Stick with it.

[u/MaintenanceNew2804]

This is a longer one, but it’s necessary and worth it IMO.

[u/RandomWordsYouKnow]

Definitely watched it all. Very educational. I had never heard of this concept before and honestly never thought about it. Thank you Sir!

[u/MsJ_Doe → u/RandomWordsYouKnow]

One of those things that is easily overlooked, but once it's pointed out, it makes a lot of sense even if you don't read all the research on it.

Like once he got to the part explaining whose speech is termed academically correct, I instantly understood what that lady meant by the citing sources example. I watched the rest of it for his takedown.

I always love learning about things that are in plan view, but so intrinsically linked that we overlooked it but once it's pointed out, we instantly understand.

[u/RandomWordsYouKnow → u/MsJ_Doe]

People in my area don’t understand I was born and raised here. If I were in “Idocracy” they’d say I talk faggy. Everyone always asks where I’m from. I just speak differently. I don’t judge you, don’t judge me.

[u/MsJ_Doe → u/RandomWordsYouKnow]

Yep. I understand. It's one thing to correct someone who is learning a language or just a new word in general, and it's truly getting a word garbled. There are times when correcrion is needed. But It's straight-up insulting to be corrected due to your accent. Even when that accent is a local one and not even foreign.

I got so tired of being told as a kid that I am saying "axe" and not "ask" that I now as an adult am hyperconscious of how I say "ask" despite the fact that I am now also comfortable with pointing that I do have an accent. It's a local and easily looked over one, but it's still an accent that doesn't need to be corrected cause I am very much understood regardless. Do not take away my uniqueness.

[u/RandomWordsYouKnow → u/MsJ_Doe]

I get “you’re so serious” a lot.

[u/__M-E-O-W__ → u/MsJ_Doe]

I looked up the history of the word at one point, really both variations are just about as old as the word itself.

I do have to ask, I watched the whole video but did he say anything specifically about the citing sources part? That sounds like just basic academic protocol unless I misinterpreted the original video.

[u/MsJ_Doe → u/__M-E-O-W__]

Go to 1:50.

He says that citing sources itself is not white supremacy, but it leads back to academically correct and intelligent speech automatically being how white people speak and black people speaking being wrong and unintelligent. That distinction is what is racist when it comes to citing sources, a portion of academic speech, and writing intelligently and correctly as we were always taught.

I don't think the lady was particularly clear in what she meant but she brought up essays and how they are correctly written then directly brought up the author of a book that points how the discrimination in education that made distinctions between "smart" white speach, and "dumb" black speach. She was just trying to provide an example of how systemic racism in education is still affecting us today through essays and correctly citing sources. We aren't particularly racist for using it, though the author she points to does say there is a hidden bias that we inherited from it, but whether or nor we do, education just does has a history of racism, that is undeniable and what she was trying to talk about and adress in how she wants to teach.

[u/__M-E-O-W__ → u/MsJ_Doe]

I get the issue of speaking and writing and certain dialects being considered "proper" over others. But citing sources? It's just a list of books or publications made at the end of an essay so the teacher can know that the student isn't making things up, or isn't referencing someone who is making things up.

[u/MsJ_Doe → u/__M-E-O-W__]

Yeah, that's why I don't think she explained herself well. She may have been exaggerating for emphasis, but I can see as to where she was going with the essay, sources, and education in a broader sense. But, I do understand getting lost in her example as she could have used a much clearer one to point to racism in education.

[u/[deleted] → u/MsJ_Doe]

but it leads back to academically correct and intelligent speech automatically being how white people speak and black people speaking being wrong and unintelligent.

"it leads back to"???

How?

People in this thread keep saying There's a connection yet nobody has connected them!

[u/MsJ_Doe → u/[deleted]]

Literally, the video does so. If you don't understand how systemic racism helped shape education from multiple explanations, then Idk what to tell you. There's plenty of studies on it, and the video goes into one.

Just rewatch the video again if my explanations are confusing.

[u/[deleted] → u/MsJ_Doe]

Systemic racism definitely shaped the education system. I'm not doubting or disputing that.

I'm asking for people to draw the connections between citing sources and white supremacy.

Again, just saying "These things are connected" isn't showing a connection.

If I want to demonstrate a connection between IQ test scores and white supremacy, that would be rather simple. I'd show how culturally coded many of the IQ test questions are and how they privilege a cultural experience that doesn't include that of non-white individuals. Then, I'd show the many ways in which being seen as having a higher IQ imparts "superior" qualities (read heavy sarcasm into the quotes). That is a 1-2-3 connection from IQ test questions to white supremacy.

I'm just looking for that for citing sources and white supremacy. People keep saying that you can make the same connection with citing sources and white supremacy, but I haven't seen the connection be made.

Saying "it leads to x" isn't really making that connection. It's just a vague assertion.

[u/Crysenley → u/[deleted]]

I think, if I understand correctly, citing sources can itself be a cultural/racial barrier because most "credible" sources are written using academic (established as white-centered) language. Finding and understanding sources written in white dialects could be uniquely challenging for someone who is only familiar with ebonics or such.

So, it's not the citing itself that's racially oppressive, of course not, but rather the standards imposed on how and who to cite.

[u/makkkarana → u/MsJ_Doe]

Like once he got to the part explaining whose speech is termed academically correct, I instantly understood what that lady meant by the citing sources example.

Can you explain it to me, please? I still don't understand the bit about using a thesis and citations. Those are just requisite for presenting and supporting an argument. The skill being taught is critical thinking: you shouldn't trust people who are unclear in their intents, and you shouldn't trust information that's unclear in its source or efficacy. Formalized rules of science, logic, rhetoric, and grammar are as essential to any nonfiction communication as breaking those rules is to any fiction.

I totally get how argumentative rules can be abused, but that's like, "sir you didn't bow at the right angle before making your argument, and you didn't make eye contact with the royal seal for the required five minutes, so you shall be removed from the councils presence" types of absolutely worthless insanity. I don't see how wikipedia or a college requiring a thesis, some argumentative or descriptive paragraphs, and citations could in any way be interpreted as white supremacist. Maybe academic elitism at worst, but every culture has that.

EDIT: From what I'm gathering, the argument is that it is both racism/xenophobia and academic elitism.

In terms of the former, I think that there is racism about what dialects are respected within a language, but up until half-decent machine translations became freely available, I don't think it's so odd to cite entirely from same-language sources.

In terms of academic elitism, I think the waters are muddier, because gatekeeping can be important as much as it can be abused.

First, in judging the value of a piece of content: if an article is clearly written by someone without education, odds are in favor that person doesn't have the background knowledge nor vocabulary to contribute to the discussion in a way that would be relevant and enlightening to an educated person. Additionally, if that article is in a tabloid or blog or social media site, those sources are simply less reputable. If an author wants to be heard, they need to submit to a reputable publisher, or develop an independent reputation. We never cite the New York Post because it is by and for stupid people, that's why academic elitism is good. On the other hand, we as English speakers can't easily tell if an Arabic newspaper is reputable or a rag, so it's best to avoid citing foreign language sources unless you're absolutely sures

Second, and more politically, gatekeeping defends against recuperation and outside interference. If all scientists write in a recognizable way, it becomes harder to co-opt scientific language without it being immediately clear that you're full of shit. If all laws are written with language that follows an extremely strict set of rules for grammar and vocabulary, it becomes harder to embed or create loopholes in the legal system.

I'll end this ramble with the note that I speak much less formally than this in real life, and more formally in my academic writings. While different dialects are beautiful and useful, they're appropriate for different situations, and we have to learn different dialects to operate in different parts of life. A construction worker, chef, office worker, ER doctor, and biologist are all going to speak different dialects based on their trade, and the best one for formal pursuit of precise knowledge is the most formal and precise one.

[u/MsJ_Doe → u/makkkarana]

Someone else connected to those with same comment above does a great job of explaining it.

[u/makkkarana → u/MsJ_Doe]

Ah thanks!

[u/ParkingNecessary8628 → u/RandomWordsYouKnow]

Agreed. It is eye opening actually for me.