Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 03 Nov 2009 14:09 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
caribj wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
[
Why would I want to go to Flushing NY and shop at a store where I can't communicate with staff to begin with?
tc.
Your point was an implication that Asians almost always fully assimilate. Or at least so I understand it. My point being that they dont always.
No, not my point, my point is more that they tend to be more integrated over all than Hispanics immigrants. There are reasons for this as I mentioned, such as class/education upon coming to this nation. However, some of it is just cultural attitude that begins (at least with North East Asians) with Confucianism. There are a couple of sayings common with Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese..."the highest nail gets hammered down" and "the tallest blade of grass gets cut"...this attitude does not change when they leave home, often it becomes more entrenched, especially with their children. I've seen this many many many times as I interact with this community a lot if not most of the time.
I also think the out-marriage rate is the difference in out-marriage rates is some proof to back up my observations.
[There are a couple of sayings common with Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese..."the highest nail gets hammered down" and "the tallest blade of grass gets cut"...this attitude does not change when they leave home, .
One can well imagine if the Civil Rights movement relied on those with this attitude rather than on African Americans and many Hispanics where this country might still be today. Clearly MLK, Chavez and others like them were "tallest blades of grass" and yet are recognized globally for the personal sacrifices that they made. The fcat that they risk getting cut, and in fact in MLK's case, were LITERALLY cut down, didnt prevent them from mounting their struggles to ensure that ALL Americans and others legally resident in the USA have access improved opportunity.
It will be quite interesting to examine the extent to which Asian Americans benefitted from the Civil Rights movement and the atmosphere that this created. Despite being only minimally involved.
[] I also think the out-marriage rate is the difference in out-marriage rates is some proof to back up my observations.
Interestingly African Americans, arguably the most "American" ethnic minority of color have the lowest out marriage rates. Arguaby the most American by virtue of disconnect with their ancestral origins (see the thread dealing with African?african American tensions), longevity in this country (most trace their origins to Colonial America), and the extent to which their style/culture has become embedded in what it is to be "American".
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Nov 2009 02:43 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
[] I also think the out-marriage rate is the difference in out-marriage rates is some proof to back up my observations.
Interestingly African Americans, arguably the most "American" ethnic minority of color have the lowest out marriage rates. Arguaby the most American by virtue of disconnect with their ancestral origins (see the thread dealing with African?african American tensions), longevity in this country (most trace their origins to Colonial America), and the extent to which their style/culture has become embedded in what it is to be "American".
and we know that due to historical reasons, it was not exactly like blacks chose that situation, it became that due to their being excluded. Their situation is not normal. In almost every nation I can think of if people share the same language, religion, and roughly the same culture they will intermarry at high rates and one group will disappear into the majority eventually or become indistinguishable even if they hold on to some unique cultural traits. The fact African Americans have not is not a function of the strength of African American culture but the rejection of African Americans by whites. One can argue that now, the rejection has resulted in a culture that also has a large component that reject assimilation as well, creating a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts, but that is another issue.
Its like saying Gypsies are Romanian...or Bulgarian because they lived their a long time. True, but are they treated as ethnic Bulgarians or Romanians (the mainstream)? Would a Bulgarian marry a Russian faster than a Gypsie who speaks the same language and might even be of the same religion? Similar situation to African Americans here historically.
DH: The above is such an insightful post that I have edited it by changing first-person pronouns to third-person, in order to avoid warning you for violation of 2.4. I hope that you do not mind. I will change it back if you wish, but then I would have to warn you.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Nov 2009 11:38 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
DH: The above is such an insightful post that I have edited it by changing first-person pronouns to third-person, in order to avoid warning you for violation of 2.4. I hope that you do not mind. I will change it back if you wish, but then I would have to warn you.
No problem, it my issue for writing in 3rd person to begin with.
[] I also think the out-marriage rate is the difference in out-marriage rates is some proof to back up my observations.
Interestingly African Americans, arguably the most "American" ethnic minority of color have the lowest out marriage rates. Arguaby the most American by virtue of disconnect with their ancestral origins (see the thread dealing with African?african American tensions), longevity in this country (most trace their origins to Colonial America), and the extent to which their style/culture has become embedded in what it is to be "American".
and we know that due to historical reasons, it was not exactly like blacks chose that situation, it became that due to their being excluded. Their situation is not normal. In almost every nation I can think of if people share the same language, religion, and roughly the same culture they will intermarry at high rates and one group will disappear into the majority eventually or become indistinguishable even if they hold on to some unique cultural traits. The fact African Americans have not is not a function of the strength of African American culture but the rejection of African Americans by whites. One can argue that now, the rejection has resulted in a culture that also has a large component that reject assimilation as well, creating a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts, but that is another issue.
Its like saying Gypsies are Romanian...or Bulgarian because they lived their a long time. True, but are they treated as ethnic Bulgarians or Romanians (the mainstream)? Would a Bulgarian marry a Russian faster than a Gypsie who speaks the same language and might even be of the same religion? Similar situation to African Americans here historically.
I am not sure that the Gypsy situation is analogous to that of African Americans. For one Martin Luther King, though he fought for the improved civil rights of African Americans (and by extension other marginalized groups), is seen as an AMERICAN hero. In fact his speeches are even used in training executives to improve their speaking styles.
Secondly lots of AA linguistic features (slang) have now entered mainstream lexicon, as has most of the music and dance. Many AAs are admired by Americans regardless of ethnicity, one obvious example being Oprah. Obama won a higher % of the white vote than did Clinton, Gore or Kerry, and he is regarded in this country as AA, despite his mixed background.
I really dont think that in 2009 one can argue that AAs are uniformly an underclass suffering severe stigmatization, and exclusion from being considered part of the "nation" as is the case of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe. Not even the underclass as the sagging pants attire of many young males regardless of race, and not just in the USA, or the huge wealth that people like 50 Cent has acquired will attest to.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 04 Nov 2009 23:41 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
caribj wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
[] I also think the out-marriage rate is the difference in out-marriage rates is some proof to back up my observations.
Interestingly African Americans, arguably the most "American" ethnic minority of color have the lowest out marriage rates. Arguaby the most American by virtue of disconnect with their ancestral origins (see the thread dealing with African?african American tensions), longevity in this country (most trace their origins to Colonial America), and the extent to which their style/culture has become embedded in what it is to be "American".
and we know that due to historical reasons, it was not exactly like blacks chose that situation, it became that due to their being excluded. Their situation is not normal. In almost every nation I can think of if people share the same language, religion, and roughly the same culture they will intermarry at high rates and one group will disappear into the majority eventually or become indistinguishable even if they hold on to some unique cultural traits. The fact African Americans have not is not a function of the strength of African American culture but the rejection of African Americans by whites. One can argue that now, the rejection has resulted in a culture that also has a large component that reject assimilation as well, creating a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts, but that is another issue.
Its like saying Gypsies are Romanian...or Bulgarian because they lived their a long time. True, but are they treated as ethnic Bulgarians or Romanians (the mainstream)? Would a Bulgarian marry a Russian faster than a Gypsie who speaks the same language and might even be of the same religion? Similar situation to African Americans here historically.
I am not sure that the Gypsy situation is analogous to that of African Americans. For one Martin Luther King, though he fought for the improved civil rights of African Americans (and by extension other marginalized groups), is seen as an AMERICAN hero. In fact his speeches are even used in training executives to improve their speaking styles.
Secondly lots of AA linguistic features (slang) have now entered mainstream lexicon, as has most of the music and dance. Many AAs are admired by Americans regardless of ethnicity, one obvious example being Oprah. Obama won a higher % of the white vote than did Clinton, Gore or Kerry, and he is regarded in this country as AA, despite his mixed background.
I really dont think that in 2009 one can argue that AAs are uniformly an underclass suffering severe stigmatization, and exclusion from being considered part of the "nation" as is the case of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe. Not even the underclass as the sagging pants attire of many young males regardless of race, and not just in the USA, or the huge wealth that people like 50 Cent has acquired will attest to.
I agree, that was the best situation I could think of to use as an example...but you are right it is not perfect. Then again Gypsies music and dance are basically also Spaniard music and dance.
My point is more that the reason black Americans even exist as a separate group is because we were forced to be one. The result was a separate sub-culture being created, but it was not initially the actions of blacks to "create this" it was almost by default due to the attitude of whites.
One can argue in that sense we are not like Jews, Jews historically were "excluded" but in many ways they also "excluded themselves" on purpose (at least in the past). Jews who converted to Christianity, typically (not always) were just part of the mainstream and accepted as part of the majority population.
What you said being true, I can point to various studies that show AAs are still the least like ethnicity in this nation, other than maybe Muslims (if you want to try to count that as an ethnic group...least desirable as partner by other groups, generally disliked, more negatively stereotyped, most discriminated in job placement, etc.
The fact half white Obama who constantly stated over and over and over again he was raised by whites was elected by 40 something % of American whites says little about the remainder of the population or how those 40 something % might treat the average black man on the street. It is the old thing, Michael Jordon might be invited into many white homes, he might even be regarded as a good spouse for many a white man's daughter, but that does not necessarily spill over to how the average black man on the street would be treated by the same people.
, I can point to various studies that show AAs are still the least like ethnicity in this nation.
.
The paradox of AAs (males in particular) in the USA is that they are the minority group that is the most emulated, and at times worshipped, but yet the most despised. No other group has as much impact on the behavior of whites as do AAs. Especially some young white males who are often in awe. This not being a new trend (the infamous White Negro of the late 1950s).
You will note the over representation of AAs, relative to other visible minorities, in "high end" advertisements, even portrayed as professionals.
Its quite interesting and worthy of study. Maybe White America loves the symbol of Black America, but is less impressed with individual AAs. Kind of like the AA vs African mythology but the disdain for individual Africans.
I will tell you that in my experience (and this is not meant to be a conclusion arrived at through research or scientific study but just based on my experience) I find that whites (at least in NYC) can be "over" polite towards an educated blacks, males especially (not sure but the others) I think moreso than they might be to others. I will also add that this is a post mid 1990s phenomenon. It certainly didnt appear so in the 1980s. Again I repeat that this is not meant to be a definitive conclusion of anything.
Curious to know if you have also experienced this given that you also fit that profile.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 05 Nov 2009 11:48 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
, I can point to various studies that show AAs are still the least like ethnicity in this nation.
.
The paradox of AAs (males in particular) in the USA is that they are the minority group that is the most emulated, and at times worshipped, but yet the most despised. No other group has as much impact on the behavior of whites as do AAs. Especially some young white males who are often in awe. This not being a new trend (the infamous White Negro of the late 1950s).
You will note the over representation of AAs, relative to other visible minorities, in "high end" advertisements, even portrayed as professionals.
Its quite interesting and worthy of study. Maybe White America loves the symbol of Black America, but is less impressed with individual AAs. Kind of like the AA vs African mythology but the disdain for individual Africans.
I will tell you that in my experience (and this is not meant to be a conclusion arrived at through research or scientific study but just based on my experience) I find that whites (at least in NYC) can be "over" polite towards an educated blacks, males especially (not sure but the others) I think moreso than they might be to others. I will also add that this is a post mid 1990s phenomenon. It certainly didnt appear so in the 1980s. Again I repeat that this is not meant to be a definitive conclusion of anything.
Curious to know if you have also experienced this given that you also fit that profile.
Yes I have noticed this. I think I'm a bit younger than you, I'm only 33, but I have seen this, and I have never lived in NYC. I think sometimes it is condescending, as in "Oh wow you are smart, well spoken, and "clean", etc" (ala Biden).
Whites who are more conservative often assume I might be "conservative" and liberal whites tend to just seem "impressed" as if they didn't expect that, but it is "cool" or something.
I also agree that blacks, more than any other minority group, have an affect on mainstream American culture. But as you said "African Americans are AMERICAN". African American people speak fluent English, even if many speak a dialect, their references are American, but in many ways the media portrays blacks, especially males as cool, but also maybe dangerous. Classic "bad-boy" type thing. A black man can be smart in the media but often has an "edge" or something.
Black women are often portrayed as loud and moody (maybe that is not far from the truth haha, I know a lot like that, although not the majority) but also as having commonsense (which is a theme that goes back to slavery I guess). But, as you know, more than a few white women, wish they could have this perceived strength and wisdom, which has made Oprah a billionaire.
Yes, black people are in an odd situation in 2009, I hope a transitional situation.
in many ways the media portrays blacks, especially males as cool, but also maybe dangerous. Classic "bad-boy" type thing. A black man can be smart in the media but often has an "edge" or something.
"Coon" was the 19th and early 20th-century term for the gold-encrusted, vaguely threatening city-slicker Black male stereotype. The term comes from a stock stage character created by George Dixon in 1834. The following passage is from Frank W Sweet, "A History of the Minstrel Show," in Six Gems of Forgotten Civil War History (Palm Coast FL: Backintyme, 2005) pages 7 and 8.
Quote:
Thomas Rice, in 1830, created one of the two stock comedy personas who continue making people laugh today. Rice’s character was drawn from trickster folklore around the world. Nearly every culture on Earth tells folk tales about a rustic bumpkin who is apparently foolish, but whose cleverness and luck somehow rescue him from each disaster in the nick of time. In Britain and Europe he is the protagonist of “Jack” tales and is sometimes called “Harlequin” or “Punch.” In the Muslim world he is known as “Hajji Baba of Isfahan,” and in Spanish-speaking lands he is called “Juan Bobo.” To the people of the Ashanti nation in West Africa, he is a spider called “Anansi,” and to those of the Yoruba culture, he is a black bird—a crow called “Jim.”
Thomas Rice named his stage persona after the Yoruba tradition. He called himself “Jim Crow.” (Incidentally, nearly a century later, the term “Jim Crow” became attached to laws and social customs meant to humiliate and oppress African-Americans. Mr. Rice, of course, could not possibly have foreseen such hateful misuse of his character’s name.) Rice first portrayed Jim Crow on stage in 1830 Louisville.
George Dixon, a light-complexioned biracial Virginian, created the second stock character. (Incidentally, the custom of labeling free persons of slight African descent as “Negro” or “Black” did not reach widespread popularity until about sixty years later.) Dixon’s character was named “Zip Coon.” In contrast to Rice’s Jim Crow character, Zip Coon was a would-be city slicker, more often than not caught in his own schemes. Whereas Jim Crow would fall into peril through no fault of his own, only to emerge unscathed due to luck or ingenuity, Zip Coon would plot complicated devious strategies, only to be hoist by his own petard each time. Dixon first brought Zip Coon to life on stage in 1834 New York.
You can read the entire book section in Google or Amazon.
Although Zip Coon was portrayed on stage as being "cool," he always failed in the end, falling on his face due to overly devious schemes. He was never any real threat at all. And so, although nowadays the city-slicker "Coon" character is more commonly portrayed than the country-bumpkin "Jim Crow" character, they are both stereotypes and they are both intended to depict intellectual inferioriy.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Classic "bad-boy" type thing. A black man can be smart in the media but often has an "edge" or something.
