<div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I wasn't going to chime in on this, but here's my two cents, for what it's worth. Kerry - I think you're getting things a little mixed up here. For starters, much (though not all) language policy analysis is situated - broadly - within the church of discourse analysis. It's not possible - or at least it's intellectually sloppy - just to pick and choose the discourses we like, and fit our arguments, and discard those that we don't, and don't. Disregarding discourses we don't like to hear about is also quite dangerous: we can put our heads in the sand, but these are discourses that *will* operate - in public spheres and private - regardless of whether they appear on this list. We have a hard enough time trying to talk about social justice and equality and rights - our task is made very much harder if we have no idea what our audience (our students, laypeople, policymakers) actually think. </div>
<div><br></div><div>At the end of the day, these discourses work *precisely* because they make sense to someone, somewhere. Ideologies and discourses aren't some 'falsehood' counter-posed to some objective 'truth'. Language policy researchers who believe that 'everyone should be able to speak whatever they want' are as ideologically encumbered as the BNP who think that language - and race - should be the defining criteria of citizenship, democratic participation and basic human rights.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Our task is to try and unpick what these discourses mean, and *how* they operate, not referee their acceptability or otherwise. I'm going to use a crass analogy here, but I think it works: I can't imagine many surgeons are very fond of cancer, but it wouldn't be very helpful if the field of medicine en masse decided to believe that cancer didn't exist.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It's not, either, necessarily that BNP discourses have become more 'acceptable' and they are posted here 'without comment'. I'm not sure that's the whole dynamic here: what seems to be clear is that this has definitely raised the hackles of at least a few people here. I don't think anyone here finds them 'acceptable' or thinks that this is 'free airtime' or uncritically accepts them. In fact, the list serves an extremely important purpose *by the very fact* that it is something of a repository for counter-discourses - and acts as a good barometer for what's really going on, out there - on the streets. I also don't think there needs to be a statement 'condoning material that encourages race hate, conflict and discrimination' - I think that's a given. But what I do think we need to do is critically interrogate these ideas - and try and understand why - for some people - they make a whole lot of sense. </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Dr. Gareth Price<br>Visiting Assistant Professor<br>CSEEES/Linguistics Program<br>Duke University<br>Durham, NC<br>27708-2960</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Anthea<br>
Your response seems contradictory to me. First you jump on the the list member who dared to question why material was being taken direct from the website of an extreme right-wing organisation which affliates itself openly with Nazism. You want this member not just excluded from the list but blacklisted as well. Then you want everyone to be open and unpolitical and you seem to be saying that we can't differentiate a fascist organisation from any other group. These are old arguments - they were used to stall anti racist movements in the UK years ago. Thankfully the local communities didn't listen to them and there was a time when groups like the BNP found it hard to spread their lies and hate. In posting on their materials for them - for free and without comment - you are doing organisations like the BNP a big favour. It's not about being politically correct or not offending people. It's about being careful not to give free airtime to these dangerous organisations. It would be!<br>
quite possible for this list to have a clear statement of its values and an explanation of its practices. It would make it clear that the list does not condone material that encourages race hate, conflict and discrimination.<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech<br>
Lecturer in Applied Linguistics<br>
Faculty of Education<br>
University of Southern Queensland<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:04 +1000<br>
From: Kerry Taylor-Leech <<a href="mailto:Kerry.Taylor-Leech@usq.edu.au">Kerry.Taylor-Leech@usq.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: [lg policy] RE: Policy on publishing racist and fascist<br>
material on the list<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:FF76F99476D1B84DB0A8A96DC7AA53DA2E5158BB20@EXCHMB.usq.edu.au">FF76F99476D1B84DB0A8A96DC7AA53DA2E5158BB20@EXCHMB.usq.edu.au</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I agree that it is useful (if sickening) to read these types of article so that we can "know our enemies" but with this kind of fascist material one can never be complacent. Any exposure of this kind of "literature" provides it with oxygen and airtime. These organisations know what they are doing when they write their inflammatory material and they aim to insert thmelseves into debates anywhere they can.<br>
I think it is quite wrong to attack those list readers who question the posting of this stuff on this list. Fascist material cannot appear on the list uncriticised. Doing so provides these organisations with another platform. Let's not forget that the NP ran for a seat in the recent British elections in a constituency where they would have once been run off the streets. That's how acceptable their ideologies have become. Yes post this garbage up but not without a loud and clear statement that this list does not support racist and fascist ideologies.<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech<br>
Lecturer in Applied Linguistics<br>
Faculty of Education<br>
University of Southern Queensland<br>
________________________________________<br><br>
________________________________________<br>
From: lgpolicy-list-bounces+a.f.gupta=<a href="http://leeds.ac.uk" target="_blank">leeds.ac.uk</a>@<a href="http://groups.sas.upenn.edu" target="_blank">groups.sas.upenn.edu</a> [lgpolicy-list-bounces+a.f.gupta=<a href="http://leeds.ac.uk" target="_blank">leeds.ac.uk</a>@<a href="http://groups.sas.upenn.edu" target="_blank">groups.sas.upenn.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Kerry Taylor-Leech [<a href="mailto:Kerry.Taylor-Leech@usq.edu.au">Kerry.Taylor-Leech@usq.edu.au</a>]<br>
Sent: 20 May 2010 00:31<br>
To: <a href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu</a><br>
Subject: [lg policy] RE: Policy on publishing racist and fascist material on the list<br>
<br>
I agree that it is useful (if sickening) to read these types of article so that we can "know our enemies" but with this kind of fascist material one can never be complacent. Any exposure of this kind of "literature" provides it with oxygen and airtime. These organisations know what they are doing when they write their inflammatory material and they aim to insert thmelseves into debates anywhere they can.<br>
I think it is quite wrong to attack those list readers who question the posting of this stuff on this list. Fascist material cannot appear on the list uncriticised. Doing so provides these organisations with another platform. Let's not forget that the NP ran for a seat in the recent British elections in a constituency where they would have once been run off the streets. That's how acceptable their ideologies have become. Yes post this garbage up but not without a loud and clear statement that this list does not support racist and fascist ideologies.<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech<br>
Lecturer in Applied Linguistics<br>
Faculty of Education<br>
University of Southern Queensland<br>
________________________________________<br><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 15:58:36 -0700<br>
From: "Stan Anonby" <<a href="mailto:stan-sandy_anonby@sil.org">stan-sandy_anonby@sil.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [lg policy] The Colonisation of Britain Continues: 16% of<br>
PrimarySchool Children Do not Speak English as Their Home Language<br>
To: "Language Policy List" <<a href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu</a>><br>
Message-ID: <D5DBAAD41FAF403B9F0098C0C3151D13@silq5ubwwaom4w><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";<br>
reply-type=response<br>
<br>
Hah!<br>
<br>
Great suggestion, Christina!<br>
<br>
Stan<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Christina Paulston" <<a href="mailto:paulston@pitt.edu">paulston@pitt.edu</a>><br>
To: "Language Policy List" <<a href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu</a>><br>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 11:08 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [lg policy] The Colonisation of Britain Continues: 16% of<br>
PrimarySchool Children Do not Speak English as Their Home Language<br>
<br>
<br>
> Hal,<br>
> I have a better suggestion. Just cut off from the list and blacklist for<br>
> the future people who just want their opinions<br>
> published (like whoever Davyth and others are) and who don't understand<br>
> that it is crucial to know what all opinions are.<br>
> Then we don't have to waste your time repeatedly with this stuff. Keep<br>
> up the good work -- I and my students are most grateful to you, Christina<br>
><br>
></blockquote></div><br>-- <br><br><br><br>