Why can't black people be like this?

Great Debates
1

Or like that, or somehow else or another? And not just black people, Irish and Lefties, Inuit and Yankees fans, Adults with autism and Catholics.

Why is it that when someone makes an observation about a group of people, all hell breaks lose and that person is accused of bigotry, ignorance and intolerance?

Make no mistake, I do realize that there is many a bigot out there posting along these lines and they deserve our contempt and our pile ons.

There is also the fact that what we perceive as a trait of a group could be a consequence of some other variable. Lefties might be seen as clumsy because they have to deal with tools not made for them, Race might obscure social issues, Nationality might obscure educational differences, etc. That is ignorance to be fought, not a pass to execute the ignorant.

But there is also the fact that there is such things as national idiosyncrasies, ethnic variations, group identities. It may be that the variation within the group is still huge and that the highs are still higher that the next group lows and the like, but that doesn’t mean that there are no significant variations from group to group. That there is no clustering of characteristics among groups.

Can a civilized discussion be had about those without having to shout above the uproar of the PC crowd?

2

No, no they can’t.

3

Because those generalizations are offensive. It follows that they must be wrong.

4

Not everything that is “offensive” is wrong.

As for the OP, I think it’s just too vague. Why not pick some specific instance where you think the argument is framed correctly, but is not given appropriate respect? The recent pit thread about Black people being loud is a good example of what typically happens around here-- someone comes in with an entirely anecdotal assertion, assuming that his or her personal experience (filtered through his or her own preconceived ideas) is somehow the objective truth. I can’t think of a time on this message board when someone has framed a well-thought-out thesis along the lines of “why can’t such-and-such group be like…”.

5

I don’t want to go over particular threads (and stir old feelings), but the example you chose is one worth examining for a quick moment hoping it won’t derail the thread into a rehash. That black people are loud might be right or wrong but it is a common enough stereotype that, as some pointed out in that thread, a line of humour has grown around that idea. Once the OP is set straight in that his observation doesn’t contitute an universal truth, that stereotype can be examined and debated to whatever conclusion might be reached.

I can’t think of a particular thread where the matter was framed correctly, but (except in the most egregious cases of bigotry fueled posts) why not take a poorly stated thread and try to salvage it for what little might be worth in it? If the post is made in ignorance, why not fight it instead of roasting the ignorant?

I can list some (hopefully not terribly offensive) stereotypes that are held in Venezuela (I realize they might not be as widely perceived in the US) to pose example of issues that could be reasonably explored with their respective possible explanations that dispel the myth while acknowledging that the stereotype is not completely baseless:

“Jews are smart”. There are some socioeconomic factors involved and they mostly go to jewish schools with kick arse budgets, facilities and teachers.

“The Portuguese don’t ever take vacations / have a great work ethic”. They mostly arrived post WWII and started their own service businesses where their busiest days are holidays.

“Farmers are lazy”. They wake up at 3:00 am and do their work while you sleep. When you wake up, they are dead tired and resting for their next work stretch, closer to sundown.
Generalizations don’t necessarily have to be wrong or offensive. If someone says that “white men can’t jump”, one could come up with a bunch of examples of a “white friend I have” that can jump non-tiered buildings in a single leap.

That doesn’t make the observation completely useless though. We could take a look at how that statement comes from the basketball culture, where black players kick arse and ponder how some of them come from ethnicities where muscle mass is better distributed than in our prevalent “white” ethnicities (I am not saying that any of these is true, just parrotting some conventional wisdom)

If I state that the worst black jumper ever can still jump circles around the best white jumper jumping from the shoulders of the second best white jumper, I open myself for ridicule, of course. It takes only one counterexample to prove me wrong and anyone can come up with one withour even looking. One needs moderation in how one states one’s perceptions.

I guess my point is that it is possible for groups to show distinct characteristics and that discussing them doesn’t have to be taboo as long as it is done with due respect and allowing for the exceptions that are bound to be there.

6

Because the very phrasing of the question presumes the accuracy of the observation and implies a generalization.

“Is group X statistically more likely to behave in manner Y? If so, why?” is a real debate. “Why can’t X’s not do Y?” is not.

We have had real discussions exploring why historically Jews appear to have been overrepresented n commerce and in academia. Why there seems to be a statistical overrepresentation of Blacks at elite athletic levels. And other stereotypes that may have a kernel of statistical truth. And some that may not. As comments in that “loud” thread explained, even asking why it seems to some that “Blacks are loud” would be fair game, it would leave open the explanation of seeing what one expects to see and judging a group based on a nonrepresentative representations, etc … The issue is not offensiveness or "PC"ness - it is stating stereotypes as a priori facts that causes the pile-ons.

7

Always, or only when the observation is ultimately insulting?

8

In Latin American countries with low black populations, other folks take their place for having the characteristics that blacks are said to have in the U.S.
In Mexico, the Indians are said to have these characteristics by the whites.
In Puerto Rico, the poor, since everyone is, of course, Puerto Rican (and there are no Indians and only a few blacks). What’s striking is how similar the characteristics the poor are said to have in Puerto Rico, and the Indians in Mexico, are to what is said of blacks in the U.S.
From what I’ve read, the same character traits were said to be true of Italians when they were recent immigrants, of the Irish when they were, and were probably said of the Jews when they had just landed off the boat. If you have ever read Francis Parkman, it seems that French-descended settlers, in the areas of the American West where they had settled prior to the waves of Anglo-Saxons from the eastern U.S., were similarly thought of by these Anglo-Saxons, because they tended to be poor and to mix easily with the Indians.
Or, as they say in Brazil, “Money whitens.”
Social position really determines what’s thought of as “national” or “racial” character, in many many cases. Not that national/ethnic/racial characteristics don’t exist, but you have to be careful to separate them from what people everywhere universally think of those who are either beneath or above them socially/economically.

9

Dude, the rules are pretty simple. There’s exceptions to every rule, but here’s the general outline:

Groups you can make fun of:

The French.
Germans.
Brits.
… Ok, pretty much all Europeans.
Australians (but why would you want to?)
Canadians. (They’re so nice.)
Men.
Women. (As long as you’re not too mean, or say they can’t do math.)
Lawyers.
Politicians.

Groups you CAN’T make fun of:
Blacks.
Hispanics.
Native Americans.
The handicapped.
… Any group that used to have a different name than the one they have now.

Groups you probably shouldn’t say anything about, but you might get away with it maybe:

Japanese, Chinese, Koreans (ie, East Asians).
Jews.
Arabs/Muslims.
Gays/lesbians. (“Chevy S10… Tough enough for a lesbian” = funny. “Lesbians are butch” = not funny.

Groups that haven’t been categorized, yet:
Indians. (I mean Indian Indians, not the ones in Gunsmoke.)

If you print this out and keep it with you, you should be fine.

10

I’d like to add:

Always, or only when no cites are provided?

It’s one thing to say, “All people with characteristic X behave like Y.” It’s another thing to say, “Here are statistics that suggest most people with characteristic X behave like Y.”
LilShieste

11

Took me a double-take to realize you were not saying that socialists were accident prone :smack:

12

A character in a John McDonald novel observed (loosely quoting): “Anyone who makes a judgment about a person based on perceived group characteristics is a peawit.”

Sound observation.

I think you’re dead wrong here. Got any cites to show that Jewish children “mostly go to Jewish schools” (with or without “kick arse” anything)?

I could make an observation about how people who gripe about “PC” limits on their ability to stereotype by race or ethnic origin, soon fire up inaccurate stereotypes. But I shouldn’t generalize based on anecdotal evidence. :slight_smile:

13

Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?

’

14

Did you purposely write your thread title so that it would read like something an intolerant bigotted ignoramus would say? I ask because I can’t imagine anyone not getting how “why can’t black people be like this” would raise hackles.

15

It’s the “Why can’t you be more like your brother?” thing, only with racial/ethnic/religious groups rather than siblings.

Has a child ever not been offended by being negatively compared in such a manner? Probably sometime, but pretty rarely. It packages “You’re not good enough the way you are,” “Other people can do X, why can’t you?” and a bunch of other stuff in one compact package.

So if you said, “Why can’t computer geeks be smoother with women?” you’d get a bunch of reactions. Some computer geeks would insist that they’re just as adept with women as most guys are; some (female, hetero) computer geeks would point out that women are computer geeks too; computer geeks who aren’t all that good with women would be pissed at you for bringing it up, and so on.

The upshot: generalizations like that are often false; when they’re true, there might be reasons for it, or reasons why you shouldn’t care; and even if they’re true in some cases and you’ve got good reasons for bringing it up, you’re not gonna make anyone happy by making them feel like you’re comparing them with the ‘good kids’ and finding them wanting.

16

Oh, absolutely. I could say that “Dopers are attracted to trainwrecks like flies to a cotton candy turd” but that would be a generalization. That title got 50 views in less than 15 minutes and 150 in less than an hour.

That is also why I made extra sure that the opening of the OP would quickly clarify that this wasn’t a racist rant. It wouldn’t have been the first time my sense of humour blew up in my face around here.

17

I specified that these stereotypes were as held in Venezuela. The jewish colony there is fairly tight and most of them attend the few all-jewish schools there are, which are, indeed, top notch schools by any standard. After school, they often move on to the top university of their chosen field. Counterexamples must abound, of course.

I could make an observation about how people who are quick to place judgement on others soon post without carefully reading the post in question. But I shoudn’t generalize on anecdotal evidence. :wink:

18

Then there is that, and that would be another topic worthy of debate. Here in the SDMB, it seems that you can fire at will on Republicans and Sheep-lovers, and get away with it. Every other group (even those that pride in their PC) has a short list of bigotted jokes that are allowed. But, hey, I myself know a bunch of good ethnic jokes ready to tell under the influence and in selected company.

19

:slight_smile: I kinda thought that on one re-read. It was too late to clarify.

20

Did you include Yankee fans just as a joke? I do not believe that in defending ourselves we have ever cried bigotry or intolerance. Maybe a little ignorance has been charged, but it was usually deserved.

Jim