Congrats to Michelle Obama

[SWTXBelle]

Question - would other NPHC groups be upset if she accepted AKA? Have any others extended an invitation?

I've noticed that some NPHC members (and it's here on GC, so they may just be perps, I realize) are willing to insult other Divine Nine orgs in a way NPC group members would almost never do - and so I'm wondering if Michelle accepting the AKA invitation would lead to hard feelings among the others, or if they would all welcome her as a member of the larger D9?

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Question - would other NPHC groups be upset if she accepted AKA? Have any others extended an invitation?

I've noticed that some NPHC members (and it's here on GC, so they may just be perps, I realize) are willing to insult other Divine Nine orgs in a way NPC group members would almost never do - and so I'm wondering if Michelle accepting the AKA invitation would lead to hard feelings among the others, or if they would all welcome her as a member of the larger D9?

I don't see what you mean really. No NPHC org has insulted another NPHC org on GC that I've seen unless you're talking about the times certain members (who are usually not GC regulars and may also be perps) say things and in that case, the GC regulars will usually unite and take 'em down. As far as Michelle becoming an AKA, no NPHC member on GC that I've seen has a problem with this. Outside of GC there are all kinds of things being said, but again I'm sure that perps are responsible for some of it. Overall, I don't think anyone has a problem with her becoming an AKA. If AKA got to her first, the others (if they even planned to ask her) were too slow and that's just how it goes. We all work and socialize together so at the alumnae level at least, there isn't all this "rivalry" that people like to talk about. If Michelle becomes a member of AKA, we will all welcome her into the D9. In fact, members from all D9 organizations were present this week when AKA announced that Michelle would accept the invitation to join.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I don't see what you mean really. No NPHC org has insulted another NPHC org on GC that I've seen unless you're talking about the times certain members (who are usually not GC regulars and may also be perps) say things and in that case, the GC regulars will usually unite and take 'em down. As far as Michelle becoming an AKA, no NPHC member on GC that I've seen has a problem with this. Outside of GC there are all kinds of things being said, but again I'm sure that perps are responsible for some of it. Overall, I don't think anyone has a problem with her becoming an AKA. If AKA got to her first, the others (if they even planned to ask her) were too slow and that's just how it goes. We all work and socialize together so at the alumnae level at least, there isn't all this "rivalry" that people like to talk about. If Michelle becomes a member of AKA, we will all welcome her into the D9. In fact, members from all D9 organizations were present this week when AKA announced that Michelle would accept the invitation to join.

I would direct your attention to the recent Sheryl Underwood thread for an example of what I am talking about(!) (and yes, I noticed that the dirt was NOT coming from GC regular Zetas) I've also noticed before - (and if I get more time, I'll try and look up examples) one member will accuse another GLO of being formed from rejects of their GLO, they have disputed the circumstances of their founding and argued that their group is more philanthropically active, insult another group as being or not being linked with another, etc. It's interesting that you note that this rivalry is talked about. I wonder where the perception is coming from, and why. It's intriguing from a PR perspective. I think Michelle's possible membership - especially if she really is active with all of the groups - could go a long way to counter it.

My experience with D9 is limited, so I honestly didn't know if this is just internet trash-talking, or if there is indeed animosity between some of the groups. I'm glad to learn that the groups do work together, and that any discussion of "rivalry" is overblown and without foundation.

The fact that there is even a discussion of whether or not Michelle should accept made me wonder. I hope she does go through with it, because win, lose, or draw, I think she will be in a postion to do a lot of good for all of the groups, and focus some media attention on all of the positive things the D9 is doing for their members and their communities.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I would direct your attention to the recent Sheryl Underwood thread for an example of what I am talking about(!) (and yes, I noticed that the dirt was NOT coming from GC regular Zetas) I've also noticed before - (and if I get more time, I'll try and look up examples) one member will accuse another GLO of being formed from rejects of their GLO, they have disputed the circumstances of their founding and argued that their group is more philanthropically active, insult another group as being or not being linked with another, etc. It's interesting that you note that this rivalry is talked about. I wonder where the perception is coming from, and why. It's intriguing from a PR perspective. I think Michelle's possible membership - especially if she really is active with all of the groups - could go a long way to counter it.

You're right. I was going to point this out. You beat me to it.

My experience with D9 is limited, so I honestly didn't know if this is just internet trash-talking, or if there is indeed animosity between some of the groups. I'm glad to learn that the groups do work together, and that any discussion of "rivalry" is overblown and without foundation.

The "trash talk" usually is at the undergrad level. Sometimes it spills over into the grad / alumnae level.

The fact that there is even a discussion of whether or not Michelle should accept made me wonder. I hope she does go through with it, because win, lose, or draw, I think she will be in a postion to do a lot of good for all of the groups, and focus some media attention on all of the positive things the D9 is doing for their members and their communities.

You have to understand the perception and history behind the cultural significance of joining a D9 org. It's not just joining a GLO, for many it also establishes rank and status in the Black community. Historically, that is how it has been perceived.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

You have to understand the perception and history behind the cultural significance of joining a D9 org. It's not just joining a GLO, for many it also establishes rank and status in the Black community. Historically, that is how it has been perceived.

You mean, the same way it's perceived in the white community, right?

Or at least, certain regions of white communities.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

You mean, the same way it's perceived in the white community, right?

Or at least, certain regions of white communities.

I did not grow up in a white community in terms of knowing exactly how they perceive cultural standing and what is and is not significant. I said that to say that while yes, I did grow up in a white neighborhood, attended white schools and had white friends, I never picked up on the intimate social nuances that are in the white community because I am not white nor are my family members.

I only speak from a Black perspective because that is how I grew up.

But, if it is the same in the white community, then I guess so.

[SWTXBelle]

Thanks for the information. GC has been great for learning about D9.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I would direct your attention to the recent Sheryl Underwood thread for an example of what I am talking about(!) (and yes, I noticed that the dirt was NOT coming from GC regular Zetas) I've also noticed before - (and if I get more time, I'll try and look up examples) one member will accuse another GLO of being formed from rejects of their GLO, they have disputed the circumstances of their founding and argued that their group is more philanthropically active, insult another group as being or not being linked with another, etc. It's interesting that you note that this rivalry is talked about. I wonder where the perception is coming from, and why. It's intriguing from a PR perspective. I think Michelle's possible membership - especially if she really is active with all of the groups - could go a long way to counter it.

My experience with D9 is limited, so I honestly didn't know if this is just internet trash-talking, or if there is indeed animosity between some of the groups. I'm glad to learn that the groups do work together, and that any discussion of "rivalry" is overblown and without foundation.

The fact that there is even a discussion of whether or not Michelle should accept made me wonder. I hope she does go through with it, because win, lose, or draw, I think she will be in a postion to do a lot of good for all of the groups, and focus some media attention on all of the positive things the D9 is doing for their members and their communities.

You can look up all the examples you like but I doubt you'll find insults coming from GC regulars unless people have problems with eachother as individuals. As for anyone else, they could be a perp or a young or immature member. If you had more experience being around the D9 as an undergrad, you might've noticed that some undergrads take the whole "rivalry" thing (which is supposed to be in fun) too far and too seriously. I can't relate to that though. On my undergrad campus, we were one big (although sometimes disfunctional) family. On the alumnae level (and by the way, in some orgs most active members are alumnae, not undergrads), we all work together and get along just fine...but then most are also much more mature at this point. Overall, members are just very passionate about their orgs and unfortunately not everyone expresses themselves in the best manner.

As for Michelle Obama, I think some are up in arms about her spokesperson saying that she will only accept if she has "non-exclusive membership." We're not real sure right now about what she means exactly or if her spokesperson got it wrong. In the D9, there is no such thing as "non-exclusive membership" since you can only belong to one org. Some people have interpreted her as wanting AKA to make an exception for her or something but I don't believe that's the case. People are just emotional at the moment.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I would direct your attention to the recent Sheryl Underwood thread for an example of what I am talking about(!) (and yes, I noticed that the dirt was NOT coming from GC regular Zetas) I've also noticed before - (and if I get more time, I'll try and look up examples) one member will accuse another GLO of being formed from rejects of their GLO, they have disputed the circumstances of their founding and argued that their group is more philanthropically active, insult another group as being or not being linked with another, etc. It's interesting that you note that this rivalry is talked about. I wonder where the perception is coming from, and why. It's intriguing from a PR perspective. I think Michelle's possible membership - especially if she really is active with all of the groups - could go a long way to counter it.

My experience with D9 is limited, so I honestly didn't know if this is just internet trash-talking, or if there is indeed animosity between some of the groups. I'm glad to learn that the groups do work together, and that any discussion of "rivalry" is overblown and without foundation.

The fact that there is even a discussion of whether or not Michelle should accept made me wonder. I hope she does go through with it, because win, lose, or draw, I think she will be in a postion to do a lot of good for all of the groups, and focus some media attention on all of the positive things the D9 is doing for their members and their communities.

Yeah, those are the usual "rivalry" comments which more often come from younger members. This has to do with our histories and the fact that we know eachother's basic histories. We're actually closer than I suspect the NPC is since there are only 9 in the NPHC and some of our members act like siblings that can't stop teasing one another: "I'm the older one, No I'm the older one" and so on and so forth. It can be funny and sometimes it's not so funny. It usually comes with experience and maturity that members realize that we are all equally great.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I've noticed that some NPHC members (and it's here on GC, so they may just be perps, I realize) are willing to insult other Divine Nine orgs in a way NPC group members would almost never do--

Sometimes it is just playing the dozens and "jonin'". Most of us don't really have any ill will or negativity against other organizations. How people feel about individual members is their business.

Idunno. You say "almost never" but I think it's moreso passive aggressiveness on many of you all's parts. I read threads on GC and wish that people would sometimes just say what they mean and mean what they say. Afterall, the Private Message Culture on GC is active and some of you all are saying stuff off the board. But, some of you obviously try way too hard to play nice on the boards so people can think highly of you and your org and/or a thread won't get closed. Then we have "those" threads that people call trainwrecks because the NPC and IFC(?) orgs are going at it in some way--over ranking or however you all dress it up.

[breathesgelatin]

I think the whole thing hinges on what "non-exclusive" means. If Michelle just meant she'd like to participate in the philanthropic activities of all the D9 orgs, then it seems like that is encouraged anyway. However, if she meant she wants to be initiated into all the groups so as not to be exclusionary, then she may end up not being initiated.

I am not advocating the next idea, just pointing it out. There are some people on the far left or other political groups who have a very negative opinion of Greek orgs. My boyfriend is one and he constantly calls me out for "exclusionary practices," just like the woman in that comment for the Washington Post did. They view Greek orgs as inherently elitist... which hey, I can't really argue with. So there's a possibility that this might be a problem, although I really don't think this is going to get that much media play to become one.

In general I think the D9 has a much stronger community reputation than NIC/NPC. I don't really think much can be made of any hazing stuff with AKA.

re: Elephant Walk's comments about the "white community," or the white community in certain regions, I do not think the importance of particular NIC/NPC orgs for people's social status can in ANY WAY be compared to the ties that D9 orgs have to the social status in the black community. It's true that in the south, or in a particular state, college freshmen of a certain background may want to join certain orgs. But these statuses are in NO way as universal from region or region or as well-established as those in the D9. I believe there is some analog, but not as much as you're trying to draw.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Sometimes it is just playing the dozens and "jonin'". Most of us don't really have any ill will or negativity against other organizations. How people feel about individual members is their business.

Idunno. You say "almost never" but I think it's moreso passive aggressiveness on many of you all's parts. I read threads on GC and wish that people would sometimes just say what they mean and mean what they say. Afterall, the Private Message Culture on GC is active and some of you all are saying stuff off the board. But, some of you obviously try way too hard to play nice on the boards so people can think highly of you and your org and/or a thread won't get closed. Then we have "those" threads that people call trainwrecks because the NPC and IFC(?) orgs are going at it in some way--over ranking or however you all dress it up.

Well, one of the things that I think is different is that NPHCs seem to have national reputations, types (or stereotypes) while NPC or IFC groups generally usually just have campus level reputations, types (or stereotypes).

So it while some joking around or trash talking about D9 groups' images could be understood on a national level, with NPC or IFCs, you could only do it with people from your campus.

( I know that some people really do like to think that their NPC groups or IFC groups are stronger nationally than others, and they may be, but they don't have an image that is particularly distinct from other strong or elite groups. How is Kappa's image different than Theta's, for example, on a national level? Or Chi Omega's different than Pi Beta Phi's? But I think the average NPHC member could explain how AKA's image is different than DST or Alpha Phi Alpha image is different than Omega Psi Phi.)

ETA: and I think this ties in with Breathesgelatin's point too. There's not a "white" equivalent, exactly, to having membership in one NPHC.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

NPC or IFC groups generally usually just have campus level reputations, types (or stereotypes).

I, and many NPCers and IFCers, think that you all also have national reputations and stereotypes.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I, and many NPCers and IFCers, think that you all also have national reputations and stereotypes.

Do tell? I'm unaware of them. How are Thetas different than Kappas?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Do tell? I'm unaware of them. How are Thetas different than Kappas?

They aren't different? That sucks for them.

To get into specifics is a waste of time. Suffice it to say that all of our organizations have things that they are best known for, including stereotypes of members. The stereotypes are intended to be true in many instances but not in every instance. Just like the "reputations" and stereotypes of NPHC orgs that have nothing to do with our history and programs.