Political Essays

Norm coleman Must apologize

2005-12-14T11:59:00.000-05:00

Too Much Too Early: The Fast Lane to Senate Fame

I marvel at what went through Sen. Norm Coleman's head when he wrote Kofi Must Go, his now infamous political slander of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan published by the Wall Street Journal. While he was typing those passages, did the senator Coleman stop to wonder what might occur if his accusations turned out false? Did he consider that people might later construe his article as malicious and dishonest? We may never know. But this much is obvious: If Norm Coleman does not apologize to Kofi Annan for publishing that slanderous article, he may wind up paying for it with more than just his credibility. He may wind up paying with his wallet.
That is precisely what happened to the British Sunday Times last month, when they finally agreed to settle a $435,000 lawsuit brought against them by Kojo Anan, the son of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Kojo Annan sued the paper after they published an article that claimed Kojo “told a close friend he became involved in negotiations to sell 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil to a Moroccan company in 2001.” In court last month, a lawyer for the Sunday Times told the court that the paper “entirely accepts that the allegation was untrue,” and that the editors apologized to Mr. Annan for any undue stress or embarrassment it caused him.
Sen. Coleman’s and The British Sunday Times’ article were both printed at the height of the U.N. oil for food scandal, which according to Sen. Coleman was “The most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N.” Briefly, the oil-for-food program was set up by the U.N to allow Iraq to sell oil to approved contractors during the period of sanctions imposed on them after the gulf war in the 1990’s. The oil money was supposed to be used to buy humanitarian goods for Iraqi citizens. It was successful for 7 years.
After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the world learned that Saddam, along with unscrupulous oil contractors from around the world, had illegally made millions through the program. This is where Norm Coleman made his début. As the chairperson of the senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, he led an investigation to discover the extent of corruption in the oil-for food program.
The committee had only just began their investigation when Senator Coleman dropped a bomb on the U.N. Using the flimsy preliminary findings of his investigation, he published an article, Kofi Must Go, in the December 2 issue of the Wall Street journal alleging that the U.N was riddled with mass corruption. He called for sweeping reforms of the institution, and demanded the resignation of Secretary General Kofi Annan. “The most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on [Kofi Annan's] watch,” Coleman wrote. “In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose. “
This was a bold statement, but one that journalists and the American public had little reason to question. There was so little doubt in the media, in fact, that the news of Kofi Annan's involvement in the scandal spread like a forest fire. Television and Newspaper journalist printed stories day after day about Kofi Annan involvement in the oil-for-food scandal. Foxnews.com wrote more than 100 separate pieces on the scandal and nearly every well known paper from the Chicago Times to the New York Times followed suit. It’s too bad nobody bothered to check the facts first.
In his article, Senator Coleman embellished facts, inflated figures, and relied on hearsay to slander the U.N and Kofi Annan. To begin with, he started the article with inflated figures. “We presented evidence,” Coleman wrote, “that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions.” According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the actual amount that Saddam's regime collected from illegal oil for food kickbacks and charges was about 1.8 billion dollars; a combination of contract kickbacks ($1,512,383,150) and oil surcharges ($228,592,128). A substantial sum, but 18.2 billion less than what the Senator claimed. Saddam made the rest of his wealth through illegal oil sales to nations like Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt. This was beyond the U.N.'s jurisdiction and had nothing to do with the oil for food program.
Later in the article, Coleman claimed that Annan is obstructed the IIC's investigation: “as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.” Again, Senator Coleman's warnings are childishly premature. The IIC concluded their year and a half-long investigation more than a year after the wall street Journal printed Coleman's article. During the investigation, Paul Vockler thanked Kofi Annan for his support and cooperation with the investigation. According to the United Nations foundation oil-for-food website, “The Secretary-General has confirmed publicly on several occasions that he would waive the immunity of any staff member who is found to have committed a crime, regardless of whether the staff member has functional or diplomatic immunity.” Had Coleman waited to print his article, he would have seen that happen. Two high level U.N members have already been fired and numerous staff has been indicted. All have had their immunity waved in light of their charges.
On October 27, 2005. Paul Vockler, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and head of the Independent Inquiry committee, the group responsible for officially investigating the oil-for-food scandal, completed his laborious 18-month report on the scandal. In stark contrast to Senator Coleman's claims that the program was a “huge debacle,” Mr. Vockler declared “I wouldn't say that the program is corrupt I would say that there was some corruption in the program.” After a long and thorough investigation, Kofi Annan has been proven innocent of any charges made against him.
Norm Coleman made a mistake when he wrote, Kofi Must Go, for the wall Street Journal. As an ambitious, freshman senator he may have been trying to jump-start his career with the scandal of all scandals; unfortunately, he did it in the wrong way. He used fabrications, slanders, and premature accusations to paint a surreal picture of the Kofi Annan that was far from accurate. For that, he must apologize.
To Senator Coleman's credit, however, his committee did bring light to the corruption that existed in the UN oil-for-food program, and his persistent, although often misguided-pressure to reform the UN may actually have some positive ramifications in the future. Nevertheless, one thing remains clear. When you slander an innocent man publicly and use half-truths and careless evidence to criminalize someone, you must remedy your mistake. It's time for him to be humble and apologize; or he may be the next one being sued.

What is "Black English"?

2005-04-22T13:07:00.000-04:00

An Error in “Black English”

"The basis of shame is not some personal mistake of ours, but the ignominy, the humiliation we feel that we must be what we are without any choice in the matter, and that this humiliation is seen by everyone" (Kundar 125). Milan Kundar, a skilled, prolific writer, highlights here an ageless truism: that a person need not be guilty of some transgression to feel ashamed of it. This applies to individuals as well as an entire people.

In America, it has been widely accepted that the "everyday speech" of African Americans, which is often referred to as “Black English” or Ebonics, is an inferior form of Standard English. Many consider it to be little more than a collection of grammatical mistakes and slang phrases. Even our own Secretary of Education once publicly warned Americans about the dangers of "elevating black English to the status of a language" (qtd. in Fillmore 13).

Unfortunately, current beliefs about “Black English” are enormously flawed; even worse, these beliefs have produced terrible consequences for African Americans, who sometimes feel angry and humiliated by the insinuations that their speech is the result of poor schooling and a low intelligence. Worst of all, these misconceptions are contributing to the continuation of social disharmony and racial polarization. The basis for these beliefs is that “Black English” is somehow an illegitimate form of English. In reality, however, “Black English” is a very legitimate dialect of the American English language, no more error-ridden or slang filled than any other dialect.

Many misunderstandings, half-truths, and stereotypes spring up when attempting to define “Black English,” due to the number of words and catchphrases used to describe it. However, to understand what “Black English” really is, we first need to decide what it is not.

Contrary to popular belief, “Black English” is not Ebonics. Many people think of Ebonics as the specific language used by some African Americans. At “Da Ebonics Page,” a popular Ebonics joke site, a translator will translate Standard English sentences into “Ebonocized” English at the click of a button. Type, “Ebonics is misunderstood,” and the translator will return, “Ebonics iz misunderstood Ya' dig?”( Da Ebonics Page). The result is not surprising, but neither is it Ebonics.

Formed by combining the words “ebony” and “phonics,” the term “Ebonics” was coined in 1973 by Dr. William Roberts, an African American social psychologist, during a conference sponsored by the National Institutes of health. It was during this conference that Dr. Williams defined Ebonics as, “the linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendent of African origin” (Baugh par. 4). In other words, Ebonics is a scientific study of the linguistic aptitude of African slave descendents. It is not the proper term for the way that some African Americans speak.

Another misconception about “Black English” is that it is simply slang. The Oxford English dictionary defines slang as (1) Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense (“slang”). Slang is not particular to one group or culture, but is used by many different groups and cultures. Words like “homey,” “peeps,” and “Cuz,” words often considered to be “black" words, are certainly all slang phrases; however, words like “bunk,” “canoogle,” and “milf” are also slang words, but these are words used most often by white suburban teenagers. Now, just because some people in a larger group of people use slang words does not mean that the entire "language" is a slang language. In America, however, some people feel perfectly justified calling "Black English" slang, even though the actual slang associated is used mainly by younger people in the community. But Perhaps this is why in 1996, Jessie Jackson responded to a school board’s decision to use “Black English” in the classroom by saying, “You don't have to go to school to learn to talk garbage” (Fillmore par. 25). Could it be that he assumed that the school board meant to teach children using slang?

Now, if “Black English” is not slang, and if “Black English” is not Ebonics, then what is “Black English”? Well, most importantly, “Black English” is a dialect of the American English language, similar in style and structure to the Southern American dialect. To demonstrate this point, let’s turn to a fictional conversation between Sally and Rashonnda. Sally grew up in the suburbs of Michigan and speaks in a standard Michigan dialect, while Rashawn grew up in Detroit and speaks with a thick “Black English” dialect.

Sally: Can I see that Magazine?

Rashawn: Which one, girl, the one I just bought?

Sally: Yeah, are you done with it?

Rashawn: Yeah, it ain’t nothin' good in it anyway.

In this conversation, there are two word constructions, “ain’t” and “nothing,” that some people might consider “black English,” but these words are not unique to “black English.” On the contrary, they are used widely in the south and in many rural areas throughout the U.S. Let’s return to the fictional conversation, but this time let’s replace Rashonnda with Mary Joe, a woman from the Deep South who speaks with a heavy southern accent. Both women are white.

Sally: Can I see that magazine?

Mary Joe: Which one, Honey, the one I just got today?

Sally: Uh huh, are you done with it?

Mary Joe: Yeah, it ain’t nothin’ good in it anyway.

In this second transcript, the same two incorrect forms of “Is not” and “Nothing” are used. All that has changed is the race and regional background of the second speaker.

It is highly unlikely that most people would consider Mary Joe’s language inferior; more than likely, they would probably consider it the result of the region that she grew up in. Likewise, the likelihood that someone would scorn Mary Joe by accusing her of speaking Ebonics is rare. Why then is it so widely accepted that the dialect spoken by many African Americans, a dialect so similar to the southern dialect, is inferior? Why has the language of African Americans become the target of so much ridicule and scorn? Perhaps it is because, as Linguist John Baugh claimed, “the distinction between “languages” and “dialects” is usually made more on social and political grounds than on purely linguistic ones” (Baugh 9). In other words, “Black English” is considered inferior by some because it is associated with black people, who themselves have been wrongly considered inferior. And while it is true that since the civil rights revolution, Americans have made strides toward eradicating that perceived inferiority, the old, historical stereotypes of the uneducated, dim-witted African American still exist and pervade some Americans' thinking.

American has been called the land of equality, but until simple stereotypes like the ones about “Black English” are eradicated, our cultural progress toward racial harmony will be stalled. To avoid this, we need to stop calling the way that black people speak “Black English” and “Ebonics” and instead call it what is: English. Perhaps then we can move one step further.

Works Cited

Baugh, John. “Ebony and Phonics.” Public Broadcast Company. 2005. 14 Feb. 2005

Da Ebonics Page. Ed. Joel Thoms. 2005. 18 Apr. 2005

Fasold, Ralph. “Ebonic Need Not Be English.” Center for Applied Linguistics. Dec. 1999: 23 pars. 14 Feb. 2005. http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic.htm>

Fillmore, Charles. “A Linguist Looks At the Ebonics Debate.” Center for Applied Linguistics. Jan. 1997: 36 pars. 13 Feb. 2005

“Slang.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2004.

A Political Purpose

2005-02-14T13:50:00.000-05:00

This blog is an attempt to receive feedback on my writing from everyday readers and, hopefully, some professional writers, too. In this way, I hope to improve my grammar, my punctuation, my novice style, and my ability to convey a clear, poignant message.
The essays on this blog will be of a political nature; some will respond to recent news events, while others will be based on broader issues. I will keep the essays brief, so as not to bore you. One thing I can promise is controversy--without being offensive--and interest. Most importantly, I hope to foster debate on the many important issues confronting society today.