Blog Entry 4

Misconceptions about Voodoo

Voodoo is seen by many as a mysterious and silly tradition of magic and curses. The persistent vision of voodoo in American popular culture is that of voodoo dolls and zombies brought back from the dead. Jessie Ruth Gaston's essay on voodoo in New Orleans and its roots in African religion dispel common misconceptions of voodoo such as it being a tradition and not a true religion, the essentiality of magic in the religion, and its persistence into modern times.

The first thing addressed in Gaston's essay is her focus on the idea of Voodoo as a legitimate religion that came from West Africa. Many persons view voodoo as a set of magic traditions with witch doctors potions with no real structure; however, Voodoo has many components of a legitimate religion. Voodoo has deities that are very common to Christian saints. Some African villages would have their own deities similar to the idea of a patron saint in Catholicism. More evidence to the fact of Voodoo as a religion is the existence of a rigid hierarchy of priests and a lengthy initiation processes that are again similar to Catholic sacraments. Also, voodoo, like many religions, has a clear delineation between good and evil (Voodoo and Hoodoo). In these respects, voodoo is similar to many much more commonly accepted religions such as the three big monotheisms. Much of voodoo focuses on rites and rituals and not the curses and hexes that many people expect. This idea of voodoo more as a tradition than religion comes from the existence of magic in the religion.

Gaston writes in her essay that "magic is intimately related to voodoo... but is not its essence" (114). The magic in voodoo is strengthened by deities and rituals. In this respect it is not much different than prayer in other religions. There is not much of a stretch from praying to a saint for good health to performing a ritual for a voodoo deity for the same desired effect. The common misconception that voodoo consists mostly of magic is a flawed one. Magic is certainly a part of voodoo, as it is with any religion, but it is not the focus. Perhaps because of this reputation for magic, many people consider Voodoo to be a relic of the past but Gaston also refutes this myth.

Gaston traces voodoo into the present by offering evidence from newspapers, business cards, etc. that show that voodoo has persisted in New Orleans into the present. A common idea of voodoo is that it existed mostly in the distant past in the times of gas lamps and horse drawn carriages but Gaston mentions newspaper articles from the 1940's relating to voodoo inspired killings. The author also insists that in modern New Orleans there are still many homes with makeshift voodoo shrines and that the religion still exists in the black community of New Orleans.

There are many misconceptions and stereotypes that people have about the voodoo religion. Many of these misconceptions are tied to hoodoo curses and voodoo magic. In reality voodoo is a legitimate religion with rituals that persist to this day. Gaston's essay dispels many incorrect notions about voodoo but also serves to reinforce some stereotypes as well. After viewing the evidence offered by Gaston in her essay, one can see that voodoo is really no sillier or less legitimate than any other commonly practised religion.

Persistence and Influence of African Culture in Florida

There were many different African cultures that were brought to the American Colonies during the slave trade and not all of the cultures survived. Some of these cultures survived through retentions of African slaves of religion, language, and other cultural practices. The Gullah were one group in South Carolina that retained many clearly African traditions. Another group that differed in retention process were slaves in Florida. Africans in Florida differed in their retention process from the Gullah in that many of their retentions were influenced by separate groups and persisted in their original forms for much longer than the Gullah traditions.

One major difference between the Gullah and Floridian retentions were the groups they were influenced by. The Gullah tradition was influenced by Europeans, mostly English colonialists, whereas Africans in Florida were influenced by Native Americans and the Spanish. Robert Hall writes in his essay that many African slave in Florida escaped and lived with Native Americans or in Spanish controlled areas. Africans in Florida were particularly acquainted with the Native Americans of the area and the two groups interacted often. In many cases the blacks served as "cultural go-betweens" among indians and whites that lived in the same areas. There is clear influence in both directions between Africans and Native Americans in Florida perhaps aided by a common ground among both groups rooted in tribal culture and a respect for nature. Another area in which Floridian retentions differ from those of the Gullah is their persistence in their original form for such a long time.

Hall writes in his essay that some Africans in Florida still had tribal tattoos in the mid 19th century. Not only that, he offers various quotes in which whites spoke of the religious gatherings of blacks in Florida as belonging to the customs of "central Africa" more than of Christianity. The religious ceremonies of blacks in Florida were much more traditionally influenced than many people from the American South were accustomed to. In this respect, African culture persisted in Florida in its original form much later than the Gullah.

Hall's essay points out several key areas in which Africans in Florida differed in their cultural retentions than the Gullah people of South Carolina. The persistence of African culture and it's different outside influences demonstrate it as following a distinctively different path than the Gullah tradition. Robert Hall offers ample evidence to support the idea of a heterogeneous African existence in America well past the time that many people tend to think. Not only were there different groups of Africans brought to the Americas during the slave trade, these slaves maintained differences in their retentions during the lengthy acculturation process.

Blog Entry 3

Ebonics and African American Vernacular English are a point of contention in modern American society. There are various view points in favor of and against the use of Ebonics and the debate is often polarizing and racially charged. The video clips from discussion panels and interviews and the essay by Selase Williams offer some strong opinions on the matter. Through watching debates and reading about research into the matter, some common points in support and against the use of Ebonics emerge.

Those in support of Ebonics often raise the point that it is no different than any other dialect used by different people across the United States. This is true in many respects. While many people view Ebonics as simply a bastardized form of the English language, it has very clear syntactical roots in African languages of the Niger-Congo family. The essay by Williams offers dozens of examples that clearly show the similarities between Niger-Congo language syntax and that of Ebonics. Even though Ebonics is often view as corrupted English, it has its very own set of rules that are followed by speakers (often subconsciously) like any other dialect. It can be shown through linguistic evidence that Ebonics exists somewhat as a result of African language influence upon American English. African American English can be clearly shown to be a dialect and not simply broken English as a result of pidgin, and this raises another important point in support of the use of Ebonics.

Persons communicate with one another most effectively when they do so in a common dialect that is natural to them. The use of Ebonics among some black persons, as was pointed out in some of the film clips, is a point of unity and familiarity. One of the black men in the video noted that he will start using a mode of speech more common to African American English once he becomes more comfortable around someone. This allows him to communicate on a more effective and personal level with the person with whom he is speaking. In the same vein, Ebonics also communicates more than proper English does to those who use it. As was pointed out by one of the members of the panel on "The Ink Spot" program, a mother saying "son, why did you go there?" in proper English does not communicate the same point as "son, why did you go there for?" Because the language exists as a cultural dialect it affords its speakers more familiarity and communicative ability with one another than would speaking "proper" English. This, however,leads into a powerful counterpoint against the use of Ebonics.

The use of Ebonics is a somewhat divisive point both between whites and blacks and also within the African American community itself. There is a communication barrier that can begin to show between those who use Ebonics and those who don't understand it. Many white people will say that Ebonics is broken English because they cannot understand the dialect, while many black people will say that white person is racist for disliking Ebonics but ignoring idiosyncracies in other English dialects. While this isn't necessarily either party's fault, nor is it a flaw in Ebonics as means of communication, but it is a reality of dichotomous thinking that occurs because of the apparent communication difficulties and misunderstandings that occur between those that care for Ebonics, and those that don't. Also brought up in the panel discussion shows is the internal divisiveness that sometimes occurs as a result of the prolific use of Ebonics. A black youth may be ridiculed by his peers for speaking "white"when he uses standard American English as opposed to Ebonics. This situation, however, is often a result of an low income, urban/city upbringing as opposed to being a component of black culture as a whole. Another strong counterpoint against Ebonics occurs as the result of perception of the dialect as broken or improper English.

Those who use Ebonics are not necessarily less smart than those who do not; however, the problem lies in the fact that this perception exists. It may not be the case that a person who says "ax" as opposed to "ask" in a job interview is less intelligent than other potential candidates for the position, but it will certain appear that way to the interviewer in most cases. Many intelligent black people may miss out on important education or employment opportunities because their use of Ebonics is seen as a result of low intelligence. As was pointed out in several videos, those who use Ebonics, particularly younger people, were simply never informed that the way they were speaking is not considered standard English because that's the way their parents spoke and their teachers never took the time to correct them. This is again, not necessarily a fault in Ebonics itself, but a reality of the perception of the dialect.

The debate over Ebonics has gone on over many years and both sides feel strongly about their opinions and likewise offer powerful points in support of such. The reality of the matter is that Ebonics exists as a dialect of American English and is not simply broken English. Spoken Ebonics can be show to have roots in Niger-Congo family languages in its use of double verbs and ambiguous conjugations and its speakers follow apparent rules that dictate the way in which the dialect is spoken. On the opposite point, those who use Ebonics are often perceived as less intelligent because of this idea of Ebonics as broken English. As a result, through the use of Ebonics an individual may be unintentionally projecting the image to others that they lack an education. There is nothing wrong with the use of Ebonics then, on a base level, however problems arrive in the perceptions of the dialect. This raises important questions. Should a black person speak "white" in the professional world and then speak "black" around friends and family? Why is standard American English perceived as being a "white" thing? The debate will continue for decades surely, but it is important to note now the validity of Ebonics as a dialect, and proceed thus. The fact remains that Ebonics is simply appropriate in some situations and not in others, this is certainly not a desirable outcome, but it is a fact of modern society.