Response to the worst writer ever hired by the DTH, February 8, 2011

Mr. Neville should consider taking some classes that cover information

beyond the scope of Psychology 100 before attempting to write on a subject

with a vast number of considerations that were not addressed in his column.

Firstly, the argument is open to many racist and classist interpretations.

I suggest using a dictionary. “Mimicry” is never “harmless”. Mimicry is

defined as the action or art of imitating someone or something, typically

in order to entertain or ridicule. Mr. Neville’s column paints the picture

that members of the college-educated upper class are able to “mimic” the

vernacular of the proletariat; i.e., those that do not use the “neutral

Chapel Hill tongue”. This does nothing but merely advance the white-washed

notion of there being a “proper” form of English; if others can’t speak

like us, we “mimic” them because they are too unintelligent to understand

our point otherwise. Conversely, it places a pressure on those racial and

ethnic communities who may not speak the "Chapel Hill tongue" to

assimilate.

Imitating accents and culturally specific syntaxes, intonations, and

morphologies is one of the primary forms of parody for racial/cultural

differences. It reinforces certain schemas about others that create

cognitive biases, which further reinforce these assumptions into forming

stereotypes.

While it is true that it is easier to understand things we are familiar

with, Mr. Neville’s assertion of “mimicking” as a tool for better

communication perpetuates racial and ethnic stereotypes. It is not helpful

imitation, it is narcissistic mockery of cultural differences.