From the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers

Sample Student Response Paper from a Linguistics Course
1Daniel Muniz’s article “Ebonics And Tex-Mex – English By Any Other Name,” through

anecdotes of his own life and lives of others, aims to convince readers of the importance of speaking
a standardized form of English if one wishes to succeed financially and professionally in the United
States. 2Through his writing, he shows his firm belief in the idea that language and its usage are
intrinsically linked to money, and that using any non-standard form of English in this country leads
to low-paying jobs, living in unpleasant neighborhoods, and being “condemned to a life of poverty.”
3He credits his own rise from the barrio to his ability succeed in the classroom and workplace as a
direct result of “my mom [being a] language cop… she assertively corrected anyone who misspoke
it”, which to me indicates several of his underlying beliefs about language.

4Firstly, that there is a “right” way and a “wrong way” to speak a language. 5Secondly, this
metaphor creates the sense that the obedience to language “laws” and the strict correction of a
language’s misuse is definitely a good thing, while employing the language improperly is tantamount
to a crime. 6He notes in his article that he believes non-standard language usage and its negative
consequences apply not only to variations of English in the United States, but also applies the idea of
the danger in drawing on non-standard language variations when using “broken and incorrect
Spanish” in Mexico- implying that universally, for each language there is a correct, standardized
variety and all the rest are incorrect.

7This article and the ideas and values of language it presents include a large number of
ideological erasures. 8For example, he tends to describe people who speak “incorrect” English or no
English at all as lazy, undisciplined, and ignorant people who need to be saved from themselves.
9While stating that certain individuals lack the ability to speak standardized English because of these
negative internal characteristics, Muniz fails to note reasons outside of the person’s direct control that
might be responsible for unfamiliarity with the standardized language. 10Many times people are
unable to learn a new language, or learn to speak it “correctly”, due to constraints on time, money, or
simply opportunities available for them to learn.

11Muniz critiques Tex-Mex as an acceptable form of English, concluding that Tex-Mex
is “bad English with some Spanish tossed in…It is also bad Spanish with some English tossed in. Not
only is it speaking one language incorrectly, it is also speaking two of them badly”, also contains
elements of ideological erasure. 12Muniz deduces that all Hispanics who speak Tex-Mex are too lazy
to properly learn either language, but falls short of recognizing the reasons for which it most likely
originated. 12It is probable that these two languages blended together into a sort of “contact
language” because it was necessary for two different communities who spoke two different
languages to be able to communicate with each other. 13In fact, it would appear that these people are
actually at the opposite end of the spectrum as far as the way in which Muniz describes them; they
are not too lazy to be bothered to learn each other’s language but were ambitious and motivated
enough to try and creatively solve a problem to the language barrier which was holding them back
(or at least nowadays, the are the ancestors of the people who were). 14This blending of languages
also probably helped to integrate these newcomers into the existing community, improving their lives
and their ability to succeed in a new place. 15The audience that is most likely to be reading Muniz’s
article is the same type of person that Muniz is promoting; reading this type of article seems like it
would only further support opinions that they already hold. 16This could potentially be dangerous, as
it would cause the people who are in social, economic, and political power (the readers of this article
who are most likely native, educated, and financially well-off) to be further blinded to the various
inequities that are in play in our society’s institutions, thinking that if nothing else, intolerance
towards non-standard English should be increased. 17Also, since non-standard speakers are not as
likely to be reading this material, they will not have the chance to respond to Muniz’s claims or
maybe even be aware that this point of view is being held and acclaimed among some influential
groups in society.

Springer and Breines

In Living for the Revolution, Kimberly Springer examines five black feminist
organizations and interrogates the question of what constitutes a “woman’s issue.” Just
as women of color and working-class women often had to create their own groups to
address the issues they were concerned with, so too have black feminist historians had to
write books to include these movements in the historical record. Springer notes that even
the “wave” formation of historical feminist movements has been centered on white
women (p. 8). She points out the call by black feminist historians to include the resistance
of nineteenth-century bondswomen as an early form of feminist opposition, and also
notes the fact that many black women – such as Claudia Jones and Amy Jacques Garvey
– were actively fighting for social justice during an era when it was assumed by white
women that feminist organizing was at a standstill. Clearly, continuing to utilize the
categories of feminist waves is another way to silence the voices of women who have
already been ignored in feminist history. Another point related to slavery that came up in
both books concerns the notion during the Black Power movement that black men had
been further brutalized and humiliated under slavery than black women had, and
therefore black women ought to take a backseat role while supporting ‘their’ men
(Breines, p. 51, Spring p. 47). After reading so many works about the treatment of
bondswomen, and the sexual abuse they often suffered, it’s difficult to understand such
statements – clearly they were uttered before today’s black women’s historians had
entered the academy, and their work has helped to correct such ideas. While the notion of
emasculation is central here, this very concept is misogynist and implies that for a man to
be feminized is the worst fate that could fall upon him. Why was there no call during
Black Power for men to discuss how badly slavery had brutalized black women as well?
Was this due to the masculine rhetoric of nationalism? Both books give examples of how
assumed stories of historical events can both affect collective memory as well as current
treatment of people. Just as the wave analogy serves to continue to marginalize women of
color fighting gender oppression, the 1960s assumption that black men suffered more
during slavery served to rationalize black women’s modern day subordination.
Springer raises another point in her discussion of The Third World Women’s
Alliance concerning the rhetoric of black nationalism. The collective wrote in Triple
Jeopardy, “Now we noticed another thing. And that is, with the rise of nationalism and
the rejection of white middle class norms and values, that this rejection of
whiteness…took a different turn when it came to the Black woman (p. 48).” This shows
the keen analytical eye of the collective, for if white middle-class ideology upheld the
nuclear family and traditional gender roles, would not a disparagement of this normative
way of life also call for an alternative form of gender relations? Why was white men’s
tradition of protecting and subordinating ‘their’ women replicated in black nationalist
rhetoric? Couldn’t there be space for women to raise children as well as lead on the
frontlines?
After reading these books together with the articles on women in the Black Power
movement a few weeks ago, it appears that among historians there is a debate around
whether black women came to black feminism on their own, or through the positive or
negative influences of white women and black men. On one hand, there appears to be the
hope of historians that black women came to gender analysis on their own without the

Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. Version 1.0 Ann Arbor, MI. Copyright (c) 2009 Regents of the University of Michigan

MICUSP Version 1.0 – HIS.G2.03.1 – History & Classical Studies – Second year Graduate – Female – Native Speaker – Response Paper 1

impetus of white women, but on the other, there is the notion that in the mid-60s,
feminism was construed as a privileged critique only made by white women, as
evidenced in the letter written by two white women in SNCC. However, movements and
organizations always begin in reaction to events already in play; they do not form in a
bubble, and acknowledging the events and ideologies of groups with more privilege that
helped instigate the movement doesn’t weaken the legacy of black feminism.
Springer does a great job of revealing the heterogeneity not only of black
feminists but also of their various organizations. Clearly, the Combahee River Collective,
with its commitment to socialism and visible lesbian leaders, was construed as the most
radical, while groups such as the National Black Feminist Organization were sometimes
referred to as “the black NOW.” Noting this, it’s interesting that even the NBFO garnered
more support outside of the black community than within it (p. 52). How did mainstream
black attitudes against black feminism different from mainstream white attitudes against
white feminism? As is the case with most radical movements, clearly the mainstream
press, as evidenced by the coverage in Jet and Encore, played a part in instilling the
notion that black feminists were lackeys for white women, among other inaccuracies. The
larger question might be, why was black feminism viewed as threatening to the black
community during this era? Was this primarily due to the image of the black matriarch
that the Moynihan Report summoned, and the fact that both black nationalists and the
black mainstream saw black feminists as upholding such a supposedly negative image?

Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. Version 1.0 Ann Arbor, MI. Copyright (c) 2009 Regents of the University of Michigan

MICUSP Version 1.0 – HIS.G2.03.1 – History & Classical Studies – Second year Graduate – Female – Native Speaker – Response Paper 2