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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I take it to mean that "acting white" only gets you so far, and only when times are relatively bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
(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?
*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.
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.
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.
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'.
Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I guess the question posed in the OP ... has been answered.
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?
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?
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?
Originally posted by Dock6
That's what is known as JEALOUSY.
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.
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 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...
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?
Originally posted by semperfortis
How can ANY of us move forward if the prevailing attitude is that SUCCESS equals ACTING WHITE?
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.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Where, when and how did this concept begin?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I don't see this derogatory name being attached to another race.
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
In other words. White = derogatory.
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
To me, that feeds racism.
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.
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.
In other words. White = derogatory.
Wow, how did you get that?
Not always an insult. It definitely depends on the tone in which it's said.
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.
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
"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.
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'?
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.
Are you saying that Dr. Rice being called Aunt Jemima holds a sense of optimism?
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...It's using another race as a derogatory name.
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
eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white."
-- Senator Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address