I could quote some of your passages about "awful Maori" which uses "strange words". Shouldn't these also be taught in primary schools, then?
No, those are words that are rejected by all speakers and for some reason or other, they made it in to the dictionary (the one that I'm talking about hasn't made it in to the curriculum yet, whāmere, family, which is culturally errosive and is not supported as a 'real' word by any speaker - native or second language speaker).
In my mind there are two kinds of transliterations - transliterations for new items which don't have a Māori translation worked out (yet) and those that are extraneous that are imposed by second language speakers who haven't mastered the language yet.
An example of the second type is ierō (for rengarenga, yellow).
Then you have a word like hēki (transliteration from 'egg') which makes its way in to the language, and then, you have commentators in comparing Cook Islands Māori to New Zealand Māori saying how innovative of Cook Islands Māori having `uāmoa for egg (lit. chicken egg), when in fact, Māori does the same as well 'hua manu'.
What ebonic speakers are doing is different - they are native speakers of English speaking in their own dialect and coining new phrases and words etc etc. With Māori, it is second language learners trying to make it easier on themselves to learn the language - shortcuts which I don't think ought to be taken.
This is why so many native speakers of Māori can quickly identify who is not a native speaker - when the native speaker uses far more transliterations than necessary (a lot more to what I termed 'a lot' in one of my previous posts about transliteration use in Māori language).
AAVE isn't about taking shortcuts - it is how the dialect is spoken.
In primary school? First of all, it's impractical. Second, people would begin complaining immediately - "why can't we learn __?", or "why are my kids learning how to talk like __?", etc. Not only that, but can you imagine the cost of such an education? Let's leave those things for university courses and profs to teach
Well see, most people in California I would say, speak one dialect with regional variations. Everyone who speaks English should learn at least three. You could teach the local state dialect, then the standard dialect and then an extra dialect on top of that.
The cost? What's so expensive getting a dictophone and recording native speakers as they read out stories and have their voices recorded?
No, learning a foreign language is NOT the same; we can use foreign languages for practical purposes like communicating with people, getting jobs, travelling, teaching, etc.
Well with AAVE, it seems that there is very low mutual intelligibility if one is not educated in the lexicon of that dialect. Also, you're giving a subtle hint that AAVE is impractical because it can't be used with communicating with people, getting jobs travelling etc etc. AAVE is respectable in music circles, and those musicians who use AAVE is the vehicular dialect seem to have found great success.
As stated previously, Ebonics is a vague term used to describe American Black English in general, and as a result, has racist connotations. Is it only me who sees this?? It's like teaching kids how to speak Chinglish or Engrish. How is that CRAP even acceptable?
Racist connotations? I don't see any racist connotations - if I meet someone who uses AAVE I'm not going to look down on them. It's not like teaching children how to speak 'insert language name'glish. That's code mixing, and AAVE is far from code mixing.
Like it or not, colonization is the reason we can communicate and speak English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and a few other major languages.
How is that any justification for views that are biased against the ever increasing variety of English spoken?