Barack Obama is AWB: articulate while black

by guest contributor Philip Arthur Moore, originally published at TheThink

Why do I keep finding news articles about Barack Obama that conspicuously mention how “articulate” he is?

Reality check: ‘Barry’ Obama attended Columbia University, Harvard Law School, and was the first ever black American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review. His educational biography is impressive, to say the least, and when he stormed into the national spotlight at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (part 1, part 2), we should have taken note of how “articulate” Obama was with the English language (his native language, by the way) and moved on. Instead, writers, taking adjectives from the same play book and arranging them just slightly differently, are harping on how well Barack Obama can speak about as much as they harp on how well George W. Bush mangles the English language (which, incidentally, is also his native tongue).

Take, for example, the following news snippets that have come out in the past several days alone:

“Barack Obama and the Pertinent Precedents” (Townhall.com, January 18, 2007):

The way in which he resembles George W. Bush — his thin resume — is not one that will help him. It may be cancelled out, though, by the ways in which he conspicuously contrasts with the outgoing president — notably, being thoughtful, articulate and seemingly open to opposing views. Bush is the commander in chief. But it’s Obama who gives the effortless impression of command.

“Much buzz, many questions over Barack Obama’s bid” (Christian Science Monitor, January 17, 2007):

But his biggest advantage could be his persona – young, attractive, articulate, a fresh face.

“Iowa Blogger Thrilled At Obama’s ‘08 Ambitions” (KCCI 8, January 17, 2007):

“We have someone in Obama who is a wonderfully articulate speaker, and we should never underestimate the importance of public officials being able to move people,” Goldford said. “The danger for somebody like Obama is: he rouses such high hopes. I mean, it’s the puppy love. The crush phase.

“Obama may find his newness both help and hindrance in campaign” (The Financial Express, January 18, 2007):

Obama’s appeal as an articulate, intellectual, multi-racial candidate prompted supporters such as fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to urge him to run in 2008. So far, Obama’s easy-going charm is the only thing most voters know about him.

Members of the blogosphere have also taken note of the word “articulate” being mentioned with Obama’s name.

The guys and gals over at blackprof.com recently had a post entitled “Intelligent, articulate, who is Barak [sic] Obama?”, bringing to light a CNN profile that mentions Obama’s speaking ability.

And, as much as I tend to disagree with nearly everything she writes and especially the tone she takes in writing it, Lashawn Barber of all people has even noted the overuse of the term “articulate” in reference to Barack Obama:

I have a few ideas. First, Obama is “articulate.” No big deal, right? Well, for a black person, it seems to be. At least that’s how I perceive it. Back in 2004 when I was still working a day job at a heavily Democrat-voting organization, the word “articulate” was uttered frequently as white co-workers described Obama’s big speech at the Democratic convention. It wasn’t so much what he said, as I discovered when I read the text of his speech, but how he said it.

I could continue on with this game until 2008 comes, but I’d rather not. I simply would like to draw more attention to the gross overuse of the term “articulate” when Barack Obama’s name comes up in newspapers, television shows, or conversation.

For those of you who do not quite understand what is so problematic about the word “articulate” being used on Barack Obama, it would do you well to talk to a group of educated black Americans to understand how this seemingly harmless compliment can be perceived as something entirely different than a positive characterization of one’s oratory abilities.

Or, you can always enter in the phrase “you speak so well” +black into a Google search query to see what I’m talking about.

Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder also tackled the subject in the first episode to ever air (part 1, part 2) for the animated television series, which shows young Huey Freeman at an upscale garden party being congratulated for how well he speaks, despite the radicalism in his message…

…which scares me if I think about how this situation might apply in real life.

If no one is listening to the words Barack Obama are saying — “Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions.” — and only paying attention to how “articulate” he is, I fear that in the next year and a half the “puppy love” and the “crush” phase that America has with him will die out strong and hard. After all, you can only look at a pretty face for so long before you start to wonder if there’s any substance behind it. I hope the media gets over how “articulate” Obama is and starts challenging him on his views a.s.a.p. so that this infatuation with how well he speaks dies down and we can really start seeing what he’s made of.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. TheThink » Joe Biden proves my point about Barack Obama. (David Mills, what say you now?) on 31 Jan 2007 at 3:08 pm

    […] Joe Biden proves my point about Barack Obama. (David Mills, what say you now?) Last week blogger David Mills (over at the Huffington Post) quoted my piece on Barack Obama being unnecessarily labeled as “articulate”. Mills, like a lot of other readers over at Racialicious, disagreed with my distaste for the word “articulate” being thrown around in regards to Obama. He all but stated that I, along with the folks over at blackprof.com, was overreacting. His counterpoint went as follows: There’s just one problem with this line of complaint. The media do use the word “articulate” to describe white guys too. […]

  2. African American (Black) Political Pundit on 03 Feb 2007 at 2:29 am

    […] AAPPundit: As usual Mr. Robinson’s article is on point. He makes the same points that Jill Tubman of Jack and Jill Politics wrote about when she said, “To those white people who don’t get it, let me break it down for you.” Check out her post, and why she feels Joe Biden is the Democrats’ answer to Trent Lott and George Allen. It’s not just black folks who found it odd that Joe Biden has discovered a clean, articulate black man. Hat tip’s to Jack and Jill Politics, Under Cover Black Man,  Racialicious, blackprof.com, Professor Kim, Drudge retort, The Think, and other bloggers dealing with this AWB Articulate While Black issue head on. […]

  3. African American (Black) Opinion on 03 Feb 2007 at 2:33 am

    […] AAPPundit: As usual Mr. Robinson’s article is on point. He makes the same points that Jill Tubman of Jack and Jill Politics wrote about when she said, “To those white people who don’t get it, let me break it down for you.” Check out her post, and why she feels Joe Biden is the Democrats’ answer to Trent Lott and George Allen. It’s not just black folks who found it odd that Joe Biden has discovered a clean, articulate black man. Hat tip’s to Jack and Jill Politics, Under Cover Black Man,  Racialicious, blackprof.com, Professor Kim, Drudge retort, The Think, and other bloggers dealing with this AWB Articulate While Black issue head on. […]

Comments

  1. Lyonside wrote:

    Heh. Someone explain to me how people/the media et al. can praise Obama for being “articulate” (which as far as I can tell when I hear the man speak, simply means using sophisticated language in the proper context), while some of those same people praised Bush II for being a “straight-talker” and “one of us” (which as far as I can tell is closer to John Stewart’s joke that the SOTU pairs up 2 old foes: GWB and words).

    The only person I accept the “articulate” praise from is my mom, and that’s because she was an English minor who rants and rails against bad writing (she loves a good business letter, the weirdo).

    But the Boondocks scenario does happen IRL: I’ve gotten something close to articulate from strangers, teachers, etc. and I’m left, like Huey, thinking, did you even understand a word?

  2. justin wrote:

    As an asian person in a predominantly white country I recognise the ‘he speaks so well’ cliché. For me always been part of the same conversation, a stranger says something slowly and loudly their eyes dart between me and the nearest white person (usually my dad) I answer them abruptly, they say ‘he speaks so well’ (usually to my father), they look at me and ask “how are you finding the climate” something will be said about mountains, then questions like ‘have they ever seen snow?’ and I walk away and someone is left to explain that they are not a tour guide. :)
    The Townhall article is definitely hinting at things. Obama is certainly slim and I can see a facial resemblance to Bush. I guess they can’t say that explicitly because everyone knows G. W. looks like a chimpanzee. (please don’t pick on me for saying such things, I would rather be ignored)

  3. justin wrote:

    Lyonside, I am sure I can find several posts on this blog where people have said that you are articulate.

  4. Lyonside wrote:

    Justin: *snicker* around here, “articulate” means “long-winded” ;)

    Naw, writing is different I think than speaking. I just mentioned my mom because I accept her praise as authentic (and she admits I never shut up in person). Other people are slightly suspect, especially if they seem surprised.

  5. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    By the way, I should mention that Philip Arthur Moore is also very articulate. See for yourself how well he speaks in episode 28 of Addicted to Race. ;)
    http://www.addictedtorace.com/?p=46

  6. justin wrote:

    hmmm…people have said = people have written. I will be quiet now.

  7. kim wrote:

    Lyonside is not articulate.

    She is precise, keen, insightful, whole in perspective, knowledgeable…constructs tight (TIGHT) phrases and sentences to CLEARLY convey that which she wishes to express…
    Articulate?

    Naaah!!!!

  8. Chaz wrote:

    I don’t know, after 6+ years of the most inarticulate president ever, I think it’s a valid point to make!

  9. Stefanie wrote:

    Yeah, like Chaz, I wonder if they are just trying to make a contrast between him and Bush. Afterall, politics is one area in which it is quite helpful to be articulate, considering all the speach-making, concenss-building, press-handling, etc. that goes allong with it. I definately understand the weariness of hearing it applied to educated black people, but maybe this is a legitimate context to bring it up. I don’t know. Would the word be/is it being applied to white candidates of similar verbal prowess in articles that seek to introduce candidates to the public?

  10. Fred Zimmerman wrote:

    For a factually accurate, even-handed, and entertaining perspective on Obama, see

    SHOULD BARACK OBAMA BE PRESIDENT (Nimble Books, October 2006) available at

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0978813804/webadvertising-20 or

    http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/should-barack-obama-be-president/

  11. Lyonside wrote:

    >Would the word be/is it being applied to white candidates of similar verbal prowess in articles that seek to introduce candidates to the public?

    Stefanie, you’d expect that, right? But honestly, I don’t hear/read it… if you find an example of a young white (or even just not of African descent) politician being praised as “articulate,” let us know.

  12. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I’m skeptical that much of Obama’s support is because he’s black but acts and sounds the way white people don’t expect black people to act and sound. I wonder if he’d be getting any attention if he were white, because he’d be a dime a dozen. But black politicians who act and speak the way white people expect white people to act and speak are rare.

    However, I do think this case of using ‘articulate’ for a black person need not come from the usual racist assumptions. Obama is really very good at public speaking and emotional persuasion. As linguist John McWhorter puts it, “he is good at rubbing a noun and a verb together. Often black people are termed ‘articulate’ whose verbal skills would elicit no comment if they were white, but Mr. Obama actually is bracingly adept with words.”

  13. P.Moore wrote:

    By the way, I should mention that Philip Arthur Moore is also very articulate.

    Lol. Carmen…so bad.

  14. Sara wrote:

    I have to say - he speaks, and I swoon. I listen to a lot of radio, and the call-in program I heard him on recently had me riveted. Clinton’s speeches had me in the same way.

  15. kim wrote:

    Jeremy: love it.

    “Often black people are termed ‘articulate’ whose verbal skills would elicit no comment if they were white, but Mr. Obama actually is bracingly adept with words.”

    That is the first time I’ve been inclined to take the onus off of White folks for exclaiming Obama speaks, and carries himself, well.

    Of course, it’s a steep hill, but…
    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 3:14 pm ¶

  16. Meg wrote:

    i’d have thought the way he speaks would be a compliment (i.e. he’s better than your average politician) and a valid contrast to the current president (I 2nd jon stewart’s ‘2 old foes’ line, lol). But looking through the articles it gives off the impression that it’s not really being used as a compliment. Rather, it’s an awe-inspiring sidenote and maybe a reflection of the low expectations we have of certain groups in society (regardless of the individual). Seeing the amount of times it’s been used i’m starting to think he will have a problem with convincing people he’s got more to his bag of tricks then being able to speak well.

    But even if ppl get over the ’shock’ of it all, wasn’t there also a problem that his middle name’s hussein and they put osama bin laden pics onscreen while talking about him (or vice versa?) - u can apologise for the ‘gaffes’ but some of that will seep into ppl’s minds & play on pre-existing attitudes.

  17. Lyle wrote:

    However, I do think this case of using ‘articulate’ for a black person need not come from the usual racist assumptions. Obama is really very good at public speaking and emotional persuasion. As linguist John McWhorter puts it, “he is good at rubbing a noun and a verb together. Often black people are termed ‘articulate’ whose verbal skills would elicit no comment if they were white, but Mr. Obama actually is bracingly adept with words.”

    Thanks for saying this, Jeremy. As much as I’m aware of “You speak so well” patronizing (been on the recieving end, myself) sometimes articulate doesn’t have “…for a nonwhite person” unsaid afterwards. I remember learning about the danger of using “articulate” when I described Carol Anne Mosely Braun that way after being impressed with her performance in a debate between Democratic Presidential candidates and finding that her words stuck with me further than any of the other candidates, in a way that a presidential candidate typically didn’t.

  18. Sara wrote:

    I should point out: I like to listen to the man talk. Don’t really know enough about him to know whether I’d vote for him.

  19. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Sara, that’s the problem, isn’t it? No one knows much about him. He’s only been in the Senate for two years. Before that he was a minor player in his state legislature, and somehow he qualified for a spot speaking at his party’s national convention. Isn’t that a little odd? Now he’s running for president on virtually no record, which has happened before (ever heard of John Edwards?), but it’s never happened with the person doing this well in the polls this early.

    That’s why I think there’s got to be some kind of unwholesome motivation behind why so many like the guy. It’s got to feel good feeling unracist by supporting a black candidate, but many black presidential candidates don’t win much support from even black voters. It’s got to be that he feels more comfortable to white people, who then can feel better about themselves as non-racists for supporting him, something they won’t do for candidates who seem more black (or more like things about black people they don’t like).

  20. kim wrote:

    Jeremy Pierce:
    It’s got to be that he feels more comfortable to white people, who then can feel better about themselves as non-racists for supporting him, something they won’t do for candidates who seem more black (or more like things about black people they don’t like).

    Kim:
    I think all it takes for someone to express an inchoate feeling of uneasiness, one which they will let guide them, is the fact of a Black person being home-grown; kind of ‘Child by Tiger,’ if you will.

    There are Blacks who have done everything Obama has done, Blacks who preceded him, and who presented as well, who could only be suspected of laying in wait to turn the tables on White folk if they were in any real power position. This is what White people fear, that Black American-ness is really - merely- Blackness, with very little of the American spirit of [whatever they hold it to be] that is the principled guiding force for all those who would seek to lead this nation, all those who are truly citizens of this nation.

    When David Dinkins ran for mayor of NYC, there were numerous, repeated articles with man-on-the-street interviews soliciting the opinions of working class Whites in the outer boroughs, where the expressed sentiment was ‘I could never vote for a Black man.’

    I believe that, in the end, this sentiment will rise and echo in regards to Obama.

  21. bertie wrote:

    Is it patronizing? It’s hard to call in this situation because we’ve had 6 years of a prez butchering the english language. So by contrast, Obama is articulate, not just compared to other blacks (as the patronizing use of the word implies), but compared to our current prez. Our current prez’s deficiency with vocabulary and grammer makes Obama’s oratory skill standout even more.

  22. Lyonside wrote:

    OK, bertie, I’ll go with that…

    But if ONLY Sen. Obama gets the “articulate” rating as the campaigns start going, of all the candidates in both parties, then I hope people will wonder if color wasn’t an issue after all…

  23. Just Wondering wrote:

    But honestly, I don’t hear/read it… if you find an example of a young white (or even just not of African descent) politician being praised as “articulate,” let us know.

    Here’s a quote about Democratic candidate Sen. Chris Dodd:

    “People really like him. He’s very smart. He’s also very articulate. And I think he might have the sharpest wit of anyone in the field,” (Kathy) Sullivan said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/dodd.president.ap/index.html

  24. Just Wondering wrote:

    It’s got to be that he feels more comfortable to white people, who then can feel better about themselves as non-racists for supporting him

    When I read things like this, I have to just shake my head.

    If white people don’t vote for a black candidate, they are racist.

    If white people do support a black candidate, they are simply pandering in order to feel good about themselves as “non-racists.”

    In fact, this way of thinking is derogatory to someone like Obama. His only appeal is that he enables white people to overcome their racist guilt?

    Perhaps … just perhaps … he represents a different point of view or way of thinking that people find refreshing.

    In what he represents to voters weary of Bush, Obama is much like JFK.

    Remember, Kenendy was young, athletic, handsome and Catholic — so very different from the presidents who came before him. And everyone said Americans will never elect a Catholic (people hated Catholics and feared the pope back then).

    But they did elect him. I think Obama could get elected, too, if he can make it through what will no doubt be a tough and bitter primary season.

    Is it any surprise, however, that Obama has more appeal to white voters than someone like an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, both of whom have made careers out of race-baiting and agitation? Voters — white, black, Hispanic, whatever — look for someone they can identify with, and whites will never see those two as “on their side.”

  25. Stefanie wrote:

    Meg, yeah on it’s face, it seems like a nice way to describe someone, but it can be a back-handed insult because of the low expectations it can often imply.

    Lyonside, I haven’t noticed one way or another about the word being applied to non-black candidades, but now I will pay attention for it. I think our ears prick up when we hear the word applied to a black person like Obama, and rightly so, given the way it’s often used in that context. So, maybe the word is also being used to describe some whites, or maybe not. I’ll try to notice it.

    I did a quick google search of the words “articulate” and “candidate” and from scanning the results noticed that it was being applied to many white candidates, including Sen. Clinton, as well as to Obama and Harold Ford (some items it retrieved are from old campaigns).

    Sometimes, in the items that Goole fond from that search, the word articulate was used as a verb, as in “He isn’t even able to articulate his position on the war in Iraq.” What I saw indicates that people are usually generally concerned with how articulate or not any candidate is. Clearly, to be able to articulate well is an important skill in the political realm.

    What would be interesting would be to see a study look at articles about each candidate in any given pulication(s) and find out what percentage of each candidate’s articles describe the person as articulate, to get some rates of occurance. Just because Clinton is also being called articulate doesn’t mean that Obama isn’t being called that twice as much, which would be statistacally significant.

  26. Stefanie wrote:

    Oh, so many typos! Sorry guys. To type quickly is to type poorly.

  27. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Kim:
    There are Blacks who have done everything Obama has done, Blacks who preceded him, and who presented as well, who could only be suspected of laying in wait to turn the tables on White folk if they were in any real power position. This is what White people fear, that Black American-ness is really - merely- Blackness, with very little of the American spirit of [whatever they hold it to be] that is the principled guiding force for all those who would seek to lead this nation, all those who are truly citizens of this nation.

    Well, I don’t buy that. I think there’s an uneasiness, but I think it’s instinctive and unintended in most cases. I don’t think it’s a fear of some large-scale event happening. It’s much more primal. There’s no conspiracy theory among ordinary white people. You have to go to the white nationalists to find that, and they’re a very small group in comparison. The ordinary white person might have some aversion to typically-sounding black people, but it’s more that they expect someone who talks like that to be stupid or someone who acts like that to be less of an upstanding citizen. And many of them feel very guilty about feeling that way but have trouble knowing what to do about it, which leads them to issue glowing words about those they’re more comfortable about like Obama (or J.C. Watts or Condi Rice if they’re more conservative). What’s unfortunate is that the people they’re doing this to probably do deserve their respect, but they’re not getting it for the right reasons much of the time.

  28. merq wrote:

    Once again, Mr. Pierce, I must ask you how exactly a “typically-sounding” black person sounds.

  29. kim wrote:

    …inchoate feeling of uneasiness, one which they will let guide them.

  30. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Merq, there is a well-documented accent that a lot of black Americans have. I’m not talking about the grammar of urban speech (sometimes called Black English and sometimes called Ebonics). That’s really a dialect of its own. This is simply an accent, and I think the majority of African Americans have some element of it. Some move in and out of it depending on the context (my wife uses it when talking to her sisters but not most of the time, but she learned English in Barbados before moving to Brooklyn late enough in her life not to develop the New York City accent fully).

    The accent I’m talking about has a number of elements in common with some Southern accents, but linguists who specialize in this issue have shown that it’s distinct in a number of ways from any of the standard Southern accents. What’s linguistically interesting about it to me is that it’s remarkably uniform despite its occurrence throughout the U.S. (with only minor variations in different regions).

    Now it’s certainly not true that all black Americans speak this way, but I do think it’s the way most Americans (white, black, or otherwise) imagine the typical black person speaking. You can raise ethical questions about whether that’s a good thing, but I think that’s simply the way things are at the moment. I don’t personally think there’s anything good or bad about speaking this way or not speaking this way. But I do think many Americans can pick it out over the phone or radio without knowing if someone is black. Many non-blacks (and not just whites) look down on this way of speaking, and some blacks consider someone not genuinely black if they don’t speak this way.

    Now did you honestly intend to present yourself as someone who is so thoroughly ignorant of race issues in the U.S. that you know nothing of this social reality? I don’t believe that for a minute, but that’s how your comment sounds to me. As for “once again”, I don’t know what you’re referring to. Did you make some pretense in the past that this sort of thing doesn’t go on?

  31. Ariah Fine wrote:

    okay, definitly agree with this post. I think a lot of it comes from the terrible stereotypes and ideas you mention towards the end.

    However, I think we need to figure out a way to acknowledge what folks consider a compliment (negative ulterior motives aside, “articulate” is a positive word), and still point out the history in a way that doesn’t leave folks leaving feeling they should never say another positive thing about a black person again.
    I’m not sure I have a clear answer on how to do that, but I think we need to brainstorm more on it.

  32. kim wrote:

    Well documented? I think you made that up.

    Blacks, I would assert, certainly possess different tonal qualities than Whites, on the whole, and their voices easily discernable as being of a different timbre, and the speech of a different pitch and rhythm.

    Removing the influence of the Southern drawl, and the clipped, sometimes stumbling characteristic found in many Black males in public office (interesting to me) of that which sounds like an inability to place tongue to roof of mouth to distinguish certain sounds from others, such as when tongue might naturally be placed between upper and lower plates at the front quadrants of the mouth (at the teeth) to pronounce “th”, or the withdrawn tongue that must near, and yet not make contact with, front quadrants (upper or lower) to pronounce the softer “s”.

    All of this would go to tonal quality and enunciation, as well as pacing. Most important of these, again removing the particularly conspicuous impediment-like characteristic of , say, Jesse Jackson or James Meredith, for the context of this conversation, would be timbre, and lilt.

    White people, among the women, do not speak in the heavier, (yet not husky) tones, and lower registers, while Black women do.

    As for White and Black men, much of the same is true, with the general higher tone, and slowered pacing, on the whole (and I mean no slight if you are White…some of my best friends and all) lend the ‘gentler’ effect, finding that Black people view the tonal qualities to be approximating the more effete, in comparison.

    As for level of educational attainment, acclimation to the climate of the higher educated, and adaptation of many of the patterns found within that “culture” (if you will), you will find that the speech patterns, in delivery and content, are nearly indistinguishable, between the White and the Black.

    Now, do Blacks slip back into that tongue more familiar when with intimates, based on a conditional setting? Those so-inclined certainly do so.

    How would one best describe that ‘other tongue’? It is one with a poetry and song, that is often encoded and layered, and filled with a self-effacement that requires the phonetic emphasis of play and mockery. It may roll, bounce, jump, and blend.

    While I may not be the best example, the extreme disappointment that I register upon meeting people for the first time, sensing their disappointment and surprise at my being Black (think: Danny Glover in one of those Lethal Weapon movies, being addressed with absolute incredulousness by a P.W. Botha-type character, “…but, but, but you’re Blek!).

    And I am thoroughly convinced, for the reasons I just listed above, that I carry Harlem with me in my speech patterns, until that happens. Then I have to wonder what the people on the other end of the phone had been listening to in all our conversations.

  33. merq wrote:

    Jeremy, I say what I’m about to say because I care.

    The fact that you have a black wife fills me with dread. I wont go further because I don’t, as they say, “know you like that,” but let’s just say there’ll be a new family on my prayer-list tonight.

  34. kim wrote:

    Merq,

    must we leave now?

  35. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Kim, this is indeed well-documented by linguists. Some jokingly call it the Black-ccent. See the second page of the John McWhorter piece I linked to above. I think I was channeling his description of it, because he describes it in a very similar way. I had read this piece before, of course, so maybe it was just a subconscious recalling of how he said it without remembering that he’d put it that way.

    Now I’m sure many here do not agree with McWhorter’s views on how to deal positively with racial problems. But one thing is clear, and that’s his reputation as a linguist. You don’t get to teach linguistics at Berkeley if you’re a hack. On this, I defer to him as someone who knows the consensus of linguists.

  36. Lyonside wrote:

    Kim and Jeremy:

    I’m no linguist, but I think I actually understand what you’re talking about. When I was in NO (given, only for a week), I was struck by the fact that white and Asian residents I met had distinct southern and NO accents, but the African-Americans I met sounded like “home.” Seriously, take away regional slang, and it was like being with my dad’s family.

    I also remember a PBS-type special a while back about American accents and origins. Basically, a lot of the intonation that we may think of as “typically Black” (not slang) has its origins in Gullah, in the southern mid-Atlantic states, and in some West African intonations. The same special, however, made a point that WHITE people in the US had non-regional accents too, some of which is similar to other parts of the world. I remember specifically that the “boston” or new england accent is similar to an accent in Great Britain, also a seaside area.

    Is it biological? Absolutely not. It’s cultural and based in infancy and childhood. But I think the historical isolation of the AA community has reinforced it to a certain degree. That, and NOT hearing any cultural reference as normal and usual - in other words, we don’t hear any particularly WHITE accent, we all hear it as AMERICAN, or NORMAL, because that is what we hear in 95% of TV and radio.

    Now *wrenching this back to some relevance of topic* I don’t think the “articulate” label for Sen. Obama is referring to an ethnic accent. And I don’t think the use of “articulate” for AAs refers to it generally. I think people are referencing grammar and a level of language that some people do not associate as readily with AAs.

    And on a lighter note, I think Slate.com ran an article a few weeks back about whether Obama’s voice would change if he gives up his reported minor smoking habit (like 2 cigs a day or something), that is supposed to give him a slightly deeper voice register.

  37. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Lyonside, I think I agree with all that except that I don’t think the things you’re calling white non-regional accents are really non-regional. The similarities between the Boston accent and the English accent are just that, similarities. They both drop an ‘r’ at the end of a word before a word starting with a vowel, for instance. But there are significant differences too, such that they are separate accents. I don’t think what McWhorter calls the Black-ccent is that different in different parts of the country, at least judging by famous people who I would expect talk like those who live near them. Chris Tucker is from the rural South, but no one thinks his accent doesn’t sound right when playing a police officer from Los Angeles. Put George Wendt, a Bostonian, in a U.K. setting, and you’ll know he’s American.

    There are also reasons I wouldn’t call George Wendt’s accent the white Boston accent, since other ethnic groups, not all of them white, have that accent if they live in Boston or its surroundings. I’d call it the mainstream Boston accent. I think the temptation to call it white comes from a problem related to normative whiteness, but that’s taking us even further from the topic here.

  38. Lyonside wrote:

    Jeremy: I ddin’t say English (the island has quite a few accents) - it’s one area of England, along the Atlantic Ocean. I can’t recall the area becasue the special was years ago.

    And by non-regional, I meant, not southern, not western cowboy, not northern teir/Canadian ( I have a friend from Wisconsin who occassionally sounds like Rose from the Golden Girls talking about Minnesota).

  39. kim wrote:

    McWhorter: yes, one can “sound black.” It’s been demonstrated repeatedly by linguistic analysis, and the “black-ccent” overlaps only partially with white Southern) — Mr. Obama would easily be cast by these types as “not too black.”

    Pierce: Many non-blacks (and not just whites) look down on this way of speaking, and some blacks consider someone not genuinely black if they don’t speak this way.

    Some move in and out of it depending on the context (my wife uses it when talking to her sisters…

    Kim: those so-inclined will do so…is this not “affect”?

    Taking you to be layperson, and not linguist, one would have to ask what you think your wife sounds like when she is not ‘affecting’ this speech. Or would the affected speech be said to be the way she sounds most often?

    (I realize this is sounding spiteful, and nearing civil incivility…but it is not meant to be such.)

    Pierce: I’m not talking about the grammar of urban speech (sometimes called Black English and sometimes called Ebonics). That’s really a dialect of its own. This is simply an accent, and I think the majority of African Americans have some element of it.

    And a repeat of Pierce: Many non-blacks (and not just whites) look down on this way of speaking…

    Kim: So, we’re not talking about urban grammar and/or speech patterns, yet ‘many look down on this way of speaking’, and other Blacks will seek to invalidate one’s organic (and/or political) Blackness based on the absence of this “blackcccent” (McWhorter)?

    It has been my experience that other Blacks seek to invalidate, or scorn (or mistrust) based on the absence of an urban/video-culture language, style and bravado that really only reflects a fraction of the Black community, contrary to popular images and ideas to the contrary.

    Pierce: There is, then, no way to consider, according to your understanding of its ease of detection (even by the unstudied lay White) and subsequent value placement made about the speaker, that an assessment about organic Blackness and its members (and membership) could be anything but detrimental, and negative.

    There is no way to consider the limited context of McWhorter’s statement of professional concensus without questioning whether the the data was gathered to “prove” a hypothesis, rather than to establish a body of knowledge about observable aspects of speech across regions, educational levels, backgrounds, etc, ( in controlled, blind experiments) with the conclusions drawn showing a correlation for specific points and aspects.

    There is no way to place McWhorter’s whimsical,smug, “yes, one can sound black,” into any context outside of one which says No matter Who You are, or What You Do, You Will Be Identified As … urban/inner city/street corner/authentically black, dangerous, uneducated, certainly unlearned, and always outsider.

    One must, in the limited context, and taking into account your own expression of the general reception of such vocal expression as rendered by Blacks, question the political bent, and therefore intent, of a Manhattan Institute/Berkeley-professor-pedigreed, McWhorter.

    Question one must, not because in his statements of the professional conclusions he and his colleagues are said to have drawn, but because of the associative aspects of the conclusions with the sociological spin that taps into, and plays hard, the existing, subconscious racist fears of whites and others.

    The only answer, then, to why Whites are comfortable with Obama, and his ‘otherness’ as speech pattern and diction traits, is because it is thought that, as I said above, he is not homegrown, he does not throw wide the door to that inchoate uneasiness that Whites do feel, and fear, when it comes to making contact with Blacks.

    The rest of my comment up-thread (#20) can then be reposted …here.

  40. kim wrote:

    *wrenching this back to some relevance of topic*

    Would you like some buttermilk with that?

  41. kim wrote:

    “Chris Tucker is from the rural South, but no one thinks his accent doesn’t sound right when playing a police officer from Los Angeles.”

    We are all familiar with migration patterns of Blacks, yes? Whole towns of people moving to a new locale within months of each other, and establishing mini “old towns” therein.

  42. Lyonside wrote:

    >We are all familiar with migration patterns of Blacks, yes?

    Kim, yes, exactly! It’s these trends that keep miniaccents alive - it can’t be just black Americans that do this - it’s just the group and intonations we’re used to identifying as “other.” (by “we” I mean the average American)

  43. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I ddin’t say English (the island has quite a few accents) - it’s one area of England, along the Atlantic Ocean. I can’t recall the area becasue the special was years ago.

    That’s something I’ve never heard of. I’m really curious now. This is something very close to the Boston accent but in England? I think it would still be regional, just in more than one region. That happens. There are places in Canada that differ little in accent from parts of Scotland, for instance, and there is a close similarity between Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and several other former British colonies.

    Kim, my wife has absorbed her accent from various sources. There’s very little Bajan left in how she speaks, perhaps none in terms of actual accent (though maybe some other diaclectical patterns appear in word order, but even those are extremely rare when compared with her parents). She pronounces some vowels in a general NYC-area way (e.g. “water” is closer to “wooder” thanto the Midwest/West Coast “wahder” or the Northeast “wawder”). She doesn’t drop her ‘r’s when NYC or Bajan people do, though, so I imagine much of what’s influenced her is just TV. Her group of friends growing up was remarkably diverse in background, so she wasn’t surrounded by people who all spoke the same way the way most people are. How she talks with her sisters is more affect. It’s not how she usually talks.

    Question one must, not because in his statements of the professional conclusions he and his colleagues are said to have drawn, but because of the associative aspects of the conclusions with the sociological spin that taps into, and plays hard, the existing, subconscious racist fears of whites and others.

    Now that’s patently unfair. McWhorter may advocate solutions you disagree with, but he’s a black man who plainly admits the reality of racism in this country and the obstacles black people have to overcome, regularly complaining about things like police violence against blacks and racial profiling. He has regularly taught black history courses in which he seeks to promote what he sees as distinctive in black American culture as good, including the contributions to what many see as “white culture” that really come from black Americans. I don’t think anyone can question his anti-racist motivations. Maybe you disagree with his analysis of what exactly the problems are and what exactly we should do to address the problems, and that’s fine with me.

    But don’t impugn his motives, and don’t accuse him of trying to take advantage of white anti-black racism to get his message across. His message is not to whites, and he’s not trying to win over whites. His message is to blacks, and he’s trying to address a certain segment of black America that he sees as engaging in unwitting communal self-destruction. He’s doing internal criticism of his own tradition and culture, and he fully embraces it as his culture. Whether you think he’s right or not does not justify taking him to be trying to further white uneasiness about blacks. What he actually says flat-out contradicts that. His linguistic work is very clearly opposed to anything that could do that.

  44. kim wrote:

    Pierce: His message is to blacks, and he’s trying to address a certain segment of black America that he sees as engaging in unwitting communal self-destruction. He’s doing internal criticism of his own tradition and culture,

    Kim: See, I don’t have a problem with finding correlation, but do you see what political and philosophical underpinnings you assert are present in his dissemination, and, by inference, study, of this “phenomena”?

    Where you and I collide is not when we want to say there is paint in the bucket, and the paint is black, but that the black paint to be used, clearly formed of various pigments, clearly combined to make ‘black’ paint, produces a color that is also clearly the sum of undesirable parts. Not certain and specific parts, which in combination will make black and only black (okay, maybe blueblack, purpleblack {!}, jetblack), but that the black produced is…tainted, adulterated.

    Pierce, do you not hear yourself sweeping McWhorter into your own feelings of Black speech, and into that which I assert is the general disposition and response of most American Whites to Blacks and that dreaded, inseperable “Blackness”? All Blacks until Obama?

    I have recently become familiar with McWhorter and the ideas he espouses, and while the jury is still out, he says some incredibly stupid, far reaching things about what he understands of Blackness, in a manner that makes me wonder if he’s putting on a show in order to curry favor with ‘Others.’

    Like I said, jury is still out. On McWhorter.

  45. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I’m not sure what your analogy with paint is supposed to be saying, but I don’t know how to read it in any way other than attributing to me a position that I consider utterly loathsome. But maybe something’s getting lost in the metaphor.

    I’m not sure what feelings about black speech I’m supposed to have. Your entire last comment makes no sense to me. I do think there’s a general response from many white people to the particular accent I’m talking about, although it’s not as strong as the response to the actual dialectical differences in urban ghetto speech that’s come to be called Ebonics by the media. I’ve become comfortable with both myself, despite conditioning by society that I’ve had to fight, and I recognize that such differences indicate nothing at all in terms of how smart or how good someone is. So no, I don’t have any idea about any feelings I might have that my use of McWhorter has anything to do with except that I appreciate his observations of the differences on a purely linguistic level and realize that there are larger implications due to how many white people respond to certain ways of speaking. Beyond that, as far as I can tell, you’re manufacturing me in the image of what you expect white people to be like.

    By the way, Obama isn’t the first person to come along and speak in a way that isn’t viewed as typical of blacks. I could name lots of black actors, politicians, and other famous people off the top of my head who wouldn’t be identifiable as black on the phone. James Earl Jones, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, LeVar Burton, Thomas Sowell, Avery Brooks, John McWhorter, and Charlie Rangel come to mind immediately.

    he says some incredibly stupid, far reaching things about what he understands of Blackness, in a manner that makes me wonder if he’s putting on a show in order to curry favor with ‘Others.’

    Until you give some specifics, I’d have to guess that you’re misinterpreting him pretty drastically. As far as I can tell, he’s not even close to being in the business of talking about what blackness is. He does identify some things he sees as dangerous tendencies in some segments of black America today, but he doesn’t get anywhere near saying that it has anything to do with what blackness is, if he even believes there is such a thing as what blackness is (and I’m not sure he does). He regularly points out that he doesn’t think what he’s saying is universal. In fact, in many cases he goes as far as saying that it’s a loud minority of black people who do certain things he complains about and that he thinks there’s a silent majority of blacks who simply don’t bother themselves to complain about something they believe as wrong.

  46. kim wrote:

    In parts:

    By the way, Obama isn’t the first person to come along and speak in a way that isn’t viewed as typical of blacks. I could name lots of black actors, politicians, and other famous people off the top of my head who wouldn’t be identifiable as black on the phone. James Earl Jones, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, LeVar Burton, Thomas Sowell, Avery Brooks, John McWhorter, and Charlie Rangel come to mind immediately.

    Kim:

    Every single one of these people, perhaps with the exception of Colin Powell, is EASILY identifiable by BLACK people as Black.

    And it goes to tenor, timbre, pacing, and in Rice’s case, the …hyper/extension of the pronunciation of her words endemic to Blacks of a particular educational and social background.

    Perhaps, as I said, the idea that the pronunciation does not reflect the “street” thing, or lend itself to said speaking holding to video/nationalistic culture and ideas, puts Whites at ease enough to adopt them aurally, as surely, ‘[members of the group you listed] are not like the rest of them’.

  47. kim wrote:

    http://www.nysun.com/article/47335, entitled, “What is Blackness?”

    Please tell me what the hell McWhorter thinks he is doing in this ridiculous attempt to mingle his love of the antebellum, the musical and the appeal of Obama.

  48. kim wrote:

    I do think there’s a general response from many white people to the particular accent I’m talking about, …

    Your first statement on THIS accent, and ITS response was that white people respond negatively, and blacks shun blacks for it. Now there’s an even stronger response that White folks have?

  49. kim wrote:

    I must repeat:

    Pierce, do you not hear yourself sweeping McWhorter into your own feelings of Black speech, and into that which I assert is the general disposition and response of most American Whites to Blacks and that dreaded, inseperable “Blackness”? All Blacks until Obama?

  50. kim wrote:

    correction to #48..

    “…blacks shun blacks for it[s absence]…

  51. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Every single one of these people, perhaps with the exception of Colin Powell, is EASILY identifiable by BLACK people as Black. And it goes to tenor, timbre, pacing, and in Rice’s case, the …hyper/extension of the pronunciation of her words endemic to Blacks of a particular educational and social background.

    In Rice’s case there are some of those elements, but I think most of them are common among white people in the South. Avery Brooks sometimes puts on the affect, as you put it, but his normal speaking voice sounds to me like a standard northeast accent. He drops his ‘r’s, but then so do most of my family. If I listened to his performance on DS9 without knowing it was him or what he looked like, I would not detect the particular accent elements I’m talking about here as the ones linguists call the Black-ccent. LeVar Burton is largely the same way. They deliberately picked these actors for Star Trek because Gene Roddenberry envisioned a future when racial differences made absolutely no difference. He was a typically “color-blind” liberal of his time. Charlie Rangel sounds more like the accent I’ve heard most often from Jewish people in New York City than I hear from black people. James Earl Jones has developed a largely TV-neutral accent and can shift easily to the way he grew up speaking as he needs to (or to a British accent to do Darth Vader), but his normal speaking voice sounds to me like someone who adopted a non-childhood accent in older life. He rarely reverts to how he spoke as a child in the South except deliberately.

    As to #49, simply repeating a comment that I asked you to explain does nothing for me in helping me to understand a comment I did not understand.

    I don’t know what McWhorter was doing in the title that was chosen for his op-ed. Those titles are often chosen by the newspaper editors after the piece has left the hands of the author, so he may not have chosen it himself. It’s also possible that he named it based on a draft, and whatever he wrote ot changed so as to make the title obsolete, but he had to send it off and forgot to change the title.

    But I’m not clear on how the title of the piece is supposed to have much to do with the piece as it stands. I know people have raised the question of whether Obama is really, truly black according to one definition of that increasingly ambiguous (or at least context-shifting) term. It might be a reference to that, but I have no idea. The title doesn’t seem to reflect that’s explicitly in the piece.

    But one thing is clear to me. There is nothing in that piece that constitutes “love of the antebellum”. I don’t know where you’re pulling that from, but it’s not in that piece. The only reference to anything like that i his Mammy reference, which was a sarcastic point about how white people are treating Obama, something that makes him uncomfortable (which by definition means he’s not in love with it), and his point about white people’s responses to black musicals, which he also finds at least strange if not disturbing (also not an indication of love).

    I do think there’s a general response from many white people to the particular accent I’m talking about, …

    Yes, I said that.

    Your first statement on THIS accent, and ITS response was that white people respond negatively

    Yes, that was sort of my point. Enough white people detect blackness in this accent and are less comfortable with it than they are with how Obama speaks.

    , and blacks shun blacks for it.

    They do? Are you saying I said that? I’m pretty sure I didn’t, and I’m not sure why anyone would. Some black people don’t consider someone authentically black without it (i.e. for talking “white”), but I don’t know why black people would shun other people for speaking in this accent.

    Now there’s an even stronger response that White folks have?

    I don’t know. Is there? I really don’t have a clue what this comment is supposed to be getting at. It’s not that I disagree with what you’re saying. I have to know what you’re saying to disagree with it. So it’s the same problem as with comment #49. I have no idea what thesis you are putting forth.

  52. Anonymous wrote:

    Pierce:

    I know people have raised the question of whether Obama is really, truly black according to one definition of that increasingly ambiguous (or at least context-shifting) term.

    Kim: taking it from ‘that increasingly ambiguous…

    When you assign ‘black’ to what you hear and identify as ‘black speech,’ so I’m clear, what are the particulars you are hearing? Is dropping an ‘r’ what you are talking about? I hope not, as I’ve noticed only NY-born-and-bred Blacks do that, where there is not the accompanying poor language and diction component.

    Did you read the correction about the blacks shunning blacks? I know by now you have, so it was amended up-thread and we’re on the same page.

    You stated,
    I do think there’s a general response from many white people to the particular accent I’m talking about, although it’s not as strong as the response to the actual dialectical differences in urban ghetto speech that’s come to be called Ebonics by the media,

    which is the STRONGER response to which I am referring. If response to the latter is received to a more offending degree than the initial negative response to the underlying, organic Black verbal iteration, what the hell is that about? White folk ain’t got no way of dealin’ with us, huh? (okay, there’s affect for you, without the southern idiot aspect).

    The paint metaphor was not addressed at all, and the repeats are offered up for you to reconsider how I am receiving the underlying statements in your overall ideas. If you hear what you are asking me, then hear my response again, maybe you can see what I see.

    The paint metaphor. Now I wish I had not used b’ack paint, as we are talking about the body/politic black, and what I’m going to say next maligns the general dignity of Obama, my children and (yours).

    If all the many different shades of black are thought to be, and classified as, black due to their components, and general way they meet the eye, only a paint color offered up as say, charcoal gray, which is obviously about two shades out of black, but with enough of that special ’something else’ is going to be acceptably dark enough, and valued, despite its ALSO being comprised of the many pigments that form the basic Black.

    If that doesn’t work, or is too muddled (no pun), I’m sorry…it goes to the whole is the sum of its parts, in a way.

    On McWhorter: the mammy bit is not even relevant, and came out of the side of his arse, and for that reason one must wonder if he’s puttin’ on a show in that bit.

  53. kim wrote:

    Sorry, out of the house. That was me.

  54. someguy wrote:

    I’ve heard Edwards called articulate a few times, and he is. Obama is also very articulate. I don’t mean he’s capable of putting together a sentence without stammering or accidentally creating new words, like the current president, but rather that he is agifted and compelling speaker. I don’t expect his charisma and skill as a public speaker in the average Black person, but I don’t expect it in the average White person either. Whatever you think of him or his ideas (and I’m a fan), he’s well above average as a public speaker.

    That siad, I do wish people would write more about what he says then how he says it.

  55. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    There are several components of what I’m talking about, not all of which occur in every instance, and some of which do occur in other accents (but not all together in one other accent that I know of).

    Chris Tucker, for instance, would pronounce the word ‘black’ with a different vowel than he would the first syllable of ‘after’, even though in many regional dialects in the U.S. (including mine) those two syllables sound alike. It would be closer to (but not exactly) the vowel sound of the first syllable of ‘effort’. It wouldn’t be how I would pronounce ‘blek’, but that’s the closest phonetic spelling I can give the sound I hear. Avery Brooks, LeVar Burton, James Earl Jones, and most of the others in the list I just gave do not have that particular vowel pronunciation. I’m not sure Oprah does, even, although she has some of the other ones below.

    Some components of it do occur in other accents. The ‘r’-dropping is among whites throughout the Northeast and the South but is among blacks all over the place, including California. The tendencies to make ‘pen’ sound like ‘pin’ and ‘my’ sound like ‘ma’ are also Southern. The ‘aw’ sound is also throughout the Northeast but occurs throughout the country among blacks. Sometimes sounds like the vowel in ‘clown’ become almost two syllables, with something like ‘clayone’, but that also occurs in other accents. It’s common in South Jersey and in California, for instance (and I believe parts of Pennsylvania). As far as I can tell, Condi does do a couple of these, but just that isn’t enough to suggest to someone over the phone that she’s black, because it’s the entire package (or at least a large enough number of these) that indicates the black-ccent rather than a Southern accent, for instance, and she doesn’t have most of the elements as far as I can pick out.

    Does that give you some sense of the kind of thing I’m talking about?

    I think you might be confused about the stronger response issue. I was distinguishing between the accent characteristics that I just explained a little of above from what’s called Ebonics (a term I don’t like, but there’s no good name for it that I like). The latter is a dialect that has a different grammar from what’s considered standard, official English. It’s got its own well-developed grammatical structure, such as the progressive ‘be’ for an ongoing sense rather than a one-time occurrence. To many whites, the different grammar means bad grammar even though it’s got its own grammatical structure as a genuine dialect, and that’s taken to be a sign of being uneducated or even stupid. I think this is a stronger reaction than simple association of certain pronunciations of words, which is the accent I was mainly talking about. Does that make sense?

    When I say I don’t understand what you’re doing with the paint metaphor, I mean that I need it spelled out more specifically. Who is it who endorses the use of this? What do they mean by the paint color? Are they talking about skin color? Are they talking about some unscientific notion of racial essence? Are they talking about culture or how closely someone matches a speech pattern? What is the thesis? Is it a thesis that someone is inauthentically black? Is it a thesis that someone is too black? I’m really just completely unclear on what you’re doing with this metaphor. Metaphors are absolutely the worst way to try to be clear with an analytic philosopher, since we generally want everything laid out very specifically in concrete and exact terms as much as possible.

    I think the mammy bit is relevant. He’s referencing a stereotype of black women that he thinks draws the interest of a lot of white people, and he thinks Obama displays some of that stereotype, at least in the eyes of many white people. That’s what disturbs him about Obama’s popularity even though he very much likes the guy. He’s worried that he’s liked for the wrong reasons. I think he needs to say more to motivate that than he does, which may be where you see the problem, but I don’t see how it’s irrelevant.

  56. kim wrote:

    Allllrighty now.

    Taking it from the last, the metaphor: As I said in my last post, with reservation about having used the paint-as-black example, with absolutely none of the sociopolitic aspects of Blackness associated with blackness-as-hue, it seems that if one speaks with the characteristics of ‘Black’ speech, yet melds that with an element of enunciation thought to be outside of, or uncommon to, the general pattern of Black peoples’ enunciation and diction, to forge, say an Obama-sound, persons so-inclined are willing to exempt the taint (taint!) of Blackness from the speaker, and confer an ‘otherness,’ a ‘Whiteness,’ a negation of the Black-ness, in order to sit and listen without an internal, and visceral, uneasiness.

    Blackness as found to be of the body (the material) and-a-politic (that holding of advocacy and focus on all-things-Black, often dealing with ways of creating parity, access; eliminating system injustices and the processes and root causes and justification for said injustices…) are the elements that I am finding present in your statements of the disdain for Black speech, your inclusion and attachment of McW’s work and his coined phrase, and are at the core of what I am saying White folk inclined, instantly identify as an inherent element of a Black person’s presence and philosophy upon first line of sight.

    It is with the removal of the idea of Obama as Black on TWO levels that allows such Whites to be comfortable with him.

    Gotta go get my kids. Will write about the Chris Tucker, open mouth/ pen-pin/ aw (which I think is really ahh) upon my return.

  57. kim wrote:

    Gotta put this out there, as it keeps intruding in my thoughts the further we go into the discussion of ‘what black people sound like.’

    It is an opinion piece, and slightly off-topic, so Carmen, if you delete, I will understand:

    What I find happening in all the debate about how Obama sounds, and all the excitement about this person who, to Whites, and by their own admission, is a “new Black,” and to Blacks, and by their own admission, may not be Black enough, is the need to create a new character, not quite a hybrid (brrr/sorry, all) of the two, but a really nice tanned incarnation of a well-educated, charismatic, Audaciously Hopeful (why not use it?) White person.

    Blacks don’t want the hybridized version, in some arenas, due to the supposition of a weakening of the mandate for change toward and for Blacks, that a Black (squarely, solidly, firmly and proudly) president could represent.

    Whites don’t what the hybridized version for the fear of this young man’s John Brown coming out, unexpectedly, fearsomely, radically. Whites want him in the way the old guy (Lord, I’ve forgotten this estimable actor’s name, forgive) in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner found Poitier’s character to be a man of integrity, of a steadfast honesty, and a touch of the cock-eyed optimism anyone has to be to marry, let alone marry under the circumstances and conditions of the film’s times. He must be found to be exceptional.

    If one side can claim him, more so than the other, during the run for this seat, the excuses for avoiding conversation, inclusion, and consideration will both intensify and become more noticeable.

    Whereas Whites’ (please always read Whites-So-Inclined;WSI, and please know AND OTHERS is to be assumed to be implied/inferred in the catch-all), or WSI’s unfamiliarity with having contact with this population (claiming Obama here, for a minute, thank you) , where there was a balance of power, or advancement toward such power, has always been expressed and experienced as a fearful discomfort, due to the imbalance of power it did not necessarily present as problematic. With a (real and potential) greater degree of real, wieldy power in the hands of Blacks, it will become an issue of concern.

    Whites have used the excuse of their insecurity and judgmental discomfort to avoid communicating and participating with Blacks. Their heightening discomfort will become an obstacle, more than an opportunity for investigation, bridge building, resolution, an exchange of opinions and ideas.

  58. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    The accent thing does seem to me to be something some white people see as negative about black people that Obama doesn’t have. I think your second thing is very different, however. You seem to be referring to his more positive message encouraging people to be people of character and hard workers. He doesn’t dwell on victimhood. There’s one way that this doesn’t remind white people of something they don’t like to think about, and that’s the responsibility of white people in making things the way they are with all our inequalities. The Al Sharpton message is designed to remind white people of that, and it results in either guilt or anger, depending on whether it’s perceived as a reminder of a truth or a demagoguing exaggeration for emotional effect.

    You’re right that white people don’t like to hear that message, but I don’t think it’s because of some connection between that message and some taintedness about blackness. I think it’s just the positive message of Obama that people like. Some see it as a breath of fresh air because they think Sharpton is a demagogue. Others just feel good about a positive message and aren’t thinking anything of what black politicians are usually like.

    My sense is that a lot of white people would like a black politician to vote for, and I think one selfish and somewhat racist reason is because they want to prove they’re not racists by doing so. At the same time, there are good motivations for wanting to see black people with more representation in political positions not generally occupied by blacks, because they care about social justice and equality. I think it’s possible to have both at once even.

    But you can have the positive message effect even without anything of blackness, so I don’t see it as a way to distance Obama from being as black as others. I think it’s just a distancing of him from messages people don’t like. Consider the war on Christmas people. They take victimhood to an extreme, since they blow a pretty insignificant limitation (e.g. not singing Silent Night in school) as persecution, completely ignoring the serious persecution millions of Christians have experienced throughout history and around the world. Some people just eat this up, but others are deeply offended by that kind of rhetoric, seeing it as overblown demagoguery. If someone comes along and advocates the same policies without that rhetoric, such people would have a much more positive attitude about them, and it wouldn’t be because of some taint associated with being Christian. It would simply be that the rhetoric is seen as bad, and it turns people off to the person.

  59. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I just saw comment 57 after posting my last one. I think that may be entirely right.

    Your mention of Sidney Poitier brings him to mind as someone else who doesn’t have the particular accent I’m thinking about. He often sounds more like what you’d expect a white New Yorker to sound like, with perhaps an occasional vowel sound that’s not like that, at least in many of the parts he plays.

    It occurred to me that Morgan Freeman, who I believe played the first black president in a major Hollywood film (Deep Impact), very much does have the particular black accent I’m talking about. I was using Chris Tucker as an example because he came up before, but I could just as easily used Morgan Freeman. Given their very different demeanor and the very different parts they play, I thought it would be worth mentioning this. Chris Tucker is also slightly distracting, because he sometimes goes into the actual dialect difference that some call Ebonics, even though I don’t think it’s as natural for him as it is for some people. I’ve seen footage of him with his family, and he doesn’t talk the way he does in Rush Hour around them.

  60. kim wrote:

    Moving on to you, Jeremy Pierce.

    Tucker’s somewhat-near-”blek”, I am thorougly unfamiliar with, and cannot speak to, as I know nothingof Tucker, except his bugged out facial expression.

    I have heard nothing other than the open mouthed, enunciated ‘a’ as in after.

    Interesting that you mention South Jersey though, as the fist time I heard people from Camden speak, I thought they’d just arrived from the deeeep South. Would be interested to know the history of isolation and insularity of that flailing town.

    As to the ‘aw’ sound, as in waw-ter (and let me say, you’re dead on with Rangel…whose covered my home district for most of my life), I would strongly assert that that is a minstrel/affect imposed upon the Idea of the Black, concurrent with the and inseparable from the demeaning, dehumanizing Darkie symbol of the Black-as-Kiplingesque a la Disney’s Jungle Book vocals, replete with the representational depiction of the lazy, dumb Black that roles made famous by Step ‘n’ Fetchit re-inforced. (Note to Merq, Lyonside, Highjive: I know the backstory, so you need not worry.)

    Reeling it back in: being both sea Island and coastal Souther black, by way of the Motor City, and the last car of the A-train, the predominant southern-inflected Black pronunciation of words like water finds itself being expressed as Wah-tuh. (I find there to be no unifying or correlating pronucnication across regions). Waw-tuh/ter is, perhaps, better placed with the western-migrated-Californian Black who would also speak PO-lice, and not police (in a fluid, soft-stress on the second syllable iteration).

    Wellll, thinking about it, I do know that disfranchised segments of the community in border Northern states will also speak thusly.

    I believe the pen/pin observance to be more of a regionalism than you think. No one in my life, ever, with the exception of the-one-whose-name-has-been-thrust-upon-me :) In this, I would say, check with any linquists or audiologists you know. Consider the kindergarten/kinnygarden pronunciation occurrence: while I grew up aware that there are sounds in the word that would make it defy all the rules of English and simple reasoning to pronounce this pre-primary school year in the latter form, it is standard usage in U.S./Canada border states, such as Minnesota.

    The culture of the theater would allow for any and all exceptions to pen/pin.

    Now, the down/clown thing is rather randomly found, as well, in my experience. And I am going to use my experience to authenticate my finding in this area, and have that overrule your statements only in that I am sure I have had more contact with Blacks than you. I am profoundly disturbed by such a pronunciation, and find children to be the main culprits.

    Black folk will tell you some things about illiteracisms, with perhaps lie-berry being the the first on the list, but then I once developed a whole theory around our penchant for such mis-pronunciations, and it goes to contemporary pre-literate enclaves,and insularity, along with an unfortunate defense against the onslaught of White folk and their White-folk-ways (do you hear the music and mirth in that statement?)

    But, we’ll save that for another day (and gives me time to find my notes).

  61. Chris wrote:

    I remember Tony Blair being praised for articulating the Bush policies. Public speaking is hard and Obama is good at it and it matters. John Edwards is articulate too. Check out reviews of him.

    Americans tend to look for contrast with the current president. Bush is a terrible speaker so Americans highlight good speakers.

    Saying someone speaks well is not necessarily a compliment: John Edwards and Tony Blair are accused of being slippery.

  62. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Kinnygarten was common among white kids in my home town in RI. I would never have thought of that as a black speech pattern. What about ask/aks? Do you think that’s more universal, or is that regional among blacks?

    I should also note that a fair amount of this is common among Latinos and Latinas in urban areas, whose speech patterns are often very similar to black people’s around them.

  63. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Chris,

    Bush actually is an extremely good public speaker in many ways, while being fairly poor in other ways. What he’s really good at is connecting emotionally with his audience, particularly when he’s speaking extemporaneously and not looking at notes. He handles himself very well in answering questions that he hasn’t prepared answers for (as opposed to debates when he’s trying to recall all the points he’s crammed for). When he’s reading a speech, he sometimes stumbles over words, but he’s still excellent at his delivery when he gets things right.

    One of the things people complain about is his regional Texas accent, which as far as I can tell is just elitist snobbery. Large stretches of the U.S. say “nucular”, and it has nothing to do with level of intelligence, ability to speak publicly, or anything else by which we should be evaluating people negatively. Another thing people complain about is something more like a speech impediment. He stumbles over words, leaves out crucial words from written speeches, mispronounces things, and occasionally even stutters. This may also simply be a matter of biology, or it may be learned. I have no idea.

    These are things that affect the reception of his speeches. But there are quite a few things that he is able to accomplish in public speaking that those who are paying attention should observe as marks of excellence in speaking, things he very much has in common with Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, even if they didn’t/don’t have his weaknesses.

    I think Obama does have some of these abilities also, which is part of the draw to him. I wouldn’t say the issues I’ve been raising are really the whole of the matter, but I don’t think just being a good speaker would be enough to elevate someone to the level of attention he’s gotten. His being black has to be part of the explanation.

  64. kim wrote:

    His being black is the whole of the explanation. Thus the rush to extol his “good speech” is insulting, because the shock of it is, he’s black, is rather centrist (some say all the way left, but…) AND he speaks well (without edge, infused with an easy charm, and articulates well).

    ***

    Kinnygarten is definitely a sign that someone is not a reader, in the Black community from which I hail. As is lie-berry.

    Ask/aks, and lie-berry belong to a particular culture: the culture of the poor and disenfranchised, and is to be found across ethnic groups, races, and the continent, if not further.

    Don’t even try to uphold “nucular,” Jeremy. That is a poor pronunciation of a word with all of its sytactical elements in place to firmly guide the speaker to say it properly. It is a sign of poor attention to the phonetic skeleton of a word, and grows into acceptability with its use by “leaders,” (Bush not being the first).

    Nucular, realtor/realty, as well as jewelry, absolutely present the speaker with full syllabic breaks, and consonant-vowel flow, and their continued and codified misuse may take the edge and stigma off of the poor pronunciations, but the continued aversion to such wickedly simply bad forms cannot be said to be some myopic fight of the speech police, or to exist only in the camp of the purists.

    And yes, Chris, an adept speaker may often times be underhandedly complimented , when the intent is to portray them as slippery.

  65. Just Wondering wrote:

    Jeremy … when talking about Bush and his “Texas drawl,” you bring up an excellent point about dialects and accents that should be stressed.

    The issue of stereotyping people by their accent or way of speaking isn’t limited to minorities. We do the same with white speakers, too.

    Does anyone want their surgeon, tax attorney or president to walk into the room talking like Jeff Foxworthy … or Jeff Spicoli?

    There are simply certain accents and ways of speaking that people associate with education and intelligence.

    We hold those stereotypes because we believe that anyone smart enough to be a doctor, lawyer or president should be smart enough to overcome their regional accent or temper their use of colloquialisms in a professional setting.

    So if Obama is “articulate,” he’s way ahead of those surfer dudes from California, the Tony Soprano-types from Joisey, the bubbas from East Texas, and yes, the rappers from the hood — none of whom are likely to get elected president.

  66. kim wrote:

    There are simply certain accents and ways of speaking that people associate with education and intelligence

    Kim: And, apparently, almost no Black possesses a chance of being considered such.

    That is what I heard as the constant in the long give-and-take.

    I recognize the import and class/regional biases that are applicable to accents across the board, as they vary from some “norm,” and do not disagree about the association with speech and perceived intelligence.

    There are so many ways, according to Pierce, that almost no Black can escape affecting WSI negatively, and I assume incurring the instant judgment of uneducated, unskilled, and to be avoided.

  67. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    His being black can’t be the whole explanation, because Al Sharpton is black, and no one paid him any attention during the 2004 election.

    I very much disagree with both of you on the issue of orthodoxy in language. I think there are pragmatic reasons to speak some ways rather than others, in terms of not sounding the way other people consider to sound stupid, but I don’t think people are breaking some sacrosanct rule just because the mainstream accents don’t do what people might be doing somewhere else. Do we want to make matters like coke vs. pop vs. soda into the sort of thing we have an orthodoxy about? I don’t see how pronunciations of words should be any different. You say ‘nuclear’ has a clear phonetic pronunciation. It does if you pronounce it a certain way, the way it’s spelled. But there’s no reason a language (and dialects are mini-languages) should have to pronounce words the way they’re spelled. Countless words are not like that. The only difference is that it’s a minority usage that does it in this case, whereas the majority does it in others. But there are perfectly reasonable patterns that could occur that don’t occur, and languages are always changing. I’m not about to declare the way I learned English to be the right way.

    I do think there are pragmatic reasons to use the standard grammar and vocabulary in professional settings. I’ve always been amazed at how easily people who speak a less standard dialect can switch between the two. When I tutored some of the lowest-performing (academically) football players at Syracuse University, I would watch them say something to me in street language with all its non-standard grammar (although standard within the well-formed grammar of the dialect) and then type it out on the computer in standard, formal English. This was second nature, as if they were bilingual and thinking in two languages. I have no problem with that sort of thing. But I don’t think there’s any reason to expect them to speak in the formal, standard English when not in professional settings. And I especially don’t think they should work at changing their vowel sounds to match a more standard accent. That sort of thing is not easily changed.

    (In the case of the president, I think he deliberately refuses to change how he pronounces it, because he’s doing his down-home country boy thing. I don’t think he’s faking it, but I think he’s deliberately retaining it exactly for the effect and because he doesn’t like academic elitism. Maybe you can disagree with him, but I think he has his reasons, and they make sense given his political base, who tend to respect him more if he doesn’t try to sound like someone he was not raised as.)

    Barack Obama really is pretty far to the left on most issues. Obama turns out not to be on the rightward edge of elected officials from that party when it comes to his voting record and official policy views. His voting record in the Illinois legislature looked a lot like Dick Gephardt’s, not like the Blue Dog Democrats. His Senate votes confirm that. He votes like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, not like Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu. What’s moderate about him is his rhetoric. Maybe things will change as he goes into a presidential campaign, but my money is on him and John Edwards turning out to be the most liberal two in the whole Democratic nomination race (or at least out of those who have at least a remote chance of winning; Dennis Kucinich might be to the left of both of them, and Mike Gravel has out-there positions, but they’re more just idiosyncratic than way left).

  68. kim wrote:

    Okay, Jeremy…whatever you say.

    I find it wholly specious that you want to sanction Bush’s retention of the down-home pronunciations and even pronouncements, and are willing to attribute it to a staunch, willful defense against an imposed idea of the ‘professional’ president, with the air of a North-Eastern, Ivy League elitism. (Hmmm, who is said to have graduated from Yale? Whose father holds a degree from said university, and who raised his son in Kinnebunkport, ME?)

    Specious because these same poor pronunciations, and even lilt of that just-so-slight whatever-it-is you find present in MOST blacks’ speech, are met with by Whites, according to you, negatively. People everywhere respond thusly to Bush, yet his lineage, his race, and now the position he holds afford him the eccentricity of holding on to the old ways. Puh-leeze.

    I am reminded of the way Blacks have tried so hard, until very recently in this nation’s history, to meet Whites’ ideas of how to be, who to be, how to think of one’s self, how to think - period, in order to not be found wanting, or lacking, by the power group. And then, we (Blacks) wake up one day to be told that because we are ‘uptight,’ we don’t fit the corporate culture, make people uncomfortable, don’t hang out, don’t smile enough, etc.

    Don’t even make me say something.

    How specious, and completely disingenuous, to expect me to believe that you had football players fluent in some ‘other’ syntactical speech form, AND fluent in the fluid dynamics of constructing perfect sentences in STANDARD ENGLISH.

    I know, myself having tutored others , and encouraged countless writers in their endeavors, that forming the thoughts in one’s head, and having a proficient speaking style (extemporaneous, yet considered, reasoned) DOES NOT translate to being proficient in writing, or expressing one’s ideas on the page so that they are structured and cogent.

    You, my friend, are either continuing to impress upon yourself the dynamism of this ‘bi-lingualism’ you attribute to those players, and are blinded by their ability to simply be proficient in spoken forms which seemed to negate each other, or are trying to offer up an argument that you think will be less antagonistic to that were you may feel my sympathies lie, and so are willing to ingratiate yourself in this conversation, in this moment.

    Do not make me laugh.

    Nu-cular will never be thought to be the sign of a learned mind, nor will real-a-tor ever fail to rancor those with even a modicum of good sense, and an appreciation for language. Listen to the (thank God, they finally put something out there) spate of radio advertisement spots sponsored by the National Realtors’ Association. Go talk to someone at NASA, or in the local sixth grade science class at the elementary school down the road.

    I know very well about the evolution and fluidity of the English language, about its ability and pattern of incorporating words from other languages readily, blending words into new words, ‘verbing’ a topical noun, and even, lately, the willingness of our official tomes of language to make room for the ubiquitous slang form.

    You stick with nu-cu-lar, and see what sort of reception you get when you are in the room with others who hold advanced degrees. You stick with kinneygarden and put your ear to the ground to find out what they are whispering about you when you leave the room.

    On the whole, you have been persistent, and consistent, with your argument and your points, and though I am deeply offended (at points), I continue to engage, as I do know there are intersecting areas where we have, and do, meet.

    You are attempting, here, in this effort, to back pedal. It feels necessary to you? Don’t let it, I won’t hold Bush’s (mis)pronunciations against you.

  69. Lyonside wrote:

    OK, in my area, there’s a local news promo that’s been around for years, “There’s That News Van Again!”

    I call this: There’s That A-Word Again…

    >http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/31/biden_unloads_on_clinton_obama_edwards

    Sen. Joe Biden (D, Del), regarding his potential primary competitor, says: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

    *bleah*

  70. kim wrote:

    Let’s just all call it assonance. :)

  71. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I said Bush distances himself from academic elitism, and somehow you think it’s relevant that he’s part of a social elite? Or do you really think he was at Yale so that he could learn academic content for its own sake? He was a notorious underachiever both at Yale and at Harvard.

  72. kim wrote:

    That’s too funny…

    notorious underachiever…now president

    editor of harvard law review…surprisingly articulate, intelligent

  73. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I didn’t say he is still an underachiever. It’s pretty well established that he was when he was in school. His did fairly well on standardized testing when he applied for the military, but his grades weren’t all that good. That’s a pretty clear sign of underachieving. It was much after that that his work ethic changed.

    You seem to have picked up on just half of what I said about standard English vs. nonstandard English. I said I don’t think there’s any linguistic reason to prefer one grammatical rule structure for a language than another, given the fluidity of language and its constant loss of grammatical rules and picking up of others. That’s why I think the well-formed rules of certain non-standard dialects are perfectly fine in terms of pure grammar.

    I would say the same about pronunciation. If I took you seriously about someone’s having to have some cognitive deficiency to say “nucular”, then I’d have to say that about all manner of words that virtually everyone doesn’t pronounce phonetically. We’ve got silent ‘k’ or ‘g’ before an ‘n’. We’ve got silent ‘e’ at the end of words. We’ve got ’sh’, ‘ch’, ‘th’, and other combinations that don’t come out how they look. These all do involve some regularity to their being exceptions, but there are lots of words that don’t, and to be consistent you’d have to call them mispronunciations, which they aren’t.

    But what I thought I was clear about is that I do think there are excellent reasons to be fluent in standard English even if it is not your home dialect. It is the English used in the marketplace, the business sphere, the academic world, and so on, and those who don’t want to be looked down on ought to bring themselves to a point where they can communicate in that version of English. I think this is especially true of people who are black, because there’s already something racial counting against black people in many situations. I’m not the sort who thinks this is somehow betraying black identity, as if it gives in to a racist order. I think it’s a pragmatic goal worth achieving. What I was saying is that I don’t there’s anything linguistically bad about any dialect, as if it’s somehow an error. Any criticism of it should not be a criticism of it but should rather be a criticism of those who persist in it in every context regardless of how they will be perceived, especially if they’re then going to complain that they’re being marginalized on those grounds when there’s something they can do that does not go against any important black identity (because being black isn’t really necessarily tied to language) that could at least diminish the marginalization to some degree.

    Now maybe you think that’s just as insane (although I think I’m closer to your view than you thought), but if you think my views are insane I’d want you to do so based on what my views are and not based on whatever it was you were saying above that doesn’t strike me as having much to do with what I said.

  74. kim wrote:

    Jeremy–

    you’re tiring me, as is this roundabout.

    You and other whites respond negatively to certain nearly imperceptible underlying sounds in the speech of Blacks.

    You don’t respond thusly to Obama, not finding those aspects present in his speech.

    Then lots of talk about all sorts of stuff…blah, blah, blah, you and me.

    Bush uses incorrect pronunciations -poor pronunciations - intentionally, and is to be excused for the forethought present in his decision to do so, for its underlying integrity and jab at elements of the classist regionalism which pervade the northeast and its environs.

    People who respond negatively to such pronunciations are then acting, or responding unfairly, and need to check themselves.

    A lack of respect and investment in the rules of standard English, even with its established exceptions which are firmly ensconced as part of the standard form, could indeed be assessed as a cognitive deficiency, if one knows better to begin with. But cognitve deficiencies were never addressed, except by you.

    Tiring, Jeremy Pierce.

  75. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    You and …. You don’t

    Ah. Some of your unfathomable comments above now take on a very clear meaning (e.g. “sweeping McWhorter into your own feelings about Black speech”). I didn’t realize that you had been thinking all along that I was trying to give some account of my own inner workings. Well, for the record, I didn’t say every white person has this attitude, and I didn’t say anything about whether I do. I’m not sure why you have assumed that I did.

    It shouldn’t actually matter. If this is true of me as it is true of many white people, then it is no inconsistency for me to think it’s bad. People can often think their own instinctive reactions are bad and can try to resist them and train themselves not to respond that way. If it’s is not true of me, then it shouldn’t enter the discussion at all.

    One way or the other, I don’t see why you’re assuming it or why it’s relevant. There are surely ways that every white person is affected by structures of white privilege that are unconscious and worth fighting. But isn’t it an unfair stereotype to assume of any given white person that they have any particular way that manifests itself, particularly someone you’ve never even met? And even someone who has it can complain that it’s bad. So I don’t see the inconsistency you seem to be asserting.

    A lack of respect and investment in the rules of standard English, even with its established exceptions which are firmly ensconced as part of the standard form, could indeed be assessed as a cognitive deficiency, if one knows better to begin with. But cognitve deficiencies were never addressed, except by you.

    The following description sounds like a cognitive deficiency to me: “poor pronunciation of a word with all of its sytactical elements in place to firmly guide the speaker to say it properly” and “poor attention to the phonetic skeleton of a word”.

    Did I say Bush is to be excused because of his forethought? I’m not sure why I’d say that. I certainly don’t think that. What I said is that it’s a regional accent, and there’s nothing wrong with it. I did mention that I think he has a deliberate reason for not changing, but I never said that his reason is what makes it ok for him to talk that way. I never said it was a good reason, never mind that it would excuse him if talking that way is bad. But I also never said talking that way is bad. So yet again you’re accusing me of saying things I didn’t say and don’t believe.

    Tiring is right. Being constantly misinterpreted is bad enough, but I’ve had this lurking suspicion the whole time that some box you’ve put me into is guiding how you see what I write, but I couldn’t be sure what it was.

  76. kim wrote:

    Jesus, if you didn’t see, or hear, what I kept telling you seemed to be clearly emanating from the tone and content of your comments hear, even with the repetition of your comments and mine in my own responses, how in the hell do you think you hear the unifying tones in Black speech?

    Not a soapbox, yours or mine. Positions.

    Not deficiencies, poorly developed tools to deconstruct a simple structure: a word. The tools are unpolished, the skills not acquired, and the approach to the work lacking in regard.

    And yes, you back pedal, in regards to Bush, and his verbal dysfunctions. Apologist comes to mind.

  77. kim wrote:

    …tone and content of your comments here…

  78. Aaron wrote:

    When will someone finally stand up and stop the “it’s-correct-because-it’s-nice” bullsh*t. Blacks in the US are grouped together because of their skin color. They have a subculture which a majority of them follow. When people refer to general qualities or actions of “blacks,” it has virtually NOTHING to do with their skin color! It is how the majority of them are due to their choice to follow the culture they have created. Who among us doesn’t know exactly what was meant by the comment? Is it wrong to say that a group of underprivileged people are generally inarticulate, when most examples we see around us everyday prove that to be true?

  79. kim wrote:

    Aaron…

    Is it wrong to say

    1) that a group of people is assumed to produce merely the underprivileged? (We won’t even talk about the group of people who produce the overprivileged here.)

    2) that when most others see persons who share a brown skin color, the assumptions made have virtually NOTHING to do with the general qualities such brown person presents at first glance: well-dressed, healthy, well-groomed and Euro-styled, no bop, limp, swagger or ski cap on his head?

    3) (upon first glance, heaven forbid there be actual extended contact!) that said observer’s choice to invest in the stereotyped presumptions of the ubiquitous street level/disfranchised/video culture, has virtually NOTHING to do with a system and culture which the observer’s group might have helped to create and maintain as indelible, authentic representation of brown-skinned persons?

  80. Lyonside wrote:

    Aaron:

    Where to start:

    1. >They have a subculture which a majority of them follow.>It is how the majority of them are due to their choice to follow the culture they have created.

    PROVE THIS. And not by using MTV, VH1, and BET. PROVE that this “subculture” is not lower-socioeconomic and is rather part of “black” culture, including the college-educated, military-serving, middle-class crowd. Because I can tell you, you are not describing 75% of the African-Americans I encounter daily, and you’re not describing 95% of my own family.

    2. >When people refer to general qualities or actions of “blacks

    Actually the comment was about being ARTICULATE. At which case we are talking about using correct English grammar in a sophisticated way. Of course Sen. Biden’s (D - MBNA *sorry, I’m just north of Delaware and that never stops being funny for me*) later comments muddied the waters significantly, when he connected ARTICULATE with CLEAN and FAIRY TALE (So… what is he saying about the majority of black Americans? We don’t bathe? And we can’t speak standard English but only ghetto or southern slang?)

    3. The comments here have gone beyond the original post to compare ACCENT or TONE, rather than actual standard English usage. To which I have said, yes, there is some evidence of an accent that is common to some black Americans (but NOT universal and NOT necessarily qualifying as part of a sub-culture - I’d leave an anthropologist/linguist to tell for sure - my guess is that it’s a sub-sub-culture trooted in regional and familial exposure, as well as social experiences and choices).

    4. Definition of articulate: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/articulate

    Which of these definitions talk about “subculture” or “behavior?” Projection much?

  81. Roberto wrote:

    Being bilingual in English and Spanish, I find it interesting that Spanish-speaking blacks typically speak the language with eloquence and enunciate their words clearly, yet a large part of black America cannot or don’t speak English in that manner. Or perhaps, it is just a biased observation because of my experiences in life.

    Barack Obama, Colin Powel, Bill Cosby, and Condoleezza Rice are a few good examples of blacks who speak the English language well. There are many others I know of who also speak eloquently yet are not famous, and in there lies the problem.

    A recent study revealed that people typically remember events more clearly when their adrenalin is high. This would be in times when we are scared or excited, or anything else that gets our blood pumping. That’s why boring subjects in school typically results in poor performance.

    So who are the blacks that the general American public remembers? Those who frighten them. And who are they? “Gangstahs” on music videos and in movies, and even on the streets. A good paralleled example would be an Italian gangster. Not all Italians speak in that manner, but it’s what people remember because of action-packed movies that get our adrenalin going. It’s all about fear and excitement.

    This is also why people associate Russian accents with communism, Asian accents with karate, Arab accents with terrorism, German accents with Nazism, and Australian accents with Crocodile Dundee or Steve Irwin. It’s what gets our adrenalin going, and thus, what we remember.

    So, when someone who is black can excite their audience, and is considered articulate, it is considered surprising to others because that is not what they “remember” about blacks. In essence, it’s not the non-black’s fault, nor is it the average black’s fault.

    Life experiences are to blame.

  82. kim wrote:

    Roberto,

    Dominican Blacks? If yes, you are aware that the enunciation of Spanish is also far more pointed and true to the grammatical standard of Castilian than many other immigrant (and/or commonwealth) groups of native Spanish speakers, yes?

    If no, please do share.

    As for the memory being indelible under stressful and fearful conditions, yes, absolutely true. As for the gangsta image being the scary, excitable image, certainly that could be seen to be representative of those who walk in that image, but that is no excuse for associating all brown and Black men with the gangsta image.

    I won’t bother with the others on a point by point, for this reason: for all of the listed reasons you gave for the Americans’ familiarity and association of ethnic and cultural groups to “accents,” and stereotypical behaviors/politics, you missed the greatest indicator of behavioral change and attitude assumption of all: the ubiquitous bombardment of the image and the idea.

    When celebrity worship takes a backseat to the exaltation of our thinkers, elected officials (I cannot think of many I’d actually ‘exhalt’, but…), teachers, community organizers and, I suppose, spiritual leaders, a shift in the group thought of ‘what those people sound like’ will so alter and inform a shift in the ideas associated with ‘who those people seem to be.’

    But until then, a wholesale acceptance of the limited and limiting narrow views which do pervade the celebrity laden images hyped through the media (all the media), means you do not look around you and replace those ideas with what your daily experience can tell you is true of the experience of interacting with [Blacks, Russians, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Australians, residents of Brooklyn, Queens…]

  83. Roberto wrote:

    Kim,

    Actually, if you know Spanish, you can clearly hear the difference between proper Spanish and what I call, “lazy Spanish”; especially in Spanish rap music called “reggeton.” Just like the English used in reggae music, many reggeton artists pronounce their words with dropped consonants and awkward vowels. But unlike the influence of rap music, people in Latina America don’t adopt that manner of speaking, including the blacks. Yes, there are certain regions where they all speak with a particular accent and use different terms, but no more different than being originally from LA, Chicago, Boston or Alabama.

    That I can recall, I’ve never personally spoken with a black from the Dominican Republic. My experiences with black Latinos have been with Mexican, Salvadoran and Colombian blacks.

    As for there being “no excuse,” perhaps you’re right. But try telling a middle-eastern Arab to change his views of America. And try telling an American to change his views of a middle-eastern Arab. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

    Your point about, “the ubiquitous bombardment of the image and the idea.” is well taken. However, I did point out that life experiences are to blame. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough that part of life in the US is being bombarded with these images. Anymore we rarely venture outside our homes to actually meet our neighbors, so our limited view of who our neighbors are is based on what we see and hear in the media; the media including the internet. That’s not the media’s fault.

    A few years back I decided I wanted to go to Colombia to meet a girl in person. Everyone I told asked me if I was afraid of being kidnapped. My siblings were scared for me thinking they’d never see me again. In fact, I was a little bit afraid myself – more so about the flight post 9/11, but that’s a different matter. But there were two things I said to myself, “If I don’t go because of fear, then the terrorists have won,” and, “God says that wherever I go, He is there with me, so who do I trust?” I now visit Colombia three times a year, and I have yet to see any drugs or any violent crimes in person. Yet every time I prepare to leave work on vacation, people tease me with comments like, “time for another drug run, eh?”

    The most poignant remark I typically get when I visit Colombia is, “You don’t act like a gringo.” They typically think I’m just from another part of their own country. What’s funny is that I have a white roommate who’s from the Midwest. On occasion she makes a comment, “You don’t act like a Mexican.”

    On occasion my reply is, “That’s because, above all, I’m a Messianic Jew. I am a son of God. I am uniquely and wonderfully made in the image of God. And so are you.” They often don’t know how to respond, but I’ve made lots of friends.

    Shalom.

  84. kim wrote:

    Roberto:

    While we’re not at all a million miles away in terms of how we interact with, receive, and are received by the world, I wonder where people who

    1)are internet savvy and visit racialicious, 2) are well-traveled and seek to be whole in perspective, 3) are educated, (or) self-possessed, (or) engaging with life on much of their own terms

    live, work and play that the majority of their interactions find them devoid of contact with African-Americans (I prefer term ‘Blacks’) who are much like themselves, in more, value, ethic and practice. How can such persons derive much of their knowledge, assumptions, and contact from a voyeuristic, exploitative media outlet (or outlets?)

    How can it be that such Blacks (still, as has been part of the tradition within our ranks) “know” Whites, and others, who reflect values which resemble their own, and yet remain, if I am to accept the statements I peruse at forums such as this, “unknown?”

    As to language: Surely you know that I am not referring to the influence the music has on the language of the Spanish speaker, and not at all introducing an affected style, such as “reggeton.”

    No, but there are clear differences, which actually go to the enunciation (think clarity)of the consonants , the lilt, and, say, demeanor and…langorousness…of the delivery, as I have experienced living around and interacting with Dominican Blacks, Honduran, Belizan, and Puerto Rican.

    Using my experiences, I would say there is a humor and vivacity to the verbal interaction of the Puerto Rican, and more of a reserved, not quite as frenetic pacing to the speech of the Spanish by other Blacks, but that the translation into a more deliberate and clearly enunciated English usage is reflected not across the board, but based on the family’s commitment to seeking higher education.

    As with many groups, where I have found there to be a “family mandate,” to acquire a college education, or to “be presentable” (I rarely actual hear these terms, but the more scathing mandate to avoid certain other choices and lifestyles), the approach to English speaking then begins to take on a more “standard” (that standard being a baseline ‘academic’ one) sound.

    One could also look at migration patterns and access to travel and visa, as status indicators of those who do venture to the States, though that is not an area in which I am particularly well versed or knowledgeable, so I put it out there as a possible ‘other’ when seeking to explore common denominators among the Black/Latin migrant.

    Right back at you.

  85. Mogs wrote:

    well i’m REALLY late coming to this post but I just have to say, in this instance I don’t find people describing Obama as “articulate” at all suspect because it is such a noticeable contrast to our current president, so it’s sensible to point out… I think Bush is a good leader, but articulate he most definitely is not.

  86. JRTHEKING82@GMAIL.CO wrote:

    Just come out and say it,people are suprised that Barack Obama doesn`t ‘’sound black.”
    Or at least what others(even other black people) expect a black person to talk like.
    You don`t often hear it being such a phenomenon that a Columbia and Havard educated -former layer and constitutional law professor who served in the United States Senate as a State Senator is intelligent and eloquent.I wouldn`t expect anyone with those types of credentials(regardless of their race) to be anything else.That`s why President Bush`s ivy-league credentials and former stint as a U.S. Governor are betrayed by his glaring ineptitude and legendary ineloquence.
    So let`s just call a duck a duck and admit that a lot of the
    fervor over the ”A” word has to do with lingering racial stereotypes and yes-lingering racism.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.