James Baldwin’s article – “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” – written in July, 1979 grapples with a topical but unresolved argument. Immediately upon reading the article’s title, I knew this article would be thought provoking and dramatic. Could a language have color? And immediately following that thought, the author uses both hyperbaton and anastrophe for effect, placing the reader in the middle of the discussion, by posing the title as a question and changing around the words for effect; throwing the discussion squarely in the lap of the reader. Looking at the article’s title in its entirety, is the author possibly suggesting that Black English represents a unique use of English? His contraction of the words “is not” into “isn’t”; is not normally considered proper English and could point to the way in which he believes there exists a dynamic use of English that should be recognized as “Black Language”. The effect of his use of hyperbaton, (the insertion of other words  “then tell me”) and the anastrophe, or the placing of two out of order for effect (“what is” placed at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning) immediately makes the reader feel the complexity and the magnitude of what will follow. 
Baldwin’s article is passionately written, and the use of language is complex. Quite often, I had to reread sentences, and entire paragraphs, in order to try and comprehend his message. Possibly because the discussions around Black Language have not yet been fruitful in garnering recognition of Black Language, the author presents a case, filled with claims, (not relevant) evidence and no reasoning as to why Black English has not yet been embraced as a language. Many of Baldwin’s sentences evoke strong feelings and emotions, but because I wanted to understand his presentation, quite often I had to read the following sentences to understand the prior ones. In the first paragraph, the first sentence ends with …”has absolutely nothing to do with the question the argument supposes itself to be posing.” I was intrigued by the sentence, simply because I knew it was communicating something profound because of the use of amplification (“the use, the status, the reality”) of black English, and the hyperbole of “absolutely nothing”. Nothing just is nothing, there is no absolute to nothing. It was only after reading the following sentence, that I was half certain that I was possibly understanding the context of the first sentence. Which immediately had me pondering why Baldwin would want to write an article about a topic that has “absolutely nothing to do with the question the argument supposes itself to be posing”. Without any doubt, I knew I had to delve further into the article to understand the presentation. If as the author posits “the argument has nothing to with language itself but with the   role  of language”, is he saying that the role of Black English makes it a Language, or is it that the title is simply meant to peak the readers’ interest, or should the title of the article been more precise? The author continues the use of amplification in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, when he writes, “Language, incontestably, reveals the speaker”.  The incontestably amplifies his belief that language reveals the speaker. I made a mental note of this claim by the author, and will be on the look-out for evidence and his reasoning to arrive at this conclusion, as well as his claim made in the last sentence of the first paragraph, that language is meant to define the other or the listener. Again, I was very intrigued and conflicted by the last sentence of the first paragraph “Language, also, far more dubiously, is meant to define the other – and, in this case, the other is refusing to be defined by a language that has never been able to recognize him”. Is the author saying that Black English is not yet recognized as a language because those who do not speak Black English refuse to be defined by the language (since it does not recognize their existence), and thus their lack of acknowledgement of the language itself makes the language non-existent?  Finally, having finished the first paragraph, it is evident that the author uses several rhetorical devices for thought provoking effect, and he appears to make several claims: 1) Black English is rooted in American history, 2) Language reveals the speaker, 3) Language dubiously defines the other, 4) Black English does not recognize the other and 5) Black English is not recognized as a language because the other is refusing to be defined by Black English. By the end of the first paragraph, James Baldwin makes several claims, which only heightens readers’ interest in seeing how the article will provide evidence and reasoning in support of those claims.  As with the first paragraph, the author begins the second paragraph with another grand claim. Baldwin writes that “People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate”. Could he be referring to different regional accents or the colloquial manner in which groups of people might tweak a language? Or is he claiming that in order to control their circumstances, people have to evolve a language? Would this be because the current language is not specific enough for people to express their circumstances, however unique their circumstances might be? Conversely, if people do not evolve a language, does that mean that they are not in control of their situation? Baldwin then claims that if people cannot articulate their circumstance, then they are submerged by their reality. This is a rather grandly expansive claim that hopefully will be supported by evidence and reasoning in the article. Communication we know, can be subjective in its interpretation by the listener. Is the author saying that people are submerged if they are not fluent and coherent in their expression of their circumstances? This article is very intriguing and has captivated my interest as I feel that I am on the hunt for evidence which surely must come later in the article. Following these two expansive claims, the author provides examples of the spoken French being subtly and crucially different among speakers from Paris, Marseilles and more so from a speaker from Quebec. The coup de gras  occurs when Baldwin states that the aforementioned speakers would have an extreme difficulty understanding the speaker from Guadeloupe or Martinique, and even more so from Senegal. The author presents evidence of spoken differences among nations and the more subtle inter-nation differences, but his reasoning that “they are not saying, and cannot be saying the same thing…..because they each have very different realities to articulate or control”  does not acknowledge that regardless of the colloquial way all of these peoples pronounce and create and use vocabulary, they are all required to use formal French in education, media and on legal documents. Baldwin starts the third paragraph with another grand claim wrapped in an antithesis, that languages are joined by the necessity to confront life, “in order, not inconceivable, to outwit death”. He provides evidence of places which are determined to not allow their languages to be destroyed; the ProvenAal language of southern France, and the languages of Wales, and Ireland. The evidence presented does not support the claim as all these places were one independent regions and are unified with other countries – Southern France with France, and Wales and Ireland with United Kingdom. Each of these cases, the primary language of the unified region is the formal language that each of the former independent regions (Southern France, Wales and Ireland) has adopted, although because of heritage and pride, all are trying to keep their indigenous language alive. Much as in the prior three paragraphs, Baldwin starts the fourth by utilizing another rhetorical device (an apophasis – a form of irony relating to denying something while still saying it) to make another expansive claim “It goes without saying, then, that language is also a political instrument, means, and proof of power”. Does Baldwin mean variations of a formal language or colloquialisms specific to a region or groups of people? In support of his claim, Baldwin writes that language reveals private identity and language can be used to be inclusionary or exclusionary. He also states that merely speaking a specific language can be dangerous or fatal, and accents can be used to identify where people are from. Alas, the author states, in England, when you speak, you confess your future. As with his prior claims, the author does not provide evidence to support his claim that language is a political instrument and proof of power. No evidence is presented, instead additional claims are made by the author, without the provision of evidence. To state that a person’s use of language predicts their future, is a broad and scary statements. This statement does not support any of the previous claims, and is itself yet another claim. The author’s claim of language being the confessor of one’s future, gives zero credence to the belief of so many people that hard work and diligent effort can allow most people to overcome adversities. The author continues his discourse, utilizing rhetorical language for effect, including proverbs “No one can eat his cake and have it too”, amplification “if this passion, this skill, thi sheer intelligence, this incredible music, the mighty achievement….”, personification of ideas “I say that the present skirmish”. His tone is serious, fast paced, opinionated, but with little reference to published material in support of his numerous claims. Baldwin references the experience of Africans torn from their continent and forced to work on plantations in America. Certainly, families were often separated in America, and because these stolen African on the plantations did not speak a common they spoke no common language, they were forced to create a language with which to communicate. Because they were in America, and the main language was English, the language that the African Americans created used English as the foundation. Certainly, as Baldwin states in italicized letters, Black English is ” a language that comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey”. In support of his claim that Black English is a language, Baldwin uses an emotional racial juxtapose of a white man, a danger standing right behind himself (a black kid, in spite of possibly being  together with his family members). Baldwin employs effective metaphors to elicit stirring images of the white man, who does not want to recognize Black English, as a man “frozen for so long” who does not want to understand Black English as it would reveal too much about himself. In conclusion, this article was a great read. I enjoyed Baldwin’s use of rhetorical devices to evoke stark emotions. Baldwin did not present evidence to support his claims, and when he did present evidence, such evidence did not support the claims being made. There was little reasoning presented in the article. I enjoyed the article because I felt that the very first sentence of each paragraph, was a thunderous in its delivery and set the expectation for a great discussion within the paragraph. Instead, Baldwin mostly presented additional claims with no evidence and certainly, no reference to any published evidence. When “evidence” was presented, it invariably did not support the claim being made. There was no reasoning linking evidence to claims, as evidence was not presented in support of claims. It is possible that the author might have been able to better support his claims had he looked at whether additional languages are recognized when used in communities and nations which already have a main languages. He could also have looked at whether any colloquial use of a main language has ever been considered a separate language. Many groups of individuals speak languages or use vocabulary unique to their region or local, but that does not necessarily mean that such language should be officially recognized as a language. The author could have relied on published articles to support and validate much of his claims. The lack of ethos in the article simply made for a very interesting reading, one that was filled with anticipation and awe at how the author relied on rhetorical devices to evoke stark reactions and intense emotions.

 The TEDWomen presentation in 2016 by Harvard educated Doctor of Jurisprudence, civil rights advocate, and Columbia Law School professor and innovator, Ms. Kimberle Crenshaw, is titled “The Urgency of Intersectionality.”  Ms. Crenshaw is a leading authority in civil rights, and is well known for her work in race, racism, and the law, and is credited with coining the terms “critical race theory” and “intersectionality.” Her TEDWomen presentation is devoted to sexism and racism or gender and race. And while so many people face either sexism or racism individually, Ms. Crenshaw states that when persons are subjected to the combination of sexism and racism in tandem, often the effects of that double whammy is either discounted by legal professionals or deemed to not be significant because it may be difficult to prove the existence of that subgroup that is affected simultaneously by two differing forms of discrimination. This leading civil rights advocate and educator tells us that we need to be able to see how social problems affect all members of a targeted group and not just some members of that group. For example, we may be able to identify gender discrimination against a woman, just as well as we may be able to identify racial discrimination against a black person. But how difficult is it to identify someone with two causes of action, for
example, existing discriminatory hiring practices against a black woman; when the employer readily hires blacks, just as readily as it hires females – even though it does not hire blacks who are women. Ms.
Crenshaw says that we must be able to see a problem before we can fix a problem and we must move from mourning and grief to action and transformation. I am transformed by the presentation of this “pioneer
in critical race theory.”

            I am inspired to talk about the urgency of intersectionality of “poverty and disability” in medicine. What
follows are but my opinions, and thus I expect these ideas to not be acceptable to everyone. If anything, I am hopeful that my post will spark discussion, and push the narrative that no matter what we believe to be our reality, as heroines (and possibly heroes) in training, we must be particularly cognizant of the needs of the voiceless, the troubled, the young, the innocent, the poor, the disabled, the silenced, the minority, the disadvantaged. As Ms. Crenshaw says in her TEDWomen presentation, “when people (or patients) do not fit with the available frames,” we absolutely must see them, particularly since it may be easy to overlook the intersecting impact of two or more forms of disadvantageous attributes on the individual.

            Poor people are faced with the demands of simply surviving, staying safe, finding adequate shelter and warmth. Taking care of their health (although health is our most valuable asset) is
usually not a priority. The poor are more likely to ignore minor illnesses and only seek medical attention when their health problem requires critical care. Even when the poor realize that they absolutely have to seek medical help, they may not have the resources to contact a medical office, or even if an appointment is made, the
poor may not be able to afford the transportation costs to get to the medical facility. It is not that their health is not important to them, it is simply that given all the other daily requirements they are struggling to address, engaging in self-care, and seeking medical attention is a luxury that many do not have the time and money to
afford.

            Since our first day in this course, we have been nudged to be open-minded, to not think that we are better than other people, to not naively hold onto the belief that being educated will give us the right to make unilateral decisions about patient care, or heaven forbid, think that income somehow equates to intelligence or
credibility or some other form of specialness. We have read numerous articles on how the normative of disability can and should be transformed, despite the push-back from “normal” individuals, some of whom seem to think that giving the disabled more tools to lead happy, productive lives will somehow detract from the rich and rewarding lives of the “normal” person. We are being shown over and over, and yet again, that conferring more rights and opportunities on a targeted group (the disabled specifically) does not mean that the privileges of the “normal” population will somehow be lessened. Yet still, so many of my peers insist on holding onto the belief that physicians are special simply because they are physicians (I am left to wonder what a rocket-scientist thinks of a physician!). We have learned that the disabled face so many unique challenges, not least of which is knowledge that they are subjected to much discriminatory behaviors from the “normal” population. The disabled are often tired not from the challenges of their disabilities, but from the discriminatory practices adopted by “normal” people.

            When poor, disabled people seek medical attention, as medical practitioners, we have to be especially considerate of their needs and not impose our will, our opinions without first considering what is in the best interest of the poor, disabled person. When there is injustice in how this sub-group of people receive care, then we as physicians must recognize it, then fix the injustice. Hindsight gives us 20-20 vision. However, we must strive to be visionaries who are bold enough to identify injustices and who will address those injustices, especially injustices meted out against poor, disabled patients. As the famed Ms. Crenshaw says, “we must be willing to bear
witness and create a cacophony of sound.”

The hybrid short-story/poem “Autobiography/Anti/Autobiography” by Jennifer Bartlett is told from the perspective of a person with a disability. The author writes of the challenges she faces and also writes of the triumphs and successes of trying to do things, so many in this “o, stupid, stupid, world” take for granted. The author writes of
being very critical of self and chiding herself for sometimes falling (both literally and figuratively), yet still, she struggles to be, she wants to be. Ms. Bartlett speaks of her disability, where for her, “to walk means to trust forward” and of the lyrical beauty she sees in her spastic movement and in the grace of her body falling. A body, which though constrained by a disability, is seen and felt as being beautiful by the being held within. In spite of her inward and her outward grace and beauty, yet still, the author is compelled to acknowledge the tone-deafness of this “stupid, stupid world” that is critical and judgmental of her and of others with disabilities. “To be crippled,” writes the author, “is to have access to people’s fear of their own erosion.” This author writes of how the worst of people come to the fore when they are facing someone with disability; as though the able-bodied person has to erase or nullify the existence of the disabled person, possibly simply to hide an inferiority complex while displaying in all its tawdriness, the dangers of not having a sense of self and of others. Being institutionalized, sterilized, silenced, excluded, stared at, and desexualized are but some of the behaviors directed by “normal” people towards the disabled author. And finally, the author writes of the tiredness of trying to fit into a “normal.” world, and having to deal with the crippling disabilities of ignorant normal people who are wantonly wicked towards disabled people. It is not the disability that is too much to bear, rather it is the reactions of the “normal” world that is too much for the author to bear.

There was an intriguing one-sentence quote from “On Being Ill” by Virginia Woolf just before the start of the short story by Jennifer Bartlett. The sentence started “This monster, the body, this miracle, its pain,….” and this made me look up the story by the British author Woolf simply because I have not seen many articles written about illness, and I was curious about her take on “Being Ill.” The author writes about how little has been written about illness and feels that illness should be just as relevant as love in literature. In the very first sentence, Ms. Woolf writes, “Considering how common illness is, how tremendous the spiritual change that it brings…, it becomes strange indeed that illness has not taken its place with love, battle, and jealousy among the prime themes of literature.” The body, she states, is just as important as the mind. But she feels that illness is not written about much in literature because “there is a poverty of the language.” Continues Ms. Woolf, a schoolgirl who falls in love can refer to Shakespeare and Keats, but let a sufferer try to describe a pain in his head to a doctor, and language at once runs dry.

I believe that most of us believe that we are bright and have great manners, yet somehow we feel that we do
not know how to act in the presence of someone who is ill, or traumatized, sad, different, or disabled. If we are sincere in recognizing the humanity or humanness in people, any awkwardness we feel will be outweighed by our need to make others feel the best about themselves. We will never be taught everything we need to know, but we have to be willing to use our experiences and our sense of self to reach out to others, even if we believe it makes us uncomfortable. People are people, and most people love to tell stories about themselves. This class has shown me just how important it is to allow others to tell us who they are, tell us what is important to them. Even without knowing someone’s story, we have to be willing to see the being in each person. These two poems and our previous readings have shown us how difficult it is to change the dialogue about illness, disabilities, and healing the sick. The art of listening and observing must be developed before we can effect change.

Davis speaks about fingerprinting, which was seen as a physical mark of parentage. This identity of the body cannot be altered by moral, artistic, or human will. Additionally, this “indelibility of corporal identity” (the essence of who we are) simply serves to “mark our body”, just as much as our other physical qualities – intelligence, height and reaction time. Continues Davis about Galton’s theory of fingerprinting, “the identity of people are defined by physical qualities that can be measured.” Davis writes of the fallacy of Quetelet’ s idea of the average human bean and also of the reliance by Karl Marx on Quetelet’s belief in formulating his theory of average wage and abstract wage. Davis writes also about the theory of eugenics, which saw the human body as gaining perfection through selective reproduction to increase the desirable characteristics. Davis is quick to point out that eugenics did not start with Hitler’s “Natzi-like” racial supremacy, but rather, it is embraced in all the theories that support the perfectibility of the human body, a Utopian hope for social improvement. He writes of how these theories, in seeking an average or normal individual, in trying to identify the non-normal or the unfit person, tend to have a strange selection of disabilities [tuberculosis, diabetes, hemophiliac, mental illness, low intelligence, pauperism (yep, being poor!)] merged with other types of human variation (cleft palate, hare lips, deaf-mutism, stub fingers, more than five fingers). Throughout his essay, Davis points out the fallacy of trying to define a norm, and as such, a deviant or a deviation from that norm. He challenges us to always question the idea of what is normal or normalcy. As he says in the last sentence of his article, “One of the tasks for a developing consciousness of disability issues is the attempt, then, to reverse the hegemony of the normal, and to institute alternative ways of thinking about the abnormal. 

All of us who are in this hugely competitive, but even more highly subsidized program, are here in order to acquire the skills and tools so that we can be of service to our community and fellow citizens. Being on this journey to become a physician does not make me more special than the person who is studying to be a teacher of pre-school kids. Becoming a physician will not make me more special than those who I am to serve – if anything, becoming a physician compels me to be more cognizant of the needs of those I will serve, especially since many that I will serve would never have been afforded the opportunities I currently am on a journey to become a physician. So many of our peers will never have the opportunity to go to college, and many of those peers are more brilliant, more artistic, more caring and compassionate than so many of us in this program can hope to be. Being is not about IQ, or being hard working or committed; after all, how exactly do we measure those attributes? Davis’ article attempts to teach us to question “norms, deviants, deviations and outliers.” Someone who believes that they can make executive decisions, is by definition, subscribing to the concept of “normalcy”, or that societal benefit that is supposedly conferred by what we think is structurally normal. It is imperative that all of us who are on this journey listen closely to our patients, understand their needs, and work diligently to ease their suffering as best we can while respecting their desires. We are not here to fix bodies, we are here to heal people and fix our communities. One person at a time. Whether it’s the norm or not.

After reading The Moth story, “Honest Colors,” my overall impression was a little disappointed because I wanted more. Despite Okeoma Erojikwe’s piece being captivating, I felt as if it was missing something. I felt as if she was speaking and telling me the story directly, which I loved. She did have me captivated and drawn in. I do feel as if she is a great storyteller.  I also appreciate and am very fond of her transition from simple language to using metaphors and similes to give us the overall picture she’s trying to convey. When I write, I like to write passionately and use what I consider complex language. I want my reader to have to sit and sometimes even reread to understand what I am conveying. I use several rhetorical devices for thought-provoking effects. I also want to evoke strong feelings and emotions. That is what I was craving from Erojikwe. I wanted her to play on the emotions of her audience and evoke reactions. Though given all this criticism, I know I do things in my writing that readers don’t like per se. Such as not presenting evidence to support my claims. When I do present evidence, such evidence does not support the claims being made. I guess I want readers to wonder if I did it on purpose or if I did not even realize it. I want readers to think that the lack of ethos in the article simply made for a very interesting reading, one that was filled with anticipation and awe at how I relied on rhetorical devices to evoke stark reactions and intense emotions. Overall, we both have things to work on; maybe I should take a page out of Erojikwe’s book.

Sincerely James Baldwin