[QUOTE=whole bean]
really? there’s nothing “southern” about him either.
[/QUOTE]
When he delivers a speech, he uses the same pacing, inflection, and rhythm that you’d see in a black church. Nothing about the way he talks says “white” to me.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
:mad: It sure is, but that’s not what you said.
[/QUOTE]
My bad, I didn’t mean to do that. The “showing characteristics of” is critical here then? In other words, being a nerd show-off?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
When he delivers a speech, he uses the same pacing, inflection, and rhythm that you’d see in a black church. Nothing about the way he talks says “white” to me.
[/QUOTE]
yeah, see, the time I saw him in person, it felt forced. YMObviouslyV
[QUOTE=whole bean]
according to the OP, 'geeky, nerdy" is “acting white.”
[/QUOTE]
Actually I said “dorky”, and some hardcore lexicographers will argue a difference between all three (link is to a google search of all three terms that bring up plenty of discussions about the difference between the terms. The consensus you’ll find is that dork is exclusively a harsh pejorative, unlike the other two).
[QUOTE=whole bean]
yeah, see, the time I saw him in person, it felt forced. YMObviouslyV
[/QUOTE]
First time I saw him was during the Democratic Convention in '04 and I kept waiting for someone in the audience to yell “amen”.
Black people say skreet instead of street? Maybe that’s regional. Like ‘ax’ for ask as opposed to ‘ast’.
One thing I know for sure-- language is slippery.
[QUOTE=whole bean]
My bad, I didn’t mean to do that. The “showing characteristics of” is critical here then?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Not “show-off”, but just behaving like an archetype of an educated person - ex. using a large vocabulary with a prestige dialect, or at least no strong regional accent. Or wearing clothes that fit with subtle colors and design. In fact, showing off is a characteristic antithetical to that of an educated persona.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
Yeech - you call it “reading one’s audience”, I call it talking down to people.
[/QUOTE]
Slight hijack here.
It’s not a racist thing, but it’s class-ist, so maybe the fact there’s a differentiation makes it belong here.
In a prior job, I was a public speaker (presented insurance plans to clients). We had a whole range of clients, from blue-collar factories (I think you know where I’m going here) to wingtip law firms.
When I presented the same benefit plan to both types of client, do you think I used the same tone and language? Not necessarily, and it wasn’t about “talking down” to the blue-collar folks.
When I presented to the law firms, I was very careful to speak properly, fully using my (pretty large) vocabulary. It was an issue of not giving them a reson to doubt what I was saying. If I were to come out of the gate with grammatical errors, there would be a subconcious (and concious, for others) tune-out.
When I spoke to the blue-collar groups, I used more humor, and made sure I wasn’t flowery at all. The usual attendant at those presentations was more interested in what he could relay to his wife (sorry, but it’s true…wives usually make benefits decisions…usually.). Therefore, I kept it very simple, and put the more detailed stuff in the handouts.
Was I being condecending? Absoutely not. Knowing your audience is a necessary piece of being a good presenter.
I also personally think knowing your audience is a pretty big chunk of being a good conversationalist, teammate, co-worker, and friend.
-Cem
FTR, I was responding directly to a poster who said he switches speech patterns for white and black audiences of the same educational level. I’m against any behavioral expectations based on race, particularly for blacks since as a rule they’re ultimately negative (edit: unless it’s based on something physical like hair or skin).
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
FTRI’m against any behavioral expectations based on race, particularly for blacks since as a rule they’re ultimately negative (edit: unless it’s based on something physical like hair or skin).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t get this. Can you explain?
Do you think blacks tend to relate to one another differently than whites do?
I don’t get why you think “behavioral expectations” are negative for black people. Seems like what you’re saying is white = right, but correct me if I’m wrong.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
I don’t get this. Can you explain?
Do you think blacks tend to relate to one another differently than whites do?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily so, and I’d resent anyone expecting me to relate to anyone in any certain way solely based on my race.
I’m saying just about every expectation for (i.e. stereotype about) blacks is negative - but I don’t get how that’s the same as saying white = right.
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
“Just because you want to spend your life sounding like ignorant assholes, doesn’t mean you can bring my kid down with you. If you really want to play this stupid game: You think he’s sounds like a “Poindexter”? Well, I think you sound like Welfare Queens.”
It really annoys me when black people think that in order to “be black” you have to talk like an idiot.
[/QUOTE]
WOOO! PREACH IT, SISTER! [raises clenched fist, fingers curled around a Bachelor’s Degree]
Seriously, I also hate dumbed-down vocabularies in the name of conformity, and I’ve used words like “tally-ho” and “promulgate” in conversation. What screwed me up academically for a long time wasn’t ridicule from my peers, though, but good old laziness.
“Where you at?”… brrrrrr.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
Actually I said “dorky”, and some hardcore lexicographers will argue a difference between all three (link is to a google search of all three terms that bring up plenty of discussions about the difference between the terms. The consensus you’ll find is that dork is exclusively a harsh pejorative, unlike the other two).
[/QUOTE]
eh, for our purposes here I think they’re close enough to being synonymous. setting hard and fast definitions for slang is slippery territory
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
Not necessarily so, and I’d resent anyone expecting me to relate to anyone in any certain way solely based on my race.
[/quote]
That’s understandable. When you’re relating to individuals that you’ve had no prior contact with, you need to treat them as such. That’s not the same thing as code switching between two different environments that (history has told you) do not communicate the same way.
Because we’re not talking about stereotypes. Not all expectations are based on stereotypes. When I mark Tavis Smiley as “sounding black” that recognition is not based on a stereotype. It’s based on an awareness that, due to cultural differences, blacks as a group use certain communications styles that whites do not. Tavis uses such a style.
What Hippy is saying is that he employs a “black” style when communicating with others who use that particular style. That’s the essence of code switching, and it’s not about dumbing anything down. Honestly, the only way I could see why anyone would think that it is is if they equate black communication styles with automatically sounding uneducated, which is why white = right popped into my head.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
using a large vocabulary with a prestige dialect, or at least no strong regional accent . . . wearing clothes that fit with subtle colors and design.
[/QUOTE]
this is “acting white,” then in your book, or at least an example of it?
I am really confused here. You got emoticon red-faced with me when I equated “being educated” with being “academically succesful” and suggested that you had said “being educated” was sometimes referred to as “acting white,” when you were actually referencing “displaying characterisitcs of being educated” which is not exactly synonymous with being “academically succesful” depending on how you interpret “displaying characterisitcs of.” Let me clear my earlier statement up, by “displaying characteristsics of,” I meant “acting,” such that I have heard the “acting white” used in the context of a black person “acting well educated.” Is consistent with ways that you’ve heard the phrase used? Do you think it’s bad for a black person to “act white” in this sense?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
First time I saw him was during the Democratic Convention in '04 and I kept waiting for someone in the audience to yell “amen”.
[/QUOTE]
yeah, I know, which magnified my disappoinment. I know Atlanta was a courtesy stop/friendly audience, a blue city in a red state.
I agree with the OP. It is a pet peeve of mine that there is a myth out there that blacks look down on intelligent blacks for ‘acting white’. Never happened in my school. Kids were teased for poor reading skills and other signs of not being smart.
It is a myth, pure and simple, and it needs to be debunked.
There were things that would get one accused of ‘acting white’. But it had nothing to do with intelligence. It had nothing to do with speaking English properly. It was more the style in which it was spoken.
Malcom X spoke English well, but he would never be accused of “acting white”.
[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
There’s a cool way of speaking (an affected bassiness with a barking cadence and heavy, up-to-the-second slang, frex), and an uncool way (a nasal intonation with relatively precise enunciation and a moderate pace, perhaps).
[/QUOTE]
Is this one of the ways one volunteers to be a member of the underclass?
[QUOTE=whole bean]
this is “acting white,” then in your book, or at least an example of it?
[/QUOTE]
An example - I don’t use “acting white” in my book.
Mmm… I don’t know, “displaying the characteristics of being well educated” feels more precise, for some reason.
Of course not.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
What Hippy is saying is that he employs a “black” style when communicating with others who use that particular style. That’s the essence of code switching, and it’s not about dumbing anything down.
[/QUOTE]
Then what’s the point switching styles in the first place?