Check out Kurt’s contribution to the rhetoric surrounding death, burial, consumerism, and ecology. Good stuff.

Here’s the latest: a Latina teacher is fired for being to “Afro-centric” in her teaching!  Because she tries to make up for the skewed history taught in most classrooms, her reward is termination-and don’t miss this-by her African American principal.  I realize that curriculum(s) must adhere to certain standards, but when a teacher is fired because of something like this, you have to ask yourself if education is the next bridge to freedom facing demolition.  We tell our children & students that if they work hard and study, they might have a chance at impacting the cycle of poverty that has prevented so many of their (our) ancestors from obtaining financial success.  We tell them that while meritocracy is really a bullshit concept, there is something to be said about the opportunities that are available now compared to 50 years ago. But is that the crux of the problem? Are we, as under-represented people, finally getting an authentic shot at (some semblance) of equality? Perhaps that is the issue at hand-that by exposing the corruption and systemic racism embedded within the history of our country through texts ( like Malcolm X), we are arming our students with the power to interrupt  (and possibly prevent?) the newest version of repression.  What we can tell clearly by this event is that fear is a powerful emotion.  And that fact that the instructor is both a Woman AND Latina? Don’t get me started on that one!

Victor Villanueva first post on the CCCC’s blog devoted to diversity can be found here: http://cccc-blog.blogspot.com/

I hope everyone takes a minute to read it.

CCCC’s has created a blog that will be devoted exclusively to diversity issues.  According to the blog description, every two weeks a guest writer will post/initiate a conversation devoted to a particular issue that warrants intellectual discussion and response. The first guest blogger will be Victor Villanueva, and his post is set to appear on 29 May. Let’s do what we can to see that this blog not only has respondents, but productive conversations that might go beyond the blogosphere.  As we all know, diversity is an issue that has yet to establish a strong foothold within our discipline, despite the occasional nods, guest editors to our journal, and public displays of acknowledgment.

And we don’t fool her. Ever. There are 20,000 dead in China after a 7.9 Earthquake, but that news is 4 days old. The interesting thing is that before the quake, a pond became completey dry, and thousands of frogs were evacuating their aquatic homes. The question on the table now is “do we get signs from nature prior to a natural disaster”? Despite the fact that behaviors like this are common in animals (elephants were said to be acting strangely prior to the cyclone in Myanmar) scientists continue to ignore these signs. I guess I don’t understand why scientists refuse to acknowledge the natural instincts of creatures that predate us. Is it arrogance, or simply disbelief in things that can not be proven to their satisfaction? I find it interesting that Einstein understood that we are all connected (quantum theory), that his contemporaries agreed with him (Bohm), and yet the idea of cosmic connection is still viewed as mystical . Perhaps if we paid more attention to the subtle clues we receive from mother nature and tuned in to our natural intuitions, we would be have a slight advantage over these catastrophic events.  Certainly, we can’t stop natural disasters no matter what we do, but would it have been possible to detect the epicenter of the quake with enough time to evacuate some of the areas if the behavior of the frogs been taken more seriously?  Would the citizens of Myanmar have had more time to evacuate if the intelligence and wisdom of elephants would have made meteorologists suspicious? There is no way to know for sure, but maybe we should have some respect for the things we do not fully understand, instead of looking down our nose at them.  Sometimes, we can be too smart for our good.

I just completed my readings for a mini seminar that I am attending in the morning regarding ESL learners and the writing center. All of the texts made some very interesting observations, and brought up some topics that I had not thought about since I got my masters in linguistics. Language has always fascinated me; the way we use it to construct meaning, and the way we use it to understand others.

After reading these essays, the one thing that I could not let go of was the insistence that communicative practices in writing for ESL students must be done in a singular way. With the exception of one essay (which included an honorable mention of Asian linguistic practices), there was really no allowance for the way in which the ESL students must use their individual languages to assist in making the connections necessary in obtaining what these authors felt were essential bridges leading to native intuition. Allow me to explain. As an ESL teacher, I had students from many different linguistic backgrounds; Bosnia, Germany, Morocco, and the Philippines, just to name a few. The one thing I always understood as a linguist/ESL instructor was that the most efficient way to build a bride is to start with the materials at hand. That is, while it is important to teach them English language conventions, it is also important to have some understanding of the linguistic features of their L1 (first language). For example, what in their language acts as a qualifier (for example)? Do they understand what a qualifier does in their language? If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how much language you give them-the understanding will remain surface knowledge until they can make the connection in a way that is meaningful to them. The first rule of ESL is that students that are proficient in their L1 have a higher success rate of understanding their L2.

Another thing I found a bit bothersome (and maybe it’s just my love of the relation of language to culture that makes me so sensitive about this type of thing) is the way in which the dictionary of collocations uses specific phrasing and sequences, without any allowance for options-as if there is only way way to express certain ideas. Look, I understand that academic language is necessary and specific, but the beauty of language is supposed to be its flexibility (Do I have to remind you why Latin is dead?). The knowledge that phrases like “Could I have a word in your ear” pass as acceptable is a little scary. I am fluent in two languages, and I would never say that, much less write it! Instructions that read “choose the appropriate word” without giving ESL writers more than one option seem problematic to me as well (take for example the sentence that reads “We had to queue for ages at the taxi rank” with rank being the suitable word). My major objection to the way texts of these type are constructed is simply this: students that feel insecure about their linguistic prowess tend to cling to the ideas validated in textbooks, dictionaries and the like. For ESL writers/students, these texts represent the rules of the language they are trying to acquire. Further, if these types of texts are readily available in Writing Centers (where tutors are no less than cultural informants), it is a natural assumption that the information in these types of texts is “correct” and unquestionable.

Now, I could take the scholarly high road and extol the virtues of these types of texts, the intentions that guide them, their value, and go along with the unspoken assumption that as they (the ESL students) evolve as English speakers, the additional language they acquire will somehow expand their knowledge in a way that would interrupt those hegemonic teachings, but I won’t. You do the linguistic math.

This is an very interesting assessment of Obama, and might give those engaging in fictive kinship a moment pf pause. Like Dr West says “Who is funding Obama’s campaign”?

In honor of Martin Luther King Day, Dr. Cornell West gave this speech to honor, remind, and indict those that misread the significance of the holiday as “just some black man’s birthday”.  The video you are about to see is 45 minutes long, and is not for the faint of heart. But if you want to LISTEN to  a wonderful orator who even after 45 minutes leaves you wanting more, than this is my gift to you.  Dr. West is not only a wonderful orator, rhetorician, and political pundit, but also a scholar that communicates his knowledge in a way that inspires critical thinking and introspection.

not the exciting, heat raising experience that we all wish we could hang on to forever (unless you plan to take Dopamine pills for the rest of your life!), but instead, according to this week’s Time Magazine, the goal is “to move beyond the early thrill of love and into the comfort of the Sunday-paper-and-coffee phase”.
While the scope of the article is to explain the why(s) and wherefore(s) concerning the importance of love and mating, I was comforted to see that my desire for stability is more common than I thought. Don’t get me wrong-I never want to be part of the “old fuddy club”. In fact, those closest to me know that I am all about keeping the heat in the relationship alive and well. But, I do believe that the type of stability spoken of in the article is romantic and valuable in its own way; it’s built on mutual respect, love, memories (of the wild times), and all of the secrets and private jokes that the couple share.
And then there’s the quiz. Yep. A quiz-titled “The Thermometer of Love”. Its focus is to assess the different temperatures of love; cool, hot, and scalding. The scores range from 15 to a maximum of 135. I scored a 115, thank you very much! The number/score reflects the heat of your emotions when you felt most passionately about the person in question. If you’re currently single, then in order to take the quiz you have to be willing to muster up those old feelings you had for a certain someone. Fret not, the quiz is fun to take, and what have you got to lose? You might learn something about yourself that you didn’t know. Good luck!

According to this article…
“If partners are going to stay together, they need a love that bonds them to each other without the distraction of passion. That’s not to say that people can’t stay in love, or that those couples who say they still feel romantic are imagining things. These people, however, are the exceptions, and nearly all relationships must settle and cool. Long for the heat of early love if you want, but you’d have to pay for it with the solidity you’ve built over the years. ‘You’ve got to make a transition to a stabler state’ says Barry McCarthy, a psychologist and sex therapist. If love can be mundane, that’s because sometimes it’s meant to be”.

I know my poor blog has been neglected since November, but I should be back in full force in the upcoming weeks. I wish all of you out there a happy new year! Felicidades!

The next few weeks will be filled with syllabi writing and figuring out exactly what I want my students to learn about las mujeres Boricua. I have chosen to use the biography of Luisa Capetillo, and the book by Altagracia ortiz titled Puerto Rican Women and Work; Bridges in Transnational Labor. I think the issues brought forth in these two texts are not only important to Latinas everywhere (regardless of national affiliation), but also historical. I think that too often our little Isla Bonita is thought of as nothing more than a political disaster or a cute tourist spot, while the geopolitical and historical significances are continually overlooked. Hopefully, this semester I will be able to enlighten a few more students about Latinas, Puerto Rico, and the political implications of being historically overlooked.