Welcome to the Pit. I’m surpised to see you here, but I think you summed things up nicely in Post #86 . The links to other threads started by VC03 kinda reinforce your assessment.
I’m confused as to what sort of answer the OP thought he would get when he asks a ‘why’ question about cultural differences. ‘Why are black people so loud?’ ‘To get back at whitey!’
I can, however, see why African Americans may be perceived as loud by non-African Americans. Many of the variables used in African American English, such as extensive overlap between speakers, braggadocio, falsetto, (supposedly) larger pitch range, combined with different cultural norms of when it’s okay to talk, such as during movies or call-and-response during a speech or sermon, could, collectively, lead a person who does not use these variables in their own dialect to perceive those who do as being loud. As to why African American English has these variables – it’s just how things are. And, as a disclaimer, not all African Americans necessarily use all or any of these variables, and some non-African Americans use them.
And because they differ from the culturally “unmarked” values of white America, these variables are taken as rude and loud and everything else negative under the sun. People will remember the loud black man at the movie theater, but forget the gaggle of loud white teenagers in the food court.
Did all that make sense?
This is the funnest thing I’ve read in a while. 
I laughed and laughed and then I started thinkin’
about butt sex with Persian girls and I became slightly aroused.
It’s true. I want a proper ghetto. You know, the kind that can burn down overnight.
I’m sorry you have a problem with it. Being that the term still enjoys rather widespread use, by both white and black people in my personal acquaintance and in the media, I respectfully reserve my right to continue using it— at least until I get a notarized letter from the PC Central High Command announcing its prohibition.
If it helps, imagine that I’m pronouncing the word with the same dispassionate tone I might use when saying “whites” or “Latinos,” etc., rather than in a low-voiced mutter that leaves clear I really mean to imply “niggers,” which I presume is the way you perceive it.
As one can easily observe from listening to Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, and their ilk, any word can be used as an epithet given a sufficiently mocking inflection (even… or especially? “African-American”) so why don’t we focus on the context and intent of what’s said, rather than shuffling more and more words to the “taboo” list, thinking that’s somehow going to make a qualitative difference in the long term?
In my experience I’ve certainly noticed what the OP is talking about, although I’m sure that that’s because I live in one of the much more decidedly black cities in America, and therefore I don’t have as much of an opportunity to be around other races to hear them being loud. My point of contention is that when they are loud around here, they are aggressively loud, constantly swearing and looking for a fight.
If any DC dopers have ridden the metro during rush hour I’m sure they’re probably more than aware of the extreme loud and obnoxious behaviour that only seems to be exhibited by black teenagers, especially girls. I think the Post recently had a front-page story about how they’re trying to crack down on all the rowdy behaviour because of the numerous complaints they’ve recieved over the years. Perhaps it has nothing to do with race though, and has more to do with socio-economic factors. My housemate, for one, is black, and he is no more louder than I am.
Who’s word are you going to take on how to survive being around lions?
Captain Amazing? or ZEBRA?
They’re both making meaningless broad generalizations. You need to read her post again because she’s agreeing with another poster that black people are louder and based this opinion on what she’s heard in a kiosk in her own little corner of the world in a mall in Ohio. It’s no sillier than the OP coming to the brilliant conclusion that black people don’t drink coffee because he didn’t serve many when he worked at a coffee stand.
VCO3 is an idiot, and kittenblue just might need to get out more. My neighbor’s son and his friends got in trouble at Sears at the mall a few weeks ago for jumping on the beds. * If * a Sears employee told me this happened daily, I still can’t make any broad, across the board conclusions about middle class white kids than they can about loud black people based on their limited observations.
Blackened, of course. With black beans and a nice Johnnie Walker Black. ::slurp slurp
As with nearly everything, it depends heavily on context and intent.
For example: I just read Thinking in Pictures by Temple Grandin, who is one of the best-known and most successful Americans with autism. (More here. Note that while some more famous and wealthy individuals exhibit symptoms of autism, some strongly, they cannot be characterized as fully autistic: e.g., Bill Gates.)
Throughout Grandin’s memoir, she uses several phrases to describe people with the syndrome. Most commonly, she says, “autistic person” or “autistic individual” or some other construction connecting the adjective with a noun. Almost as frequently, she says “person with autism” or another similar phrase linking two nouns, the first describing an individual human being, the second the syndrome. Very, very occasionally, she will reduce the individual to the syndrome itself, as in, “The autistic prefers a consistent routine” or “Many autistics suffer from over-sensitive hearing” or some such.
In addition to this, I learned from a woman who works in special-needs education that, professionally speaking, one generally avoids using the third construction given above. The idea is that language guides thought; if one consistently refers to one’s students as “autistics,” one will, conceptually, reduce them to their condition, and perhaps subconsciously stop thinking of them as people and start thinking of them as vessels containing the syndrome and only the syndrome. This is dangerous, because the characteristics and symptoms of autism range across an extremely wide spectrum. Reductionism is not just emotionally icky; it is quite literally impractical and potentially harmful when considering options for care and education.
But Grandin, herself an autistic individual, refers to people in her situation as “autistics.” So it must be okay to use that phraseology. Yes?
Not exactly. Not if one uses the term exclusively. Note that she balances the various usages; she establishes a benchmark, and then accepts variations. But the foundational concept is the reminder that these are people with a condition, and that they should not be reduced simply to the condition.
Beyond that, there’s a false equivalence to a group label such as “blacks” and a group label like “Australians.” The latter does not have a complicated history fraught with oppression and judgment; the former does. A better comparison, since we’re Down Under, would be the term “abo,” as in short for “aborigine,” which is, in anthropological parlance, itself short for “aboriginal people.” Working backward, each successive term is merely a shortened form of the preceding. So “abo” is just fine. Right?
Wrong, of course, because “abo” is dismissive, and reductionist, and has been used as a term of denigration for a long, long time. The word itself cannot be separated from the history of its usage, which, obviously, will have cultural variation. For example, to refer to someone as “a black” means something very different in the United States than it does in, say, South Africa.
And, further, the specific context in which a term is applied matters: Are you talking about an individual, or using the term collectively? And how are you collectivizing the group? It’s extremely offensive to say something like, “Blacks like fried chicken and watermelon,” but it’s no improvement to change it to, “Black people like fried chicken and watermelon.” Both are generalizations, and both are invalid statements on that level, regardless of the descriptive term one chooses to employ. On one hand, lowbrass is incorrect to make a blanket assertion that one form is always wrong, and the other form is always preferred; but he is absolutely correct to observe that careless usage is frequently a hallmark of careless thinking.
The point is, one must be meticulous with one’s language, because it’s the only way we have to judge one’s intent. You may have no biases; you may mean no harm; you may be entirely pure of soul and mind. But we can’t read your mind. When you express your thoughts, all we have is your words: so choose them wisely. Educate yourself about the history of your language, and tread lightly in regions of great conflict. It’s not your fault if decades of adversarial relations have left the terrain littered with land mines; but you do have a responsibility to walk carefully among them. It’s not really fair, but then, what is?
If that makes one feel defensive, and put-upon, well, to some extent, that’s true. There are legions of nattering, finger-pointing fuckheads in every corner of the ideological landscape, just waiting for an opportunity to take offense at the smallest perceived slight. (From “don’t call us fat” to “you don’t support the troops,” they’re everywhere; the impulse is exclusive to nobody.) It sucks, but it’s reality.
So turn the tables, and don’t give them ammunition to dismiss you. You can meet them halfway on the language issue, and employ their terms, and thus make your points. Or, well, attempt to, anyway. No amount of terminological insulation will make “African Americans enjoy fried chicken and watermelon” a good argument, for example. But if you do have a valid point, stripping away the distractions means it can be seen for what it is, and the chattering offenderati won’t have an excuse for changing the subject.
My, look at that. I did go on, didn’t I? I guess that means I must be loud.
Cervaise, those are the kinds of posts that made me cough up my 15 bucks. I may not agree with every single point, but damn if you didn’t lay it down smooth as butta!
I don’t think kittenblue is, since she is making her generalization based on her own experience, and she isn’t making it very broad (she isn’t extrapolating from teenage girls in a mall to all black people). At least, that’s the way I interpret her post; if you’re interpreting it differently, that’s valid too, of course.
Sure, when you bear in mind that cultural differences abound. Want to know the first time it ever occured to me that Tar Baby was considered a racist story? I was 38, I’m 39 now. Never in my southern upbringing was I ever exposed or ever thought of the Uncle Remus tales as being racist at all. As a matter of fact, they were some of my favorite stories as a child and a few years ago, I happened across the home town of Joel Chandler Harris and had my picture taken next to Br’er Rabbit and was mad that they didn’t have a Tar Baby statue.
My grandmother always used the nigra until the last decade or so, she’s around 80 and the correct terminology has changed so much in her lifetime, she’s pretty darned confused to this day. She also said that after segregation she had less exposure to Bblack-African-American-colored people than she ever had in her life.
I went to a “black” high school. We tried to adopt a “black” kid and were denied because we were “white.”
It’s a damned shame that we have to be so touchy when we mean no harm because some folks are still so idiotic when I honestly think the vast majority of folks do not mean harm.
Now, as for the loudness, fuck all, I’m loud and white and opinionated. Want to know who I think is the loudest? The freakin’ PC annoying fucks who’ve made it where we can’t say what we mean without it having to mean every possible bad thing it could possibly ever mean.
We do have differences. Different != bad. If I ever give up my heathenistic ways and decide to go to church, I’ll probably pick one where people are freakin’ happy and enthusiastic and passionate about being there and it prolly won’t be a “white” one. If I’m picking a BBQ Joint, I have a lot more faith in the black dude on the side of the road than the corporate chain. I’m gonna go to the Thai restaurant where the Thai folks go. My OB was a guy, but I prefer a female. When I want good pork, I go to the Cuban restaurants. Damn it.
I’ve quit jobs because of racist shit, I’ve stood up on many opportunities to battle racism.
And no, currently, I have no black friends, not handy any way. But one of the dearest friends I’ve ever had, did tell me after I gained weight, that I didn’t have a weight problem, I just lived in the wrong neighborhood and had a surprisingly nice ass for a white girl.
I think the less you are exposed to people different from you, the more likely you are to be able to maintain a racist/separatist attitude and when your sights are broadened, it isn’t as much of an issue as it seemed before. Just check the thread on interracial marriages.
Damn, missed the editing window. To the curious person upthread, I am a poker dealer. We have 7-10 players at our table at a time and get to deal with EVERYONE. For the record, I’ve had far more drunk, obnoxious rednecks thrown out than any other easily classified group.
So was “nigger”. No, I’m not kidding. I’m not saying they’re the same, of course - I’m merely saying that “I grew up saying it” isn’t a good argument. If you want to continue to do so, that’s your prerogative. But whenever you do, I won’t be able to shake the impression that you are a rube.
Why don’t you try seeing people as individuals not as whatever color they happen to be, rather than defending your right to use socially-awkward language?
Actually, I made no blanket assertion. I simply said it made me wince. Perhaps there is some context in which it wouldn’t make me wince, but in this case, it certainly did.
I’m not even responding to this thread because it’s turned into a multi-page joke thread, a recreational outrage fight club, and a pile-on. There is zero legitimate discussion of the OP happening. I don’t come to this board for juvenile bullshit jokes, but for legitimate discussion. It’s not happening here, so enjoy shitting in this thread, everyone!
That’s actually the type of answer I wanted to get with the OP; you’re the first rational person to answer. Thank you for being an adult and for your sincerity.
Did it perhaps occur to you that the reason everyone reacted the way they did was not to harass you for no reason, but because you are stereotyping?
Wordman, I defy you to explain or show how I was “being a dick.” I’m completely serious - what about the OP is “being a dick?”
The OP isn’t “why are them dumb niggars so loud, anyhow?”
It’s not “Why are black people incapable of being quiet?”
It’s not “why don’t african americans just SHUT UP?”
It’s not “Why are blacks the only loud race?”
It’s not ANYTHING that gives you the right to call me a dick or act like I’m being a troll! This is RIDICULOUS!
You fucking baby. People DID have a legitmate reason for not responding to your OP directly. You said:
Several people have taken issue with this. You wanna respond, or do you want to be a whiny little bitch who won’t defend his asshole beliefs?