I find this argument kind of interesting. I've noticed it before, but this one is so blatant that I feel compelled to comment on it.
The idea that black people are less reasonable and more emotionally driven than white people is one most people openly believed was true until quite recently. Even after psychologists began to show that racial differences in intelligence didn't really exist, the assumption of emotionally driven black psychology never really went away. If anything, the civil rights movement intensified the idea of black people as angry, because that happens to any group arguing against its own mistreatment.
Assumptions about black people's emotions are still literally everywhere. It's why so many memes feature images of black people, it's why white people online sometimes affect mangled AAVE when they want to express how strongly they feel about something. The assumption is that it's normal for black people to have strong emotions, including anger, and unlike white anger black anger can be funny because it's excessive, it's silly and performative. It's not something that has to be taken seriously (unless it happens in person, and then it's deeply threatening and someone's probably calling the cops).
I started going through this post line by line, but all I can say is a big "if you say so?" I mean, I had to look up what AAVE even stood for, and the rest...sure, maybe it's true, some of the claims I find very suspect, but again..."if you say so?"
Many of the black characters we see in media and enjoy are ultimately stereotypes to one degree or another, including stereotypes about angry black people. Even if they're not, they often end up being read through those stereotypes anyway.
Can you provide examples?
So what you're saying when you say "I've never encountered these stereotypes" is not that you've never encountered them. You absolutely have. It's that you've never been aware of them, and that's not a good thing. That doesn't suggest that you've somehow overcome racism by virtue of being an innocent widdle baby who through pure naiveite has escaped any cultural education whatsoever, it suggests that you've just absorbed everything you see as normal, as not worth thinking about or even noticing, and that you're willing to argue to preserve that ignorance dressed up as innocence even if it means denying someone else's lived experience.
It's just not a good look, or a good argument.
Here, however, you veer hard into dishonest tactics. The irony of it is that you saying I'm denying someone else's lived experience, whereas here, you're denying my lived experience. Which is a pretty useless term (to borrow a phrase, "what can be raised by anecdote can be dismissed by anecdote"), but you're the one who's deployed it. It reminds me of experiences I've had where I've told people that I don't believe in God, and they can't accept the fact that no, the reason isn't because of a loss of faith. You're making a statement that's unfalisifiable.
I'll take your word for it that these stereotypes exist. Some of them even ring true (e.g. the cops). But, well...
Or maybe he is Australian and while Australia sure has more than enough racism controversies and stereotypes those are not necessarily identical to American ones or informed by the US civil rights movement.
This.
And for the record, I did study US history, including the civil rights movement, but that was an elective, and the idea of "angry blacks?" Well, yes, there was a lot of anger in the civil rights movement, as you'd expect. Anger is a pretty normal emotion. If I get through the week at work without someone being angry (usually a member of the public), I've come off lucky.
And yes, Australia is a bit different in that it has an indigenous black population. But, while as a non-Australian I feel a bit weird about making this assumption, I would absolutely take the bet that the average white Australian has seen far more representations of black Americans in media than they have indigenous Australians, and is intimately familiar with the trends surrounding the portrayal of black Americans in media.
Those are two different bets.
First, I'd be willing to take the first bet, but it's a rigged bet. The US film industry is far larger than the Australian film industry, and Afro-Americans are a much larger share of the population (13-16% vs. 3-4%, IIRC).
Second, I'd also be willing to take a bet on the second, but against you. Mark Knight had never heard of the stereotypes he was accused of with Serena Williams for instance. I'd never even heard the term "blacksploitation" until people threw it around in light of Black KkkKlansmen. I'd expect most people to be aware of American history in general here, but not in-depth American film history.
Which brings me back to the first post you quoted. Say "black sapphire" here, and I'd bet that the first piece of media that would come to someone's mind is (if anything)
The Sapphires, which was a fairly popular film. I wouldn't expect that connection to be made outside the country.
So would my exposure to US culture exports be enough to keep me up to date about US cultural trends, attitudes, controversies or prejudices ? No, not even remotely. Nearly all of my knowledge about that is what i get over this very forum.
And why should it be different for Hawki ?
I'm in a similar boat.
I've certainly been exposed to US cultural products before, and studied US history as part of an elective (it was "Modern History," which included US history), and have picked up stuff along the way. There's a reason that 911 is known as an emergency no. here, even if anyone actually knows (I hope) to call 000.
On the other hand, that isn't the same thing as living in the US, or visiting the US (which aside from Hawaii, is for me, about half a month in San Francisco). So maybe everything TB says is correct (even if it's highly generalizing), but while I'd argue that the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and NZ do share cultural heritage, there's going to be a wealth of differences as well.
Basically an entire town in ireland got shut down because a Krispy Kreme opened. It caused absolute havoc. All because a shit donut shop people heard of on the telly opened up. Then again ireland in particular has basically decided Starbucks is better than having a culture.
Wait, was it shut down because they wanted it closed, or shut down because they wanted its donuts?
Also, I like Starbucks, or did, even if I spent time on its frappuchinos and nothing else...make of that what you will.
