Successful Black Prejudice

Originally quoted by FlyersFan


The moderators have not told anyone to treat this thread, or any other, as an outlet to use as a personal, uncontested, platform. The moderators have not told me that I have limited posting privileges. If you don't want to hear responses to your posts or information that counters your statements, then use the ignore feature. That's what it's there for.

My posts did not go uncontested, as you say. Others in this thread have answered me. I have answered back. Of course you don't have limited posting privileges. But you can also use the ignore feature.

However, the T &C guidelines strictly forbid a member from attacking and harassing another member on the boards.

Furthermore, you solely continue to answer my posts as a repudiation of the ATS tenet "courtesy is manditory" as well as the T & C guidelines. There seems to be a problem with wanting to keep the peace on the ATS site and not wanting to solve the conflict at hand, only to cause more disruption.

And again, I ask, please do not answer my posts.

They are personal harassment and attacks.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

HH,

Thank you for trying to make sense of the problem afforded to this topic. I appreciate your efforts (along with others who are trying to dissect this issue proactively) in laying bare what the true issues of this thread conveys.

It is a disguised rant against Black people without wanting to further understand the culture. Unfortunately, in this light, this thread is rather reflective of others by individuals who only want to raise the ire against another group of people by simple complaint. I too refuse to be drawn into ranting against the 'Black Community' solely because there's nothing to gain.

All we can do is to continue to break down stereotypes in hopes that there are other posters who come across this thread. Perhaps, in that light, other posters will have the knowledge and the foresight to separate the wheat from the chaff, deciding to wisely take the step to initiate a voyage of wanting to rewrite the stereotypes that chafe at the heart of this matter.

On the other hand, there still hasn't been any sources defining "intelligence" and "achievement", whether these standards are measured by "white" standards or "black" standards, and an attempt to broaden the sample of "Black achievers" to a more inclusive list.

But I do congratulate BH on posting several sources that have informed her thinking on this matter. That step shows true progress on trying to understand the problem by working on it.

Let's hope that others follow her lead.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
But you can also use the ignore feature.

That makes no sense. That's backwards.

your personal harassment of me.

Play the vicitm. :shk: Pointing out flaws in your theories, stories, sources, and 'logic' isn't harrassment. It's discussion, which this site is all about. Put me on ignore, quit whining, get on topic and deal with it OR go start your own echo chamber. You don't get to cherry pick who responds to public posts.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here are just some of the sources I've read while involved in this thread:

When Black Isn't Black Enough
An Empirical Analysis of Acting White
The Price of Acting White

Thanks for posting those BH. They will make excellent reading. Please feel free to post any additional sources of information that you come across in your research of this topic. (if you feel like sharing). I'd like to read them.

FlyersFan, please do not answer my posts

What you are doing, FlyersFan, is personal harassment and attacks to me, plus a failure to comply with the T & C guidelines. You are using language and emoticons in an abusive manner. Not to mention, a display afforded to the inability to comply with the moderators of this site.

FlyersFan, your addressing my posts disrupts this thread, by going off topic.

By complying, the topic will stay on course and the conflict will cease. By not complying, you are deliberately adding to the disruption and conflict that has been detailed in the T and C guidelines.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Hi again everyone,

I'm following your discussion with interest, just not saying much of anything. I did think it might be helpful to provide you with some examples and sources for other derogatory names based on race used by non-blacks. I don't think it is right to associate this kind of behaviour exclusively to black people. Other races do use racial terms like this in a derogatory manner.

I'll just use the Urban Dictionary for ease:

Twinkie/Banana = Asian acting white

1. twinkie

An asian person who is either adopted or living in a white community. Hence, yellow on the outside and white on the inside.

3. twinkie

Noun: someone who is asian that acts more like a white person than an asian person

www.urbandictionary.com...

1. Banana

An asian person who acts like they are white. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside.

www.urbandictionary.com...

Chocolate Twinkie- Asian acting black

1. chocolate twinkie

"Chocolate twinkie" is a slang that came from "twinkie" which was to make fun of azn people who were acting white. Like twinkies are yellow outside but white inside, that azn kid is yellow but inside he is white and acts white.

"Chocolate twinkie" is simmilar but instead the Azn kid is acting black. Chocolate twinkie is yellow outside but black inside. So the azn kid is yellow outside but is black inside.

www.urbandictionary.com...

Coconut = Latino/Indian/Filipino acting white

3. coconut
n. a person who is tan on the outside (mexican, indian, philipino) and white on the inside

www.urbandictionary.com...

Apple = Native American acting white

6. apple

Red on the outside, white on the inside. A pejorative term used by Native Americans towards other Native Americans accused of "acting white," which would include such things as excelling in school, getting and holding a job, staying out jail, not drinking & drugging, and behaving appropriately in daily interactions with people of other races. Similar to the use of Oreo by African Americans.

www.urbandictionary.com...

Wigger - white acting black

1. wigger

A male caucasion, usually born and raised in the suburbs that displays a strong desire to emulate African American Hip Hop culture and style through "Bling" fashion and generally accepted "thug life" guiding principles.

www.urbandictionary.com...

I'll now to return to lurking in the background.


edited to add the 'banana' definition that I forgot to post

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Duzey]

Thank you very much, Duzey for your posting of sources. Now this is what I mean by trying to define the problem at hand. In order to have a basis of how to measure what these pejoratives are like, it is useful to have a guideline.

I also agree that this behavior is not strictly attributed to one group of people. It goes across the board. Your work will perhaps provide another way to view this manner.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Duzey
Chocolate Twinkie- Asian acting black

Thanks Duzey! The rest of this post is not directed to you.

Also see Whigger

A disparaging term used to describe a Caucasian person that mimics ghetto and urban vernacular.

So, white people do it, too! Like Eminem, for example. Other names he might be called by white folks because he's "acting black" are "ghetto white trash", "Zebra", "Chocolate Creme Pie", "White Chocolate" and "Lawn Jockey".

Or if it's a white girl acting black, we can call her a "Nitch"...

The urban dictionary is so much fun!

But I doubt any black people are offended by these terms. Because it's just white people calling other white people silly names, huh?

And you think I don't do research!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The rest of this post is not directed to you.

To whom was it directed?

But I doubt any black people are offended by these terms.

I'm not. Who cares?

And you think I don't do research!

You didn't do the research. Duzey did.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm curious how you think you know Semper's mind... you're accusing him of lying... he doesn't deserve to be accused of being underhanded, as he has been MANY times in this thread.

First of all, BH, you are not Semper. How can you think you know his mind any better than I do?

But, really, that's besides the point, because I didn't say any of the crap you accused me of saying. I asked the OP a very simple question, which I'm sure he'll answer when he checks the thread. You see, I also know Semper, and I don't think he's a liar either, which is why I asked. Jeez.

When that was figured out, I started wondering about other aspects of the phenomenon. This happens in threads.

See how easy that was? That's all you had to say, and I would have gotten the point, minus the diatribe and underhanded insults to other members.

Just because I don't post reams of excerpts

This is something I don't understand.

In every other topic discussed at ATS, people expect to have to... I don't know, read. Why are people getting irritated with Ceci for quoting sources? I thought that's what we did here at ATS.

But anyway, to your point, which is that you've done some research on this topic, good! The second step, of course, would be to share that source with the group, so that we can all read it, critique their methods, etc.

That's group research.

And as I have said before, I don't need to do research for my opinion.

You know what they say about opinions, don't you?

The thing is, researchers have methods, where they compare and contrast different hypotheses, in an attempt to find the theory that most fits the phenomenon. Like here:

The oppositional culture theory, developed by Fordham and Ogbu in the wake of their experiences at “Capitol High,” accounts for the observed differences between blacks and whites as follows: (1) white people provide blacks with inferior schooling and treat them differently in school; (2) by imposing a job ceiling, white people fail to reward blacks adequately for their academic achievement in adult life; and (3) black Americans develop coping devices which, in turn, further limit their striving for academic success. Fordham and Ogbu suggest the problem arose partly because white Americans traditionally refused to acknowledge that black Americans were capable of intellectual achievement and partly because black Americans subsequently began to doubt their own intellectual ability, began to define academic success as white people’s prerogative, and began to discourage their peers, perhaps unconsciously, from emulating white people in striving for academic success.

However plausible it sounds, the oppositional culture theory cannot explain why the acting-white problem is greatest in integrated settings. If Fordham and Ogbu were correct, the social sanctions for acting white should be most severe in places like the segregated school,where opportunities are most limited. The results of my studies, of course, point in precisely the opposite direction.

The notion that acting white is simply attributable to self-sabotage is even less persuasive. According to its proponents, black and Hispanic cultures are dysfunctional, punishing successful members of their group rather than rewarding their success. That theory is more a judgment than an explanation. A universal, it cannot explain the kinds of variations from one school setting to another that are so apparent in the data I have explored.

These are the kinds of conversations I would expect to have at ATS, not everybody stating their opinions and arguing. You could go to any other message board for stuff like that.

I've been trying to learn and understand more about my fellow Americans of the black persuasion.

This is what I'm wondering: if you claim to want to learn and understand more about black people, and you ask black people, why do you argue with the response?

That would be like, if I said, I want to know your grandmother's recipe for whatever, and you gave it to me, and I was like- No, that's wrong because I think you should use brown sugar, not confectioners'.

How the hell would I know?

It's not about you asking the 'wrong' question, whatever that is, or about you 'believing the wrong authorities.' I have a problem with the fact that there are obviously many things you don't know about people, but when you ask, claiming to really want to know the truth, you refuse to take the answer. I just don't get it.

Like, in the A. Jackson thread. From jump, all the black people were like, we don't trust his advice. Yet, for several pages, members went back and forth about how all government officials are sketchy, 'separate the message from the man,' etc.

I told you privately just how sick he makes me, because he fits a mold, the 'sell-out' mold. We can spot it a mile away. At that point, I think you understood what we had been trying to say in the thread all along: he is as unbelievable to black people as Bush is to a lot of Americans. We weren't saying, his ideas are totally wrong. We just said, we don't trust him, and for good reason. But nobody took our word for it, although we were paying Mr. Jackson's comments attention solely because he was black. Go figure!

All I'm saying is, when it comes to black issues, I think you would agree that black people know the landscape a little better than you do, especially when we all seem to be in agreement. We're not colluding by u2u, these are our own observations, from three different people in three different places.

It's not so easy from this side of the issue either.

I'm telling you what I see, hear and read.

No, you're not. You're telling us the conclusion you've reached based on what you seen, heard, or read. There's a difference. Give us examples. They may make more sense to us than they do to you.

edit to combine responses

[edit on 31-1-2007 by HarlemHottie]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
To whom was it directed?

just the thread readers. I didn't want Duzey to think my entire thread was in response to the particular quote I made of her post.

You didn't do the research. Duzey did.

Yes I did! I got all those names that white people call other white people from several sources.

underhanded insults to other members.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I didn't make any underhanded or overhanded insults to other members.

Why are people getting irritated with Ceci for quoting sources?

I'm not irritated at Ceci! I can't speak for anyone else. I said "reams of excerpts" because I personally don't like to post huge external quotes. I shave mine down to the very minimum.

The second step, of course, would be to share that source with the group, so that we can all read it, critique their methods, etc.

I'll try to do better.

(1) white people provide blacks with inferior schooling and treat them differently in school;

I'm so tired of the "whites are so mean to blacks" position I cannot tell you. I just want to spit. Not that I don't think black people are being treated certain negative ways, I do. I just can't get past the "white people" thing.

I'M A WHITE PEOPLE! I just wish people would be more accurate in their wording and say "the system" or heaven forbid, "the dominant culture", the "power elite" or the "wealthy corrupt". Like it or not, when you say "white people" that means me.

And the people who are "provide blacks with inferior schooling" come from ALL races. It's not the same group of people. Saying "white people do this" or "black people do that" is inaccurate and divisive.

If I went on and on and quoted sources about how black people are filling up our prisons and having babies they can't afford and on welfare even with sources to back it up people would be going nuts!

I just can't get past the generalization. It's a failing of mine, I know, but I am sick to death of reading how unfair, racist and discriminating I am. You would grow tired of hearing that you're a criminal, drug-addict, too.

This is what I'm wondering: if you claim to want to learn and understand more about black people, and you ask black people, why do you argue with the response?

Because I don't think you (three) can speak for the entire race, that's why.

That would be like, if I said, I want to know your grandmother's recipe for whatever, and you gave it to me, and I was like- No, that's wrong because I think you should use brown sugar, not confectioners'.

Not the same at all. That's a specific peice of data. Asking why blacks do a certain thing could have a hundred answers, depending on which black person you talk to. Your answers to some of my questions are sometimes very different than some other blacks I've known over the years. There is no one answer to the questions being asked here.

Like, in the A. Jackson thread. From jump, all the black people were like, we don't trust his advice. Yet, for several pages, members went back and forth about how all government officials are sketchy, 'separate the message from the man,' etc.

What makes you think you could evaluate this man any better than I could? That's like me saying that you should trust my judgment on Hillary Clinton because she's white and so am I.

We can spot it a mile away.

And I can't? You think I'm naïve ?

At that point, I think you understood what we had been trying to say in the thread all along:

I understood what you had been saying from the beginning.

It's not so easy from this side of the issue either.

I know.

edit for typo


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

LOL! This thread is still rolling.
Ceci, FF is not harrassing you at all.
She's debating with you and you don't seem to be able to handle the debate very well.
If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

Thank you, HH for saying that to BH about discussing this issue. It is hard to explain the serious disconnect that happens in issues like these. It is equally unfortunate that sometimes, there are people who feel they ought to "speak for Blacks" without paying attention to what we as Black people are saying.

I am glad that people are starting to acknowledge that this behavior goes across the board.

I am also glad that you took time to discuss the ways that different groups of people see the same situation differently.

It is my hope, however, that there is that middle ground that can be reached. Or else, threads like these will end up being more divisive than it being used to elicit understanding.

rocknroll: It is okay that you have your opinion. However, the mods are addressing this problem now. I would much rather listen to their advice instead of yours. Thank you.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I would much rather listen to their advice instead of yours.

I think you made that obvious several posts back.
I hate beating dead horses.

FF has just as much right to post here as you do or anybody else for that matter.
You're playing victim to a board bully, when there is no board bully.
Actually, there is only one member posting in these racial discussion threads who has gotten nasty....
(but, don't worry it's not you).


[edit on 31-1-2007 by rocknroll]

Originally posted by FlyersFanAmerican. Not African-American. Not Irish-American. Not Italian-American. Just American. People would do better not to segregate themselves with these artificial titles.

Isn't 'American' an artificial title?

I mean, technically speaking, I'm of german heritage, born in America -- but above all else, I'm a human being. Just like everyone else.

This or that human-made/given name is just as artificial as any other...

And speaking of segregation, it amazes me how we continuously segregate ourselves based on skin color: 'black' people are really brown, 'white' people are really peach. Brown and peach are not as far away from each other on the color scale as black and white...




Semper,

Name-calling goes in cycles. Methinks it's happened to everyone several times over, no matter their skin color, gender, nation of birth, heritage, sexual preference, et cetera.

It happens when people's (usually 'the majority's') presuppositions of 'normal' gets challenged by what's happening in the world (be it social, political, whatever). They attempt to slight the challengers by calling them names.

Give it time -- someone else will be called names for pushing the limits of tradition, of habit, of opinion and preference.

This time, it's 'black' people playing the 'white' man's game... if it were the other way around, then 'whites' would be called names... and the same will happen with the 'purples' whenever they show up.

rocknroll, FF does have the right to post here. I am not stopping her. I am solely asking that she not answer my posts. It is a simple request that can be easily followed. We have had conflict in the past and present. I want no part of it anymore. Other than that, it is up to the mods now.

I am very eager to read what others have to say about the topic. Now, we are getting into a real discussion!

[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Diseria
It happens when people's (usually 'the majority's') presuppositions of 'normal' gets challenged by what's happening in the world (be it social, political, whatever). They attempt to slight the challengers by calling them names.

Um, geez, you forgot to mention it goes both ways of course:

It happens when people's (usually 'the minority's') presuppositions of 'normal' gets challenged by what's happening in the world (be it social, political, whatever). They attempt to slight the challengers by calling them names.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I am solely asking that she not answer my posts. It is a simple request that can be easily followed. We have had conflict in the past and present. I want no part of it anymore. Other than that, it is up to the mods now.

And the mods are probably gonna tell you:
"Hey, Ceci, that's what the IGNORE BUTTON is for."
Use it Ceci, that's what it's for....exactly what you are complaining about.
*goes back to enjoying the thread*

Originally posted by rocknroll

Originally posted by Diseria
It happens when people's (usually 'the majority's') presuppositions of 'normal' gets challenged by what's happening in the world (be it social, political, whatever). They attempt to slight the challengers by calling them names.

Um, geez, you forgot to mention it goes both ways of course:

It happens when people's (usually 'the minority's') presuppositions of 'normal' gets challenged by what's happening in the world (be it social, political, whatever). They attempt to slight the challengers by calling them names.

True... to a point.

But, at least as far as I've observed, it's the majority who gets to decide what's normal...

Edited to add: Not that I necessarily _agree_ that the majority is correct. Indeed, I think this is one of the major flaws with democracy... but that's just me.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Diseria]

Originally posted by semperfortis
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"?

Semper, I asked this very question in a diversty class back in 2001.
He called me his "token white boy". I was the only white male in the class.


The professor, who was black, mentioned that this very thing happened to him when he started college. He was told he was wasting his time, and would eventually just be another black, working for "the man".

His response to them was simple.
"I would rather work for "the man" for 80k.
than work for "the man" for 30k. And who is "the man" anyway?"

WHY would anyone with limited 'black' heritage feel ANY need to regard themselves as 'black' ?

It appears that the self-proclaimed 'black' dictators of others' behaviour wish to 'claim' and brand as 'black' all those whose gene-pool contains a minimal amount of 'black' ancestry.

With regard to, for example, Condy Rice and Colin Powell, it seems the self-proclaimed 'black' dictators are saying: " There's a smidgin of 'black' in you and therefore we OWN you -- you are answerable to us! WE are stuck with being 'black' (we choose to be) and so should YOU be ! How DARE you act and live in accordance with your predominantly 'other' lineage ! "

Realistically, Powell and Rice are not 'black' at all. They are predominantly 'something else', as is clearly apparent.

First and foremost however, they are American.

The self-proclaimed 'black' dictators really need to sheath their fangs. Because all they're achieving with their bitter, jealous, 'world owes me' attitudes is to make themselves appear ridiculous and desperate.

Instead of clinging to the shirt-tails of barely-'black' success stories (such as Powell and Rice) WHY doesn't the self-proclaimed 'black' community throw up some 'acceptably black' success stories who WILL satisfy their nonsensical Ideal Black Persons of Note ?

I note that certain posters in this thread are anxious to provoke other posters repeatedly with absurd accusations of 'harassment' etc.

Yet they REFUSE to explain WHY the 'targets' (of self-proclaimed 'black' dictators of others' behaviour) SHOULD regard themselves as 'black' OR conform with the infantile demands of those whose physical appearance is 'more black'.

Is it a colour-chart version of 'misery loves company', perhaps ? Seems that way.

It seems very much as if darker complexioned 'blacks' RESENT the fact that the personally successful Condi Rice and Powell are LESS physically 'black' in appearance.

But is that Rice and Powell's problem ?

WHO has the problem?

Obviously, those with the problem are those who're enraged by Rice's and Powell's success.

But they won't admit their primary emotion is jealousy. Won't admit that people of all shades, they are simply Wannabes who Can't Be.

Instead, they attempt to justify it by claiming Rice and Powell 'act white'.

Oh, so disparaging 'whites' is considered acceptable and just, by the self-proclaimed 'black' dictators, is it ?

Why *IS* that ?

Racism is 'ok', is it, as long as it's directed at 'whites' by the 'blacks' ?

NO. It is NOT 'ok'.

Nor is behaving like petulant, jealous children.

Nor is attempting to provoke other posters with demonstrably FALSE accusations of 'harrassment'.

Nor is demanding that other posters cease to post.

Nor is 'claiming' individuals as 'black' when they are no such thing.

Nor is presuming to dictate to ANY person regarding behaviour, obligations, responsibilities.

Why are those who choose to identify as 'black' instead of American CLINGING to people like Rice and Powell and Winfrey, etc.?

WHY are they trying to live vicariously through individuals whom they're unlikely to ever meet and with whom they have little, very little, in common?

In FACT, it seems clear they are DESPERATE to establish ANY link between their ordinary-selves and 'success, fame, wealth, power and influence' ...... to the point they 'claim' association with Powell, Rice, Winfrey etc., based on the most BASE justification; that of skin colour !

By PRETENDING to 'criticise' celebrities such as Rice, Powell and Winfrey, what they are REALLY attempting to do is ELEVATE themselves via association. It really is pathetic. Even more pathetic is the self-proclaimed 'black' community's pretence of owning the higher moral ground.

Originally posted by Diseria
But, at least as far as I've observed, it's the majority who gets to decide what's normal...

Then again, in this day and age, what is normal?

I mean really, think about it.
Isn't normal relative to who you are? Or is normal really based on numbers?
Then again, I'm a celibate gay man and I get called "abnormal" all the time....
....but I feel normal...really, I do.

Originally posted by Diseria
Not that I necessarily _agree_ that the majority is correct.

I'm definitely with ya!


Oh, one of the definitions of normal:
free from any mental disorder; sane. (over at Dictionary dot com).
I thought that was funny. That makes everyone in this thread normal.
Hear that everybody: We're all normal!!!!!!!!!! This we have in common.
Yay!


[edit on 31-1-2007 by rocknroll]