 |
 |
As a fellow walker and so-called non-driver (or rather, internal infernal engine, I like to think!), I salute you! (Along with your witty "pedocentric myth"--thanks.) Candice P.S. This discussion reminds about all the lore to do with babies who crawl/not, walk early/late (who's to say?), and the attendant predictions of their intellectual powers on that basis, which I gather have no scientific basis at all(?). on 3/30/01 3:20 PM, Matthew Francis at [log in to unmask] wrote: > Yes, and I've even heard it suggested that walking comes before driving. > Whereas it should be perfectly obvious that all the elements of driving are > present in the act of so-called walking. To suggest otherwise is blatant > Western technocratic imperialism aimed at making so-called non-drivers feel > inferior about their supposed lack of a skill which they in fact already > posessed. In particular, the romantic nonsense about walking being healthy > and invigorating etc etc is a pedocentric myth. There is no need for > L-plates. We have always already passed the test. > > Best wishes > > Matthew > (non-driver - so-called) > -----Original Message----- > From: chris jones <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 30 March 2001 04:22 > Subject: Re: STIMULUS: THE READER > > > Hiya > I have a huge problem with saying speech comes first and then comes writing. > Does this mean that writing only came to Australia with the English > invasion? > That the people that were always here in this land did not have writing > before the invasion? That people who are so called illiterate cannot write? > > Where does writing begin and reading end? Where does speech end and writing > begin? Why is speech given a primacy from which is developed writing? The > idea that speech comes first and is distinct from writing is an imperialist > idea and buys into the very structures of racism in the history of Western > thought and theories of language. In this way writing is said to be more > valuable then speech, even if an attempt is made to reverse the values, > since > such an attempt actually admits that writing is more important then speech > in > this way of thinking. So people who are claimed to be illiterate are said to > be lacking something, are lesser people, even if the claim is made that they > can participate by using speech in laguage. This is still a discriminatory > judgement, even if such a judgement is not intended as such. I have taught > creative writing to so-called illiterate people... the very term illiterate > is a misnomer laden with discriminatory judgements, I find. > > Sorry, but I had to disagree... hope you don't mind this style of > intervention which is not meant as nasty, but a contribution to a politcal > debate on language. > > best wishes > > Chris Jones. > ps