What I didn't say there was that I think there's a tendency in sociology/anthropology to want to make enormous generalizations based on limited samples because:
1. Behavioral Scientists want to make the social world like the physical world, which it is not.
2. Both disciplines are rooted in and maintain the legacies of colonialism.
I don't think either of these statements are all that controversial, but I didn't feel like arguing with someone with a doctorate in one or the other.
The whole thing is predicating on too many questionable concepts to be worth more than a casual glance and shoulder shrug. I don't feel like it's worthy of an Ohhellnaw!
However I am a pretty peeved with the assumption that most black kids are big idiots who stand around and poke fun at signs of intelligence in other blacks. Of course, t happens sometimes, but it is by no means the standard or rule.
The whole study (or at least the synopsis here) just seems cobbled together without any standards or sound methodology.
don't make me bring up "revenge of the nerds"unscrambledAugust 1 2007, 16:06:53 UTC
I tend to think shampoo ads are worth an ohhellnaw (though I believe in gradations, of course), but I agree with you--I saw the article on Sunday and thought--wow, lookitthat. Ah well.
The pernicious bullshit (parroted by Barack Obama and other people who should fucking know better, as well as legions of schmucks) about the mockery of intelligence being the sole domain of black kids is such an incredible crock of shit. Because white nerds are certainly never mocked for being nerdy, nor Latin@s, Middle Eastern and North African people, Asians, Native/NDNs, etc.--do I really need to bring up the fact that Lamar was the only black nerd in "Revenge of the Nerds" and that the jocks were white (as far as I remember) to suggest that mocking smart kids is not solely the realm of black kids? Bloody hell.
Re: don't make me bring up "revenge of the nerds"seriesfinaleAugust 1 2007, 18:30:35 UTC
Heh, and don't forget, Lambda Lambda Lambda, the nerds' fraternity, was traditionally an African-American organization. Their fellow members come to the nerds' physical defense at the end.
you could see nerds' "truth to themselves" as some kind of laudable integrity, or you could see it as evidence of an inability to adapt/integrate socially. all this shiz is too damn fuzzy!
yeah it is wildly fuzzy. there is no mention of which subgroup she is referring to. as we can see here on the geek hierarchy there are far too many gradations for any of this to hold any water.
i guess (i am about to be sorry for this offhand thought, probably) but in the sociomythology of "whiteness" v. "blackness" and "brownness," in a lot of ways, asians are kind of on the OTHER side of the continuum--whiter than whites. i'm thinking of stuff like the cultural desexualization of asian men, their stereotypical fastidiousness, etc.? NOT SAYING I PROMOTE ANY OF THIS, just drooling on LJ.
it's too bad that this 'book review' is just a summary of the book. how bout some methodology, analysis, context (are there any other arguments out there, academic or otherwise?).
mainly it just seems to be arguing backwards, like black=cool therefore nerd=white. just like that, all categories align in an infinitely predictable pattern, forever. Oh, wait, there are more categories than "black" and "white"? And more than "nerd" and "cool"? And sometimes these categories are self-applied in jest, play, or subversion? uh oh.
all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squaresolaminaAugust 1 2007, 21:33:40 UTC
mainly it just seems to be arguing backwards, like black=cool therefore nerd=white.
there are a lot of bad equations here.
uncool doesn't always equal nerd. sometimes uncool is dork or geek or something altogether other. intelligent doesn't always equal nerd. also black doesn't always equal unintelligent. black doesn't always equal cool. nerd doesn't always equal uncool.
and i could go on and on.
also besides my mention of the fact that she doesn't clearly define nerd. she also doesn't clearly define coolness or blackness or whiteness. i must know what whiteness is before i can know what this ultra/hyper-whiteness is.
Comments 18
http://community.livejournal.com/deadbrowalking/178952.html
What I didn't say there was that I think there's a tendency in sociology/anthropology to want to make enormous generalizations based on limited samples because:
1. Behavioral Scientists want to make the social world like the physical world, which it is not.
2. Both disciplines are rooted in and maintain the legacies of colonialism.
I don't think either of these statements are all that controversial, but I didn't feel like arguing with someone with a doctorate in one or the other.
Reply
However I am a pretty peeved with the assumption that most black kids are big idiots who stand around and poke fun at signs of intelligence in other blacks. Of course, t happens sometimes, but it is by no means the standard or rule.
The whole study (or at least the synopsis here) just seems cobbled together without any standards or sound methodology.
Reply
The pernicious bullshit (parroted by Barack Obama and other people who should fucking know better, as well as legions of schmucks) about the mockery of intelligence being the sole domain of black kids is such an incredible crock of shit. Because white nerds are certainly never mocked for being nerdy, nor Latin@s, Middle Eastern and North African people, Asians, Native/NDNs, etc.--do I really need to bring up the fact that Lamar was the only black nerd in "Revenge of the Nerds" and that the jocks were white (as far as I remember) to suggest that mocking smart kids is not solely the realm of black kids? Bloody hell.
Reply
Reply
also THEY FORGOT SOMEONE:
( ... )
Reply
there is no mention of which subgroup she is referring to. as we can see here on the geek hierarchy there are far too many gradations for any of this to hold any water.
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
mainly it just seems to be arguing backwards, like black=cool therefore nerd=white. just like that, all categories align in an infinitely predictable pattern, forever. Oh, wait, there are more categories than "black" and "white"? And more than "nerd" and "cool"? And sometimes these categories are self-applied in jest, play, or subversion? uh oh.
Reply
there are a lot of bad equations here.
uncool doesn't always equal nerd. sometimes uncool is dork or geek or something altogether other.
intelligent doesn't always equal nerd.
also black doesn't always equal unintelligent.
black doesn't always equal cool.
nerd doesn't always equal uncool.
and i could go on and on.
also besides my mention of the fact that she doesn't clearly define nerd. she also doesn't clearly define coolness or blackness or whiteness. i must know what whiteness is before i can know what this ultra/hyper-whiteness is.
Reply
Kindly,
Kathrin
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment