My guess is that it’s probably a little of both. Names you’ve never heard before, for the most part, probably have no origin. I’d never heard the name “Tristan” until about 5 years ago, but the name has origins and is at east as old as the 12th century legend. I also had never heard “LaDanian” until the football player…but, my assumption, is that there is really no origin. His parents liked it and went with it.
As far as the tribal thing goes, there are probably tons of tribal names we’ve never heard of. They probably opened a book or went to a baby name site, and put their own personal spin on it. I’m in my early 20s and a few of the little girls who I went to church (black Southern Baptist) when I was little were named Keesha, Nakisha and Natasha, which I believe is Russian. Those were the basics. As years passed, the “Na-” and the “-sha” or “-tasha” stuck around and different syllables were attached to them. “Latasha,” “Tanasha,” etc. This was in the mid to late 80s. 20 years later, you can see all of the variations.
I understand now what you meant by ridiculous. I hope my guess helped out with the origin part of your question. I do, also, feel it’s unfair to give your kid a name that will get them crap, but my guess is having an unusual name that your parents made up in a place with such a high population of black people like DC is the norm. And maybe people expect to come across a black person with a seemingly origin-lacking name.
Not to harp on the old “we all make assumptions based on blah blah,” but we’re essentially still on the old group animal model being wary of non-ingroup animals. I mean, come on-- a guy comes into an interview with a tie that doesn’t match his shirt (like REALLY doesn’t match his shirt), and the interviewer probably isn’t sitting there wondering if the guy perceives colors differently than the rest of us; she’s probably thinking that if he can’t get in line with the rest of society and distinguish matching colors from ones that don’t match, what else is he missing: social skills, a willingness to conform, etc?
My guess is that if people had tribal names it would be LESS weird (once the fact that they were tribal came into the social consciousness, which may or may not ever happen) than names simply made up. To me, Kwame sounds much much much less odd than LeShawn. The latter sounds like a really uncreative person liked the name Shawn, but then wanted to be different and so just stuck something on it.
So in the same way that (some) parents won’t let their kids leave the house with red pants and a blue shirt (or whatever-- I’m not good at matching or unmatching colors, apparently), some parents are concerned with the conformity of their child’s name. It sucks to a certain extent, but there it is, at least for now.
Serious question: Is it stranger to have a boy named LeShawn, or a boy named Sue?
This is such a laughable canard. The whole point of a stereotype is that it is a wholesale blanket assumption, so if you’re not going to accept it in that capacity, it’s no differrent than a totally random assumption that may or not be true for any random individual. Saying a stereotype has “some validity” is a completely meaningless statement. It’s either a valid tool for making generalized judgements or it’s not.
These ‘ridiculous’ names, at least those which survive, will become familiar to the ears of generations to come. They’re intrinsically no more ridiculous than any other name.
Here’s the poet John Milton commenting on how ridiculous-sounding Scottish names have acclimatized themselves to English ears:
… Why is it harder, Sirs, than Gordon,
Colkitto or MacDonnel or Galasp?
Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek
Which would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.
From Sonnet, On the Detraction Which Followed upon My Writing Certain Treatises
The validity of a stereotype or generalization* as applied to a group is an entirely different matter than its validity as applied to a specific individual. It’s a given that what may be a reasonably valid statement about a group may or may not be true for a particular member of that group. However, as someone whose livelihood involves making judgments about individuals based in part on data on groups of people with similar characteristics, the concept of validity as a binary distinction (i.e., either true or false) is limited in its usefulness. It’s about probabilities, not absolutes.
*Not synonymous terms, by the way. I know you didn’t say that they were, but so many people use them in that way (and it bugs me so much when they do!) that I feel compelled to point this out at the risk of being pedantic.
When I moved to Spain, I was surprised at some of the names people went by:
Inmaculada
Prudencia
Concepcion
Adoracion
Ascención
Encarnación
Pastor
Piedad (piety)
Visitacion
Most of these should be obvious to an English speaker, with a little bible knowledge. However, a Concepcion, almost always going by the nickname Concha, will not think that she’s a walking conception, anymore than an American named Baker thinks he comes from a long line of bread makers. It’s just a name, but to my foreign ears and mind, it sounded cruel, banal and overly religious.
Of course, my own name is a swedified version of Peter, so…
If the made up names created by lower income, poorly educated blacks make people wonder about the capabilities of the person, what kind of impression do these names give?
Fifi Trixibelle (Paula Yates and Bob Geldof)
Moon Unit (Frank and Gail Zappa)
Apple (Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin)
Satchel (Mia Farrow and Woody Allen)
Peaches (Paula Yates and Bob Geldof)
Tiger Lily Heavenly Hirani (Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence)
Maddox (adopted by Angelina Jolie)
Dweezil (Frank/Gail Zappa)
Brooklyn (Victoria/David Beckham)
Zowie (Angie and David Bowie)
Phoenix Chi (Mel C and Jimmy Gulzar)
Banjo (Patrick and Rachel Griffiths)
Cosima (Nigella Lawson)
Daisy Boo (Jamie Oliver)
Dexter (Diane Keaton)
Racer, Rebel, Rocket (Robert Rodriguez)
Willow (Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith)
Zola (Eddie Murphy)
Moxie CrimeFighter (Penn Gillette)
Kal El (Nicolas Cage)
All of those give me the impression of wealthy parents with little regard for “normal” names, who expect their children either won’t need to be taken seriously, or will be given extra consideration because of their parentage. My gut impression would be that the person bearing the name would be more likely than average to be spoiled and lazy and feel entitled to extra consideration, whether it be additional time on a homework assignment, or extra days off work for “stress”.
If all had *identical *resumes, I’d hire a Maria before I hired either a Laquisha or a Trixiebelle.
Wait: “Willow”? When did “Willow” become weird?
So celebrity names give the impression of excess, entitlement and being spoiled, “tribal” sounding names give the impression of ignorance and poor work ethic and “redneck” sounding names like Bubba, Cletus and Jethro give the impression of a backwards, uneducated hick. I know that these are really just first impressions and we are not supposed to judge a book by its cover and a rose by any other name, etc, etc. But the reality is that white people are the racial majority in America and that for the past 100 years the most popular baby names have rarely appeared “ethnic”. Any name outside of the “norm” is guaranteed to attract attention, not all of it wanted.
And maybe 15 or 20 years ago you’d have considered Jamal, Marcus, and Dwayne to be weird names. Jamal? Isn’t that foreign or something? Marcus and Dwayne? What, they didn’t like normal spellings like Mark and Duane?
Don’t know why she was named that. She was of mixed racial heritage, and very poor antecedents. Her mother did worse things than giving that name to her, but I don’t really know about her mother’s intelligence or education.
Ballona changed her name, shortly after I met her. She’s Susan now. Spent money on lawyers and everything. She borrowed the money to make the change so that it would be her name before she graduated and got her degree. She also changed her last name, which was fairly unremarkable, to another fairly unremarkable surname. She now has the exact same name as her Paternal Grandmother, whom she greatly loved.
She mentioned that growing up, she said she hated her mother more for the name, than for the other (very good) reasons she had for feeling that way.
ALL people named Te’Shawn are from broken homes? ALL people from broken homes that have low education and income level are less successful?
If not, then yes, it is a stereotype. You are taking a generalization of a group of people and applying it to an individual. That’s exactly what a stereotype is. Your penchant for generalizations and thinly veiled racism tells me a lot about *your *education level.
FWIW, I once saw an episde of The Oprah Winfrey Show wherein an audience member told the host that she wanted to name her daughter Oprah. Ms. Winfrey discouraged the idea, saying that it was an awkward name that caused her stress growing up. Obviously, of course, this wasn’t a lifelong affliction.
(I should also say that I knew a girl in college, named Skye, who loved her unique name. Different experiences for different people, I guess).
No, but don’t you get it? Stereotypes contain “a grain of truth”; that’s just common sense, it needs no verification. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable to override the knowledge that resumes are otherwise comparable with the loose inferences gleamed from the stereotype.
I know that you know that the grain of truth applies to some, not all. And the problem arises when you apply the stereotype to someone trying to get a job. Or if you say it’s “perfectly reasonable” to apply shades of a stereotype to a job resume. You coud make the generalization that black people are lazy and don’t want to work. The OP mentioned that he noticed the name of a worker in a store. Someone who had a job. And we’re talking about resumes. Those who believe in and complain about the stereotype that poor, uneducated blacks are lazy and milk the system would really be low if they judged the ones who actually were trying to get a job and contribute to society, and overturn the stereotype, based on their names.
Kinda like someone with a name like Condoleezza could’ve been prevented from getting a poli sci master’s from Notre Dame and become Secretary of State or some dude with a name like Denzel could’ve had more than 2 Oscars had he been named David. I mean, just in case, someone should’ve read those names and nipped them in the bud before they got outta hand and started getting involved in politics and Academy Award winning films!
Er, are we disagreeing? It’s not clear to me. Myposition is that, given two otherwise comparable resumes, it would “really be low” if one decides to toss out the ones with “weird” names in favor of the ones with “normal” names. This appears to be your position as well.
