—————

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS: MAXINE HONG KINGSTON; JUNE JORDAN

Right from the beginning, American societal structures work to force a sense of recognition for a supposedly rightful homogeneity. Serving only to undermine those who exhibit cultural, language, educational differences, etc., American education aggressively plays into the racially discriminatory practice of eradicating anything other than an established standard. 

In her personal-narrative, “Tongue-Tied,” Maxine Hong Kingston recounts her experience as a Chinese immigrant who grew up in America. She utilizes her identity as an outsider to emphasize the way her education had worked against her growth in language. Kingston calls into question the beliefs of those who push the agenda of the American education system, unveiling the injustices commonly experienced between herself and her childhood classmates. Through this, she brings discomfort to those who believe in the punishment of differences. When being told to read out loud in class, Kingston recalls that 

“I stopped often, and the teacher would think I’d gone quiet again. I could not understand ‘I.’ The Chinese ‘I’ had seven strokes, intricacies. How could the American ‘I,’ assuredly wearing a hat like the Chinese, have only three strokes, the middle so straight? Was it out of politeness that this writer left off strokes the way a Chinese has to write her own name small and crooked? No, it was not politeness; ‘I’ is a capital and ‘you’ is a lower-case. I stared at that middle line and waited so long for its black center to resolve into tight strokes and dots that I forgot to pronounce it… The teacher, who had already told me every day how to read ‘I’ and ‘here,’ put me in the low corner under the stairs again, where the noisy boys usually sat” (Kingston).

She had gotten punished by being told to sit with the loud and assumably troublesome kids just because she struggled to grasp certain English words. The confusing differences from their Chinese counterparts stumped and overwhelmed her. It is interesting to note her observation that “‘I’ is a capital” and “‘you’ is a lowercase” as this is comparable to the relationship between white Americans and those who they consider as “other” (Kingston). This lack of “politeness” encompasses the language barrier and the education system as “I”—those who fit the American ideal—is considered of higher status or importance than “you”—who is separate and deemed lower and of less importance illustrated by the capitalization of one word versus the other. This hierarchal agenda has subtly woven into the fabric of American education as these suppressing practices are evident continually. Kingston’s evidence is very persuasive as it proves that people similar to her are not greeted with compassion and understanding time and time again. Instead, they are further discouraged from the get-go because the system only serves those who they believe digest and learn in the “right” way. Her employment of pathos is particularly strong because being different and experiencing a certain kind of treatment calls into question easily recognizable systems in place today. Even those who cannot personally relate most likely have been witness to the system’s prejudice against others. 

This consistent undertone of racial bias is not reserved only for Chinese immigrants as explored by June Jordan’s essay, “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You and the Future Life of Willie Jordan.” Jordan combines a more logic-based and statistical approach with emotional anecdotes to unveil that from the very start, American education perpetuates the idea that there is a standard for English that is adopted as correct, further suppressing Black English: 

“In addition to that staggering congeries of non-native users of English, there are five countries, or 333,746,000 people, for whom this thing called ‘English’ serves as a native tongue. 2 Approximately 10 percent of these native speakers of ‘English’ are Afro-American citizens of the U.S.A. I cite these numbers and varieties of human beings dependent on ‘English’ in order, quickly, to suggest how strange and how tenuous is any concept of ‘Standard English’” (Jordan).

Jordan’s use of statistics here employs logos, which serves to expose the native usage of English. So many different people of various ethnicities use it, but somehow White English is supposed to represent the standard. Although 10 percent—a considerable portion—of native speakers of English are Afro-American citizens and the majority of English speakers do not speak White English, it is ridiculous that White English is the version widely established in the American academic setting. The English language is remarkably ephemeral, but merely due to the acceptance of this version of English by white society, White English has become “correct”—the reference to which all other Englishes supposedly derive. Jordan’s evidence here is irrefutable and substantial as she provides a fact that while the statistics prove that the use of English is diverse, American education fails to mirror that diversity and further suppresses all variety.

Both writers establish credibility and employ their differing rhetorical strategies to prove and expose the same point. Kingston’s angle of vision is one of someone who has experienced literary neglect. Her writing of this very essay serves to prove it was not her lack of skill or potential that caused her American teachers and her peers to treat her as incapable. To those who underestimated her because they assumed there was a lack in her language ability and were disinterested in engaging and attempting to understand her, she proves them wrong because she is an accomplished writer writing a narrative to communicate in a way that is comprehensible to those who minimized and neglected her. Thus revealing that while the system often pushed to set people like her back, that did not indicate that she was incapable of learning if given the right tools and methods. She, in the end, can express her point in the very same language she struggled with initially and was discouraged within her education.

Jordan’s purpose, as a Black English professor, is to enlighten and educate readers of the validity of Black English despite the familiar establishment of “Standard English” in American educational and professional systems. The grave necessity for this enlightenment is abundantly clear when Jordan’s students discuss a prize-winning piece of Black literature:

“‘It don’t look right, neither. I couldn’t hardly read it.’
At this, several students dumped on the book. Just about unanimously, their criticisms targeted the language. I listened to what they wanted to say and silently marvelled at the similarities between their casual speech patterns and Alice Walker’s written version of Black English. 
But I decided against pointing to these identical traits of syntax, I wanted not to make them self-conscious about their own spoken language-not while they clearly felt it was ‘wrong’” (Jordan).

Jordan provides this anecdote of her students reacting to the use of Black English in literature because it serves to prove how drastic white-idealistic suppression has adversely affected the mindset of black students and their language. They mock and criticize it because it seems odd when written on paper, even though it is the way they speak themselves. Because Black English is not the language asserted in the classroom setting, their reaction was to ridicule it. Their education taught them that there is a right and wrong way to speak English catering to the language of white America. Jordan’s credibility accentuates this account of rejection of Black English from her black students due to societal standards for the language. Being witness to the blatant nullification of their language makes it obvious how severe this issue is. Her use of logos and ethos as a professional in the subject of Black English helps persuade readers of how shocking her students’ reactions should be. While the use of Black English is far from sparse, why are Black students told that it is the incorrect version of English within the American education system? Her chosen essay genre allows her to explore the statistical elements of the worldwide use of English and how in America, there is prominent disdainful regard of diverse variants of speaking English. 

Kingston’s strategic use of pathos throughout her personal-narrative makes it easy for the audience to live through her experiences and grasp the emotional significance of her memories. The conventions of this genre allow her to convey her linguistic struggles in the academic setting. However, she excludes an impartial account. Kingston instead relies on the morality of her readers to construct a persuasive argument. She illustrates a more relatable experience bringing the readers along with her to build a personal connection between herself and the audience. Despite a less analytic or statistic-based approach, Kingston’s argument is supported by common occurrences in the present day. Even those who have not experienced prejudice within their education should easily recognize these patterns. However, Kingston may struggle to convince a more stubborn audience with this text as the discriminatory bias that fuels these structures in place are not rational—instead, it comes from hate, which may not be swayed by the emotional strategy of her narrative. Kingston’s work in conjunction with Jordan’s essay, is potentially more universally persuasive. Jordan includes the rational and fact-based counterpart through her use of statistics and resources. For those who are not convinced based on morality, she provides irrefutable facts that prove that the foundation of the institution of language bias within education comes from a place of discrimination and injustice. She draws attention to the ridiculousness and frankly sobering concern that those who are different and learn differently from societal ideals are taught and brainwashed into rejecting themselves from the very start of their education. Those who believe these institutions are rightful most likely will not budge because their beliefs are grounded in intolerance and bigotry. If they welcome the punishments projected on those who are different and assert that they are warranted, they have to truly change their morals for these arguments to take substantial effect. However, this does not mean that the chances for a world of acceptance are entirely bleak. Just like bias has been threaded into American education and professional systems, if people like Jordan and Kingston work to spread and integrate acceptance and reverse the ingrained rejection, people can learn to accept and accommodate instead of reject and idealize.

—————