1. Hence "the most academic sense". Academics define technical terms differently then average people do for the purpose of effectively examining things, just like engineers do.mokmoof said:Six things:AdumbroDeus said:I'm not saying that you personally are racist (well, beyond the most academic sense of the term which is morally neutral it's impossible to discuss modern race issues without being able to see things in terms of race), you merely have no expirience with modern African-American urban culture beyond the "hollywood" version of it that's presented in hip-hop.
The people who do know are the racists.
This is not mistral-speak, this is ebonics. The small similarities are only present because evolution in language resulted in some vestiges remaining in the modern language.
Why is this sickening? Because this is yet another example of people attacking ebonics, classifying it as uneducated and uncouth and implicitly classifying everyone who uses it as such.
What makes it even worse is that this time, they suckered a bunch of well-meaning people who merely were unfamiliar with the culture of modern urban centers into protesting in favor of this view that ebonics means the speaker is uneducated in order to cement it into the popular consciousness, when it is clearly false.
That is tragic and sickening.
1. Not to be a stickler, but "racist" does not mean "seeing things in terms of race." According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." To see race as a social and historical circumstance is not the same thing as ascribing intrinsic characteristics or innate superiority to people based upon their racial backgrounds. To talk about race, then, is not an automatically racist pursuit.
2. How you can presume to know what personal experience I have "with modern African-American urban culture" is totally beyond me--unless you're assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must simply lack the wisdom and experience necessary to agree with you.
3. You've yet to explain how exactly "Hollywood" enters into this conversation.
4. As I said, it's entirely possible that some real people sound more or less like Latisha. I've never met one, and I've met plenty of people who speak in what could reasonably be called Ebonics and who sound nothing like Latisha, but the black people whom I happen to know do not somehow represent the Platonic ideal of all black people as such--nor do those whom you happen to know. For someone going on about diversity, you seem to be pretty convinced that there is an absolute linguistic sameness among all black people who live in all cities everywhere.
5. As succinctly as possible: To question the specific way that Latisha talks (even if that manner of speaking is indeed a subset of Ebonics) is absolutely not an attack on the whole of Ebonics, which is in any case a linguistically imperfect category that refers to lots and lots of different ways of speaking, rather than some cohesive, unified, downtrodden mono-accent.
6. It is baffling to me that you would be so offended by a perceived attack on Ebonics (because you see it as an attack on a racial minority), and yet see nothing at all wrong with perpetuating racist character cliches (which historically have constituted an attack on racial minorities).
2. Because your argument doesn't attempt to explain individuals who DO use that variant of the english language. It just assumes that this based entirely on mistral-speak.
3. I'm equating knowing about urban african-american culture from hip-hop to knowing any other culture solely through hollywood. Pop culture is not the same as culture and any representation gleaned from it will be grossly inaccurate.
4. You're drawing a conclusion that I never stated. There are substantial linguistic variances based on regions and even within regions. That said, her language is distinctly identifiable as ebonics.
5. Because every commentary on ebonics follows this exact same assertion, that it is uneducated and uncouth. This attempts to differentiate itself by saying that it bears a resemblance to mistral-speak which is passing at best.
6. Because it's NOT a racist cliche, it's a normal homeless person with a normal way of speaking for that area that follows normal patterns of behavior. If this was the only context that African-Americans were presented in within the story then it would be suggesting that all african-americans were homeless with all that implies. As best I can tell, it doesn't, so she's within acceptable variation of characters within the game.
When you suggest that she as a singular character by her speech pattern perpetuates African-American steriotypes by speaking in ebonics, then it becomes an attack on the vocal pattern and in turn an attack on African-Americans as a racial minority.