Radcliffe Wrote:
This talk of "niggas" and "spades" hits me fairly hard, but probably because, out of all the black people I've either been friends with or worked with, exactly none of them have talked in the stereotypical "ebonic" dialect and exactly all of them would be highly offended by the assumption that they did...
Question: would you be friends with black people who did speak in the stereotypical "ebonic" dialect?
I'm assuming you are not so naive as to believe that just because your friends/co-workers don't speak/act this way, that no black people do? As a white person, if I introduced a black friend of mine to you, wouldn't you be more shocked if he spoke in the stereotypical ebonic dialect?
I'm not criticizing--I think I am in the same boat (insofar as I have black friends and co-workers who do not fit the stereotype...hell the CEO of my company is black). But the stereotype exists because, yes, these people do exist. Saying that does not make me a racist.
Here is the predicament I frequently find: you can look at two rooms - (1)a room filled with all manners of nationalities, sexualities, religions, genders, etc. and assume that the audience is diverse and (2) a room filled with white middle-aged men and assume the group is homogenous.
But once the people in these two rooms start speaking and sharing ideas, the initial evaluation may as well be worthless. If everyone is of the same opinion in room #1, is it really a diverse group? If there is free exchange of many various, contradictory opinions in room #2, is it still homogenous?
It seems odd that corporate society (at least my corporate society) values the apparent diversity present in room #1, but at the same time declares that race/religion/etc. doesn't matter and that these traits are irrelevant.
///sorry, beginning to ramble....