It's been at least 100 years since the days of slavery so, why do most black people insist on talking like they're still on the deep south plantation?

I don't know about other countries but, I've seen quite a few black people in or from England and none of them speak like they're still in chains in the deep south! They all speak with a normal British accent! In America, blacks go out of their way to use extremely incorrect English and tend to speak with a southern twang, even if they've never been below the Mason / Dixon line!!
I don't have a problem with it being done SOMETIMES to get a laugh or to make a point but, to use it CONSTANTLY? WHY? I thought y'all were sick & tired of being seen and thought of as slaves but you keep talking like you still are which makes it pretty hard for the rest of us to stop thinking of you in those terms! It's like walking around in a duck suit and telling everyone you're not a duck!

Syntosi

Explorer Age: 35

1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

It is pretty simple actually. A marginal improvement from slavery does not mean you reach utopian levels of equality and prosperity. USA is currently lagging behind every other developed country that I know of in social progress. Not only is there an argument for social progress to be made, but since USA is at the back of the line it also becomes very easy to realize just how bad USA is by comparison.

FunkyMonkee

+1 y
And PART of the reason for that is the way some people choose not to change. We white Irish were slaves at one points and were treated a lot worse than black slaves but, do we still talk and act like we were?
I've only seen :"Roots" once and I don't recall Kunta Kinte even talking like that!

Reply
Syntosi

+1 y
I have seen plenty of Irish being very upset and vocal about their historical treatment. In fact, I have seen far more Irish being upset than black people. Of course that is only a personal observation, but so is yours.

Reply
FunkyMonkee

+1 y
But, being upset is not the point. I don't KNOW if we spoke a certain way back then but, obviously, we no longer do. We speak perfectly good English, not some bastardized version that we refuse to stray from.

Reply
Syntosi

+1 y
Now you just sound old. Languages evolves over time, English in particular. Just look at how Americans speak English differently to the British, or the Australians or any other group of primarily English speakers. They are not the same and they are going to diverge even more.

Old people have historically always been upset about younger people dumbing down the language or "basterdizing it". Take some old chap from 50 years ago and he would be quite revolted by modern English and someone 100 years ago would probably try to beat the demons out of you or something.

Reply
FunkyMonkee

+1 y
In what way?
Yeah, so, how does that make me sound old?
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I was wondering about this stuff back when I was a teenager, too. This is the first time I ever bothered to ask about it.
Anyway, the point is, as YOU'VE just said, language changes! So, why are blacks still talking like they did 150 years ago? Blacks STILL say "be" instead of "am" or "are", for that matter, they usually drop "are" completely from their lexicon! Instead of, "What are you gonna do?" you get, "Wha-choo gonn do?". I have several black friends that don't talk like that but, more that do than don't. and, with each new generation, they KEEP talking like that. If slavery was such a bad thing and they, understandably, want nothing more to do with it, why do they hang onto the lingo instead of teaching the younger generations to get rid of it? You never hear Morgan Freeman or Bill Cosby talk like that.

Reply
Syntosi

+1 y
Slavery is not the reason for these language changes and they came by in modernish times rather than back then. Changing out "am" or "are" for "be" is not even that dramatic. If we look at the biggest language terrorist in English history, Shakespeare, then we see him completely flip the language on its head and his usage and/or abusing of the language has stuck around to today.

For example, he loved to use nouns as verbs such as "He chaired a meeting" and "He tabled a motion". A table or a chair is obviously a noun and not describing an action you do but he kept making up new things left and right for apparently shits and giggles.

There are also countless examples of removing or adding words into sentences. I dont got an example on the top of my head but its honestly not important.

What is important is that the usage of English that you described is specifically the type of evolution we would expect. It is the type of evolution that has always existed and the reason you sound old is because a consequence of this constant language evolution is that the older generations always have the same complaints towards the younger generations.

What you just said has been said, almost word for word (accounting for evolving language of course) by your great grandfathers generation and their great grandfathers generation before them etc.. And the important thing to remember is that they thought the way you speak is the dumbed down and ugly version of their perfectly fine English.

Reply
FunkyMonkee

+1 y
"Be" for "are/am" was just one of many examples.
Have you ever heard of Stanley Unwin? How about Victor Borge?
There's nothing wrong with, "tabled" or, "chaired". They make perfect sense. He's FAR from the ONLY person to ever say such things! To chair a meeting is the same thing as saying you lead a meeting. You're the chairman.
So, adding or removing words is better than proper English?
I see! So, the bulk of the English speaking world uses correct English but a small percentage of us using an, so-called, "evolved" form is much less desirable?
Well, they say the same about music, too but, the music I grew up with was in the `60's and early `70's but I still like music from the `80's and beyond up to about 15 years ago when music became completely stale and pointless!! I'll continue to say so until someone comes up with better "music" than what we're forced to listen to, now. I also like the stuff from the `50's, `40's and beyond in that direction! I've never been one to ONLY like "MY" music! So, how does THAT make me old? Just because I don't like what's here now but might like what's about to come?
Maybe I localize my language to that of the `60's or `70's SOMETIMES but, hardly at all but, I have a rather large lexicon and I also tend to know and use $5 and $10 words from time to time. But I DON'T say things like, "I ain't be got no weapons!" or, "I wanna axe you a quextion."

Reply

What Girls & Guys Said

Opinion

Syntosi Follow
Explorer Age: 35 , mho 57%

+1 y
1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

It is pretty simple actually. A marginal improvement from slavery does not mean you reach utopian levels of equality and prosperity. USA is currently lagging behind every other developed country that I know of in social progress. Not only is there an argument for social progress to be made, but since USA is at the back of the line it also becomes very easy to realize just how bad USA is by comparison.

0

7 Reply
- FunkyMonkee
  
  +1 y
  And PART of the reason for that is the way some people choose not to change. We white Irish were slaves at one points and were treated a lot worse than black slaves but, do we still talk and act like we were?
  I've only seen :"Roots" once and I don't recall Kunta Kinte even talking like that!
  
- Syntosi
  
  +1 y
  I have seen plenty of Irish being very upset and vocal about their historical treatment. In fact, I have seen far more Irish being upset than black people. Of course that is only a personal observation, but so is yours.
  
- FunkyMonkee
  
  +1 y
  But, being upset is not the point. I don't KNOW if we spoke a certain way back then but, obviously, we no longer do. We speak perfectly good English, not some bastardized version that we refuse to stray from.
  
- Syntosi
  
  +1 y
  Now you just sound old. Languages evolves over time, English in particular. Just look at how Americans speak English differently to the British, or the Australians or any other group of primarily English speakers. They are not the same and they are going to diverge even more.
  
  Old people have historically always been upset about younger people dumbing down the language or "basterdizing it". Take some old chap from 50 years ago and he would be quite revolted by modern English and someone 100 years ago would probably try to beat the demons out of you or something.
  
- FunkyMonkee
  
  +1 y
  In what way?
  Yeah, so, how does that make me sound old?
  Well, if it makes you feel any better, I was wondering about this stuff back when I was a teenager, too. This is the first time I ever bothered to ask about it.
  Anyway, the point is, as YOU'VE just said, language changes! So, why are blacks still talking like they did 150 years ago? Blacks STILL say "be" instead of "am" or "are", for that matter, they usually drop "are" completely from their lexicon! Instead of, "What are you gonna do?" you get, "Wha-choo gonn do?". I have several black friends that don't talk like that but, more that do than don't. and, with each new generation, they KEEP talking like that. If slavery was such a bad thing and they, understandably, want nothing more to do with it, why do they hang onto the lingo instead of teaching the younger generations to get rid of it? You never hear Morgan Freeman or Bill Cosby talk like that.
  
- Syntosi
  
  +1 y
  Slavery is not the reason for these language changes and they came by in modernish times rather than back then. Changing out "am" or "are" for "be" is not even that dramatic. If we look at the biggest language terrorist in English history, Shakespeare, then we see him completely flip the language on its head and his usage and/or abusing of the language has stuck around to today.
  
  For example, he loved to use nouns as verbs such as "He chaired a meeting" and "He tabled a motion". A table or a chair is obviously a noun and not describing an action you do but he kept making up new things left and right for apparently shits and giggles.
  
  There are also countless examples of removing or adding words into sentences. I dont got an example on the top of my head but its honestly not important.
  
  What is important is that the usage of English that you described is specifically the type of evolution we would expect. It is the type of evolution that has always existed and the reason you sound old is because a consequence of this constant language evolution is that the older generations always have the same complaints towards the younger generations.
  
  What you just said has been said, almost word for word (accounting for evolving language of course) by your great grandfathers generation and their great grandfathers generation before them etc.. And the important thing to remember is that they thought the way you speak is the dumbed down and ugly version of their perfectly fine English.
  
- FunkyMonkee
  
  +1 y
  "Be" for "are/am" was just one of many examples.
  Have you ever heard of Stanley Unwin? How about Victor Borge?
  There's nothing wrong with, "tabled" or, "chaired". They make perfect sense. He's FAR from the ONLY person to ever say such things! To chair a meeting is the same thing as saying you lead a meeting. You're the chairman.
  So, adding or removing words is better than proper English?
  I see! So, the bulk of the English speaking world uses correct English but a small percentage of us using an, so-called, "evolved" form is much less desirable?
  Well, they say the same about music, too but, the music I grew up with was in the `60's and early `70's but I still like music from the `80's and beyond up to about 15 years ago when music became completely stale and pointless!! I'll continue to say so until someone comes up with better "music" than what we're forced to listen to, now. I also like the stuff from the `50's, `40's and beyond in that direction! I've never been one to ONLY like "MY" music! So, how does THAT make me old? Just because I don't like what's here now but might like what's about to come?
  Maybe I localize my language to that of the `60's or `70's SOMETIMES but, hardly at all but, I have a rather large lexicon and I also tend to know and use $5 and $10 words from time to time. But I DON'T say things like, "I ain't be got no weapons!" or, "I wanna axe you a quextion."
  
Dongie Follow
Guru Age: 63

+1 y

IIII know! It's those racist democrats. They're good at mass hypnosis and brainwashing. Why vote for the party that owned and fought, killed to keep ownership of slaves. Then being the sore losers that they are created KKK, jim crow and voted against civil rights 100 years following the Civil War.

1

2 Reply
- FunkyMonkee
  
  +1 y
  Besides, Trump's the only President that's never had any slave ownership in his family's history! Even Barry's family once owned slaves!!
  
- Dongie
  
  +1 y
  I know. You can't explain this to some. I've tried and will probably still do so.
  
MemeSupreme Follow
Guru Age: 24 , mho 36%

+1 y
799 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

what lol

0

0 Reply

It's been at least 100 years since the days of slavery so, why do most black people insist on talking like they're still on the deep south plantation?

What Girls & Guys Said

Why do some people always say blacks sold black people into slavery while conveniently leaving out the fact white people kept them as slaves?

We're glad to see you liked this post.