Successful Black Prejudice

It's claimed somewhere in this thread that various ethnic communities refer to various of their members as 'coconuts', 'apples', 'bananas', etc., ... allegedly to denote those who 'act White' or 'are White inside'.

Mmmm. The stink of sulphur. I see zionist finger-prints all over the above.

Unavoidable of course; the zionist agenda uses Divide and Conquer as its All-Purpose weapon.

And those who fail to achieve their 'dream', for whatever reason (usually laziness, lack of ability, substitution of fantasy for appropriate action, etc) are bitter, angry, resentful.

People seldom look in the mirror when apportioning blame for what they regard as their failure to achieve that which they BELIEVE (dream) is their 'entitlement'.

Instead, they blame someone else.

They look around. Who are those who possess all that fame and fortune? Ah ha. It's Whitey ! Waaa Waaaa, Whitey stole my 'dream' !

They don't bother, for some reason, to see all those Whiteys who didn't realise THEIR dreams either.

No. Easier to blame Whitey for everything. Easier to believe Whitey HAS 'everything'.

And when someone from their OWN community wrests success or fame or wealth, they blame Whitey for THAT, also.

Instead of accepting that Whitey does NOT have a monopoly on success (as becomes obvious when a NON-white rises to riches) the malcontents (aided by zionist spin) TWIST the truth and claim the NON-white success-story is a 'coconut', a 'banana', an 'apple'.

SO ------- seeing we're in fruit-mode ----- let's tell it like it is by referring to the malcontents as SOUR GRAPES, huh.

Originally posted by rocknroll

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?

I'm not sure if we can have a relative normalcy... if normal was relative to every single person, then nothing could truly be called 'normal'...

It's 'normal' to wear clothing, rather than be nude. However, what people choose to wear... that's another issue, methinks.

So there seems to be _some_ underlying need for 'normal'... (just the same with ethics)... but what, exactly, constitutes normal... no clue.

And as far as it being based on numbers -- probably. However, arguably the majority is guided by others (media being the first thing that comes to mind), so their 'normals' are easily swayed...

(this 'normal' thing is becoming quite circular...)

Then again, I'm a celibate gay man and I get called "abnormal" all the time....
....but I feel normal...really, I do.

Compared to how I looked in high skool, I could pass for normal. But I don't want to! I like being abnormally normal...



Maybe then it's a matter of semantics... You are a normal human being. However, other people may consider your behaviors abnormal...

Do we seriously have to qualify 'normal'? Normal body, verses normal behavior, verses normal physiology...

Seems almost necessary when trying to figure out what's normal...

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!

*pouts*

But, but.. I don't wanna!!!! Don't make me be normal... I won't!



Besides that, I'm not sure that I'm free from mental dis-order... I'm quite scatterbrained!


P.S. 'Normal' psychological patterns were set by european white males. It was considered abnormal to exhibit female behaviors -- even if you were female! -- because the guidelines were exacted along male lines.

So, that begs the question _yet again_ 'What is normal?'

What is normal?

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Diseria]

Originally quoted by Diseria

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

This is the key thing that needs to be stressed. I think this the reason why there is a serious semantic issue with this thread. Just because some one from a "majority" group says it, it doesn't mean that is the truth. But people "accept" it because it is deemed "normal". Furthermore, it is considered right. That would be the same way to deem behaviorial issues as well. No one likes it when someone from the minority group challenges the thought-patterns and behaviors of the majority. They would treat it as "disruptive".

Is the problem that when there is a "abnormal" message one might pose to the majority, that semantic issues erupt because it describes an aspect not common to those belonging to the majority group?

I also agree that when these stereotypes get challenged, then that's when the discord and the semantic disconnect occurs.

Nobody expected Black people to reply to this thread. If they didn't speak, the same stereotypes would be confirmed and repeated ad nauseum in other ways within different threads. However, for some it is quite harder to rewrite the message of normalcy. And they would do anything to keep the "normalcy" in tact--including damaging stereotypes to the "minority" in order to reinforce it.


[edit on 1-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

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

white people fail to reward blacks adequately for their academic achievement in adult life; and

Fordham and Ogbu suggest the problem arose partly because white Americans traditionally refused to acknowledge that black Americans were capable of intellectual achievement ...

And I'm supposed to post proof that blacks blame white people for their problems? I don't need to. You have posted plenty of sources that support my claim.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Nobody expected Black people to reply to this thread.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by ceci2006]

How can you say this. Unless you are stereotyping members of ATS?
Are you?
I rarely take a members, sex, sexual preference, ethnicity, or religion for granted. You just never know.
I even have my doubts sometimes that you are really black.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

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

And I'm supposed to post proof that blacks blame white people for their problems? I don't need to. You have posted plenty of sources that support my claim.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why would you say something so patently false??

The author is comparing three different theories, two of which he believes are incorrect.

You have only quoted the first theory. (I hope you didn't stop reading there.) Those are the findings of two people. They could very well be wrong. In fact, the author explicitly says they're wrong.

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.

Here is the other theory:

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.

To repeat, these are two competing theories that the author finds lacking.

So, please, in the future, reserve any comments about my sources supporting your claim until you actually read them.

I had to revisit my thoughts on this topic after taking some time away from it. I truly do think this thread is really about "what white people think about Blacks calling successful Blacks 'Oreo' and 'Uncle Tom'" ?

When HH said that, I began to re-read the thread. And I began to notice that not only the serious semantic disconnect occurs whenever the question of "proof" vs. "experiences" comes about. The second disconnect happens when who is to be believed.


Who can be believed? There are some options below:

1)Someone from the dominant culture who has not demonstrated any sort of scholarly sources, but constantly relies on experience (even though the memory can be faulty).

2)Someone of color who does demonstrate scholarly material and articles, with some mention of experience.

3)Some from the dominant culture who uses opinion as a way of "proof" and discounts the scholarly material posted because it does not reflect his or her experience.

4)Someone of color who relates their experiences but do not post proof.

5)Someone from the dominant culture who ridicules scholarly proof and uses opinion as a way to assert and bring back "normalcy" into the thread.

The strange thing is that so many answers have been posted in this thread that there isn't one way or another to believe what is the truth and what is false. However, what is taken as gospel is the coded answers which continue to assert that there is only one way to read the question (while attempts occur to deconstruct the inquiry in the OP). All other ways to read the question seem to be dismissed.

Another thing to point out is that one's answers are usually second-guessed in order to keep that normalcy in tact.

I now realize that it has nothing to do with whether the truth of the matter is uttered. It doesn't have to do with confirming its validity. It also has nothing to do with "shame". Instead, it has to do with who is perceived as more credible in this thread and the attempts to reinforce that credibility, with or without any proof. This is especially the case when it has to do with race.

Still, no one has set up a statistical measure of how many blacks are deemed successful; no one defines "success" and "intellect" so that there is a guideline; and no one cares to explain the phenomena as it is (except Duzey and HH ). Instead, because someone from the dominant culture claims "it is real", it is assumed that the rest of us have to fall into that camp and believe "it is real" too. In fact, those from the "majority" try to force the matter, waiting for one of the "minorities" to say so--with little fan-fare and lots of vicious ridicule.

In fact, so many people on this thread have tried to force the issue that "it is real", they do not take the time to investigate any other possiblity except in small circumstances.

But, conventional wisdom always tells me that people just want it confirmed as "real" (by Black people) so that they have something else in their ammunition to use. If that is the case, instead of trying to learn something, that would be very sad.



[edit on 1-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
it has to do with who is perceived as more credible in this thread and the attempts to reinforce that credibility, with or without any proof.

I would like for someone to refute/ address/ talk about what she said here. Really. I've been wondering this myself.

no one defines "success" and "intellect" so that there is a guideline

The definition of 'success' is important to this conversation; not so much 'intellect.'

those from the "majority" try to force the matter, waiting for one of the "minorities" to say so--with little fan-fare and lots of vicious ridicule.

I think both sides are forcing the matter, but you're right about the ridicule. Some posters are just extra-rude in these conversations, for no apparent reason.

so many people on this thread have tried to force the issue that "it is real", they do not take the time to investigate any other possiblity except in small circumstances.

Yep.

IMO, the fact that the comments didn't change over the course of this thread says a lot. When I first posted Fryer and Austin-Smith's conclusion, I did so because it was based on numbers, and could be checked. I challenge any poster to find a flaw in its methodology. Even after the evidence was brought to the table, it was clear that few posters read it, because few actually commented on it. Those who did read it attempted to find flaws. Even when they couldn't, the paper was dismissed anyway. How do I know? Because, several pages later, they're still saying the same thing. That's just being close-minded.

How can we be expected to have an intelligent, forward-looking conversation about race when people won't even consider the latest (and best thus far) theories? 'Black thought', as presented by people like Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, etc, has evolved a great deal since the 60's and 70's, which is when a lot of people seem to have gleaned their initial impressions (even if they weren't actually alive then).

When it comes to what 'we think', it looks like posters have their opinions, and that's that. Oh well.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by ceci2006
it has to do with who is perceived as more credible in this thread and the attempts to reinforce that credibility, with or without any proof.

I would like for someone to refute/ address/ talk about what she said here. Really. I've been wondering this myself.

I'll address it.

Notice the tone of the bullets that mention "dominant culture".
Notice the tone of the bullets that mention "someone of color".

What does that say to you. No, forget that. Do you see or perceive any difference between the two groups of responses?

If you had to guess, who would you say wrote the bullets? A person of color, or a person of the "dominant culture"?

Originally posted by ceci2006
Who can be believed? There are some options below:

1)Someone from the dominant culture who has not demonstrated any sort of scholarly sources, but constantly relies on experience (even though the memory can be faulty).

2)Someone of color who does demonstrate scholarly material and articles, with some mention of experience.

3)Some from the dominant culture who uses opinion as a way of "proof" and discounts the scholarly material posted because it does not reflect his or her experience.

4)Someone of color who relates their experiences but do not post proof.

5)Someone from the dominant culture who ridicules scholarly proof and uses opinion as a way to assert and bring back "normalcy" into the thread.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Notice the tone of the bullets that mention "dominant culture".
Notice the tone of the bullets that mention "someone of color".

I read them, and re-read them. I thought her characterizations, though broad, loosely fit most of the people involved. I did notice that, in the bullets about the "dominant" culture, there were more clauses. I hadn't thought about it, but I guess that's because Ceci was trying to explain how you (pl.) look to her, not the other way around.

Do you see or perceive any difference between the two groups of responses?

I'm sure I didn't get it. Would you care to explain what you meant?

I think the basis for the ridicule lies in the fact that most successful black people turn their back's on their community as soon as they make it out. Sure sometimes jealousy plays a part. One of the examples given though was a comment made by one black professional to another (50cent, and Oprah). Using this example I think we can rule out jealousy, I mean 50cent is pretty rich, no?

You want to know what happens to a real intelligent black man who doesn't turn his back on his community? Just look at Majic.

Let me elaborate. I will bold the parts that bias the reader away from her preconceptions, and italicize those entries that support her preconceptions that "dominant culture =bad", and "people of color = good".


1)Someone from the dominant culture who has not demonstrated any sort of scholarly sources, but constantly relies on experience (even though the memory can be faulty).

2)Someone of color who does demonstrate scholarly material and articles, with some mention of experience.

3)Some from the dominant culture who uses opinion as a way of "proof" and discounts the scholarly material posted because it does not reflect his or her experience.

4)Someone of color who relates their experiences but do not post proof.

5)Someone from the dominant culture who ridicules scholarly proof and uses opinion as a way to assert and bring back "normalcy" into the thread.



Notice the use of "" to cast aspersions upon the dominant culture. Label their thoughts and opinions as "supposed" or "as if" by liberal application of "". Iow, denigrate and minimize them.

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
I think the basis for the ridicule lies in the fact that most successful black people turn their back's on their community as soon as they make it out. Sure sometimes jealousy plays a part. One of the examples given though was a comment made by one black professional to another (50cent, and Oprah). Using this example I think we can rule out jealousy, I mean 50cent is pretty rich, no?

You want to know what happens to a real intelligent black man who doesn't turn his back on his community? Just look at Majic.

Good point, but it doesn't reflect all the phone calls asking for a short loan that never gets repaid, which, after a time, makes a person close the door if only because he wants to provide for his own family instead of tossing money down the drain.

And this doesn't happen only in the black community, ask anyone.

Well, I'll be. Someone discovers bias.

Now, perhaps it will be understood why this thread is considered insulting in the formation of its question and subject matter.

That is why depersonalization is good. It cuts through all the emotionalties in a second.

We're actually learning something now.

Now hopefully people can understand why bias figures in the posing of the question and the discussion of the subject matter.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Ok, ceci, what is insulting about the topic? Seriously, in your own words?

I also want to make a comment to Dock6. What the hell is with the "zionist" comments? You remind me of Pat Buchanan - he says a lot of very reasonable things, but then blows it all by ranting about the letter M or such nonsense.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Good point, but it doesn't reflect all the phone calls asking for a short loan that never gets repaid, which, after a time, makes a person close the door if only because he wants to provide for his own family instead of tossing money down the drain.

And this doesn't happen only in the black community, ask anyone.

Forgive me, I don't think I get your point. What sort of behaviour does your loan example reflect exactly, and what other communities experience this as well?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Notice the use of "" to cast aspersions upon the dominant culture. Label their thoughts and opinions as "supposed" or "as if" by liberal application of "".

I see, and I agree.

That said, what do you think of her conclusions about this thread?

The way I see it, if we just establish some kind of legend, we should be able to negate any inherent bias in her words. Her points, regardless of how she put them, were good, even though they were a bit sweeping.

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by jsobecky

Good point, but it doesn't reflect all the phone calls asking for a short loan that never gets repaid, which, after a time, makes a person close the door if only because he wants to provide for his own family instead of tossing money down the drain.

And this doesn't happen only in the black community, ask anyone.

Forgive me, I don't think I get your point. What sort of behaviour does your loan example reflect exactly, and what other communities experience this as well?

It was in response to this comment you made:

I think the basis for the ridicule lies in the fact that most successful black people turn their back's on their community as soon as they make it out.

It may seem that blacks immediately turn their backs on their community as soon as they make it out, but that is rarely the case. More often, there are family dynamics going on which we are not privy to and which are never seen.

And what are you asking, as far as communities?

That said, what do you think of her conclusions about this thread?

I don't know; I just asked her to tell me what she was objecting to. When I get an answer, I can answer you.

Look at it this way: Your boss (a very busy person) has been called by his/her boss, demanding to know what the hell is the ruckus down in the lunchroom? Your boss calls you, the team leader, to find out whassup. You have 60 seconds to summarize and present the facts to your boss, so that he/she can answer his/her boss.

What are you going to say about this thread?

Originally posted by jsobecky
You have 60 seconds to summarize and present the facts to your boss, so that he/she can answer his/her boss.

What are you going to say about this thread?

Jso, please.

With all the time you spent psychoanalyzing it, I'm sure you must have actually read the words at some point.