Black Youths Are Slaves to Stereotypes

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: kubedawg You need to take a look again at whom you think are stereotypes because every living person is one, unless they don't let what other people think of them, affect them. That is how people rise above all the hatred and bigotry.

Well, that's true, since each of us belongs to a given culture that defines us and has a unique perception of other cultures. It is also given unique perceptions by other cultures. So, we are naturally prone to employ stereotypes and look at other people according to their apparent culture. Yes, sometimes we are wrong, as with the "wiggers," but often we aren't; skin color is usually a trustworthy indicator of one's way of life.

I guess the original poster looked at young black people as being hurt the most by this natural tendency and as being oppressed as a minority within the U.S., and I disagree with his point. Nonetheless, it's pretty good.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai So few are capable of making that distinction.

I think a lot are capable of making that distinction and in fact, most actually *DO* make that distinction, they are just ignored for the few that prove they cannot and act on it. One case of racism very often over-rides a million cases where no racism whatsoever is displayed.

[Fonceai]

@Cephus

Maybe it's just a matter of geography, because I see it every day. Not discriminatory behavior, but definitely a different attitude around certain types of people when their behavior is non-threatening.

[Specusci]

Quote by: kubedawg I'm unproductive because I'm heavy.

I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud when I read that. I've never heard of such a stereotype, to be honest...

Quote by: kubedawg Everyone is exposed to some type of stereotype or generalization and it's in my opinion, stupid to bring up a topic about how just young black people are stereotypes. Your topic provides flame against young black people by talking about just young black people. Women are also made into a stereotype, to have a desk job, rather than one in construction, or to always have to look good for men. Men have to look rugged and act tough to say that they are men. Native americans have some sort of automatic tie with a casino in the area that they didn't know about... Asian people are often refered to as chinese or japanese, when they are in fact, korean or filipino. Hispanic people are automatically called aliens and people from Pakistan are automatically called terrorists.

Some of this isn't exactly true (at least, not anymore), especially in places like Germany and Canada. Women (in almost every developed nation) have equal oppurtunity, and I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't automatically assume that women would be better for a desk job then a construction site job. Also, men don't have to be rugged. I know several people who are more sensitive then "masculine", and they actually have more women then the more rugged men. Women appear to prefer positive personality qualities alongside physical ones, too...as do most people, I'd imagine. And asians are typically Chinese or Korean now, by stereotype.

Also, there are negative stereotypes that really shouldn't exist in society. While it is quite harmless to assume that somebody is a nerd (under normal circumstances), it is destructive to the society to assume that a certain race is incompetent. Likewise, conforming to a negative stereotype is also destructive.

The problem with the mass conformity amongst a large portion of african-american and caucasian youth to the "anti-authority, I'm a gangster" stereotype is obviously going to create problems where gang violence and drug abuse might rise as a result of popular culture portraying these images as going hand-in-hand.

So yes, while we are all exposed to a stereotype and we all conform to them, there are certain stereotypes that should be frowned upon. The "gangster" stereotype is not especially harmful, however it could evolve into something less tasteful.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, I think the misconception here is that racism is so often confused with color-ism. I think that's wrong. When we look at one's race, we look at his/her way of life and culture, and his/her skin color is only an initial indicator of that race. For instance, we see so many whites who are actually of the black race per se e.g. Eminem and those suburban white kids who listen to rap and speak ebonics. We also see many blacks who are of the white race e.g. those who live in suburbs surrounded by stereotypical white folk.

Do you even know what "race" is in this context? It has nothing whatsoever to do with culture or subculture (as you seem to be suggesting). When people refer to race, they're referring to people with certain biological characteristics, e.g. the unique facial features of the "Mongoloid" race or the characteristics of the "caucasian" or "African" races. So-called "wiggers" are NOT of the "black" or "African" race.

Race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FOR OTHER VIEWS...

Evolutionary biologist: race in humans a social, not biological, concept
The Myth of Race: America's Original Science Fiction

This stance can thus be considered racist if the conception of the black ghetto culture is that it is criminally violent and sadistic. You would probably be scared because of your preconceived notions of the black race and not actually the black skin color. Of course, you associate all these feelings with the color because of dominance of visual sense perception and your neuronic associations.

Or it could be based on the predominance of violent behavior among black youths in certain neighborhoods.

So, when Martin Luther King said people shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, in a sense he still left the avenue open for racism.

Utter nonsense!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, that's true, since each of us belongs to a given culture that defines us and has a unique perception of other cultures. It is also given unique perceptions by other cultures. So, we are naturally prone to employ stereotypes and look at other people according to their apparent culture. Yes, sometimes we are wrong, as with the "wiggers," but often we aren't; skin color is usually a trustworthy indicator of one's way of life. I guess the original poster looked at young black people as being hurt the most by this natural tendency and as being oppressed as a minority within the U.S., and I disagree with his point. Nonetheless, it's pretty good.

I thought the original poster was suggesting that young blacks were slaves to the stereotypes and, thus, under some sort of obligation to be what the stereotypes told them they were.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Specusci I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud when I read that. I've never heard of such a stereotype, to be honest...

Looks are important for success. I garuntee if you have 2 equal candidates for a job, but one is fat/ugly, and the other is slim/good looking, the employer will hire the slim/good looking person because if you are fat, you are automatically deemed lazy and unproductive, therefore, not a part of the success of the company, unless the success of the company is to be unproductive and lazy. Think for a few seconds and you will hopefully understand now.

Quote by: Specusci Some of this isn't exactly true (at least, not anymore), especially in places like Germany and Canada. Women (in almost every developed nation) have equal oppurtunity, and I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't automatically assume that women would be better for a desk job then a construction site job. Also, men don't have to be rugged. I know several people who are more sensitive then "masculine", and they actually have more women then the more rugged men. Women appear to prefer positive personality qualities alongside physical ones, too...as do most people, I'd imagine. And asians are typically Chinese or Korean now, by stereotype.

It is exactly true. Just because you personally don't share the same stereotypical backgrounds as others, does not make it true. Regardless of the location on this Earth, men still are made to look dominant compared to women, even with this equal opportunity bullshit candy coated way for businesses to not get SUED. Period. End of story.

Quote by: Specusci Also, there are negative stereotypes that really shouldn't exist in society. While it is quite harmless to assume that somebody is a nerd (under normal circumstances), it is destructive to the society to assume that a certain race is incompetent. Likewise, conforming to a negative stereotype is also destructive.

I agree that negative stereotypes shouldn't exist, such as murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc. But because a black teen wears a fubu shirt and has his pants sagging, does not automatically mean he's packing and is a gangsta... People often conform to certain styles to fit in. This is the main issue and why stereotypes will never cease to exist. I often hear, if you don't like what people think of what you look like, change your style. But that is BS. Changing your style is like changing your opinion, your very self, and if people don't like you for who you are, then give em the bird, don't give in to more conformist persuasion to make YOU more like THEM. So yes, we have a problem with people conforming to certain styles, and often for the wrong reasons, but then how are we able to decypher those people from the others who make their own style because they don't care what other people think of them? No way to tell, and even if you asked them, I doubt they'd tell you straight up that they are conforming to the "coolness" of a certain stereotype.

Quote by: Specusci So yes, while we are all exposed to a stereotype and we all conform to them, there are certain stereotypes that should be frowned upon. The "gangster" stereotype is not especially harmful, however it could evolve into something less tasteful.

But you see, that's where you don't get it, so hopefully, I'll shed some light for you to better understand this situation from a different perspective. Taste is unique with every person, therefore, should be treated differently each and every time. So while people continue to conform to try to be cool or to fit in, they often make stupid mistakes, just like everyone else. We then learn from these mistakes and move on to greater things. Influence and persuation by your peers, family, and authority causes people to live the stereotype they fear. It is up to that person alone to make who they are regardless of their past mistakes, regardless of the LABEL people put on them. But, alas, you can't change people. You can only try to help, persuade, influence. My way of influence is by sharing the truth, honesty, because without it, we're lost. The truth can hurt, but it is always necessary.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai Maybe it's just a matter of geography, because I see it every day. Not discriminatory behavior, but definitely a different attitude around certain types of people when their behavior is non-threatening.

It could also be that many people within the black community are taught from a young age that whites are out to get them, therefore they interpret actions from that perspective.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chancellor Do you even know what "race" is in this context? It has nothing whatsoever to do with culture or subculture (as you seem to be suggesting). When people refer to race, they're referring to people with certain biological characteristics, e.g. the unique facial features of the "Mongoloid" race or the characteristics of the "caucasian" or "African" races. So-called "wiggers" are NOT of the "black" or "African" race.

I think you too have fallen victim to this tragic and simplistic misconception; I don't even think you read my post. Skin color is merely an initial indicator of true race. Yes, often discrimination takes place, but that is actually a result of color-ism rather than racism.

For instance, I think the original poster would say that an employer is more likely to do a job interview with a "wigger" (i.e. white person acting black) than an "oreo" (i.e. black person acting white). But maybe after doing the interview, they wouldn't give the job to the wigger because of his/her race and that race's potentially undesirable characteristics; that determination by the employer is racist.

This difference also corresponds to eugenics and other such things. When I say color-ism, of course I mean all physical characteristics such as nose size. Also, it is most often the case that one's physical characteristics correspond to his/her race. However, sometimes it's not, as I gave in the examples. At the peak of eugenics, most races were isolated i.e. in colonies, insular islands, and such, so physical characteristics were basically synonymous with race. However, now I think there is more cultural exchange and quasi-treacherous changes of culture that change races.

Quote by: Chancellor I thought the original poster was suggesting that young blacks were slaves to the stereotypes and, thus, under some sort of obligation to be what the stereotypes told them they were.

I don't think they actively follow an obligation. However, it's natural for them to go along with a stereotype if it's part of their race. Of course, if they change races in some sort of cultural transition, then they would actually sense the presence of that stereotype and the marked difference it has with their actual way of life, and they would actively object to it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist I think you too have fallen victim to this tragic and simplistic misconception; I don't even think you read my post. Skin color is merely an initial indicator of true race. Yes, often discrimination takes place, but that is actually a result of color-ism rather than racism.

I ALWAYS read the posts to which I respond and I read them before I respond to them. This notion you have of so-called "true race" is simply wrong.

For instance, I think the original poster would say that an employer is more likely to do a job interview with a "wigger" (i.e. white person acting black) than an "oreo" (i.e. black person acting white). But maybe after doing the interview, they wouldn't give the job to the wigger because of his/her race and that race's potentially undesirable characteristics; that determination by the employer is racist.

That little white boy probably wouldn't be hired because of his sloppy way of dressing, his poor language skills and his bad attitude. But his race is STILL caucasoid regardless of whether he's a wigger.

This difference also corresponds to eugenics and other such things. When I say color-ism, of course I mean all physical characteristics such as nose size. Also, it is most often the case that one's physical characteristics correspond to his/her race. However, sometimes it's not, as I gave in the examples. At the peak of eugenics, most races were isolated i.e. in colonies, insular islands, and such, so physical characteristics were basically synonymous with race. However, now I think there is more cultural exchange and quasi-treacherous changes of culture that change races.

Eugenics is irrelevant to the discussion. Physical characteristics such as nose size have nothing to do with "colorism," they have to do with how particular groups of humans adapted to their environment. Such characteristics were included when scientists came up with classifications such as caucasoid, mongoloid, etc. - what most people understand (albeit not clearly) as race.

I don't think they actively follow an obligation. However, it's natural for them to go along with a stereotype if it's part of their race.

Then they're actively following the stereotype. There may be a sense of obligation to do so in the sense that the failure to do so gets them accused of acting "white."

Of course, if they change races in some sort of cultural transition, then they would actually sense the presence of that stereotype and the marked difference it has with their actual way of life, and they would actively object to it.

ONE'S RACE DOES NOT CHANGE! Not even in Michael Jackson!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Cephus It could also be that many people within the black community are taught from a young age that whites are out to get them, therefore they interpret actions from that perspective.

I think that's a lot of it. But the other side of that coin is that many in the black community refuse to assimilate into the dominant culture. They insist on maintaining an us vs. them mentality and, because they have no real culture of their own (since their ancestors came to this country from so many different African cultures and since those who came to this country as slaves were denied any chance to develop a real culture of their own), they're really lost and are struggling to find some sense of identity. If all of these people - and everyone else who comes here - would just assimilate, they can all be Americans and revel in their common American identity.

[Fonceai]

Blacks have a culture of their own, but I think too many of them don't know what it is.

The current stereotypical culture is some kind of urban bastardization of the roots of the Blacks who first came to America; tribal.

Look at how Blacks congregate and associate with each other.

Roving groups of aggressive young men... tight knit communities... extreme dislike of varying degrees ranging from distrust of those outside their "tribe" to downright animosity of those from other races.

That leaves the question of how Blacks perceive Whites. Some might think as prey; I believe as predator. They see Whites as that which can overpower them, and a lot of their behavior originated with fear.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Fonceai Look at how Blacks congregate and associate with each other. Roving groups of aggressive young men... tight knit communities... extreme dislike of varying degrees ranging from distrust of those outside their "tribe" to downright animosity of those from other races.

I see over a dozen of other races that act the same way.

[Fonceai]

Very true.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chancellor ONE'S RACE DOES NOT CHANGE! Not even in Michael Jackson!

We're debating the definition of race per se, and I guess you're getting circular. I still think that race can change. Or perhaps there's a difference. That is, at a given instant, one has two races that may or may not be different; I'll name these two quasi-race and bona fide race.

Quasi-race is that which corresponds with the physical characteristics and other such initial indicators to other people. For instance, if one sees that you have African features, then he/she will assume you're an African. Your quasi-race is thus African.

However, the bona fide race is what I was saying is the actual race. Instead of looking at other people's perception of an individual within a culture i.e. through quasi-race, if we look at the individual's perception of him/herself, we arrive at the bona fide race.

Here, we have wiggers, oreos, and whatever else you want to call these people. Often these terms originate out of contempt for those who change their bona fide race and thus deny their fundamental culture. There would be a dangerous inequity between switchers' quasi-race and bona fide race, and this would perhaps mentally affect them in a sort of individual vs. society situation. They would then in turn start lying to themselves and be confused about their cultural identity.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist We're debating the definition of race per se, and I guess you're getting circular. I still think that race can change. Or perhaps there's a difference. That is, at a given instant, one has two races that may or may not be different; I'll name these two quasi-race and bona fide race. Quasi-race is that which corresponds with the physical characteristics and other such initial indicators to other people. For instance, if one sees that you have African features, then he/she will assume you're an African. Your quasi-race is thus African. However, the bona fide race is what I was saying is the actual race. Instead of looking at other people's perception of an individual within a culture i.e. through quasi-race, if we look at the individual's perception of him/herself, we arrive at the bona fide race. Here, we have wiggers, oreos, and whatever else you want to call these people. Often these terms originate out of contempt for those who change their bona fide race and thus deny their fundamental culture. There would be a dangerous inequity between switchers' quasi-race and bona fide race, and this would perhaps mentally affect them in a sort of individual vs. society situation. They would then in turn start lying to themselves and be confused about their cultural identity.

You're confusing race with culture here. Of course, I will continue to maintain that there is only one "race" and that's the human race.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chancellor You're confusing race with culture here. Of course, I will continue to maintain that there is only one "race" and that's the human race.

I'm trying to say that race, or at least one form of race, is culture. Just because they are two different words doesn't mean they are different. Yeah, in a sense the human race exists as one because of our connection as a species with similar methods of sense perception, etc. that allow us to exist in a species-related intersubjective frame of reference. But still, most of us naturally see differences among ourselves and only feel comfortable with our own culture/race.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist I'm trying to say that race, or at least one form of race, is culture.

Yes, I know that's what you're saying and I'm saying it's wrong.

Just because they are two different words doesn't mean they are different.

Yes, there are these words we call synonyms.

Yeah, in a sense the human race exists as one because of our connection as a species with similar methods of sense perception, etc. that allow us to exist in a species-related intersubjective frame of reference. But still, most of us naturally see differences among ourselves and only feel comfortable with our own culture/race.

I realize it's fashionable these days to try to equate culture with race for the purposes of promoting some sick, twisted diversity and political correctness agenda but it doesn't make it so. To follow such a nonsensical argument one would have to start talking about the "gay race" or the "Christian race" or the "rastafarian race" or the "southern race" or the "hillbilly race" or the "urban race."

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chancellor I realize it's fashionable these days to try to equate culture with race for the purposes of promoting some sick, twisted diversity and political correctness agenda but it doesn't make it so. To follow such a nonsensical argument one would have to start talking about the "gay race" or the "Christian race" or the "rastafarian race" or the "southern race" or the "hillbilly race" or the "urban race."

I still say it makes sense. And yes, in a sense, those races that mentioned at the end don't seem so far-fetched if they were present in an actual culture that corresponds to the race. Gayness, for instance, isn't really a culture per se, so there couldn't really be a race. But as for Christianity, that corresponds to European culture. Rastafarianism corresponds to some Africans I think but perhaps it isn't really isolated like that. The U.S. southern culture also exists, and it wouldn't sound very bad to call the southerners (in terms of culture, not necessarily geography) a race per se even though they may not have specifically different physical characeristics; the same goes for hillbillies and urbanites.

And people transition into these cultures and become parts of these races e.g. many Africans converted to Christianity due to proselytism and slavery.

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, I know that's what you're saying and I'm saying it's wrong.

And I'm saying it's right.

Basically, when we're racist, we look at people differently because their way of life is different. That's their culture.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Chancellor I think that's a lot of it. But the other side of that coin is that many in the black community refuse to assimilate into the dominant culture. They insist on maintaining an us vs. them mentality and, because they have no real culture of their own (since their ancestors came to this country from so many different African cultures and since those who c