It's the whole look. The gold teeth, the baggy pants capable of concealing major weaponry, the expensive shoes that (for some) are worth killing to have. And I don't know how I would react to seeing someone dressed like this in the suburbs, because I can't really recall ever seeing someone dressed like this in the suburbs

a trip to the suburbs might prove to be quite a trip indeed. altho i don't venture there often because of all the things you hear about the suburbanite community, i do occasionally venture out into the world. except for gold teeth (which must be an eastcoast reverse status thing cuz next to a pair of overalls and muddy brogans, you can't hardly find an accessory that says 'i'm country' quite as effectively) it appears to me that those suburb youths are buying and wearing pretty much the same thuggin life stuff.

the main difference i've noticed is chad and dylan are much more likely to have their hair shorn down to a stubble to make themselves look scaaary.

it works, too.

that's why i always order my mayo sammiches to go.

altho schizophrenia doesn't really entail dual personae, one element here is the contradiction between what a lotta people say they believe and what they clearly must believe.

those who attribute behavior to the _________ community (however you wanna fill in that blank) obviously feel there is such a monolithic thing somewhere. these are almost always the same people who besides denying the existence of any similar community consisting of others with the same color skin, langage, etc. as themselves, will spend hours explaining how their own community (which doesn't exist, remember) is more civil and better behaved.

ya can't have it both ways, folks. either you've gotta acknowledge and take responsibility for all the outrages perpetrated by your community AND immediately start falling in line when someone starts lecturing you about spoiling your kids or cheating on your taxes OR quit calling for others to take responsibility for everything that happens in their respective mythical community in addition to respectfully heeding advice you yourself would laff off should it be proffered by some boozed up ol usedtobe sitcom star & pudding pusher of your own race.

Look, all I was saying is that there is no way to tell what a criminal looks like. Clothing that is associated with thugs can be coordinated to look nice too. There is no way to tell what a thug looks like.

Running ambulance in Atlanta, we had to learn quick "what a thug looks like". Those clothes may not mean much more than fashion to you, but not knowing what they mean to a banger could cost us our lives.

We literally looked to gang leaders for their nod before cutting clothes that were part of the gangs colors. We had to know which bandanas, shirts, pants (whatever) mattered and which ones didn't.

When I tell people about that it bothers them to hear. They think it means we are acknowledging and respecting the leadership positions within the gangs. I tell them it's not about respect, it's about getting the job done and staying alive doing it.

You and I may wear what we like, and you may complain about getting typecast because of what you wear. However to others, their clothes and what they say mean more to them than their lives.

Look, all I was saying is that there is no way to tell what a criminal looks like. Clothing that is associated with thugs can be coordinated to look nice too. There is no way to tell what a thug looks like.

Ever hear the saying "the clothes make the man"?.......

True, although I wouldn't think the stares you get are as hostile as the ones I do. I could be wrong, of course.

Hostile might be better than the uncomfortable silence I often get; at least I'd know what they think, at any rate. Most of my immediate neighbors (one or two houses or so) are fine and I get along with them (the guy across the street, Earl, even lent me his lawnmower). But the ones further down the block give me the stares and glares; I suppose, if they knew me, they wouldn't, but I still get the impression from some of them that I'm not really wanted there.

You don't see any rock stars smiling either, though.

Sure you do; and even if you didn't, I think that the ratio of "threatening" album/CD covers from rock groups, even Heavy and Death Metal, would be much lower than those put out by the "thug-life" crowd of "street hoods" and 'bangers. I mean, I know I don't have to worry about Ozzy Osbourne in werewolf form attacking me while I sleep or Marilyn Manson sacrificing me to Satan. But, I also know that if I go into the wrong area, I can be attacked and killed for my skin color (or lack thereof, rather), or if I happened to be wearing the wrong color of clothing or just incidentally shot down in a drug deal gone bad, drive-by or other shooting incident. Which is more threatening?

Society has to stop thinking that these rappers are "gangstas," though. We must learn to differentiate between real gangbangers on the street and "studio gangstas" who are nothing but the products of record labels. This issue is addressed by a rather recent Terror Squad song, "Lean Back". One of its lyrics mentions how rap acts have "made gang signs commercial," and how they're being flashed by individuals who have no business claiming to know the lifestyle.

Some really are, though; Snoop Dogg is one banger who proudly rode his "street cred" (and a real talent for his particular brand of music) as a banger to fame and fortune, and still flaunts his loyalties. P. Diddy (or whatever he's calling himself these days) is another, unless I'm wrong. Now, from what I've heard, and granted, my knowledge of the rap music world is very, very limited, two who played up and somewhat exaggerrated their gang involvement were Tupac and Biggie Smalls. Did them a lot of good, huh?
I have a grudging respect for the fakers, though; they do have to be brave (or perhaps just stupid and/or greedy) to use the gang signs without being members; that could get them killed, after all.
Foreverserenity makes a good point when she says that the gangsta rappers make a bad example for the lower-income kids. They see them and their lifestyle as a gateway to fame and fortune; the kids in the ghetto see this and want the lifestyle but probably have no legitimate means to get it, so they often turn to crime and violence.
Another thing that bothers me about them is their extreme focus on materialism, wealth and sex. Then, they send them the message to "keep it real"! Who's keeping it real? The pimped-out rappers in fur coats, weighed down with twenty pounds of gold chains and teeth, surrounded by sexy women, expensive cars and waving stacks of hundred dollar bills in their videos, or the single mom/low-income family struggling to feed her/their kids and pay the bills, all the while working in everyday reality to keep their kids out of that lifestyle? It's not "real", it's terribly unreal. Rappers are the least socially responsible "celebrities", when they should be the first, considering their origins.

People think it reflects minority culture because it's coming out of a minority's mouth, and thats what I don't understand. No one thinks Eminem reflects white culture. They think he reflects his experience growing up. Why isn't the same standard applied to minority rappers? Words are words, no matter how explicit they may be. Rappers just talk about it. On the other hand, look at the porn industry, which is mostly operated by white people. They're actually doing it!!! Why aren't they stigmatized as "ho's"? Look at the mob. Look at Chicago in the time of the CVL and the first Mayor Daley and the Irish-American "social clubs." Why hasn't this come back to haunt white people like the Latin Kings continue to haunt minorities?

But the problem here, to me, is that the main "image" of minorities as angry, anti-society badasses and criminals is carried over from the 60s violence of radicals like the Black Panthers and groups like Nation of Islam, who really have never recanted their anti-white views. And we all saw that white guy dragged out of his truck and severely beaten by a crowd of blacks during the Rodney King riots. Images like these, especially since they were very, very prominently forged by blacks themselves, are hard to shake, even if you want and try to.
Instead of assimilating into society as a whole, as MLK wanted, a whoooole lot of blacks ended up following the example of his coattail rider, that con man and racist huckster Jesse Jackson, who makes a lot of George Washingtons by fomenting racial unrest and the whole cult of "victimhood" thing, instead of trying to further King's vision. This is a serious impediment to racial equality and relations. Even many whites I know who champion black views choose not to see the great progress that has been made in 40 years, and focus instead on the negatives, as so many blacks do, thanks to outright liars and manipulators like Jackson and simple head cases like Al Sharpton. Many of them steadfastly refuse even to see the many instances of mainstream reverse racism that exist, and the inherent inequalities of things like Affirmative Action and the Fair Housing Act.
As to Eminem, he's the blackest white man in the world today, in my opinion, and nothing but a punk. He's a white-trash-bred wannabe (a white guy who wants to be black, for those who don't know) who does happen to have intelligence, a definite talent for rap music and force of personality. But overall, he's just another angry rapper out there making money by cursing into a mic and setting a bad example. Though I do like some of his stuff, I do not like him. I put him in the same category as that other white-trash moron Kid Rock (who lately seems, though, to be finding a home on the country stations).
The porn industry, now.....well....I don't know where you come from, but in my neck of the woods, porn stars aren't exactly looked upon as paragons of virtue or someone you'd want to emulate. Of course, SOME of what they do might be pretty cool to emulate, but hey, you know?
Porn as a whole operates pretty far under the radar of mainstream society, unlike the whole rap music industry. You rarely, if ever, see Jenna Jameson or Justice Dimples on the cover of People or US, or promoting their latest skinflick on Jay Leno. The same can't be said for Snoop and P. Diddy.
Porn stars are seen by pretty much all and sundry as people of low to no morals and less scruples; they're well-paid but hedonistic bottom-feeders...hmmmm....sounds like some rappers, too.
Other racial stereotypes still exist, too....Italians and Sicillians still take a hit (so to speak) for being mobsters, despite the fact that the fall of the Gambino family, what, 10 years ago now, pretty much crushed the Italian and Sicillian mafia in America. Irish people are still seen as drunken brawlers. Hillbillies are kidded about inbreeding and their naive, hayseed ways; English people are noted for stuffiness and bad teeth; the Germans are still seen as Nazis, the French surrender to everything....the list goes on.
Stereotypes exist for a reason, though; they're always based in at least some fact somewhere in the past. They're not just conjured up out of nothing and pinned to a people for no reason. They do come from somewhere.

I don't think minorities are doing anything to themselves, I just think that what we do is perceived in the wrong way. I should be able to write a violent, sexually explicit story if I want to. I should be able to wear baggy clothing and a crooked hat if I want to. I should be able to exchange an elaborate, visually oriented greeting with my friends if I want to. And I should be able to do all of these things, and in fact profit from them, without someone telling me that I'm inviting observers to look down on me, and minorities in general.

You might not be a banger, but, as a few of the other posters here pointed out, if the clothes, language and gestures you may favor are also favored by bangers, you will get that image by association. I agreed with little whip when she pointed out that you'd make a judgment call based on the clothing worn by certain whites. Image is everything, my friend.

I have to put this in: I literally just read an article in the morning paper about the planned construction of a Wal-Mart here on the South End (large black population). There are already three Wally Worlds and a Sam's Club here in town, and some people question the need for another. Many small businesses were driven out of business by the Wal-Marts already here, and there's a lot of local debate over whether putting one on the South Side will be an economic positive or negative for the community.
Our councilman here in this district, a prominent black gentleman, favors putting it in, because he feels, perhaps correctly that those blacks on this end of town shouldn't have to drive five miles to shop at Wal-Mart. More importantly, though, he also feels that having the store here would keep the blacks in the game, economically speaking, and able to resist the "concentrated efforts of other groups, THOSE WHO WOULD KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE." That's a quote, people.

It's also an example of what I think I will call, from here on out, the "Jackson Effect".

And racist itself. Even the so called "peace-loving native americans" were slaughtering each other long before we got here. By her statement, you'd think racism was invented by white america, period, and only in the past 200 years or so. Ugh.

---LW

All very true...especially the "Ugh".

Racial division is nothing more than a marketing scheme, culture is "controlled" by the moguls of entertainment, that is Sony and Disney folks, and they have no desire to facilitate racial harmony, simply because it would minimize their respective marketshares.

Division perpetuates diversity, and that diversity continually presents new markets. I'm not that old that I remember one radio station that played Country, R&B, Rock, and Oldies, it was the everything to everybody station.
Now, in the same market area ( that has not grown in census ) there are 12 different stations providing for every genre imaginable, each advertising to its on niche, created by those same entertainment moguls.......

The Irrational "White Guilt" energizes only one market division, complete with an entire sub economy targeted predominately at the "Poor community" and specifically at uneducated, inner city black family(?).
I feed at this trough daily, and it's created by a Social Sevices System that requires an endless stream of "victims" to maintain its existence.

The country division perpetuates the divide as well, with "Blue Collar TV", the Nashville network, good ol' boys, and the 4WD required pick up. This market provides customers for purveyors of all things country....then there's middle america market, getting it's materialistic cues from shows such as "Desperate Housewives" and every other big production movie ever made.

I could go on and on, but I'd just continue to ramble, it's no conspiracy theory to imagine, these people control what we see, do, and perceive. To minimize there contribution to the lack of harmony is to falsely consider that we, the people, control what they produce.....

An excerpt concerning stereotypes from Dinesh D'Souza's Myth of the Racist Cabbie

On one point the liberal paradigm about group generalizations is sound: people's perceptions of others are always filtered through the lens of their own prior experience. But the liberal understanding cannot explain how particular traits come to be identified with particular groups. Only because group traits have an empirical basis in shared experience can we invoke them without fear of serious contradiction. Think how people would react if someone said, ``Koreans are lazy, '' or ``Hispanics are constantly trying to find ways to make money. '' Despite the prevalence of anti-Semitism, Jews are rarely accused of stupidity. Blacks are never accused of being tight with a dollar, or of conspiring to take over the world. By reversing stereotypes we can see how their persistence relies, not simply on the assumptions of the viewer, but also on the characteristics of the group being described. This is no case for group traits having a biological foundation. Probably the vast majority of group traits are entirely cultural, the distilled product of many years of shared experience. Yet prejudices and stereotypes are not intended to explain the origins of group traits, only to take into account their existence. Nor is this an argument to emphasize negative traits. Stereotypes can be negative or positive. Indeed the same stereotype can be interpreted favorably or unfavorably. One can deplore Roman machismo or admire Roman manliness; deride Spanish superstition or exalt Spanish piety; ridicule English severity or cherish English self-control. In each of these interpretations, we see a single set of facts, a different set of values. William Helmreich, in The Things They Say Behind Your Back, takes up the issue of whether there is a rational basis for group stereotypes. Helmreich finds some stereotypes that are clearly false. During the Middle Ages, for example, apparently many Christians took religious polemic literally and came to believe that Jews have horns. Clearly this was not a perception destined to last: one has only to encounter a few Jews to discover that they do not, in fact, possess horns. Helmreich takes up other stereotypes, however, such as the view that many Nobel laureates are Jewish, or that the Mafia is largely made up of Italians, or that the Japanese tend to be xenophobic and nationalistic, or that many Irishmen and American Indians drink enormous quantities of alcohol. Basically Helmreich finds that these perceptions are confirmed by the data. Of all the stereotypes he considers, Helmreich concludes that ``almost half the stereotypes have a strong factual basis.'' Thus the liberal assumptions that groups do not differ and that group generalizations are irrational turn out to be wrong. Indeed they generate a civil-rights paradigm which is at variance with most people's direct observation of the world. We would do better to acknowledge the reality of group traits and ask how we should act on it.

Reply #53 By: dabe - 5/10/2005 5:40:34 PM

--Its cause you're too tall, [J/K]

--IMO, a majority of people here are guilty[including me, and i apologize to all to whom i have said things to] , its just cause of the conflict of interests, i say, ignore it, and go on, don't even reply...

But the liberal understanding cannot explain how particular traits come to be identified with particular groups. Only because group traits have an empirical basis in shared experience can we invoke them without fear of serious contradiction. Think how people would react if someone said, ``Koreans are lazy, '' or ``Hispanics are constantly trying to find ways to make money. '' Despite the prevalence of anti-Semitism, Jews are rarely accused of stupidity. Blacks are never accused of being tight with a dollar, or of conspiring to take over the world. By reversing stereotypes we can see how their persistence relies, not simply on the assumptions of the viewer, but also on the characteristics of the group being described

are you sure this isn't a quote from 'myth of the racist' by gran d. ragon?

consider this a postscript to my previous comment.

while i'll be the first to agree i don't know anything about any of you except for what you've posted, i've been a white american long enough to know how rare it is to find another white american who doesn't buy into any racial stereotypes or who'll object to another white american disparaging members of other races or who comes from a household in which both parents and all siblings truly consider members of other races to be their equals in all regards.

if you're one of them, i wonder why you havent posted a comment in this thread.

It's really sad that you can't handle even a lighthearted jest without lapsing into hate and vulgarity. Really, really sad.

Coming from you, it's never lighthearted. You're a liar. As for vulgarity, there are different kinds of vulgarity, and you are definitely one of the most holistically vulgar people I have ever encountered. That's what's so sad. Not that I said the word "shit".