What I'm saying kagy is that unless you're black you really can't understand what is and isn't caracature of black people. The idea is so fluid. Understand, there have been acceptions to this rule: faulkner and twain come to mind; however, those writers respected black people on a very, very uncommon level. Most people haven't attained that kind of insight. So you'd do best to just not try.
Don't tell me what I know and don't know just because I'm white. You answered your question of What do you consider respectable lynus302? for me in your last sentence. A caricature is, by definition, an exaggerated image, and in order to create such an image, caricature and stereotyping often go hand-in-hand. By a respectable image I mean one that is not a caricature of a whole group of people, and thus stereotypical. Now, it is impossible to argue the cartoonist's actual intent, but I pointed out the difference (and similarity) between stereotyping and caricature earlier to question whether the actual image of the cartoon was a simple caricature or a racist stereotype. ....and since when was ebonics ever considered grammatically correct in the first place? I'm not black, and I understand what is and isn't a caricature. The problem is, people don't like to be caricatured by people who are different from those being caricatured.
generative transformational grammar what a load of crap. That is no excuse to legitimize slang and poor grammar. This was also, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, a way to further divide the races. Reverse segregation is all that was. I love how you assume what I know and don't know, just because I'm white. That's a rather racist and bigoted tendency, kbm.
So you believe generative transformational grammar was a way to further divide the races [eyebrows raised]. I'd say the opposite. Standard grammar did a great job of that indeed.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that one, but if all you're going to do is tell me how standardized testing and schooling is designed to make black people fail in education, then I'm not interested. If a nation can't subscribe to a standard language for everyone, then division will follow. Every watch Telemundo or Univision? They are the Spanish channels, if you didn't know. I often see commercials for Spanish to English classes. I also see a concerted effort amongst MOST people to learn English to "make it" in America. IMO yes, ebonics would have caused further division amongst the races in America.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Although it may be considered a modern dialect of Standard English, that doesn't make it grammatically correct. I guess creole english is grammatically correct, too?
We legitimize and assimilate new slang and grammer into English all the time (how about the word "internet," for example). And we do not speak the same English that was spoken in previous centuries. Go read anything written before the 20th century and you'll see this for yourself. I've seen more separation caused by those who refuse to accept differences than by those who are different. Live and let live. If you don't understand what someone is saying, then say you don't understand. Save the whole "My English is better than yours" crap. There should not be a comma between know and just. I wouldn't want you to do irreparable damage to the English language.
Here is another wild statement. You connect standard grammar to black folk failing standardized tests. My point is standard grammar has been a barometer, historically, to separate the uneducated from the educated. When in fact knowing how to use who verses whom has nothing to do whatsoever with a person's intelligence level. But the advocates of standard grammar have gauged and discrimanated against people based on how well they spoke and wrote. That's what I mean when I say standard grammar has done more to further divide the races.
Who are you disagreeing with - me or the movement? The question I was answering was since when has ebonics ever been considered grammatically correct. The answer is generative transformational grammar. I mean yeah you can agree with the standard grammarians that ebonics is ungrammical. Fine. But standard grammar has no more authority on the subject than generative transformational grammar. They are both movements.
I am so flabbergasted by this statement that I'll just have to ask the most direct question I can think of: do you know what the word 'caricature' means...? What you seem to be saying is that a white person could not possible caricature a black person. Is that really how you feel? Do you believe the same standard should apply to black people? Should black people be prohibited from caricaturing whites because you "really can't understand what is and isn't" parody of being white? If so-- damn, I feel sorry for black standup comedians. They've just lost a gold mine of material in "white people can't..." jokes. Jeez, I think the cartoon was of questionable taste too. But I wouldn't go so far to insist that you have to be of a group to understand it, or to be able to poke fun at it. You're really limiting the scope of your own jokes, frankly, by doing that. I mean, I doubt the only humorous remarks you make are about people who are of the exact same gender, race, age, and socioeconomic bracket as you are. It's a question of taste. It's not a question of skin color.
To answer all three, yes. However, the effect can be far worst when a white person fails at a black caricature because the opposite is seen as racist. Not so with a white caricature. You may think that unfair but those are the facts. In addition, it is my general opinion that the racial divide has increased. The problem is our - meaning black folk and white folk - history seems to sabotage any honest dialogue between blacks and whites. No matter what a white person says - if it has to do with black folk at all - it will be viewed by the black community as racist. In the same way, white folk can't get past the color of black skin and generally view them as different and largely beneath white folk. It takes AS I SAID BEFORE a person of uncommon respect for his subject whether white or black to do justice to both sides of the issue. Now I hope you have lots to dispute! I promise I won't post in the thread again if you try to bait me into another arguement!
I just can't believe what I've read here.... Subtomic -- If you cannot tell the difference between language evolution and word assimilation vs. slang being made into an official language, then I truly feel sorry for you. And yes, if you cannot command the English language with a minimum amount of intellect, then my English is better than yours.
No....I did not connect standard grammar to black folk failing standardized tests. What I said was that if you were going to make that connection, then I wasn't interested in hearing it. Its the same argument I heard from people who were pro-ebonics when the issue was being debated. KBM -- man, that's been my point all along. Get educated, speak properly. You don't have to be freaking Shakespeare. No doctorates in english are required. Just speak properly and quit making excuses. In fact....??? Really? You honestly claim to know, as a fact, that intelligence level and communicating intelligently have nothing to do with each other?
I've seen a lot of posts on this BBS, but I've never seen one that so perfectly proves its own point. I was simply asking a question. I wanted to know if you had really thought through what you were saying, because what you had written seemed to be in advocacy of a world where any sort of attempt at humorously exaggerating another racial or ethnic group would be forbidden. I wasn't trying to bait you into anything. The fact that you think posting your honest opinion would constitute an "argument" says to me that you don't believe its an opinion that many people would find reasonable. This entire discussion is completely non-constructive. You seem to be lobbying for a permanent ban on hurt feelings, based on the fact that one tasteless cartoon was published in the student newspaper of Texas A&M. That attitude is a complete waste of time. Notice the title of this thread. What do you think I meant by "poor judgment"...? I'll tell you. I meant that if we hope to live in a society where we're not at each other's throats over trivialities, divided along racial lines, it's up to people in positions of authority to dismiss intentionally provocative garbage out of hand instead of giving it publicity it doesn't deserve. The issue here isn't whether or not white people should be allowed to make fun of black people, or vice versa. The issue here is whether or not the editorial page of the student paper at Texas A&M was the appropriate forum for it. I don't think it was. I think this entire mess could have been avoided if the editor had said, "OK, I see the point of this cartoon, but I think it's obscured by the offensive caricature of black people. I'm not going to run it as is".
Eddie Murphy does a great caricature of a white guy; how is that <b>possible</b>?! It's not according to some of what I read here. <b>RM95</b>: Whose camp is The Batt in: Jesse Jackson's or The Evil Republicans?
Here is the difference between you and me kagy. You feel an open mind is the only true way to arrive at the truth and connect your methods to socrates and what he did. I don't. I believe an open mind is good in some instances but in most cases it's worst than a narrow mind. One can search their whole life for answers but if one is not prepared to accept the closest thing to the truth then one will never believe in anything. There are no such things as cut and dry believes. And showing hypocries in everything is unproductive. And in the case of socrates, from the jump, he believe in what he criticized - just not in the same manner as the people he sought to correct. He was not trying to show WHY he didn't believe in such and such or criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but rather WHY his version of such and such was better. You, on the other hand, want to find an arguement point so that you can show WHY something is incorrect or hypocritical without even once looking seriously at what the other believes. The final straw is this last post. Now, you claim I "seemed to be in advocacy of a world where any sort of attempt at humorously exaggerating another racial or ethnic group would be forbidden," yet I said many times that it shouldn't be done for the simple fact that most people haven't the insight to know what is or isn't a caricature. And - please don't miss this and again - the opposite result is racist. Again, you'll cry OPEN MIND free speech, blah blah, blah. I say I don't have to get run over by a train to know that's something I should aviod.
I know that. This is what we disagree on. I think people are quite capable of caricaturing people of other races. The fact that one college cartoonist's ham-fisted attempt at caricature offended you is should be taken as an object lesson in the exercise of judgment by an editor-- in this case, the very poor exercise thereof. It is not an indictment of the ability of one race to caricature another. As for my methods of exploring your point of view, I disagree that I'm not interested in "looking seriously at what the other believes." I am not looking for an "argument point" so that I can show that what you believe is objectively wrong. I am looking for explanations as to why we believe different things. Those explanations are going to contradict what I believe, and in explaining the contradiction, I am going to present reasons why I hold opposite beliefs. Whether you realize it or not, by stating that the result of attempted caricature of a black by a white is going to inevitably be racist, you are implying that speech has to be limited according to skin color. I am not saying you necessarily believe that. I said it "seems" that you do, because the logical inference from your statements is that people shouldn't make fun of other races. Now, when the goal of poking fun is to produce polite, tasteful, parody, I disagree with you. When the cartoonist is drawing hsi work while peering through slits in a white bedsheet, as this ******* probably was, I don't disagree with you. The editor of the Battalion should have realized that this cartoon was a failure as a caricature. Instead, it acted in effect as a slur. You said: I have to ask, honestly-- how does that statement jibe with your remark that... That strikes me as a cut and dried belief, one with which I disagree.
Museum of racist memorabilia: Not much difference is there? http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/caricature/
PS, kbm-- I'm having fun here. This has been very interesting for me even if we don't agree on everything.
