Which was so different from this




how?

Because "generally" and "maybe" are both so absolute?

Well if you were just talking about "generally" and "maybe" then what the hell were you trying to debate with me when I said "I, and many NPCers and IFCers, think that you all also have national reputations and stereotypes?"

If you weren't speaking in absolutes, which I wasn't either, just reiterate that and keep it moving. :rolleyes: Instead, you spent time asking questions as if you had never heard of NPC stereotypes.

Because I still don't fundamentally believe you. :)

About the existence of NPC stereotypes? Shut up.

That.

And that they don't approach the significance of those of NPHC groups. [Eta: or should this be said as that I don't believe that they do approach. . . ]

Be honest, would we even have a thread with more than one post if Cindy McCain had been offered honorary membership in an NPC group? (theoretically, of course, since since she's already a member of one). Or if Pike offered one to John McCain?

It's the well-known prestige of the group and it's national clearly formed identity and, dare I say it, status that partially makes the Michelle Obama AKA story newsworthy*.

If it were one of 26 NPC groups, would it have even registered with non-members which one it was? Or even if we want to say there are 5 or 10 NPCs that have more prestige and status than the others, would it have mattered which one of those it was?

* I think all Divine 9 groups have status, prestige, and identity, but that it might mean something to people that Michelle Obama would select AKA as her one group, versus a different group in a way that is quite different than people saying "Oh, John McCain picked Phi Delta Theta." Her agreeing to AKA says something about her as well as the group.

ETA: I realize saying that Michelle Obama picked AKA is a little weird, but honesty, if she has approached the grad chapter of any of the others, would they have said no?

Ok? :confused:

I've edited it to explain that I don't believe the reputations, if they exist at all have the same significance.

Which was kind of the point of the claim in the first place in terms of being in this thread.

ETA: I'm getting really sleepy. I'll have to read tomorrow to see if it even makes sense to me.

Yes. Especially if 1) McCain's understanding of the honorary membership was in question and 2) if NPHCers went on a tangent like the NPCers went on in this thread.

I know that you've confused me so good luck. ;)

ETA: We were typing past each other. I was never comparing the NPHC stereotypes' significance to that of the NPC and IFC stereotypes. I was saying NPC and IFC stereotypes exist at the national level. That clarification didn't take your quote out of its context. I don't know why the NPHC-NPC comparison began in this thread, anyway.

Maybe, but I don't think anyone would pay much attention to which group it was.

Are you really prepared to say that you think the identities of the NPC groups are as clearly fixed in the public mind as the NPHC groups? Really?

Oh, nevermind, then.

And now we're here. Night night.

Public mind:

A. the majority, which is majority white and nonGreek, and barely knows "black history" not to mention about the existence or stereotypes of NPHC orgs
B. Greeks who are familiar with the NPHC and the stereotypes (which isn't the case for most white Greeks)
C. All Greeks
D. members of NPHC and nonNPHC BGLO members
E. the black community

Which one?

B, D certainly. Probably many of E, and more of C than you probably realize. There are also some of A who pay any attention to groups while they are on campus.

But random white people who didn't go to a campus with NPHC groups or didn't go to college, or who don't live near or work with more than one NPHC alum, maybe not many.

But if you work someplace with more than on NPHC represented you can learn the reputations and stereotypes pretty quickly because people will always fill you in about someone else's org, so in metropolitan areas, it may be more than you'd think. Now, who knows if any of the info is accurate, but it's the stereotypes.

I think she's talking about some combination of B, C, D, and E.

I'm going to bite on this one, somewhat against my better judgment.

I agree with both of you to some extent. Lately there has been some drama on GC regarding NPCers and national "tiers." It is definitely accurate to say that on *SOME LEVEL* people have national ideas of NPC groups.

For example:
- AEPhi and SDT, ON THE WHOLE, often tend to be Jewish (NOT ALWAYS! But OFTEN!). There are a few other examples of this.
- There are some groups, maybe 5-10 as UGAalum mentioned, that people knowledgeable about NPCs might acknowledge to be more "prestigious" - but mostly because they are larger organizations and at more schools or at more prestigious schools. UGAalum has given a great example with Kappa and Theta. They are of similar size and tend to be at most major universities. But what is different about them? Their philanthropies. Their initiation ceremonies. But as a member of another organization that's often compared to Kappa and Theta (Pi Phi), can I really encapsulate any significant national stereotype differences between them? Or between them and my own org? No.
-There are a few NPCs that were formerly educationally based and part of the AES governing organization and joined the NPC at a later date in the 1950s. There are some things that these groups have in common. Members of the former AES groups can give a lot better explanation of this than I can. But again, can I encapsulate what makes all these groups different from one another? No.
-There are a few instances in which a sorority "cracks" the national awareness. The major example of this would be "Delta Delta Delta, can I help ya, help ya, help ya?" But what does this really say about Tri-Delt? That they have a stereotype of being ditzy nationally? OK, maybe for people who only know that skit, but not for anyone who really knows about NPC.

So basically, I think that it may be possible to stereotype groups of NPC sororities - more prestigious ones, ones founded to serve minority religious groups, former AES groups. Some of these stereotypes make GCers uncomfortable and it's not really considered kosher to talk about them. But really distinguishing stereotypes between the sororities in each general grouping? Much harder or impossible to do. Unless you're examining their philanthropies, history, ritual, which I don't consider "stereotypes." And I also think that each NPCs' history is much less likely to be known to members of other NPC orgs than would be the case in NPHC. Educated D9ers tend to know a lot about the founding of all the orgs in their council. Not the case for NPCers, sometimes even very well-versed ones. Partially due to numbers (more to learn for NPCers), partially due to cultural reasons (role of D9 in the black community), partially due to philosophy (more camaraderie between D9ers).

/hijack

The same can be said about any stereotype. You know those who fit the stereotype (stereotypes come from somewhere--but I really think that SNL skit was based on a general "sorority girl" stereotype and Delta Delta Delta was used because it rhymed) but given a real familiarity with the group, you know that the stereotype doesn't always fit unless there are formal or informal guidelines to uphold it.

Thanks for your interesting input in the rest of your post, too!