It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Successful Black Prejudice

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I take it to mean that "acting white" only gets you so far, and only when times are relatively bad. A flourishing market erases that.

Iow, as JFK said, "A rising tide raises all boats".




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I take it to mean that "acting white" only gets you so far, and only when times are relatively bad.

Could you show me the passage that led you to that conclusion (which differs from that of the authors)?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Second, and most important, because various insidious forms of social interaction such as acting white.exist does not imply that nothing can be done about them. The comparative static results suggest that improved labor markets, group incentives, and means for supporting implicit community-specic contracts are likely to undermine acting white.

Once again, it's difficult and annoying to try to interpret bad sentence structure.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Second, and most important, (1)because various insidious forms of social interaction such as acting white.exist does not imply that nothing can be done about them. The comparative static results suggest that (2)improved labor markets, group incentives, and means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts (2b)are likely to undermine acting white.


Yes, run on sentences are notoriously difficult to decipher. I put some parts in bold, for easier reading.

(1) simply says something can be done about it, 'it' being a form of social interaction, commonly* found in conjunction with the historical legacy of social rejection (my words), that frowns on high achievement.

(2) these are potential solutions: the first is clear, but the second ("group incentives") and third ("means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts"), I'm not so sure I get. If you know, or anyone else knows, please share.


(2b) "are likely to undermine acting white." What does that mean? Does it mean that, since everybody would be working and doing ok, there would no longer be any stigma attached to it?

I'm asking because, this is how you have a good conversation, one that could actually lead to both of us learning something new.


*The examples they give are found in the footnotes on pg. 5:



A (suitably modified) version of 'acting white' is also prevalent in ethnographies involving the Buraku Outcastes of Japan [Devos and Wagasutma 1966], Italian immigrants in Boston's West End [Gans 1962], the Maori of New Zealand [Chapple, Je¤eries, and Walker 1997], Blacks on Chicago's south side circa 1930 [Drake and Cayton 1945], the working class in Britain [Willis 1977], among others. In all cases high achievers receive a derogatory label from their peer group. For example, in the peer group society documented in Gans [1962], upward mobile youth interested in education were labeled 'mobiles' and 'sissies.' See Fryer [2004] for a detailed discussion of these groups.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Ceci2006 wrote:


With that being said, other opinions in this thread fall on the old adage of a person of color being solely a "credit to their race" instead of scrutinizing their actions and behaviors. In other words, this is only the blind leading the blind.


And it was there -- right there on Page One of this thread -- that the thread was hijacked and de-railed.

Ceci2006: your claim/accusation (as quoted above) was as dishonest as it was inaccurate.

There were only three or four preceding posts and they're there for your examination.

Either you did not trouble to read those posts

.... OR you were unable to comprehend them

.... OR you chose to deliberate ignore and misinterpret them.

Which was it ?


Your claim (as quoted above) is TOTALLY out of context. And demonstrably FALSE.

Almost as if you have only one stock attitude and response within ANY discussion of the issue. So, in order to justify your one response, you deliberately distort those of everyone else.

The OP, in case you failed to read it, is: Successful Black Prejudice

It refers to criticism of successful blacks ... by those who are determined to be regarded as 'black'.

Where, within posts previous to your own, did anyone patronise ANY black/tan/pink individual as described in your comment :

other opinions in this thread fall on the old adage of a person of color being solely a "credit to their race" instead of scrutinizing their actions and behaviors


Please demonstrate the courtesy to READ my post.

If / When you do, you will find that I feel no obligation to describe anyone as a 'credit to their race', be they black or grey.

Like most, I merely expect people to earn their keep and demonstrate social responsibility.

I make NO allowances for 'colour'.

I do not 'excuse' poor behaviour on account of 'colour'.

I do not attempt to 'compensate' any individual based on their colour.

I do not submit to emotional blackmail or manipulation by someone who considers themselves 'black' ... within forums or elsewhere.

I do not take a step backwards or alter or modify my comments when in discussion with someone who claims to be 'black'.

For that, you see, WOULD be patronising.

Further, I have yet to encounter anyone who is 100% 'black'.

As I said in my earlier post (Page One), the majority of those who choose to be identified as 'black' ------ are in fact NOT 'black' and instead are descended from ancestors of a variety of nationalities.

I asked WHY those whose 'black' ancestry is minimal SHOULD choose to identify as 'black' ....... and to date, no one has suggested a reason.

No, Ceci2005, I would never dream of describing 'someone of colour' as being " a credit to their race " (as you've accused posters in this thread of doing).

Firstly, I don't consider various shades of pale tan/tan/bronze/brown to *BE* a 'race' ! When I develop a tan in summer, does that mean I have become a member of another race ?

Secondly, in light of the fact they've lived in the United States for 400 years or so, I consider those who CHOOSE to identify as 'black' ...... to be AMERICAN, as are those whose ancestry includes Italians, Greeks, Scotsmen, Irish, English, French, Dutch, German, Poles, Rumanian, Bulgarian, etc.

When JFK was President of the US, did the Irish taunt him and accuse him of betraying Ireland and Irish interests ?

When Frank Sinatra became personal friends with the Kennedys and others of influence and celebrity, did Americans of Italian descent accuse him of selling out his Italian heritage, of pretending to be 'American' ?

Why then, do Americans (who at the same time wish to be regarded as 'separate' and 'black') ridicule for example Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell for simply ACHIEVING and pursuing their OWN goals ?

It's actually quite apparent, but posters thus far have been too polite to state it: it seems clear that those who choose to be known as 'black' harbour massive inferiority and jealousy in equal proportion to their wishing to portray themselves as 'victims'.

And it's my personal opinion that such individuals need to get over it. The sooner they DO, the sooner they'll dislodge themselves from a 'black' mindset and get on with pursuing their OWN goals.

People with various degrees of pigmentation in their skin do not OWN Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell or Oprah Winfrey. They have NO claim on them. Rice, Powell and Winfrey are NOT accountable to mean-spirited, darker-pigmented others.

They do NOT 'owe it' to others with darker-pigmented skin to be failures !

It seems to me that those who CHOOSE to identify primarily as 'black' have a 'failure' attitude that's akin to some sort of skin-based-communism, whereby NO darker-pigmented individual should DARE to rise above some mysteriously drawn line ------ UNLESS all other darker-skinned people can ALSO become simultaneously 'successful'.

That's what is known as JEALOUSY.

It occurs sometimes within families where one child becomes successful in sports or academically. The other children resent their successful sibling and try to (1) ride the siblings wave of success or, failing that (2) try to manipulate the successful child to the point he abandons his success.

Parents are well aware of the jealousy syndrome and wise parents tell the jealous and envious siblings to GET OFF THEIR BACKSIDES and work at achieving success of their OWN.

Meanwhile, those Americans of various lineage who NEVERTHELESS CHOOSE to identify primarily as 'black', stubbornly persist in attempting to pull down ANY person who has even a small percentage of 'black' heritage, under the most pathetic of excuses, and calling them CHILDISH names, such as 'Oreo'. Childish. Childish spite. Jealousy.

If not, it is borne of a belief --- on the part of those with a degree of darker-pigmented complexion --- that no one with darker pigmented skin SHOULD achieve success. Which amounts to a failure-mentality. And that is not the sole province of those with darker skins. It's an attitude problem and it's up to the individual to overcome it.

Those who choose to categorise themselves as 'black' need to remember that it's unworthy to try to lift yourself up an inch by dragging someone else down. The only way to lift yourself to where you want to be --- is to leave OTHERS alone and just LIFT YOURSELF !



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by jsobecky

Second, and most important, (1)because various insidious forms of social interaction such as acting white.exist does not imply that nothing can be done about them. The comparative static results suggest that (2)improved labor markets, group incentives, and means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts (2b)are likely to undermine acting white.


Yes, run on sentences are notoriously difficult to decipher. I put some parts in bold, for easier reading.

It's not only the long-winded sentences. Once again, it's the inappropriate punctuation. Pardon me if I seem nit-picky, but sloppy command of the language shows poor mental discipline.

Chalk it up to my parochial school education. They were sticklers, and the lessons I learned have served me well.



(1) simply says something can be done about it, 'it' being a form of social interaction, commonly* found in conjunction with the historical legacy of social rejection (my words), that frowns on high achievement.

(2) these are potential solutions: the first is clear, but the second ("group incentives") and third ("means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts"), I'm not so sure I get. If you know, or anyone else knows, please share.


See * below.



(2b) "are likely to undermine acting white." What does that mean? Does it mean that, since everybody would be working and doing ok, there would no longer be any stigma attached to it?

To me it means that it is no longer seen as a valid reason for underachievement. If I'm the same as you in every meaningful way, and I manage to get a good job, what's your excuse for not working? The man didn't hold me down.


*The examples they give are found in the footnotes on pg. 5:



A (suitably modified) version of 'acting white' is also prevalent in ethnographies involving the Buraku Outcastes of Japan [Devos and Wagasutma 1966], Italian immigrants in Boston's West End [Gans 1962], the Maori of New Zealand [Chapple, Je¤eries, and Walker 1997], Blacks on Chicago's south side circa 1930 [Drake and Cayton 1945], the working class in Britain [Willis 1977], among others. In all cases high achievers receive a derogatory label from their peer group. For example, in the peer group society documented in Gans [1962], upward mobile youth interested in education were labeled 'mobiles' and 'sissies.' See Fryer [2004] for a detailed discussion of these groups.


So to get back to your original conclusion

I take this to mean that any group with the same history would have the same stigma (against 'acting white'), that it is not the result of any cultural deficiency.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that conclusion.

* I can't comment since I confess to not having read those passages. My excuse is that I was too busy trying to debunk your source by nitpicking punctuation errors./sarcasm


Edit BB code


[edit on 30-1-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So to get back to your original conclusion

I take this to mean that any group with the same history would have the same stigma (against 'acting white'), that it is not the result of any cultural deficiency.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that conclusion.

If other people actually read the sources and thought about them, like you obviously have, we might not have to have these threads anymore.

I guess the question posed in the OP ("Why is it that Successful Black's that support a Conservative or Republican agenda, routinely beleaguered by members of their own race as "sell outs", "Uncle Tom's" and even "Oreo's"?") has been answered.

Semper, what do you think? Do you think the findings of these economists hold any water?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
It seems to me that those who CHOOSE to identify primarily as 'black' have a 'failure' attitude that's akin to some sort of skin-based-communism, whereby NO darker-pigmented individual should DARE to rise above some mysteriously drawn line ------ UNLESS all other darker-skinned people can ALSO become simultaneously 'successful'.

I invite you to read the source I posted on the last page. It may shed some light on what you perceive to be only a 'black problem.' Other races/groups of people have experienced the same phenomenon.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I guess the question posed in the OP ... has been answered.


Let me see if I understand the conclusion.

Any non-white race who has members who become extremely successful accuse those members of "acting white", equating success with "whiteness", making this not a black-only phenomenon, but something that exists in other non-white races, as well.

Is that it?


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
(2b) "are likely to undermine acting white." What does that mean? Does it mean that, since everybody would be working and doing ok, there would no longer be any stigma attached to it?


I think it means that people would no longer "act white" because there'd be no advantage to it. If there was an improved labor market (therefore non-white people had what they determine to be an equal opportunity for jobs) and group incentives, and means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts, then non-white people would have no need or see no advantage to acting white.

As far as "group incentives, and means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts", I think "group incentives" means something like government rewards for people or groups who (for example) run an after-school hangout for kids in poor neighborhoods so the parents could work, knowing their kids are being looked after and the kids would also be getting positive input as regards their future and their general outlook on life.

I think "implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts" means basically neighborhood improvement, whether it's parks, businesses or low-income housing to improve the poorer communities.

I could be way off, but that's just what it sounds like to me in this context.

And given all three of these (an improved labor market, group incentives and community renewal) there'd be no reason to "act whit"e (successful) because most likely, more non-white people would actually become successful.

Does any of that make sense?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Dock6,

My, what a lot of effort! Thank you for your words and expressing your opinion. However, I respectfully suggest you read HH's article. It has a rather interesting take on the problems you have brought up in your post.

As for the rest, I respectfully disagree. It is quite unfortunate that threads like these have to be posted. First of all, they are posted as a way to perpetuate more disinformation and already cater to those who might take those opinions as gospel. That is a sad fact often repeated throughout this board.

Believe me, there's no jealousy involved neither in my own critique of the Blacks mentioned by the author of the thread, nor in the articles I posted. Again, I have expressed my praise of their success. It is the actions and philosophies of Dr. Rice and other conservative Blacks like her I simply disagree with. This is demonstrated by examinng their motivations and actions in the positions they hold. The sources I have posted in this thread further emphasized this notion.

Otherwise, I look forward to reading more expressions about this topic.



[edit on 30-1-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Any non-white race who has members who become extremely successful accuse those members of "acting white", equating success with "whiteness", making this not a black-only phenomenon, but something that exists in other non-white races, as well.

Is that it?

I don't think so. The authors of the paper never claim that the phenomenon is restricted to non-whites. In fact, they include some whites in their examples.



A (suitably modified) version of 'acting white' is also prevalent in ethnographies involving the Buraku Outcastes of Japan [Devos and Wagasutma 1966], Italian immigrants in Boston's West End [Gans 1962], the Maori of New Zealand [Chapple, Je¤eries, and Walker 1997], Blacks on Chicago's south side circa 1930 [Drake and Cayton 1945], the working class in Britain [Willis 1977], among others. In all cases high achievers receive a derogatory label from their peer group. For example, in the peer group society documented in Gans [1962], upward mobile youth interested in education were labeled 'mobiles' and 'sissies.' See Fryer [2004] for a detailed discussion of these groups.




Does any of that make sense?

It makes perfect sense. I think they might be on to something, there...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
That's what is known as JEALOUSY.

Bravo!
I stated this on the 1st page.
Envy and jealousy is the answer folks.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
A black man will not admit this to the white man because he'd feel he was bowing down (again). Too much pride.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
HH,

Thank you for the article and I have only perused it at this point so PLEASE correct me if I wrong...

How can ANY of us move forward if the prevailing attitude is that SUCCESS equals ACTING WHITE?

Regardless of the race involved, that is a harness on us all and ridiculous to the sublime.

Success is success, if a pig made it to the White House, he would be a successful pig. (Look at Clinton HAHHAHAHAHAHA SORRY!!! Could not resist)

All jokes aside, Dock6's reply makes a lot of common sense.

In answer to the White Trash comment...

I would and will agree 100% when and IF anyone can demonstrate an instance where a successful white person was called White Trash because of their success....

I have been called that which is mildly amusing as I am not completely Caucasian.. I think I was living in a trailer at the time..
So maybe I am...

Semper



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
This ridicule of success mentality reminds me of a saying an Australian coworker brought stateside with her. Its something like "The tallest blade of grass is first to get cut." Thats a battle cry for mediocrity if Ive ever heard one.

Where, when and how did this concept begin?

If it isnt BET glorifying drug dealing hip-hop culture its our own government telling us we're all too stupid to take care of our own money.

Somewhere theres a huge movement to lock everyone into mediocrity and to teach us all there isnt anything worth striving for, perhaps theres more to fail for, and its sick. Very sick.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I don't think so. The authors of the paper never claim that the phenomenon is restricted to non-whites. In fact, they include some whites in their examples.


I see. Sorry I missed that. That was troubling to me in fact.

So some white people have also historically made some sort of derogatory name for the successful people in their group. But I don't see this derogatory name being attached to another race. "Mobiles" and "sissies" (the only examples your article gives) aren't attached in any way to another race.

However, I notice that in the US, the derogatory names blacks give to black successful people are related to whites. "Uncle Tom", "Oreo" and even just accusing one of "acting white" or worse yet, "being white" is meant to be the worst insult and attaches another race to the successful.

In other words. White = derogatory. It's not like these black people are calling their successful brothers and sisters a name like "socialites" or "prissies" or "uptown", they're calling them WHITE. To me, that feeds racism. Because not only does it hurt the black person who is labeled with the name, it hurts the white people who know that the worst name a black person can call another ... the very worst insult they can find to call someone is "white".

See what I mean?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
In answer to the White Trash comment...

I would and will agree 100% when and IF anyone can demonstrate an instance where a successful white person was called White Trash because of their success....


I still wouldn't agree. We're more likely to call them "snooty" or "elitist" or a "sell-out", NONE of which are connected to any other particular race.



I have been called that which is mildly amusing as I am not completely Caucasian.. I think I was living in a trailer at the time..
So maybe I am...


My husband always half-jokingly says, "Yup, you don't have to scratch me very deep to get to the white trash."


And you'll notice, we're calling white people "white trash". We don't call them the n-word, for example. We don't use blackness as an insult. That's the problem I have with black people using "whiteness" as an insult to their own people.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BH
Let me see if I understand the conclusion.

Any non-white race who has members who become extremely successful accuse those members of "acting white", equating success with "whiteness", making this not a black-only phenomenon, but something that exists in other non-white races, as well.

Is that it?

BH, I think HH already answered this, but no, it doesn't exclude white-on-white ridicule. I can state that from experience. Do your job the best you can and God forbid the boss acknowledges it in the other worker's presence. You'll be held up as a kissass, a brown-nose, and a Deep Throat.

That's OK, all you gotta do is flip them the bird and go about your business. They're just ignorant, and they are the ones who end up buying you a beer on Friday night after work. They're sucking up to you by then, but they're too stupid to see it.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
How can ANY of us move forward if the prevailing attitude is that SUCCESS equals ACTING WHITE?

The authors actually laid out a pretty clear plan as to how all of us can move forward, together.



The comparative static results suggest that improved labor markets, group incentives, and means for supporting implicit community-speci[fi]c contracts are likely to undermine acting white.
An Economic Analysis of 'Acting White' (with D. Austen-Smith). Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2005.




All jokes aside, Dock6's reply makes a lot of common sense.

No offense, but I think that common sense is what got us to the point we're at now.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Where, when and how did this concept begin?

This is why I don't bother to post sources. People don't read them, unless they're especially invited to do so.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I don't see this derogatory name being attached to another race.

Here's what one of the authors has to say about that in a magazine article that appeared in Education Next.



My findings confirm the existence of acting white among blacks as well as among Hispanics...a black student with straight As is no more popular than a black student with a 2.9 GPA, but high-achieving whites are at the top of the popularity pyramid. My findings with respect to Hispanics are even more discouraging. A Hispanic student with a 4.0 GPA is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and Hispanic-white differences among high achievers are the most extreme.
Acting White

According to his findings, it looks like Hispanic students are in even more trouble than the African-American ones.




In other words. White = derogatory.

Wow, how did you get that? I would think you would have surmised that 'white=successful.' That's what I had gathered, just from hearing it used in conversation. People tell me I 'act white' all the time, just not in a mean way...as a descriptive term, I guess. It's how some people describe a sense of optimism, confidence, intelligence, and savoir faire, among other things. Not always an insult. It definitely depends on the tone in which it's said.

Here's what other, more "qualified" people have to say on the myriad of possibilities of 'acting white'.


For example, when psychologist Angela Neal- Barnett in 1999 asked some focus-group students to identify acting-white behavior, they listed actions that ranged from speaking standard English and enrolling in an Advanced Placement or honors class to wearing clothes from the Gap or Abercrombie & Fitch (instead of Tommy Hilfiger or FUBU) and wearing shorts in winter!
Acting White

Not all of which are derogatory. Some examples of 'acting white' that they give are just plain weird.



To me, that feeds racism.

To me, that's a problem, and we have the solution.

Since our conversation, I've decided that it's useless to work so hard assigning blame. A waste of time, and I hate inefficiency. So, in an attempt to save more time, I've decided to cut to the chase, and work on solutions.

Anyone wish to join me?

Edit to add: just thought of a reply to this.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We don't use blackness as an insult. That's the problem I have with black people using "whiteness" as an insult to their own people.

That's not entirely true. White people used to(/still do?) call other white people 'n- lovers' when they appeared to espouse pro-Civil Rights ideologies.

So, ha!

(That bit of cattiness was fun, but now, I have to get back to being serious.
)



[edit on 30-1-2007 by HarlemHottie]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I don't see this derogatory name being attached to another race.

According to his findings, it looks like Hispanic students are in even more trouble than the African-American ones.


I'm not denying that this phenomenon appears in many races, I'm asking you to look at the names these high-achievers are called by their own race.

The names "Mobiles" and "sissies" do not denote another race. What do the Hispanics call the people who are 'high-achievers'? Oreo's? Peppermint Patties? Some name that has to do with white people or another race other than their own? I don't see any indication of that.

The only race I've seen that has derogatory names for high achievers of their own race of a racial nature other than their own race is blacks. Those names being Oreos, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Tom, etc. And the racial nature is not of their own race (like white trash) it's of another race (white).

I don't know how I can make it more clear.




In other words. White = derogatory.

Wow, how did you get that?


Are you telling me that to be called an Oreo is a term of respect? Are you saying that Dr. Rice being called Aunt Jemima holds a sense of optimism? That 50 cent called Oprah a "middle aged white woman" because he felt she had confidence and intelligence? I don't think so.



Not always an insult. It definitely depends on the tone in which it's said.


And for the purposes of this thread, the tone is clear. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about girlfriends sitting around saying "Girl, you talk like a white girl! That's so nice" or whatever. We're talking about blatant race-natured attacks against successful people by members of their own race.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We don't use blackness as an insult. That's the problem I have with black people using "whiteness" as an insult to their own people.

That's not entirely true. White people used to(/still do?) call other white people 'n- lovers' when they appeared to espouse pro-Civil Rights ideologies.


That's not the same! That's a totally different scenario and I think you know that! Calling someone an N-lover is just plain racist. White people don't call other white people "black-y" or the n word because they're failures.

A comparable situation would be that if a white person was down on his luck, lost his job and started drinking, instead of calling him a bum, white trash or a leach, his former white peers would call him "chocolate cookie", tar baby or say he was "acting black". That would be the same scenario.

It's using another race as a derogatory name. You (and Ceci) of all people should be sensitive to this.



Among whites, higher grades yield higher popularity. For Blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5, when the slope turns negative. A black student with a 4.0 has, on average, 1.5 fewer same-race friends than a white student with a 4.0. Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity from a grade point average of 1 through 2.5. After 2.5, the gradient turns sharply negative. A Hispanic student with a 4.0 grade point average is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and has 3 fewer friends than a typical white student with a 4.0 grade point average."
...
Source


In other words, minority students actually get rewarded by their peers for poor performance and shunned for high achievement. White kids still like their white friends even when they get higher grades. Blacks and Hispanics turn against their friends who get higher grades.

Additionally, from your source:



"Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white."
-- Senator Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

Perhaps this should be repeated in another thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not denying that this phenomenon appears in many races, I'm asking you to look at the names these high-achievers are called by their own race...What do the Hispanics call the people who are 'high-achievers'?

I think he was saying that Hispanic kids consider their high-achieving peers to be 'acting white' as well.



The only race I've seen that has derogatory names for high achievers of their own race of a racial nature other than their own race is blacks.

From the list of examples provided by the authors, blacks and Maoris are the only two that suffer the circumstances that lead to this response AND live in countries where the "dominant society" is of a race other than their own.

Have you looked into how the Maori people refer to their high-achievers? If not, then all you're saying is, I don't know. If you're asking a question, go ahead and ask it. No need to make (potentially false) accusations.



Are you saying that Dr. Rice being called Aunt Jemima holds a sense of optimism?

No, I was explaining to you that the term can have a bad connotation and a good one. In the case of Dr. Rice, it's definitely negative, but she worked hard to earn that distinction. She deserves it.



We're talking about blatant race-natured attacks against successful people by members of their own race.

No, we're talking about blatant race-natured attacks against successful sell-outs by members of their own race.

The same way Jews withhold the right to designate who is a 'self-hating Jew,' we reserve the right to ridicule any black public, or private, figure we feel is using their position to hold us back.

Note, I didn't say 'any black public, or private, figure we feel is not advancing our cause.' I didn't say that because we don't ask that they specifically advance our cause. We simply ask that they not undermine our past and on-going efforts, the way that black conservatives against affirmative action do.

What hypocrites to squelch the same system that gave them their first step in the door!


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We don't use blackness as an insult. That's the problem I have with black people using "whiteness" as an insult to their own people...It's using another race as a derogatory name.

Ok, fine, BH. The OP was, "Why is it that Successful Black's that support a Conservative or Republican agenda, routinely beleaguered by members of their own race as "sell outs"?" I didn't know this thread was about how white people should feel about black people using the term 'acting white.'




For Blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5, when the slope turns negative... Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity from a grade point average of 1 through 2.5. After 2.5, the gradient turns sharply negative.
Source


In other words, minority students actually get rewarded by their peers for poor performance and shunned for high achievement... Blacks and Hispanics turn against their friends who get higher grades.

Let's get it right.

Black kids, in this study, in highly-integrated schools, were found to be less popular once they got a 3.5.

Hispanic kids, in this study, in highly-integrated schools, were found to be less popular once they got a 2.5.

Note the difference.



eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white."
-- Senator Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

And you presented this quote to say what? That, because it's in 'my' source, I have to agree? (I didn't write it.) That, if Obama says it, it must be true? (Clearly not.) Respectfully, I have to disagree here. IMO, he's making a mountain out of a molehill.

The people who think that way are very old and, if the old people I know who used to say stuff like that are any example, they've since changed their minds. Since the advent of personal computers, and now, text-messaging, of which they are undoubtedly aware, I've noticed an attendant surge in the appreciation of an education and, at least, basic literacy.

The young people who currently use the term apply it largely in the context of a successful black person we feel has sold us out (as I explained my use of the term above).

I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this, and another member will have to second it, until you believe me. Why are you so skeptical?

I'm not saying you should just take my word for it, but I do have the opportunity to study its changing use in contemporary conversation, as do the other posters who have a lot of uninhibited conversations with black people, and I am somewhat qualified to discuss it, having briefly been a 'mentee' to one of the leading minds in the linguistic study of Black English Vernacular*.



*I know that's new information to you, but I would be happy to confirm it through a mod.




[edit on 30-1-2007 by HarlemHottie]




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join