Black Codes (From The Underground) Cont.

     For Delpit, who endorses a top-down approach, the black student suffering at the whim of dominant culture is only able to affect change from a position of power when a full understanding of white codes has been internalized (40). Accordingly, she calls in black students (and non-students, presumably) not for sublimation of the expert, "...code they already possess...", (40) in favor of that of the dominant culture, but for the development of a situational awareness of when to access each (44).  In this way, black children can mirror the experience of her colleague's native Alaskan students who are taught to draw on their rich store of "village" language, history, and tradition in their acquisition of white codes (41).  This sounds not unlike Luis Moll.     

     Another visual I had while reading was the scene in the coming-of-age film ATL, (Netflix it, it's good) where one of the characters refuses an ace-in-the-hole letter of recommendation from a successful businessman because he feels like the man "sold out" and "lost who he was" (more or less) in the pursuit of his accomplishments. In other words, the young man feels like the older man let the carbon-monoxide white codes usurp any authenticity lent him by his expert black codes.  At its core, the film is probably about identity.  Something like, "does our identity lead us to choose what's important or does what we consider important make us who we are?"  Or something...  Perhaps there's even a connection to be made by extrapolating the theory and aligning it with the different racial understandings of authority in the final paragraph on pg. 35.  In any case, it's more than worth a watch in this writer's opinion. 

     Delpit's "gatekeepers" are interesting, as well, and maybe stand as the most transferable concept she introduces.  The idea that an individual's cultural ascent is arrested at inopportune and unforeseen moments by reminders that they are not (and will never be) ready/worthy/studied/landed enough is likely something that many people have experienced.  First-wave feminism's glass ceiling comes readily to mind.  And when I think of things like this, I also think of Robert Greene's 36th Law of Power (out of 48, BTW) which reads thusly:  "Law 36: Disdain Things you cannot have:  Ignoring them is the best Revenge

By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility.  The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it.  It is sometimes best to leave things alone.  If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it.  The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem."

So, there's that...

     My final thought arose while considering all of these points (Delpit's, yours, mine) in terms of someone with  a mind too limited or too transcendent to meddle in the nuance about which we are so (dis?)passionately writing.  Not for nothing, but I can't help thinking that someone with the "beginner's mind" so prized in Shintoism, the mind of a Down's Syndrome person, or that of a musical savant just wouldn't expend the energy.  And it seems that Delpit has devoted her conclusion to elucidating this very point - that our words amount to little more than crowd chatter in a game developed, played, refereed, and attended by academics (46).  Gimmie a P!  Gimmie an H!  Gimmie a D!  What's that spelllll?