How do you act black?

[Biggirl]

Or white for that matter. I'm involved in a thread in IMHO where the OP stated early on that white people who date black people act black and black people who date white people act white.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90611

Many seem to think I'm being facetious when I asked how does one act white or black. What I got back was either a gansta rapper stereotype or some hazy "you know it when you see it" explanation.


Resolved: There is no way to act either black or white. Stereotypes are not useful tools for use in understanding your fellow Americans. Cultures and sub-cultures that originate within a community do not define said community. (e.g. gansta rappers and Goths do not represent how blacks and whites act).


These points seem to me to be so simple, yet both blacks and whites keep insisting that I'm the one who doesn't know what she is talking about.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

I think the term is more of an idiom that a literal phrase, an idiom that refers specifically to a subculture that is not found in other other cultures. "Going postal," for example, surely doesn't refer to most postal employees. If you accept that, then there's not much debate.

Howzat?

*Anthropologist

[andros]

How does one "act black?"

One embraces certain stereotypes and implements them in his own life.

There is a stereotype that young black men listen to rap music 24/7. There is a stereotype that young black men often wear oversized basketball jerseys. Or big pants. Or baseball caps. Or drive particular cars with big stereos. Perhaps most noticibly, there is a stereotype of young black men using particular idiom, grammar, and accent in everyday speech.

So, a young white man wearing big clothes emblazoned with Carolina logos, with a baseball cap on backwards, listening to hip-hop with bone-cruching bass and saying "Yo, yo, yo, whassup mah homeys?" is considered by many to be "acting black."

In reality, of course, he's more accurately described as "acting in accordance with a series of stereotypes attributed to young black men."

[rjung]

Dunno about anyone else, but I try to imitate Eddie Murphy and/or Bill Cosby(*) and fail miserably. :)

(* = Though usually not at the same time)

[wring]

What I *think* people mean by 'acting black' is the gangsta rap image. But since the prototypical 'gangsta rap' style isn't even evidenced by all folks self identifying as black in the US, let alone interantionally, I therefore agree w/your OP.

One thing that I will agree with, is that once couples get together, they often seem to merge towards each other in styles, whatever those styles should be (no, not always of course).

[seawitch]

Biggirl, I've been wondering the same thing. I have a slightly different situation. I'm standard American white mutt combo. Mr. Seawitch is Mexican-American. Especially in this day and age, it never occurred to me to refer to us as a mixed-race couple. (Until, of course, some pinhead pointed it out.) While we were out having lunch, one of the other patrons used a perjorative term to Mr. S - a Spanish word that translates roughly between "Uncle Tom" and "oreo". Meant as an insult, and implying that he was acting too white and shouldn't be out with a white woman.

Mr. S was born here in California. His parents were both brought here as children. I speak more Spanish than he does. He wasn't acting like anything other than himself. And yet someone was critical enough of his behaviour to insult him publicly. I don't even know how he could go about acting Latino. Speak with a fake accent? Grow a little skinny mustache? Wave maracas? Engage in some other stereotypical bullcrap? Get divorced?

Now, clearly, the other man would not have been happy no matter what we did. However, these isolated examples are part of a larger social problem of overcoming racism on all fronts. Not expecting anyone to act any particular way is part of it.

Although on an individual level, I have learned to expect you to kick some ass if anyone posts racist garbage. Good show.

Wring - saw you there on preview. I do agree that couples tend to merge a bit. However, it doesn't just happen with couples of different "races". When I dated an English guy years ago, I developed a temporary British accent. Nobody ever slammed me for "acting English". Why, then, are mixed couples be a special case for criticism from some? It makes no damn sense.

[Robb]

When I act black, I try to absorb all the visible colors of the sprectrum. Alas, my acting has been described as wooden and lifeless. :)

[Smitty]

There is a saying that goes, "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out."

I have questioned several dozen people, both black and white, and EVERY SINGLE ONE knew what the phrase "acting white/black" means. An "according to Webster" definition may be difficult, but you can't say that the phrase is meaningless.

You want to say that racism and unfair stereotypes are a bad thing? Fine. I don't hear anybody disagreeing with you. You want to demonstrate the depth of your liberal sensibilities? Good for you. But don't act like you don't know what is meant by this phrase. It is disingenous at best.

[Guinastasia]

Technically, couldn't you say all Whites are mixed, since we're all pretty much mutts-I mean, I'm:
Polish (Slavic race)
Hungarian (Maygar race)
Slovak (Slavic)
German/Austrian (Germanic race)
Irish (Celtic race)

Sheesh! 100 years ago, I would not have been considered White in this country. Which is why I don't even like the phrase White.

[seawitch]

Smitty -

Funny. I talked to dozens of people who thought the photo of the tourist on top of the WTC was real. They were incorrect, of course.

I have heard people say they could define "acting (fill in blank)". Almost without exception, they meant, "(Insert negative stereotype here)". A few meant "(recent media image)". If questioned, they admitted that the description did not match individual behaviours. In some cases, they had never seen a member of the specified group performing the selected activity.

A concept that is too nebulous for definition, and yet "everyone knows" what it means? It seems to me just a subtle code to allow anyone to ascribe any characteristic they choose to a person, as typical of their group and therefore typical of that specific individual.

If you can provide an actual definition from your sources, please do.

[TeaElle]

Originally posted by Smitty
There is a saying that goes, "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out."

I have questioned several dozen people, both black and white, and EVERY SINGLE ONE knew what the phrase "acting white/black" means. An "according to Webster" definition may be difficult, but you can't say that the phrase is meaningless.

The phrases aren't meaningless because people don't understand what is meant by them. The phrases are meaningless because they are founded on faulty, prejorative, insulting premises -- the same premises which drive the offensive stereotypes that both Biggirl and I have been railing against in both this and the other thread. The phrases are meaningless because they're just wrong, wrong in design, wrong in concept, wrong in use, totally wrong.

I don't believe for a minute that Biggirl doesn't know what the phrases are meant to say when they are used. What I think is that she is trying to use the rhetorical question to make people examine these phrases more carefully before they go throwing them around because they are absolutely inappropriate. They are racist, they are rude, they are destructive.

Let's face it, the phrases are code language. When a white person says of a black person "he acts very black" what they're saying is not a compliment. When a black person says of a white person "he's acting black" it isn't meant to applaud that person on their ability to interact on a common level with members of a different race. The only difference between saying someone is acting _____ and calling them a name (n*gger, w*gger, wannabe, etc.) is that one is more likely than the other to garner the speaker a punch in the mouth.

This is the heart of the argument.

[wring]

seawich when I said "couples tend" I meant couples. all of em, IME, including all variations that I've observed (racial, ethnic, gender, socio-economic etc.)

and I see on preview, Smitty's being taken to task for the 'oh come on now'.

Biggirl lives in NYC, quite the ethnic buffet, as it were. So, no, I don't suspect that she does know what some one else might mean by 'acting black' (especially if they mean the 'gansta' thing, which doesn't really cover anyone except what one sees on gansta rap videos. Hell, my son goes to an inner city school, and it doesn't even fit half of the kids I see there, who are young, black urban males. )

[seawitch]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
<snip> Which is why I don't even like the phrase White.

I agree. When I describe myself as white, it's by default. I look white, and others tend to describe me that way. However, just like most of us, I have a little of everything. Since my family doesn't have a well documented history, I don't know what my background is for certain. I would imagine the same is true for people of all tints. I'm starting to like the Kurt Vonnegut idea of creating artificial, randomly matched clans, just so we can use new labels for a while.

wring - I had assumed you meant all couples. I didn't mean to imply that the example I used was anything more than an illustration of your point. Forgive my poor wording if I implied otherwise.

[Stuffy]

Hey {b]Biggirl[/b] thanks for starting this thread, I absolutely refused to jump in the other one.

Why the acting ___________ is dangerous:

The phrase detracts from the person that the phrase is directed at. It is in fact a value judgement, despite the protest of some dopers.

Lets use myself for an example: (yes I've been accused of acting white:

What does that mean?

Speaking proper english is something blacks are incapable of.

Getting good grades is something blacks are ncapable of.

Owning a nice car ....

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Smitty
There is a saying that goes, "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out."

There is also a saying that goes, "Don't be so closed minded that you can't question your beliefs."

O.K., I made that up, but there really should be a saying like that.


Originally posted by Smitty

I have questioned several dozen people, both black and white, and EVERY SINGLE ONE knew what the phrase "acting white/black" means. An "according to Webster" definition may be difficult, but you can't say that the phrase is meaningless. As I stated in my OP, I too have questioned many people. Many knew what this phrase meant. Or so they thought. I'm not looking for an "according to Webster's" definition. An according to Smitty definition would do for now.


Originally posted by Smitty

You want to say that racism and unfair stereotypes are a bad thing? Fine. I don't hear anybody disagreeing with you. You want to demonstrate the depth of your liberal sensibilities? Good for you. But don't act like you don't know what is meant by this phrase. It is disingenous at best. I did say stereotypes are a bad thing. Do you know what you mean when you utter this phrase? Care to explain?

[Dale The Bold]

It's funny how people walk on eggshells over this issue.

I'm a midwestern farm boy. We have our own way of acting and it probably wouldn't fit in at any urban locations. Nor does an urban personality fit in 'round these parts. The media portrayal of "acting black" usually consists of speaking in "ebonics," wearing the gangsta rap attire, doing that bent wrist-fingers extended "whut up" gesture, and having quirky little sayings. It is a stereotype, just like the "all farm people are stupid, inbred, racist rednecks" crap I have to live with. There were 2 black kids I grew up with and, since they grew up in our tiny hometown, they "act rural." The more correct way of wording the phrase "acting black" would be to say "acting urban/inner city," but not everyone "urban" would fit into that stereotype, either.

Personally, I find it degrading to see blacks portraying that stereotype in the media. It's the same as the stupid redneck (usually southern) white boy stereotype we keep seeing. I'd like to see more shows like the Cosby Show and The Hughleys. Both of those are genuinely good, entertaining shows that don't base themselves on stereotypes about blacks, and they also don't ignore the fact that they are black (in other words, they're not "white" shows with black stars). As funny as Martin Lawrence is, I found his show to be somewhat offensive at times. I guess I could say the same about the Beverly Hillbillies.

[wring]

seawitch not a problem (and thanks for not pointing out spelling your name wrong - I coulda sworn I'd changed it in preview).

[Jodi]

STUFFIN highlighted my biggest problem with it.

Aside from the fact that you really can't look at any one particular characteristic as being "black" or "white," the fact is that stereotypes about "acting black" versus "acting white" are really pernicious. Nobody says "acting black" when they mean something positive. They mean baggy-pant, shambling walk, homeboy talk, or moving you neck, having a bubble butt and long talon nails, if you're a woman. If you see a black person acting professionally or honorably or admirably, you don't say that person is "acting black." And most people don't expect the homeboys and homegirls who do act "black" to be acting professionally or honorably or admirably. You're not "acting black" when you're going to work in a suit. You're "acting black" when you're hanging out on a street corner.

It just reinforces the idea that "black" equals "negative" but "white" equals "positive."

I think BIGGIRL's point is that if she is acting professionally or honorably or admirably, she is "acting black" because she is black. And any other construction on "acting black" denigrates both those who do act black (since that's a negative thing) and those who don't (what are they doing then, acting white?). And I assume that she's asking the rest of you to set out what, precisely, you personally think "acting black" means in order to highlight that it very probably is not going to mean anything positive.

[Milossarian]

There is an unfortunate segment of the black population that views speaking proper English and getting an education as "acting white."*

I certainly hope that is being eradicated.

I couldn't quantify what "acting black" is, but I can say with some degree of certainly that suburban white kids will find whatever it is cool and mimic it quickly.




[sub]* Any of you who doubt the assertion are urged to do a google search on the following words: "blacks acting white when speaking proper English".

[tracer]

seawitch wrote:

I'm standard American white mutt combo. Mr. Seawitch is Mexican-American. Especially in this day and age, it never occurred to me to refer to us as a mixed-race couple.
Well, according to the Year 2000 U.S. Census forms, you're not a mixed-race couple.

On the 2000 U.S. Census form, there was a section for "race," where you had to check white, black, asian, amerindian, etc.. "Hispanic" was conspicuously absent from this list. Below the check-boxes for "race," there was a totally separate yes-no question: "Are you hispanic?".

Both you and Mr. Seawitch would have had to have checked "white" as your race. (Unless Mr. Seawitch is a native-American Mexican-American or something.) The only difference is that he would check "Yes" on the "Are you hispanic?" line, while you would check "No."

[seawitch]

Originally posted by tracer
Well, according to the Year 2000 U.S. Census forms, you're not a mixed-race couple.[/B]

I really had never considered it one way or the other, nor had I noticed the missing census box. (He was stationed overseas when the census was taken.) That's why it came as a shock to me to have someone insult SeaHubby.

I'm not at all trying to say that my one incident is in any way equivalent to lifelong racism that others have been through. But being expected to act "________" and the oft-implied insult that underlies that? It makes no damn sense to me, whether the incident be large or small.

[saudade]

"Hispanic" is no more a "race" than "American"...but once again a lot of what we think about race is in our perceptions.

Anybody who has lived in Mexico, or travelled to different areas there knows that there are Mexicans that are white (esp. in Guadalajara), black (esp. in Veracruz), or very Indian (all over)...but in the Southwest, for the last 150 years, Mexicans have been treated as a racial group, seperate from whites, blacks, or even Indians.

Technically I am a "Latino" even though I am pretty much all white, with maybe an Arab ancestor from 15 generations back. I am half Portuguese from my mom, a fourth German, a fourth Italian from my Brazilian dad...I just say I'm "Brazilian-Portuguese", instead of Latino or anything else.

We look white (I'm usually asked if I am Italian), but we can't fit into the "Anglo" category well, as we have "axé" records, eat bean and rice dishes every 2 days, and get the cops called on us when we argue...and I have a cousin who was arrested in New Jersey for using a chickens for spriritual enlightenment instead of frying 'em up like a Good American.

Are we for real or just acting? Quem sabe...

[shelbo]

Originally posted by Milossarian
There is an unfortunate segment of the black population that views speaking proper English and getting an education as "acting white."*

I certainly hope that is being eradicated.

Shelby Steele, John McWhorter and others have written a great deal about the problems that have arisen, and are continuing, in various black communities because of the fact that scholarly achievement is viewed as a "white" endeavor. They have been roundly criticized in many quarters for their statements, but I think that they at least have a good argument.

As to whether "acting white" or "acting black" really means anything (other than as a fancy way of saying other not so nice words), I agree with the OP. Words are powerful, and the way you use them affects the way you perceive the world. Stereotypes are the lazy way out. I think that part of the problem people have is that it takes a real effort to see stereotypes for what they are. It involves first questioning, and then changing, the way you perceive the world, and that is hard to do. Once you've done it, it's hard to remember that you once perceived the world in a different way. Like the hidden face in a picture, it is hard, initially, to see it. But, once you've seen it, you can't un-see it. This leads to vehement, sometimes angry discussions, because each person so strongly believes their own postion (there is no face there! yes, there is, it's plain to see!). Biggirl's seen the face in the picture, she knows it's there, she wants us to see it too. It's destructive to view the world through stereotypes, and, though it's hard, it's possible to do without them.

[Ooner]

Originally posted by Milossarian
There is an unfortunate segment of the black population that views speaking proper English and getting an education as "acting white."*

I certainly hope that is being eradicated.


Milo, that's always been something that really bothered me too. I can't remember any exact quotes, but Larry Elder (Judge Elder from Moral Court :)) addressed this issue in one of his books. Something like "It's not acting white, it's acting smart."

I don't like to think of cultures or behaviors as solidly tied to race. The idea above of saying acting "urban" seems a little better, but it's still too broad. Maybe we just need a new word for that specific set of behaviors that doesn't reference race. "Ghetto" and "country" seem to be pretty popular terms around here, but I'm sure that some people in those respective places would be offended to hear that. So, does the word I'm looking for exist?

[celestina]

Let me echo stuffinb and thank Biggirl for starting this thread. I must confess that in the other thread SO MUCH was going on I was just getting really confused about what was going on. [sigh]

To answer the OP, one doesn’t act white or black; one acts human.

Ooner, you ask if the word you're looking for to describe cultural/class trends/stereotypes perpetuated by the mass media exists? I would have to say NO. I wonder if we really need one. All stereotypes do is limit folks. Yet they are comfortable because they create for the user an easy way to cram folks into nice neat little packages. The problem is that individuals don't conform well to artificial constructs of behavior that are imposed on them. Yes, some buy into the artificial constructs, and that is a problem because it indicates either a non-critical acceptance of what mass media feeds us that I find frankly frightening, or a fear of accepting, celebrating, and exploring one's individuality. Some folks use the stereotypes to make money. For example, the commodification of gangsta culture is big business now, but they are selling nothing much that has to do with blackness or whiteness, and I really wonder just how much the gangsta rapper image reflects the reality of gangsta life.


The problem with this "acting white/black" business is that it is indicative of the larger problem of cultural identity in America, a country comprised of multiple cultures that really don't interact with each other in any kind of meaningful way nearly as much as they should, YET dichotomizes itself along artificial lines of black and white that to some extent denote the class of whites vs. the class of blacks, or seen another way rich vs. poor. At the heart of the acting black/white business is American uneasiness over the fact that we cannot really define what American culture is. To do that we have to examine some hard truths about the historical oppression and subjugation of one group of folks by another group of folks, for built into the fabric of that history is the prejudice that one group of folks who fit a certain physical appearance is better than another, and the manifestation of this prejudice that resulted in the racist practices of segregation. It's not logical, yet that is how Americans have structured their identities. And this is sadly ironic considering that America has some noble goals for tolerance, freedom, and plurality. The Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents of governance ever written, but we have not really lived up to it, and we won't until we resolve our differences of how we perceive each other. Folks need to get away from the comforting yet unrealistic notions of conformity that stereotypes offer and really look to see folks as the individual human beings that they are. The best way to do that is for folks from one cultural group to get out there, meet, and interact with folks from other cultural groups ON THE OTHER CULTURAL GROUP’S OWN TURF, OR ON NEUTRAL TURF. If you want to get rid of stereotypes, get to know people as human beings, and promote more communications among different cultural groups, then have multicultural neighborhoods. Revise the school curriculum so that it is multicultural on all levels and in all subjects to teach children how the different cultures/nationalities of the world contribute to the body of knowledge we have now. If you’re in college or out on your own, live with someone from a different culture than your own, or do study abroad. We need to stop isolating ourselves and feeding that isolation with stereotypes and challenge ourselves to find our similarities and celebrate our differences. If we do this, we won’t be as likely to get ignorant generalizations of what it’s like to act black, white, yellow, or red. We may actually get productive inquiry into the fascinating and complex socio-cultural dynamics of human interaction.

[Smitty]

Something told me not to get involved in this one...

I didn't mean to imply that the phrases were accurate, or that they weren't based on stereotypical ideas. They obviously are. But to say that the phrase is meaningless is simply not true.

If I say the word "tree", do you get a general idea of what I mean? I may be picturing a pine, while you may be thinking of an oak, but it's not like you have no idea what I mean. Your idea of a generic tree can't possibly encompass every possible tree that exists, and in fact may not correspond to any particular tree. Does that mean that the phrase "I saw a tree" is meaningless? No. It conveys a valid, if not precise, idea.

I'm sorry if it offends your personal beliefs, but it is my experience that there is a general belief by both black and white people that there are differences in generic black and white cultures. Ever watch Def Comedy Jam? The vast majority of comedians base at least part of their routine on some variation of "Ain't it funny the way white people do activity X this way, while black people do it this way?"

If you want to argue that this perception is a bad thing, OK. That wasn't the point I was making. I was merely saying that the language used to make this point is not meaningless, in that it conveys a mutually understandable, if not laser-precise idea.

[rsa]

I think that people here are just talking past each other. I understand the offense that some have with the phrase "acting B/W". I also understand why other folks are saying that denying that such a thing exists is denying the obvious.

Maybe we could agree to use a different terminology. How about this instead:

acting white = acting mainstream or conventional
acting black = acting non-mainstream or unconventional


Of course what is mainstream or conventional would depend on the geographical area being described. Nation wide vs. rural, rural vs. urban, Park avenue vs. South L.A. and so forth.

Or maybe this would be better:

acting white = acting anal
acting black = not acting anal

:)

I know a professional black man who often acts pretty "mainstream". But at an earlier point in his life, he lived in (his words) the most dangerous part of L.A. and was a very, very bad person. Now, sometimes (often after drinking), I would say that he acts non-mainstream. I think this is what people mean by "acting W/B". For those that think that characterization is racist, is my proposed terminology better? If not, what would you propose? Just as some people are "nice" when sober and "jerks" when drunk, I think people are just trying to use "something" to label different behaviors. Or is it just rude to even notice that this one individual exhibits significantly behaviors at different times?

[wring]

Ya know, I, like most folks, 'act differently' depending on the circumstances.

When I'm at a business conference, I can pretty much guarentee I'll be wearing a bra, pro'lly won't say 'fuck' etc. when I'm with my elderly conservative father, I don't talk about sex or politics. When I'm with my 17 year old, he doesn't want to hear about my sex life either. When I'm with my contemporaries in a social setting, the bra's off, I swear and talk about sex and anything else on my mind.

There's no doubt in my mind that folks will act differently in different circumstances. What I object to, is calling one 'acting white' and another 'acting black'.

[bordelond]

Originally posted by Smitty
I'm sorry if it offends your personal beliefs, but it is my experience that there is a general belief by both black and white people that there are differences in generic black and white cultures.

Of course such beliefs exists -- who can deny it?

Smitty is giving you all a snapshot of reality. He's not talking about the way things SHOULD be or the way he WISHES things were. He's talking about the real world that you and I step into every day.

I, for one, do not find a hint of implicit value judgement one way or the other in Smitty's naked observations. I believe it is well possible to NOTICE such things as racist beliefs without internalizing them.

Celestina, I applaud your "broaden one's horizons" suggestion. You have the right idea about this.

[Scylla]

I personally think that all the questions of this thread can be definitively resolved by watching Blazing Saddles.

[vivian]

Originally posted by Smitty
There is a saying that goes, "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out."

I have questioned several dozen people, both black and white, and EVERY SINGLE ONE knew what the phrase "acting white/black" means. An "according to Webster" definition may be difficult, but you can't say that the phrase is meaningless.

You want to say that racism and unfair stereotypes are a bad thing? Fine. I don't hear anybody disagreeing with you. You want to demonstrate the depth of your liberal sensibilities? Good for you. But don't act like you don't know what is meant by this phrase. It is disingenous at best.

i agree with you 100%. i'm afraid to say anything else because it would be deemed racist......

[Shayna]

Since we've been directed over here from the thread in IMHO, I'm going to copy and paste a couple of the posts from there, since replying to those posts without proper reference would appear out of context. The following was originally posted by gooti. Since it's relatively long, I'll make these all separate posts, just as they appear in that thread (with permission from TubaDiva).
Originally posted by gooti
Originally posted by Biggirl

As I've stated repeatedly, I do not understand what is meant by "acting black" and "acting white".

Apart from this, tlw, I understand your point, and I agree that the stereotype is not very accurate. There are enough "black-acting" white people and "white-acting" black people in America to make the phrases a bit redundant. I still feel that the remark was innocently made and that one should not characterise all stereotypes as mere figments of the imagination.

You quoted me and addressed tlw. You say the stereotype is not accurate but believe they are not figments of the imagination. Stereotypes are not figments of anyone's imagination. Stereotypes are very real. People believe them with a steadfastness that is dismaying and downright scary. No one can even describe what they are, the just know what they are....

...Do I seem to be getting a little angry here? It may be me beating my head against this brick wall. Tell me exactly what stereotypes of black people and white people should we believe? Tell me what in the hell acting white is. Tell me what behaviors that I exhibit that will cause me to give in my membership to the blackness club.


For the last time WHAT IN FUCK'S SAKE IS ACTING IN COLOR?

Biggirl,

I'm going to attempt to explain what those of us in concensus mean by "acting black/white", though I honestly think that you know exactly what this means and are being a bit too idealistic, urealistic, and/or naive (just my opinion, of course).

I'm trying to be as objective as I can, so I'm using a textbook for the definitions.

Lets start with defining culture, shall we? According to the sociology book I have before me, culture is:

"...a system of ideas, values, beliefs, knowledge, norms, customs, and technology shared by almost everyone in a particular society."

However, the book goes on to say:

"It is rare to find a society that has a single culture shared equally by all it's members. This could happen only in small, isolated, non-industrial societies. Most societies who share some of the cultural complexes of the larger society yet also have their own distinctive set of cultural complexes. These units of culture are known as subcultures. Although subcultures exist within the confines of a larger culture they also have their own norms, values, and life styles. They often reflect racial or ethnic differences such as those found in , Polish-, Chinese- or African-Americans."

It also goes on to say that other subcultures develop around other unifying categories such as occupation, religion, geography, etc.

Now, as I said before, I'm no scientist, but I'd bet my left tit that if you gathered up 100 representatives from each of the subcultures in America, and recorded specific subcultural data about each of them, you would see definite trends within each group represented. No, you won't get 100% agreement within any of those groups, and no one assumes that you would. But there will be things that distinguish one group from another. The majority in one group might like to wear underwear made out of cotton; the other may prefer yak hair. If you want to call them stereotypes, that's fine. But not every "stereotype" is bad in and of itself. It's all about context.

To me, it would be the same as saying that most (yet not all) African-Americans have dark skin. It's a fact for the majority of us, yet there are some who don't. Cultural trends, preferences, "norms", values, behaviors, etc., can be identified in a similar way. For example, most black people I know (and I know quite a few since I'm black) don't like hard rock music, and prefer R&B/Rap/Gospel or whatever simply becuse it's the culture that was passed on to them. There's nothing wrong with that. Humans are social animals and tend to be influenced by the culture(s) we are familiar and/or comfortable with.

I think what might have put you off about the "acting white/black" thing is that those terms are racial in connotation and are indeed somewhat prejudicial (plus, race is a whole other kettle of fish as it is a societal and not biological construct). But, I also believe that even you in your sweetly feigned ignorance :rolleyes: can acknowledge the existance of the various subcultures mentioned above, plus many more, unless you live in Mongolia where there are 4 people per every 100,000 or so square miles. In which case, I can understand your insistence on homogeny and individualism.

In the context of the above exposition, can you now understand what is meant by "acting white/black" ?

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Shayna
In response to gooti:

I'm not Biggirl, but I would still like to reply to your post.

First of all, make no mistake, there has been no consensus here regarding acting black or white. A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. If even one person dissents, there is no consensus, and clearly more than one person has dissented here.

But to the real meat of your position... Your appeal to authority (the use of an as-yet-unnamed sociology text) doesn't really hold any water for me. First of all, we don't know if the author of that text is someone who holds opinions more likely to match yours or more likely to match Biggirl's. IOW, what is his/her bias? And do you believe everything you read just because someone managed to get a book or study published? How accurate was their data? Under what conditions did they study their group(s)? What groups were chosen to be studied (if any at all)? And why were others eliminated? On what basis did they divide up their "subcultures"? And so and and so on.

Now, what I won't disagree with is that there is such a thing as subcultures that exist within larger cultures of peoples. That can hardly be denied (at least not with a straight face). However, I beg to differ that subcultures can be defined upon racial lines at all.

I'm no scientist, either, but I'd bet my left tit that if you gathered up 100 black physicians and 100 black inner city youth, you'd see two completely different subcultures at work. Please tell me where race has anything to do with it at all. They're all black people, right? According to you, they should share some common subculture that could be easily defined by their norms, values, and life styles. Uhm, I fail to see it. Can you honestly say you do?

Now, grab yourself 100 black physicians and 100 white physicians and I would be willing to bet my other tit that they'd share very similar subcultures - again, without regard to race. Same for 100 inner city blacks and 100 inner city hispanics. I'd say they share the same subculture despite being of different races.

Go to Jazz club in whatever city you live in and, according to you, the patrons would be predominantly black. Go to a Jazz club where I grew up (St. Louis - which does happen to have quite a large black community) and go to "the" neighborhood that embodies St. Louis Jazz (Soulard, for those in the know) and you will find the patrons in those clubs to be predominantly white (at least it was when I used to hang out there when I still lived in The Home of The Blues). So should I jump to the (obviously erroneous) conclusion that because most Jazz patrons I saw were white, that the love of Jazz is a part of some white "subculture"?

So no, I don't agree at all that it follows that "if you gathered up 100 representatives from each of the subcultures in America, and recorded specific subcultural data about each of them, [and you saw] definite trends within each group represented", that those trends would ever be divided up based on race, and particularly not on race alone.

Besides, the most ridiculous part of that whole presumption is that it would be possible for one to define what, exactly, "each of the subcultures in America" even are. What are they?

No, I'm sorry, you have not only not convinced me, you've actually strengthened my opposition to such notions.

[Shayna]

Originally posted by gooti
OK Shayna, it's late, I'm tired and I'm getting a headache...I hope this clears things up.


In response to gooti:

I'm not Biggirl, but I would still like to reply to your post.

First of all, make no mistake, there has been no consensus here regarding acting black or white. A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. If even one person dissents, there is no consensus, and clearly more than one person has dissented here.

Well.....I don't know what dictionary you use, but, the Webstster's New World Dictionary defines consensus as:
1)"an opinion held by all or most or 2)general agreement esp. in opinion"

But to the real meat of your position... Your appeal to authority (the use of an as-yet-unnamed sociology text) doesn't really hold any water for me. First of all, we don't know if the author of that text is someone who holds opinions more likely to match yours or more likely to match Biggirl's. IOW, what is his/her bias? And do you believe everything you read just because someone managed to get a book or study published? How accurate was their data? Under what conditions did they study their group(s)? What groups were chosen to be studied (if any at all)? And why were others eliminated? On what basis did they divide up their "subcultures"? And so and and so on.

Like I said, it is a textbook. A book used to teach college students about introductory sociology at the University of Georgia and U. of Pennsylvania. The exact name of it is Sociology: an Introduction by J. Ross Eshelman; Barbara G. Cashon and Laurence A. Bashirico[/b]. ISBN # 0-673-39718-1. It was my future sister-in-law's former textbook(UGA) who passed it along to my bf(U. of Penn.)...however, I had the same text in my sociology class at Mercer University in Macon, GA. So, I assume it is a generaly recognized text which teaches generally recognized information since it has been used in two public schools and a private school in two different states.


Now, what I won't disagree with is that there is such a thing as subcultures that exist within larger cultures of peoples. That can hardly be denied (at least not with a straight face). However, I beg to differ that subcultures can be defined upon racial lines at all.

As I said before, "race" is a dubious social distinction and generally not not assumed by biologists to be biologically based at all. However, there are times that "race" and subculture do overlap. If you need an example, just ask.

I'm no scientist, either, but I'd bet my left tit that if you gathered up 100 black physicians and 100 black inner city youth, you'd see two completely different subcultures at work. Please tell me where race has anything to do with it at all. They're all black people, right? According to you, they should share some common subculture that could be easily defined by their norms, values, and life styles. Uhm, I fail to see it. Can you honestly say you do?


Now, grab yourself 100 black physicians and 100 white physicians and I would be willing to bet my other tit that they'd share very similar subcultures - again, without regard to race. Same for 100 inner city blacks and 100 inner city hispanics. I'd say they share the same subculture despite being of different races.

As I said previously, according to my understanding, occupations can be a subculture within themselves. So, the physician thing doesn't wash - because it is, in itself, a separate subculture that usually takes precedence (according to the Hippocratic Oath) to the subcultures to which the physicians once belonged. Physicians are one subculture...lawyers are another...plain ol' blue collar, working class black folk are another because they typically (again, not 100%) have more in common with each other because of their economic status than they do with physicians or lawyers.


Go to Jazz club in whatever city you live in and, according to you, the patrons would be predominantly black. Go to a Jazz club where I grew up (St. Louis - which does happen to have quite a large black community) and go to "the" neighborhood that embodies St. Louis Jazz (Soulard, for those in the know) and you will find the patrons in those clubs to be predominantly white (at least it was when I used to hang out there when I still lived in The Home of The Blues). So should I jump to the (obviously erroneous) conclusion that because most Jazz patrons I saw were white, that the love of Jazz is a part of some white "subculture"?

I apologize...I forgot to say that the above mentioned suspect text also said that cultures can and do change over time. Talk to Wynton Marsalis and he will tell you emphatically that jazz was originally a musical art form that African-Americans invented/created and appreciated once upon a time. Any ethnoomusicologist will tell you that, white or black. However, over time, more caucasians have begun to appreciate jazz than blacks because it doesn't speak to the immediate concerns of modern day "black" culture as well as hip-hop or other forms of modern music does. One is no better than the other...times have just changed. BTW, I live in Atlanta...one of the largest, predominantly black major cities in the country, and when I go to jazz clubs (which I do quite often since I'm a musician and singer also) there are usually more white ppl than black ppl there.


So no, I don't agree at all that it follows that "if you gathered up 100 representatives from each of the subcultures in America, and recorded specific subcultural data about each of them, [and you saw] definite trends within each group represented", that those trends would ever be divided up based on race, and particularly not on race alone.

You misunderstand me...I'm not saying that the only divisions are along racial lines...they are along the lines that we as humans divide ourselves along. We tend to separate ourselves within categories because of comfort and familiarity (racial and otherwise). Whether it be race, gender, sexuality, occupation (physicians), preferences(jazz music), height, weight or whatever. And that most, (not all) of the time, those divisions are defined by identifying with people that look, act, breathe, walk, talk, etc., like what we are comfortable with and identify with.

Besides, the most ridiculous part of that whole presumption is that it would be possible for one to define what, exactly, "each of the subcultures in America" even are. What are they?

Once again, unless you too have been crashing in Mongolia your whole life, there are many: i.e Polish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, German-Americans Japanese-Americans, Inuit-Americans, Afghani-Americans, and (OH MY GOD!) :eek: African-Americans. Of course this is not an exhaustive list; it would be a waste of all of our time to try and list all of them here because you pretend not to know what they are.

So, you are denying the indentity of the people in Chinatown (most notably in San Francisco and New York) who are Chinese-Americans and have their own culture and traditions and celebrate the New Year on a different day than most Americans do? Are you denying the identity of the Muslim-American women who wear the hijab in accordance with their traditional interpretation of the Koran? Are you denying the identity of the Jewish-Americans who celebrate the recently observed Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur? Cultural norms are a fact, my dear, and unless you are a cultural elitist, they are nothing to be ashamed about or to deny.And now we're where we left off over there. I will be composing my reply to this shortly...

[rsa]

Originally posted by wring
Ya know, I, like most folks, 'act differently' depending on the circumstances.

When I'm at a business conference, I can pretty much guarentee I'll be wearing a bra, pro'lly won't say 'fuck' etc. when I'm with my elderly conservative father, I don't talk about sex or politics. When I'm with my 17 year old, he doesn't want to hear about my sex life either. When I'm with my contemporaries in a social setting, the bra's off, I swear and talk about sex and anything else on my mind.

There's no doubt in my mind that folks will act differently in different circumstances. What I object to, is calling one 'acting white' and another 'acting black'.

I think this is getting to the heart of the matter. wring would quite rightly object to having the different behaviors she described as "acting proper" versus "acting slutty" (not that anything she described is actually "slutty"). I think the people that are defending "acting black" may be thinking that there is no bad connotation to "being" black, so why should "acting" black be considered offensive. OTOH, "acting black" is implying a stereotype (or at least a generalization).

After thinking about it, I realized that I would never actually say "acting black" myself. In the case of my black buddy that I described in an earlier post, I would probably describe his behavior as "acting like he was back in L.A.". That's probably a bit more factual and doesn't imply a stereotype of black people or even black people in L.A. It is describing his usual behavior when he was in L.A.

So I come down on the side of the those who think that people shouldn't say "acting black" since I wouldn't say that IRL. Having said that, using it as a shorthand in a thread called "Ask the Black Woman" is not something I would feel the need to call someone on, as long as the poster was clearly using it as shorthand and wasn't implying any negative connotations.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

[saudade]

Before these particular threads, I scoffed at people who said "African-American" instead of "black" as PC.

Now I think it should be used more often. Now it can be misused, as a film reviewer I once saw who called (the British) Thandie Newton a "wonderful African-American actress".

But if I said "someone speaks in an African-American manner". Would that make me accurate from people who say " someone talks black"?
Or would I be just a more polite bigot?

[tracer]

Ooner wrote:

Maybe we just need a new word for that specific set of behaviors that doesn't reference race. "Ghetto" and "country" seem to be pretty popular terms around here, but I'm sure that some people in those respective places would be offended to hear that.
Especially since "ghetto" was the term for the concentration-camp-like cities that the Nazis herded many of the Jews into prior to World War 2.

[Shayna]

DADGUMMIT! I had almost my whole reply composed and this stupid computer lost the browser window. And now my boss is here demanding my attention (how dare he make me work at work! ;)), so I will have to come back later and reply. <sigh>


___________________
I really appreciate your consideration in avoiding stepping on my penis - Spiny Norman
Jeg elsker dig, Thomas

[Biggirl]

Let see if I can clarify my question.

When someone says a person is "acting black" what is this a shorthand for? When vivian said white people who date black people "start acting black", what particular set of behaviors is she talking about? (I did ask her and she told me like a character in a T.V. show).

Smitty said that I was being disingenous because "we all know" what acting black is, but he still did not describe what these behaviors are. Is Smitty's "acting black" the same as vivian's "acting black"?


People tell me I sound white. I do not sound white. I have a distinct black/spanish/NY accent. I use the verb "be" to mean an action that has happened and continues to happen on a regular basis.

"Don't be following me." Means don't come out for a cigarrette break every time I come out for a cigarette break. I speak like this. This is a distinctive American Black usage. And yet many, many people (both black and white) tell me I talk "white". Why?


gooti, do you think your definition of acting black (the most thought out one I've heard so far) is the same as nickc's. (Lots of baggie clothes, dripping diamonds and jewlery, smoking blunts and drinking 40s).

When someone says "he was acting black" to me, I honestly do not know what they mean. And I think many times even the person saying it doesn't know what they mean.

[delphica]

I have to chime in the side of "acting black" is meaningless. I understand (I think) why some people are asserting that it has meaning -- it's certainly something that people say, I've come across it in person and in the media, I'm not claiming that the phrase doesn't exist.

It is not meaningless in the sense that "sgkjhgdoifu slf gjucvb" is meaningless -- I know what "act" means, and I know what "black" means.

But, I think this phrase is meaningless in the sense that it seems to mean different things to different people, and thus it's not a very useful tool for conveying any sort of clear concept. I would compare this to the often mocked response of "fine" to the question "how are you doing?" Fine doesn't really convey a heck of a lot of information, and could mean anything from "ok" to "horrible, but I don't want to talk about it" to "I'm not really listening to you, so I'll say fine and hope you will let me get back to my book."

How can one phrase have so many interpretations? Because it is void of any actual information or substance.

[sqweels]

if you gathered up 100 black physicians and 100 black inner city youth...

If you randomly gathered up 100 blacks, there would probably be a lot more inner city youth than physicians. If you placed them in a natural setting and let them interact, a number of mannerisms would emerge that you could identify. Not all the members would display these, yet they would be prevelent enough to be representative.

Part of the problem is that we're talking about acting "black" for want of a better term. It's too broad. There are plenty of blacks who don't act ""black"" and yet don't lack for authenticity as members of that racial group. But I think "hip-hop" or "gangsta" are too narrow. We just need to maintain the assumption in this context that the term "black" is being held rather loosely in it's use as a label applying to the set of mannerisms in question.

[rsa]

Originally posted by Biggirl
When someone says a person is "acting black" what is this a shorthand for? When vivian said white people who date black people "start acting black", what particular set of behaviors is she talking about? (I did ask her and she told me like a character in a T.V. show).

Here is the way I read that statement. Some white people who date black people start emulating the mannerisms and behaviors of their black SO (and perhaps friends, if they share certain mannerisms/behaviors). I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt when interpreting a statement, until they show me that I shouldn't.


People tell me I sound white. I do not sound white. I have a distinct black/spanish/NY accent. I use the verb "be" to mean an action that has happened and continues to happen on a regular basis.

"Don't be following me." Means don't come out for a cigarrette break every time I come out for a cigarette break. I speak like this. This is a distinctive American Black usage. And yet many, many people (both black and white) tell me I talk "white". Why?

I'm totally confused. You don't accept that "acting black" has meaning, but you cheerfully accept that "sounding black" has some meaning?

[Biggirl]

Americans speak in dialects. A whole bunch of them. They are regional (for the most part-- the ones that are not regional were at one point. The speakers dispersed but kept distinctive features of their regional speech. AAVE is an example of these.)

I sound like a black/Puerto Rican New Yorker. I have AAVE features in my speech. I do not sound like a black Californian, however and a black Californian would sound more like a white Californian than he would a black New Yorker.

Yet I hear that I don't talk black. Speech is the most definable "black" characteristic I've come across, but regional accents are not how anyone I've met has defined "talking black".

Cultures and sub-cultures have their own lingo and slang. If someone told me "You don't sound street." I would understand. I do not understand "You don't sound black" because here, where some form of "blackness" can be quantifiable, it is obviously ignored.

[gobear]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the effect of class, rather than race, on stereotyped behavior. When somebody talks about "acting black," they're talking about the behavior associated with poor blacks. When somebody talks about "acting white," they're talking about behavior associated with upper middle class whites. Living in trailer parks, dipping snuff, saying "ain't", wearing coyboy boots and rodeo shirts, listening to Merle Haggard, and watching fishing shows are all done by white people, but that's not what people mean when they say somebody acts white.

[Shayna]

Ok, I'm going to try this again.

gooti, the dictionary I used was The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company,, which defines consensus as, "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." And that's where it leaves the definition - with no room for even so much as one dissenting voice amongst the group.

And actually this really illustrates my point about using reference books as the be all and end all of supposed facts. There are often different versions, different theories and different conclusions that can be found in different sources regarding the same information. Just because something is written in one particular source material, doesn't make it so.

With regard to the sociology text you quoted, I can say this; school text books have been found over and over and over again to contain misinformation and inaccuracies. Just because the particular text you learned from was used in several schools, doesn't make it correct.

I have no idea when that book was first published, so I won't deny that socioligists at one time might have thought that subcultures could be divided into racial groups. Even if that were ever true, it most certainly isn't today - especially now that we are no longer even defining "race" in the way that it was once perceived. While the text may present itself as "generally recognized information," that still doesn't make it right. It used to be generally recognized that blacks were inferior to whites. Hardly makes it true.

Obviously I agree that occupations can be a subculture within themselves, which is why I used them as an example. However, when you define subcultures as sharing norms, values, and life styles, you can never, ever make race a subculture for this very reason! NO race (gah - I hate that word, but it's the way the book referenced it, so I have to go with it here) shares all norms, values, and life styles within it. None. Ever. Period. That make their entire premise nothing short of a crock of hooey.

And no, I didn't misunderstand you. I never assumed you meant that subcultures can only be divided along racial lines. However, you do contend that they can be divided along racial lines and I say they cannot.

And I don't say this because I've been crashing in Mongolia my whole life, nor do I "pretend" not to know what any of the subcultures that exist in the U.S. are. You are the one that suggested we "gather up 100 representatives from each of the subcultures in America," to which I replied that we couldn't possibly define each one - there are simply too many to count. I apologize if that wasn't clear to you in my original reply.

I am also not denying anybody their identity. Where you get off claiming that, I'll never know. What I'm saying is that black people "identify" with other black people based on a lot of things that only sometimes include race, but most often include things like socio-economic status, geographic location, education, common interests and goals, etc.

And since you brought it up specifically, I'll expand on the ridiculous notion that I'd be "denying the identity of the Jewish-Americans who celebrated the recently observed Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur." I am Jewish. I just celebrated those holidays. However, I cannot say that I "identify" with every other Jew in America as a Jew, because I don't. An orthodox Jew is as foreign to me as a Muslim. I completely don't relate to the concept of putting women in the back of the synagogue behind a partition (and yes, that is still done today - perhaps not in the U.S (though, perhaps so, I don't know) - but it certainly was the practice when I visited an orthodox synagogue in Israel). I cannot relate to keeping two entirely separate sets of dishes in my kitchen, not turning lights on and off on shabbos and covering my hair in public. So, if you want to define the "Jewish subculture" by those terms, I definitely don't identify. That hardly means I'm denying anyone their right to identify with that particular subset of Jews. I'm just not one of them. So if you were to say to me, "You're acting Jewish," I'd want to know just what the heck you mean!

I'm sure there are many Chinese-Americans who equally cannot relate to the subculture that exists in the Chinatowns of our society, as well. Same goes for Italian-Americans and every other kind of American, be they Jewish, Irish, Polish or black.

Simply put, there is no black subculture because, by your definition, not all black Americans share the same norms, values, and life styles. I should think this would be a very simple concept to grasp and I'm stunned by the fact that you are failing to do so.

To those who claim that when we say there's no such thing as "acting black," we're purposefully ignoring the meaning behind it because we "know" what is meant by that, I will flat out deny that. Yes, I know exactly what you mean. But you don't mean what you think you mean. (hang on, I'm having a Princess Bride moment :).)

I'm fully aware that what you mean when you say someone's "acting black" is that they're acting in a way that you perceive black people to act. But because all black people don't act that way (hell, not even a majority of them), making a blanket statement like that is completely false. There is no such thing. Just because there has come to be a (somewhat) universal understanding of what one means when they say it, doesn't bring validity to the statement.

Stereotyping is dangerous. It leads to people making false presumptions about people based on completely irrelevant things (like the color of their skin or the religion they practice). It would be really nice if those of you who think that there is a way to "act black" would stop for a second and think about how harmful that notion is. Throw those thoughts out just like we did with the thought that whites were better than blacks. We should all know better by now.

[Jodi]

GOBEAR --

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the effect of class, rather than race, on stereotyped behavior. When somebody talks about "acting black," they're talking about the behavior associated with poor blacks. When somebody talks about "acting white," they're talking about behavior associated with upper middle class whites.

I assume you mean "nobody" except me? ;) This was my point. "Acting black" is hangin' with the homies in the 'hood. "Acting white" is working for "the man," getting a lot of education, and wearing a suit. I don't understand why people will not just admit that "black," when used in the context of "acting black," generally means "poor and ignorant," while "white," as in "acting white," means "rich and smart." Why the heck would anyone want to perpetuate such stereotypes?

I have never heard a black person talk about another black person as "acting white" and mean it as a compliment. No, it means being an ass-kisser. I have never heard a white person talk about another white person as "acting black" and mean it as a compliment. No, it means acting thuggish and ignorant. Do maintain that such stereotypes have any practical validity demeans both whites and blacks.

VIVIAN --

i agree with you 100%. i'm afraid to say anything else because it would be deemed racist......

Ah, yes, poor picked-on VIVIAN, who is called a racist when she . . . well, when she posts racist dreck (see thread in IMHO for clarification). This is very simple: Don't say stupid racist things and you will not be accused of racism. Say stupid racist things and you will be called on it. Every. Single. Time. And I would you that that you have not denied being a racist, so it seems funny you'd bother to act injured if someone points out that you are.

[SuaSponte]

Many moons ago, I was at a friend's place for a party. The TV was on, and at one point Jasmine Guy (for the (hopefully large majority) who don't know who she is, she was the snooty one on "A Different World") appeared on screen. Tom, a white suburban boy at the party, saw her and sniffed, "Oh, I hate her. She's not really black."

Of course, I pounced. The argument raged for over an hour, with the guy flailing stereotype after stereotype at me. Finally, I pulled out my secret weapon. I turned to my friend Stefan and said, "do you mind?" Stefan said, "Go ahead." I turned to Tom and said, "What race is Stefan?"

Tom did a fantastic Dan Quayle deer-in-the-headlights impersonation. If you haven't guessed, Stefan, while looking largely white, had a white father and black mother.
Sure, I'm petty, but I loved it.

Sua

[celestina]

_____
bordelond said:
"Celestina, I applaud your "broaden one's horizons" suggestion. You have the right idea about this."
_____

Thank you, dear. :)

[Lamia]

Originally posted by saudade
Before these particular threads, I scoffed at people who said "African-American" instead of "black" as PC.

Now I think it should be used more often. Now it can be misused, as a film reviewer I once saw who called (the British) Thandie Newton a "wonderful African-American actress".

But if I said "someone speaks in an African-American manner". Would that make me accurate from people who say " someone talks black"?
Or would I be just a more polite bigot?

I don't know that "speaks in an African-American manner" is really any better than "talks black", but I think you're on the right track with the African-American/black distinction. As my old Jamaican roommate once said, "We're all black, but they're African-American." While it is rather simplistic to act as if all African-Americans share a similar culture, it's far less foolish than acting as if all dark-skinned people all over the world share a similar culture!

[Eternal]

Having ethical points of view is a great thing but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Stereotypes suck, but mankind will NEVER, EVER be able to stop using them -not because they're just simply embedded in our culture, but because human beings associate things with other things.
-Why do you think we have stereotypes to begin with? Just because some bloke decided to start a rumor that all blacks, or urban blacks, or "gangsta" blacks, talk the same?
-Say the guy wants to spread the stereotype around his neighborhood. People don't just trust what he says -but if they've never seen an example to the contrary, as numerous as they will often be, they will nevertheless apply that description when they think about how a black person (of a certain variety )is supposed to talk.
-And the mind can alter what we have been told, deleting for the sake of simplicity terms like "but not always"

The subconsious is a dangerous thing. People are not logical. Until we all have implants in our head to stop us from jumping to conclusions, we usually well. That's my stereotype of people which I think has a high accuracy.