These examples can clearly be explained through the notion of marginalization in ELT by Kumaravadivelu (2003a). Influenced by Stern‘s work in 1992, Kumaravadivelu claims that the core of teaching culture aims at helping second language learners to gain an understanding of the native speakers‘ perspective. He claims that ELT pays attention to making the language learners ―becom[e] sensitive to the state of mind of individuals and groups within the target language community …‖ (p. 543). In other words, what teachers are trying to do is to help the learner ―create a network of mental associations similar to those which the items evoke in the native speaker‖ (p. 543). Holliday (2005) points out a similar idea in his discussion of ―the residues of audiolingualism‖ (p. 45) which serves as a means of pressuring the native-speaking teachers into a kind of behaviorist training mindset: the idea that we have to make them think like us. Taking Japanese learners of English as a case study, Nakamura (as cited in Kubota, 1998, p. 298) claims that ―by learning English, the Japanese have internalized … Anglo-Saxon views of the world …‖ (p. 298). Hence, the core of teaching culture is to promote a communicative ability appropriate for ―the specific purpose of culturally empathizing if not culturally assimilating, with native speakers of English‖ (Kumaravadivelu, 2003a, p. 543). In that case, the voices of both non-native learners and teachers and their cultural identities are completely ignored in the learning process. Clearly, both the linguistic dimension—which focuses on monolingualism—and the cultural dimension—which focuses on monoculturalism—aim at maintaining the benefits of the native speakers of English.