation language’ and ‘dialect’ both describe different forms of language, the writer felt the need to make a clear distinction between them because he believes ‘dialect’ carries a negative and disrespectful connation. He believes the word, when attached to a certain group of people, automatically paints them under the picture that they are inferior to the ‘main’ group of people who speak the ‘main’ and ‘primary’ language. In a sense, nation language has become more of an empowering term to describe the language of people who have taken that main language and shaped it into their own by their personal experiences and tribulations. Brathwaite describes nation language as “the submerged area of that dialect from the plantations which is much more closely allied to the African aspect of experience in the Caribbean. It may be in English: but often it is an English which is like a howl, or a shout or a machine-gun” (311).
ReplyDeleteHey Janice, I definitely agree with what you say about the differences between dialect and national language! I really like how you included the quote from page 311, it definitely added to the argument that you were making. Do you think, after reading this, that there is a definite line separating the two things, or is there a grey area? I think there could be a hint of irony/sarcasm underlying his stark comparison of the two. Whether you see the same thing or not, I really like your analysis on the two!
DeleteHey Janice, after reading your comment and the comment you left on my post, I couldn't agree more. I definitely see the relation between the two pieces as well. I also like how you quoted Brathwaite and how he describes the nation because it is similar to how the piece I wrote about is described.
DeleteHey Janice,
DeleteI agree with the claim that you are making here, that people suddenly become "inferior" if they are speaking in a different manner, or say so dialect. I do think that it is unjust for society to make judgement about someone if they have a different dialect. I also believe that refereeing to someones way of speaking different, no matter if one says nations language or dialect; they both have a negative connotation. In addition, these terms, are aimed to segregate a nation as a whole because of how they speak and prove that they are inferior, which i believe to be ridiculous. In conclusion, I agree with you idea, but i also do believe that both terms have a negative connotation.
1. At first glance, it might seem as though Brathwaite is truly drawing a line between what is considered "nation language" and "dialect," but upon looking further, he shows the reader that this distinction between the two is not as black-and-white as we might believe it to be. Brathwaite describes nation language as something that is "strongly [influenced] by the African model... it is not English, even though the words, as you hear them, might be English" (Brathwaite 311). On the other hand, Brathwaite describes "dialect" as "inferior English," something that is used to make fun of someone. Despite this difference that Brathwaite describes, the two are very similar, and the tone of his voice seems almost ironic as he describes this difference. The two phrases are shown to really be parallels of one another, not two completely different things.
ReplyDeleteLouise Bennet’s “Colonization in Reverse” is political commentary on the implications of what may happen if the roles were switched between Jamaica and England. How might they handle things if they were the ones being colonized? She ends the poem with this question, in saying “But I’m wonderin how dem gwine stan / Colonizin in reverse.” (41-42). The usage of social commentary and class identity are present in the poem, in lines such as “For wen dem catch a Englan, / An start play dem different role.” (29-30). This is the method by which Bennet addresses the previously mentioned issue of the poem, by exploring how Jamaican’s would handle the sudden shift in the social-mobility paradigm associated with becoming a colonist vs. being colonized yourself. She seems to subtly imply, in the final two lines, they wouldn’t fare too well; and I believe this is because Bennet believes the Europeans would be helpless in this situation, since they are so used to being in control and having the power over their subjects. Now, they are the subjects, ironically, to a people who were once subjugated by them.
ReplyDeleteAs I read "Colonization in Reverse" I thought the same thing. For the most part english culture dominates or at-least exists in some sense in the nations they colonized. Now say colonization happened in reverse english residents would not fare well as their culture that was once dominant would now be changing, and they would not know how conform into the new culture.
DeleteThroughout the essay, the history of the voice is a central theme which heavily influences Brathwaite’s idea of nation language. The relationship between sound and writing within this piece work together collectively through the voice in words like “speaker,” “language,” and “oral tradition.” Brathwaite says that the poetry is like a song-like spoken word and that, “the boise that it makes is part of the meaning, and if you ignore the noise (or what you world think of as noise, shall I say) then you lose part of the meaning” (311). This parallels the history of the “dialect” and nation language and that if one ignores the history, then the full meaning is not present. There is tension between sound and writing through that fight for power and the conversation between the noise and the words that are revealing the origin, the slavery, the struggle, the experience, and the culture. The two forms work together through the past culture to produce meaning. Sound and writing work together through the rhythm, diction, variation in the sound and the rhythm, diction, and variation in the writing in order for the two forms to come together thus making “language” through two intertwining forces.
ReplyDelete1. Nation Language is “an English which is not the standard, imported, educated English, but that of the submerged, surrealist experience and sensibility” (Brathwaite 311). In other words, nation language is an ever-changing vernacular that embodies the spirit and culture of the people. On the other hand, dialect is “bad” or “inferior English” used “to make fun of someone” (Braithwaite 311). Dialect was born out of the planation owners’ need to degrade non-whites. Overall, the distinction of nation language and dialect is useful for understanding how language can be used for good or evil. Nation language is peacefully natural to describe one’s experience, but dialect is cruelly manufactured to criticize someone else’s experience. There is definitely a conceptual difference Braithwaite wants us to see in contrasting nation language and dialect and that is that nation language is harmless, dialect is harmful.
ReplyDeleteI like how you described nation language as "an ever-changing vernacular that embodies the spirit and culture of the people." I think that this shows how rich and cultural the language has the potential to be while still embodying the African model. I am interested in what you mentioned about dialect being harmful. I believe that although it is not the most respected form of language and has been derived from dark times, there is a sense of uniqueness to this and provides a bit of a history lesson on how the language has evolved.
DeleteI appreciate your take on nation language and dialect being a form of good versus bad or harmless versus harmful. I did not originally interpret Brathwaite's words in that sense, but now am able to see that distinction between the two and agree. Dialect, as you said, does seem to carry that negative connotation of degrading the individual versus the positive embodiment seen in nation language.
DeleteColonial dominance was threatened as education, language and history were being erased and ignored, being forced to adopt European culture. Even in such a song as “Dan is the Man in the Van,” artist Mighty Sparrow highlights the role of the British straightaway in verse two, acknowledging them as the “traitor on board.” In a song of education, the dominance of British culture is challenged by the structure and content of the song itself, including a mixture of nursery rhymes, commenting on their origins. The structure consists of rhetorical questions, the underlying answer being that the colonized education system are taught useless nursery rhymes. The students fail to understand and relate, holding no connection with the children, or their land, representing just one of the few ways the British deprived them of a proper relevant education. This challenge of British dominance is also seen in the mockery of the classic British language, portrayed in “If me head was bright ah woulda be a dahm fool!” By using the language that was taught to them, while also imitating the British accent and word choice, it talks of being taught to no avail, the education serving them no purpose, and leaving them just as uneducated and foolishly as they first started. Not only are they not taught properly, but what they are taught is not applicable to their life or valuable to their society, ultimately being forced to embody the role of inferior.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said is spot on. They are forced into educations that are useless and a waste of time which doesn't prepare them for their futures. Not only are they forced to embody the inferior, but they are being trapped in a place of inferiority. The colonizers are preventing the colonized from having any chance at rising up. If they were properly educated, they could revolt.
DeleteI enjoyed reading your comments. I agree that the education forced upon these individuals is absurd and shows a lack of connection or care for other experiences outside of the European one, during this time. Education is important for how a group of people sees the world, and a lack of connection to a home country, language, or history is cruel. It then oppresses people by not allowing them insight into their own individual stories and does not give them representation in society. This is evident with children in the Caribbean learning British literature that is not relevant to their country or themselves. These effects exist even today due to British colonialism and the bias in education and history taught across various countries.
Delete2.
ReplyDeleteLinton Kwesi Johnson’s spoken word piece “Ingland is a bitch” is highly critical of England, if the title did not make this evident, and its colonial past. To fully understand Johnson’s criticism of England, one must understand Johnson’s past and his culture. Johnson is a Jamaican who moved to England. It is common for people who live in a nation that was once colonized to move to the nation that colonized their nation. This usually comes down to the fact that nations that colonize other nations tend to have stronger economies and as a result have better opportunities for their citizens, leading to these immigration trends. Linton is very vocal about the lack of legitimate opportunities presented to him while living in England. He speaks about having to work “underground” meaning that he was likely working under the table jobs, likely meaning work was hard to come by. The most important line in his piece I’d argue is “Fus dem rab it wid dem big tax rackit”, Linton is speaking on how money from his check is stolen from him due to his tax bracket. This holds significance because Johnson is feeling frustrated that he as a Jamaican immigrant is being robbed of income to help a nation that has robbed him and his native land before. England has robbed Johnson’s homeland of resources and labor in the past and it is doing it still by using immigrants of the nations its colonized for labor and resources once again.
I also wrote about "Inglan is a Bitch” and found many of the same concepts in my own take on the song. However, I like how your comment talks about the background of the story behind the song, in contrast to my direct take on the lyrics. I found it quite interesting how you related it to the fact that Britain had colonized Jamaica, and that it was commonplace for the colonized to immigrate to the colonizer for more opportunities. It seems a little ironic, almost as if they can maybe get the resources that were stolen from them back, when in reality, they just add to the workforce of Britain, contributing even further to British taxes and adding to the money that has already been stolen from them in the first place. I also liked your interpretation of “underground”, since this is a very possible reason for his choice in wording.
Delete3. I don’t think there’s any tension at all between spoken word and written word. When he mentions these two forms, it is in the context of the poetry of the nation language. He says the poetry is “based as much on sound as it is on song” and that “if you ignore the noise (or what you would think of as noise, shall I say) then you lose part of the meaning.” He is saying that when poetry is written down and passed around that way, some of the meaning is lost because you can’t hear the sound behind the words. However, I think what he writes in the parentheses is crucial. He basically says that noise is subjective. He says “what you would think of as noise”. When I read that, I think that the noise that we hear from a poem being read can be different to all people. We can gather whatever meaning we make of it. There’s no one objective meaning for each poem. He says, “when it is written, you lose the sound or the noise, and therefore you lose part of the meaning.” I disagree. Written word and spoken word both allow for personal reactions for each individual. We can still hear “noise” or a “sound” when we read, and that noise or sound is fueled by whatever the writer pours into his/her work. Sure, you don’t hear the literal noise that a speaker might make when they read a poem out loud, but you can generate a noise for yourself from what the writer has written. I think Brathwaite is wrong, or at least should have reworded what he said, when he says that part of the meaning is lost in written word. Both written word and spoken word allow for their own meanings to be felt and heard by the readers/audience.
ReplyDeleteThe line that you selected, “what you would think of as noise,” is one that stood out to me in the reading as well. Not only is noise and sound fueled by whatever the writer pours into their work, as you mentioned, but also our recollection of certain sounds due to our personal experiences also has an effect on how we essentially “hear” a written piece. I also agree that there is no tension between spoken word and written word. The same emotions and feelings can be delivered using the same dialogue in both, and it should not have a negative impact on the readers or listeners interpretation of its meaning.
DeleteThe relationship between sound and writing is symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other, they rely on each other to create profound meaning and deep understanding. You can read a passage in your head but actually speaking the words has the potential to unlock something more hidden between the fine lines of the text. Take the common phrase "I love you" for example. You can text it to somebody and, while it's a thoughtful thing to say, it's just digitized words on a screen. But say those same words to your loved one in person and it takes on a whole new meaning. The spoken phrase that was lifted directly from your heart, the echo of the voiced words touching the soul of your loved one. That's not to say that the written form is without value, it can still be viewed as a touching sentiment. Perhaps I'm veering off-topic, this quarantine and isolation is becoming a burden. Is there conflict between speech and sound given what we learned from Braitwaite's essay? Yes, in terms of enforcing the English language and culture upon non-English lands like the Caribbean. As Braitwaite wrote, "in terms of what we write, our perceptual models, we are more conscious (in terms of sensibility) of the falling snow, for instance". It is peculiar to make such a statement since, as pointed out by this blog, it does not typically snow in the Caribbean. This marks the alienation of the Caribbean writers from the English, being unable to write about their own home environment. The hot summer days, the average 70 degree winters, not a drop of snow in sight. How their culture adapted to such limitations in weather, how such pleasantly comfortable weather conditions shaped how they live and enjoy their lives. The English invasion of the land brought their own 'alien' culture to another, alien concepts like wintery bliss and many more not mentioned on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI like the point you made about how sound and writing go hand in hand. What stood out to me was the distinction you made about reading something in your head versus saying it out loud and how it can significantly increase the impact of those words. Additionally, I think the alienation of Caribbean writes does hold a strong influence in their work. Like you mentioned, they are faced with limitation, which branches to where tension may arise from sound and writing for these writers
DeleteMarissa Fox
ReplyDeleteDr. Owens
Poetry 201
April 2020
1. What is the distinction that Brathwaite draws between nation language and “dialect?” and why is this distinction significant? Are these merely different names for the same thing or is Brathwaite trying to call attention to a conceptual difference as well? Be sure to quote the essay in your response.
The difference between nation language and dialect refers to the history and who holds the power. For instance, in nation language, oral and spoken word is vital to the integrity of the language and holds value over written word. This is because the language relies on sound as well as verbiage. The noises themselves hold meaning in nation language. Nation language focuses on calypso opposed to iambic pentameter. Further, nation language takes the power back over the language by relying on African language and incorporating the sounds of the Caribbean. There is triumph in the language because it gives the power back to its people, where dialect degrades people. This is how Brathwaite views the distinction. He describes dialect as being inferior and a caricature, aimed at belittling people with accents or a variation of speaking. However, nation language, gives the power back to the people who use it. Nation language is linked to the experience in the Caribbean of people and is more African than English. However, in Brathwaite’s eyes, it is evident that dialect misunderstands the true experience of African people. For one, the experience of slavery and genocide, takes the power away from native and indigenous people. This power is then given to the conquistadors who spoke their native tongues and stripped Africans and Native Americans of both their land and their mother tongue within a span of 30 years. The quote, “Officially the conquering peoples—the Spaniards, the English, the French, and the Dutch—insisted that the language of public discourse and conversation, of obedience, command and conception should be English, French, Spanish, or Dutch.” (309) This quote explains how the Europeans who captured and enslaved African people during the slave trade, stripped them both of their individuality and nationalism by demanding they convert languages to suit their oppressors.
Through reading this essay, and specifically the parts in which Braithe mentioned both “nation language” and “dialect”, it was clear that by separating the two forms, he was trying to imply a distinction of some sort. Braithwaite is essentially noting that dialect is carrying a level of history and selectivess that nation language simply does not follow through with. Dialect is a form that is seen as “inferior English” that is typically used to “make fun of someone”. The form transpired from the early days of slavery and carries with it “perjorative overtones”. With such a negative outlook on it, I see dialect having power in that it has carried along generations of traditions and frankly is more established than nation language. And to its counterpart, nation language is the form that has been incorporated into African culture by the influence of European parties. Nation language which is “influenced by the African model” has a questionable rhythm and timbre which according to Braithwaite, “does not seem like English to a greater or lesser degree”. In my eyes, I viewed it as the author drawing a distinction and highlighting two different forms of language with two completely different historical connotations.
ReplyDeleteHarsh, I found your comment very interesting. I like how you emphasized how dialect has history that comes with it. This didn't pop into my head immediately when I was answering this question too. I agree, it is important to realize that dialect comes with antiquity and should be seen as something precious. You stated how it is carried down generations and now I see it is passed down just like any other tradition would be. Not to disagree with your comment but as seen in my comment answering question number one also, I found that nation language can hold history too. It is built with parts of these dialects to make a whole which is a nation language. This caused me to think about why our language has changed so much since colonial times. It because so many other languages were brought into it to influence the way words are spoken.
DeleteIn Nation Language, Brathwaite draws a clear distinction between nation language versus “dialect.” Nation language, as he describes, is “an English which is not the standard, imported, educated English, but that of the submerged, surrealist experience and sensibility” (Brathwaite 311). Dialect, on the other hand, he claims carries a rather negative connotation because it is an ‘inferior English,’ and a language that is used “when you want to make fun of someone.” Dialect causes for the sound, or noise, in nation language to be lost and makes it lose its meaning and way of interpretation. Personally, I have always viewed dialect to be something that gives color to language. It tells a powerful story of where someone has come from, whether that be in terms of their cultural background or location of residence. Having a dialect should never be looked down upon or be seen as being “lesser” in any sense since it has absolutely no relation to an individual's level of education, intelligence, or the types of mannerisms they may possess. What can be considered a dialect in one place can be seen as nation language in another, and vice versa - it all depends on where you live and what people are familiar with in that place.
ReplyDeleteAzhar Awan
ReplyDelete1. Before drawing a distinction between nation language and dialect, Brathwaite writes, “it is not English that is the agent. It is not language, but people, who make revolutions.” In saying this, he implies that the voice and tone of the people is the distinguishing factor for nation language that sets it apart from the simplicity of English and written language in general. This is important in understanding Brathwaite’s distinction between nation language and dialect, where he is subtly explaining that nation language is a product of two cultures inadvertently mixing, where dialect is more of a regional influence on an already established language like English. He refers to dialect as “caricature”, implying that dialect only alters a part of a language, while nation language does so much more with its sound. I like to think of nation language being pictured as an impure diamond that has morphed from different coals (English, Ashanti, Congolese) because of pressure and heat beneath the ground; the pressure and heat being the suppression of the African languages. I hope that made some sense.
Manav Kumar
ReplyDelete1. In the essay Brathwaite, states that "it is not English that is the agent...but the people.." I believe that here Brathwaite, is making the distinction between nations language and dialect. What he refers to as nations language in the passage is the way people manipulate terms from the base language English, to form a different type of English, which can be referred to as their nations language. Moreover dialect is the way a person speaks the nations language, specifically their tone. In my opinion, I believe that there really is not a difference between nations language and dialect because both follow the same concept, which is to utilize a base language to create your way of speaking. Also, nations language is not really referring to the tone of the people, it refers to the terminology/words that are created from the base language English. This is where dialect and nations language differ, and Brathwaite try to outline in his essay, because dialect is aimed towards how a person speaks the newly created nations language.
I enjoyed reading your comment to this. I agree with you in that in a sense, both forms of language overlying ideas/principles that make them sort of similar in a way. I see it as dialect being a preface to nation language in that it's a way for one to understand the newly formed nation language. Given the long history that nation language has been derived from, it’s part of the culture and in order for the people to understand this new form of language, they need to resort back to dialect.
DeleteIn Brathwaite’s essay “Nation Language,” he draws a distinction between nation language and dialect. Nation language is supposed to represent English in the African culture. Brathwaite describes, “its rhythm and timbre, its sound explosions, it is not English, even though the words, as you hear them, might be English to a greater or lesser degree.” It may be English, but it is more related to the African ideals in the Caribbean. Brathwaite mentions how “caricature speaks in dialect,” emphasizing that it would only be used for comic distortion. Originating from the days of working on the plantation, it is looked at negatively. Dialect is often thought of as inferior English, where its purpose was to make fun of someone. Brathwaite calls to attention the negative connotation that dialect has, given its history.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction that Brathwaite draws between nation language and “dialect" was that he saw nation language as the representation of the nations language as a whole and how it came to be like that. It is not just one language that was chosen out of all that was spoken in the country but a language to represent the nation. It is a communal form that took what embodied all forms of language that the nation had. Dialect is just one language that is part of the nation. It is not to be seen as inferior because it was a building block to get to what a nation language is. The slaves had to assimilate into the European languages and stop using their on languages. “They did not wish to hear people speaking Ashanti or any of the Congolese languages.” They didn't just adopt the new language, the language is what became new. This is why Brathwaite made it such a point to talk about nation language. There is so much that occurred to create this nation language. There is history behind the words we speak due to the people in the past that once spoke it and learned to speak it.
ReplyDeleteNishneet Kaur
ReplyDeleteBrathwaite draws a distinction between nation language and “dialect”, he makes dialect seem inferior to nation language. Brathwaite states, “Dialect is the language used when you want to make fun of someone.” (311) The nation language is sought to be more accepted in society and commonly used. As dialect, it is unacceptable and those who use it are looked down upon. This distinction is significant because it used to make a difference between people in society. Brathwaite is trying to call attention to a conceptual difference and that is the nation language is superior. The nation language is what can be used to perceive a group of people which dialect does not accurately portray. Brathwaite also states about the nation language that, “It may be in English, but often it is an English which is like a howl, or a shout or a machine-gun or the wind or a wave.” The description shows that the nation language is more powerful than dialect and people are more likely to speak it proudly.
2. “Inglan is a Bitch”, by Linton Kwesi Johnson, directly challenges the dominance of British culture and colonialism. The first thing that comes to the listener’s attention is his provocative and repetitive use of his title, specifically calling England a “Bitch”. This is a provocative and strong word choice that immediately calls attention to his purpose of the song. Next, when looking into the lyrics, the listener realizes that he recalls what seems like his own experiences in England. He goes into his struggles to survive, directly challenging the economy and how he is worked immensely. He even states, “Well mi dhu day wok an’ mi duh nite wok,” recalling his day round work schedule. He also mentions, “W’en em gi’you di lickle wage packit – fus dem rab it wid dem big tax rackit,” calling out the hefty taxes on the low wages. Linton Kwesi Johnson quite obviously challenges British culture and life in his song.
ReplyDelete