Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 10:02 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
gemini072 wrote:
I honestly believe the ridicule of not being black enough & the lesbian rumors lead her to Bobby Brown.
Houston was booed on stage and vilified in public for singing "too white." As Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy points out in Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal, this phenomenon is very common. Most individuals who are seen as Black and and who also achieve success in the mainstream ("accepted by Whites" as Kennedy puts it) are similarly attacked. This includes Kennedy himself. Kennedy explains the historical roots of this crabs-in-a-bucket tradition. What Kennedy does not stress sufficiently, in my view, is the psychological pressure that it puts on talented, bright, or hard-working people. Many (like Kennedy himself) can shrug it off. But others, who crave love and approval, can be devastated by anxiety. They cannot suddenly become untalented, so it is hard for them to lose their popularity among Whites. Trapped, with no way out, they sometimes engage in self-destructive behavior. For insight into the phenomenon that mere success in mainstream society suffices to draw accusations of "selling out," I recommend Kennedy's book.
What you are talking about is not unique in anyway to a particular racial society. Roberta Flack's music crossed genre's and 1950's do-wop crossed racial popularity borders. There were times when Ricky Martin and Selina were not "spanish" enough and Shakira picks what ever roots she wants to pander to in the music business.
So is the flip-side to your claims about whitney Houston equivelent to the total non-recognition of Tina Marie by whites
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 10:24 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
pennypincha wrote:
What you are talking about is not unique in anyway to a particular racial society. ...
That is correct. It is common to most ethnicities, since most ethnicities patrol their own borders in order to detect and punish deviance. Kennedy gets into that at great depth. That is why I recommend his book. What is unique about the A-A ethnicity, to my understanding, is that it is the only one in the U.S. today where mere success is seen as deviance.
If you believe that the singer was booed and vilified on stage because of the content of her art, then the punishment would not be unique to the A-A ethnicity (as in your example).
But if you believe, as I do, that it was triggered merely by her popularity among Whites (by her success) and nothing more, and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of her art, then it would more closely resemble the A-A vilification of Colin Powell, John McWhorter, and Randall Kennedy himself--because mere success/popularity among the greater society suffices to brand you a sell-out among many A-A's.
The only similar example I can think of is when Heather Locklear was booed when she accepted an award from a Native-American actors' organization. The parallel is not exact because Locklear's transgression was her looks, not her popularity. (Despite her being a member of the Lumbee tribe by birth, many N-As do not accept her because she does not "look N-A" to USAmericans.)
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 13:30 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
pennypincha wrote:
What you are talking about is not unique in anyway to a particular racial society. ...
That is correct. It is common to most ethnicities, since most ethnicities patrol their own borders in order to detect and punish deviance. Kennedy gets into that at great depth. That is why I recommend his book. What is unique about the A-A ethnicity, to my understanding, is that it is the only one in the U.S. today where mere success is seen as deviance.
If you believe that the singer was booed and vilified on stage because of the content of her art, then the punishment would not be unique to the A-A ethnicity (as in your example).
I think that this did play a big part in it. I'll say that it really does depend on 'where she chose to perform' (actually it was the Soul Train Music Awards) da dum. because Whitney's music at that time did get regular airplay on 'black' radio, and a lot of it was mixed right in with Sade & Anita Baker [who by the way was not received by the Jazz community as a Jazz singer because her music was RnB yet her vocal style was Jazz - this came out around her 3rd album Compositions, which had a more jazzy feel]
But if you believe, as I do, that it was triggered merely by her popularity among Whites (by her success) and nothing more, and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of her art,
I'm thinking it couldn't be just because of success, because Janet Jackson had the same success-crossover success even to a greater degree. Lionell Ritchie did, Tina Turner (What's Love Got To Do With It)as well.
Prince was booed off the stage along with having garbage thrown at him when he oppened for the Rolling Stones in 1981 (some say it was for his sexually ambiguous look)
quote: However, many black critics complained that her(whitney's) music was "too White" and that she was selling out. Some noted that her singing on record lacked the soul that was present in her concerts. At the 1989 Soul Train Music Awards, when Houston's name was called out for a nomination, the audience booed her.
then it would more closely resemble the A-A vilification of Colin Powell, John McWhorter, and Randall Kennedy himself--because mere success/popularity among the greater society suffices to brand you a sell-out among many A-A's.
The only similar example I can think of is when Heather Locklear was booed when she accepted an award from a Native-American actors' organization. The parallel is not exact because Locklear's transgression was her looks, not her popularity. (Despite her being a member of the Lumbee tribe by birth, many N-As do not accept her because she does not "look N-A" to USAmericans.)
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 15:13 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
pennypincha wrote:
What you are talking about is not unique in anyway to a particular racial society. ...
That is correct. It is common to most ethnicities, since most ethnicities patrol their own borders in order to detect and punish deviance. Kennedy gets into that at great depth. That is why I recommend his book. What is unique about the A-A ethnicity, to my understanding, is that it is the only one in the U.S. today where mere success is seen as deviance.
If you believe that the singer was booed and vilified on stage because of the content of her art, then the punishment would not be unique to the A-A ethnicity (as in your example).
But if you believe, as I do, that it was triggered merely by her popularity among Whites (by her success) and nothing more, and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of her art, then it would more closely resemble the A-A vilification of Colin Powell, John McWhorter, and Randall Kennedy himself--because mere success/popularity among the greater society suffices to brand you a sell-out among many A-A's.
The only similar example I can think of is when Heather Locklear was booed when she accepted an award from a Native-American actors' organization. The parallel is not exact because Locklear's transgression was her looks, not her popularity. (Despite her being a member of the Lumbee tribe by birth, many N-As do not accept her because she does not "look N-A" to USAmericans.)
I doubt that non-Native American looks are relevant. Note the very Euro looking Louise Erdrich:
The real issue might be the fact that the Lumbee are not a federally recognized tribe (the lack of a stereotypical Native American culture, separate language, traditional costumes and African ancestry are all related to that problem).
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 17:34 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
jagirl32 wrote:
So can we say that the AA community distroyed her?
gemini072 wrote:
jagirl32 wrote:
have mercy none of our generation of singers could hold a candle to whitney. knowing this i find myself asking quite often how this prodegy of a singer could allow her life to turn out the way it did. now, because of constant drug use, her voice is not what it used to be; she's broke; and is in the middle of a bitter divorce. i mean, what gives?
Welcome to Hollywood!!
I honestly believe the ridicule of not being black enough & the lesbian rumors lead her to Bobby Brown.
I think Clive & her cousin stepped in before she really finally went down.
her weakness for crack cocaine destroyed her, as it is detroying Amy Winehouse as we speak and many others not so famous
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 17:45 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
pennypincha wrote:
What you are talking about is not unique in anyway to a particular racial society. ...
That is correct. It is common to most ethnicities, since most ethnicities patrol their own borders in order to detect and punish deviance. Kennedy gets into that at great depth. That is why I recommend his book. What is unique about the A-A ethnicity, to my understanding, is that it is the only one in the U.S. today where mere success is seen as deviance.
I would like to understand your last sentence, are you saying that you believe that persons who self identify as African American hold a cultural belief that sucess (winning, achieving set goals, etc.) is considered a deviance or, as I think I am interpeting correctly, you think that persons who self identify as African American hold a cultural belief that sucess (as you are defining to mean as acceptance by whites)consider that a deviance.
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 18:29 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
pennypincha wrote:
I would like to understand your last sentence, are you saying that you believe that persons who self identify as African American hold a cultural belief that sucess (winning, achieving set goals, etc.) is considered a deviance or, as I think I am interpeting correctly, you think that persons who self identify as African American hold a cultural belief that sucess (as you are defining to mean as acceptance by whites)consider that a deviance.
Neither. You misunderstand (or ignore) two important points in what I wrote. First, I am not talking about all African Americans. Second, I am not defining "success."
First, I am not talking about all African Americans. I am talking only about those African Americans who make it their business to patrol the borders of their ethnicity. Not every African American feels compelled to call someone a "sell-out" and a "traitor to their race" merely because their target has gotten too close to Whites. But many African Americans do feel compelled to do this. As Kennedy points out, this "border patrol" phenomenon is common to every ethnic group.
Again, not every member of any ethnicity takes this task upon themselves. But every ethnicity does have a "border patrol" of members who do this. Indeed, this is a defining feature of "ethnicity." If a self-defined group lacks a "border patrol" to punish deviant behavior it is not an ethnic group. For a good introduction to this concept, see Werner Sollors, Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader (Washington Square NY: New York University, 1996).
Second, I am not defining "success." This is something that everyone must define for themselves.
What I said was that those African Americans who become popular and looked-up-to by Whites are specifically targeted by the A-A border patrol. The border patrols of most ethnicities punish deviance from accepted language, religion, costume, foods, and the like. But the A-A border patrol hurls accusations of "sell-out" and "race-traitor" for merely being popular among and accepted by Whites. No other present-day U.S. ethnicity's border patrol does this.
A Jew, Puerto Rican, Asian-American, or Muslim who follows his or her ethnicity's rules is not accused of "selling-out" merely because he or she is popular among Whites. To other ethnicities, popularity among Whites is neutral, neither praiseworthy nor reprehensible. But among A-A's, the mere fact of being popular among Whites arouses suspicion and accusations of "selling out."
The way Kennedy explains the chain of rationalization, it goes like this: (1) Pat Smith is popular among Whites. (2) Why is Pat Smith popular among Whites? (3) It must be because Whites agree with with what Pat Smith says. (4) In other words, Smith is popular because Smith is telling Whites what they want to hear. (5) This means Pat Smith must be selling us out--a traitor to the race.
You seem to be uninformed about ethnicity formation in general and the border patrol phenomenon in particular. For this I recommend Sollors. You also seem uninformed that the A-A border patrol frequently hurls accusations of "race traitor" and "sell-out." And you seem to be uninformed that such attacks are often triggered by nothing more than mere popularity among Whites. For this I recommend Kennedy. If you find it inconvenient to read the books I recommend, you might simply ask an African American of some maturity (not a recent immigrant) if they have ever heard the phrase "crabs in a bucket" (regionally, also "crabs in a barrel" or "crabs in a basket").
Where "success" comes into the picture is that few Americans can become financially successful (which I would define as achieving a net worth of over $250,000) without being liked by Whites. This is because most Americans are Whites (in the endogamous color-line sense). And so the two (financial success and popularity with Whites) tend to go hand in hand.
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 18:53 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
pennypincha wrote:
jagirl32 wrote:
So can we say that the AA community distroyed her?
gemini072 wrote:
jagirl32 wrote:
have mercy none of our generation of singers could hold a candle to whitney. knowing this i find myself asking quite often how this prodegy of a singer could allow her life to turn out the way it did. now, because of constant drug use, her voice is not what it used to be; she's broke; and is in the middle of a bitter divorce. i mean, what gives?
Welcome to Hollywood!!
I honestly believe the ridicule of not being black enough & the lesbian rumors lead her to Bobby Brown.
I think Clive & her cousin stepped in before she really finally went down.
her weakness for crack cocaine destroyed her, as it is detroying Amy Winehouse as we speak and many others not so famous
She's not destroyed, but I agree with the intent of your statement.
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 21:22 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
What is unique about the A-A ethnicity, to my understanding, is that it is the only one in the U.S. today where mere success is seen as deviance.
)
Who are these AAs who scream that failure is a true sign of black success? Which leaders? Which organizations?
Are people angry that Obama might become the first AA President? He is half white, raised by whites and is only acheiving this because he is obtaining many votes from whites who therefore clearly like him.
What is interesting is before Obama could have shown blacks that he had the ability to win white votes Clinton had as much or even more support from blacks. Its after his surprising victory in Iowa, one of the whitest states in the USA that has support surged. Why if the mere fact of close association with whites is enough to call the folks who you call teh AA border patrol out?
Even Al Sharpton didnt race out to condemn him after his Iowa victory.
Are people angry at black folks who have done well in corporate America, clearly possible only because of their ability to operate within this environment? As often as I have seen the CEOs of American Express, Time warner and others celebrated by black organizations I doubt this.
Are there black organizations who urge blacks to fail to prove their blackness?
Or are we talking about blacks who belong to that segment which is locked in hopelessness and jealous of any who may have found a way out. And of a narrow group of imposters out to exploit the insecurities of these people?
Yes there is an oppositional culture within segments of the AA community that punishes success by its members out of its own jealousy. This is true of many other under class communities in the USA.
And why is it that objecting to people like McWhorter, Collin Powell and others is a celebration of failure? There are loads of people who arent black who might share the same opinion of these folks, and their white equivalent.
Why not let us look at who booed Whitney and why. Willing to bet these were ordinary black individuals not empowered enough to shape broad based black opinion.
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 21:41 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
caribj wrote:
Who are these AAs who scream that failure is a true sign of black success? Which leaders? Which organizations?
This is the last time that I am going to repeat myself. The accusations of "sell-out" and "race traitor" hurled at any A-A who becomes popular among Whites come from those African-Americans who make it their business to patrol the edges of A-A legitimacy. There are many examples in Randall Kennedy Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal. I am not going to present all of Kennedy's book here. You have the right to disagree with his findings (and the many other sources that he cites). Keep in mind, however, that if you remain deliberately ignorant of the data, your protestations are unpersuasive. Read the book. Read his sources. Until you do, you are just making noise.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:22 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
pennypincha wrote:
I would like to understand your last sentence, are you saying that you believe that persons who self identify as African American hold a cultural belief that sucess (winning, achieving set goals, etc.) is considered a deviance or, as I think I am interpeting correctly, you think that persons who self identify as African American hold a cultural belief that sucess (as you are defining to mean as acceptance by whites)consider that a deviance.
Neither. You misunderstand (or ignore) two important points in what I wrote. First, I am not talking about all African Americans. Second, I am not defining "success."
First, I am not talking about all African Americans. I am talking only about those African Americans who make it their business to patrol the borders of their ethnicity. Not every African American feels compelled to call someone a "sell-out" and a "traitor to their race" merely because their target has gotten too close to Whites. But many African Americans do feel compelled to do this. As Kennedy points out, this "border patrol" phenomenon is common to every ethnic group.
Again, not every member of any ethnicity takes this task upon themselves. But every ethnicity does have a "border patrol" of members who do this. Indeed, this is a defining feature of "ethnicity." If a self-defined group lacks a "border patrol" to punish deviant behavior it is not an ethnic group. For a good introduction to this concept, see Werner Sollors, Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader (Washington Square NY: New York University, 1996).
Second, I am not defining "success." This is something that everyone must define for themselves.
What I said was that those African Americans who become popular and looked-up-to by Whites are specifically targeted by the A-A border patrol. The border patrols of most ethnicities punish deviance from accepted language, religion, costume, foods, and the like. But the A-A border patrol hurls accusations of "sell-out" and "race-traitor" for merely being popular among and accepted by Whites. No other present-day U.S. ethnicity's border patrol does this.
A Jew, Puerto Rican, Asian-American, or Muslim who follows his or her ethnicity's rules is not accused of "selling-out" merely because he or she is popular among Whites. To other ethnicities, popularity among Whites is neutral, neither praiseworthy nor reprehensible. But among A-A's, the mere fact of being popular among Whites arouses suspicion and accusations of "selling out."
The way Kennedy explains the chain of rationalization, it goes like this: (1) Pat Smith is popular among Whites. (2) Why is Pat Smith popular among Whites? (3) It must be because Whites agree with with what Pat Smith says. (4) In other words, Smith is popular because Smith is telling Whites what they want to hear. (5) This means Pat Smith must be selling us out--a traitor to the race.
You seem to be uninformed about ethnicity formation in general and the border patrol phenomenon in particular. For this I recommend Sollors. You also seem uninformed that the A-A border patrol frequently hurls accusations of "race traitor" and "sell-out." And you seem to be uninformed that such attacks are often triggered by nothing more than mere popularity among Whites. For this I recommend Kennedy. If you find it inconvenient to read the books I recommend, you might simply ask an African American of some maturity (not a recent immigrant) if they have ever heard the phrase "crabs in a bucket" (regionally, also "crabs in a barrel" or "crabs in a basket").
Where "success" comes into the picture is that few Americans can become financially successful (which I would define as achieving a net worth of over $250,000) without being liked by Whites. This is because most Americans are Whites (in the endogamous color-line sense). And so the two (financial success and popularity with Whites) tend to go hand in hand.
Although you seem to think the race-traitor/sell-out phenom is unique to some un-named number of African Americans, try typing "any race" "traitor race and sell-out" in google and you will find articles for and against just about any member of any race in conflict with just about and other race or ethncity
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:49 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
pennypincha wrote:
Although you seem to think the race-traitor/sell-out phenom is unique to some un-named number of African Americans, try typing "any race" "traitor race and sell-out" in google and you will find articles for and against just about any member of any race in conflict with just about and other race or ethncity
Despite my repeating myself many times, you continue to misstate my thesis. You are now violating the straw-man rule. Do it again and your posting privilege will be suspended. This is a formal warning.
One last time. As Kennedy points out, every ethnicity has a border patrol that accuses deviants of selling out. But the A-A border patrol is the only one that sees mere popularity among Whites as deviance.
When you get a chance, please read rule 3.1.4: "Before posting an opinion on any specific journal article or book you must show that you have read it."
[Incidentally, your words, "any race in conflict with just about and other race," suggest that the A-A community is in conflict with Whites (defined as everyone on the other side of the U.S. endogamous barrier). This idea that the fundamental paradigm of A-A goals and striving is to be in "conflict"with Whites is an interesting notion, which I would like to split off to its own thread.]
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:19 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
pennypincha wrote:
[Although you seem to think the race-traitor/sell-out phenom is unique to some un-named number of African Americans, try typing "any race" "traitor race and sell-out" in google and you will find articles for and against just about any member of any race in conflict with just about and other race or ethncity
"Self hating Jews" "support" the Palestinians, or marry nonJews based on the opinions of some Jewish border patrollers. Any minority group which has had a history of persecution does the same thing. That is suspect members of their own group who consort too closely with the group considered the enemy. Given the history of race relations in the USA it isnt surprsiing that segments of the African American community put whites in that category.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:30 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
caribj wrote:
"Self hating Jews" "support" the Palestinians, or marry nonJews . "Self hating" CubansAmericans "support" dialogue with Castro. Any minority group which has had a history of persecution does the same thing.
Non sequitur. That is not what this thread is about.
If you have evidence of Jews being called sell-outs for merely being popular among gentiles or of Cuban-Americans being called sell-outs for merely being popular among Castro-supporters, now is the time to produce it. You have 24 hours.
If, instead, you wish open a thread on the use of "self-hating" (as opposed to "sell out") just say so and I would be happy to start a thread on this.
Alternatively, if you want to discuss punishment for supporting the enemy in a conflict, just say so, explain its connection to the study of racialism and I shall do so.
Finally, if you want to discuss how many A-A's see Whites as the enemy, then we already have a thread on this, and you should continue there.
Please do not try to change the subject again. You are in violation of 3.5. First warning.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 19:38 Post subject: Re: oh whitney
fwsweet wrote:
[If you have evidence of Jews being called sell-outs for merely being popular among gentiles or of Cuban-Americans being called sell-outs for merely being popular among Castro-supporters, now is the time to produce it. You have 24 hours.
.
Wikepedia has listed specific attacks by radical elements of the Cuban American community. While this source is not usually reliable given that they refer to specific attacks on specific Cuban Americans whose opinions on dialgue with Castro fell out of the boundaries set by certain border patrollers its relevant.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
