I think it goes down the path of stereotypes can lead to prejudice which in turn leads to racism. It's like cigarettes leading to mar1juana leading to coke. Or something like that. Anyway, i think it's bad to label guys who say something which reveals a bias as "racists" and ban them and all that. People need to understand that most people were raised to think a certain way or given certain impressions. Here was a guy who thought Jews were good because they are sucessful and crafty. While that may sound horrific to a Jew becuase it reminds of us things that are scary and evil. The guy's intent wasn't anywhere near it - and it's clear he doesn't have anything against Jews - or prejudice. Also someone needs to do is explain to the guy why Jews are sensitive about that - and that it's like saying Blacks are good athletes. If you say blacks are better athletes - you're making a stereotype. If you say you don't like blacks - you're predudice And if you say blacks are inferior or believe that they should be sent back home to africa - then you're a racist bigot. But saying blacks eat collard greens and fried chicken is a stereotype. And a pretty harmless one at that - at least I can't see how it would lead to anything bad. If Vijay singh won the masters and someone cracked, "I guess we'll be having curry chicken next year", I wouldn't be offended. I'd laugh at how ridiculous that is. I guess at the end of the day - I feel it should be innocent until proven guilty - people should be given the benefit of the doubt and room to say stupid things. Come on, we'd all say a few stupid things, that or be really boring and sound like a political smuck if all were hyper-paranoid about offending any group or whatever. I mean, isn't stereotyping all about making assumptions that have a strong chance of being wrong??? And isn't it an assumption to assume that someone is a racist or bad because of remarks they may make in one instance? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? Shouldn't a person be judged more on their who life's work, and not just stereotypes according to their race and a few words? I mean, why can't a white guy use the n-word? Because people ASSUME he might be a racist. Isn't that using stereotypes by race?
It may be true that it is somehow in our nature to generalize, but I think generalizations based on race or religion are more likely due to sociological reasons. Basically, generalizations may be inevitable, but specific stereotypes (Asians are good at math, Jews are crafty, etc.) are completely... well... evitable. In the end, you choose to steotype or not. If you choose to communicate your bias to others, then you become part of the problem. I think that we all have an obligation to criticize and even punish those who perpetuate stereotypes in order to prevent that line of thinking from spreading. Actually, I think that stereotypes have a much more direct relationship to racism than your analogy implies (if I'm interpreting it correctly). The act of generalizing solely based on race is necessarily a racist act. One could be a cokehead in a world without cigarettes, but you can't stereotype based on race in a world without racism. I agree that we shouldn't go around calling people "racists." I also agree that intent is very important. However, I don't think you could ever make a racial stereotype without indending (in some way) to be racist. Even the mildest forms of racism should be taken seriously. It's not about liking blacks or not liking blacks. "I __ blacks." "Blacks are __." What goes in the blanks doesn't determine whether or not these statements are racist. The very act of generalizing a group of people based on their race is racist. Where do you draw the line between racism and stereotyping? Also, are you really saying that if somebody came up to you and said, "I don't like blacks," you would not consider that person a racist? I think you are ignoring the fact that there are a whole host of images associated with these two particular stereotypes. They are certainly not harmless when you consider the possibility that they can at the very least lead to racism in others. No, stereotypes are always false. Yes, it is an "assumption to assume" anything (sorry ). I agree that you shouldn't label somebody a "racist" or a "bad guy" or whatever simply based upon one or a few instances. However, I don't have any problem labeling as racist the stereotype itself. I fail to see how this is relevant. Your "life's work" includes all of your actions. If you make a racist comment, that becomes part of your "life's work," does it not? I think you meant, "people ASSUME he is a racist." That word is very complicated, but I honestly beleive that it's racist for anybody to use that term (depending on context). The only exception is when the use of the word is intended to take away its power as a racializing term (but that really goes back to context).
Not all stereotypes are bad. We stereotype firefighters to be hero's, or teachers to be so and so. They can be useful for a society. THe shaman as the wise-man, so on. Some stereotypes are based in truth. Saying men are physically more athletic then woman in terms of strength and quickness. This is a stereotype that is founded in truth. Stereotypes are no racism - they are generalizations made to simplify. They can be harmful - most often by the group that is being stereotypes. Asian girls perform better on tests when they have to mark their race as asian, and African Americans perform worse. (Blink). Stereotypes are not discriminatory. Predujice is however a discriminatory attitude. Saying Jews have control of a lot of powerful positions is a stereotype. And certainly for their population size, one could say they are over represented. But so are many other groups. It just so happens that certain minorities have higher education levels then other. Now saying Jews control American and want to make us serve the interests of Israel - that's prejudice. Or thinking blacks should be shipped over seas. That's prejudice. Finally, racism is an act which supports discrimination. It's picking someone because of their race in a way that's damaging to the group. That's racism. turning someone down for a job because of the color of their skin - that is racism. It's important that people don't confuse one for the other - because it then weakens - not strengthens the fight against racism. Should people be fired for stereotypes? Then you have to fire everyone, because even blacks have stereotypes about blacks, indians about indians, asians about asians, and so on. People ask if I play ball all the time - why? Because I'm so tall. That's a stereotype - and it's true. It's annoying, but it's harmless. I'm not going to go nuts about it though.
Ther is a huge difference between stereotyping people who volunteer for certain jobs where the stereotypes you mentioned are part of the job description, and stereotyping ethnicities. What you described here really isn't stereotyping. Stereotyping is definitely harmful, even if the stereotypes don't seem negative. They take the individual out of the equation, and we are all individuals. They also over-emphasize a (possible) characteristic based on race, causing other real characteristics of that person to be overlooked. So even if the stereo-type might be considered a positive by some, it is still harmful.
I think its just how brains operate (not racism of course, but applying a general meaning to a wide group of objects/ideas/acts). Dont we naturally group similar things together and apply a common characteristic? for example, i say a cactus. What do you think of? well, needles for one. Well all cacti does not have needles.
But that is the definition of stereotyping. And it's not the stereotype in an of itself that's bad ya know. I have all sorts of stereotypes - but I know they are stereotypes - I don't use them to judge people, but use them in a way that makes me more successful. My god, I work in advertising - our whole job is to generalize on anything and then use it to sell more of something. Are we racists for that? The only color we see is green my man. Any by the way - is it a stereotype to say Latinos drink more of x than y? I hate to tell you this, but the research says they do. I will tell you more - we market more successfully to them because of that research. That's reality. It's also stereotyping.
FB said it but I don't think it would hurt to repeat: this is completely irrelevant to the topic of racial stereotypes. I read this like 5 times trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and... nothing. Depending on the context, that might not be a stereotype at all. Stereotypes involve taking generalizations about a group, and applying them to any given individual in that group. So, again, this really isn't relevant. Each of those scenarios exemplifies stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and racism. So your line between what's racist and what's not is drawn somewhere between, "thinking blacks should be shipped over seas," and, "turning someone down for a job because of the color of their skin?" You -> |+| . ............................................................................................................................... . The Point -> |+| Refer to previous diagram.
Good comments I largely agree with this. Another question if he had said the state of Israel was largely created by armed force employed by European Jews driving Palestinians off their land, would he be banned or accused of anti-semitism? The claim of "anit-semtism" is frequently employed to silence critics like myself or even Jimmy Carter of Israeli policies. Doesn't the constant use of the anti-semite claim to bash opponents of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, cheapen the term "anti-semitism"?-- which BTW does actually exist.
What you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which is about stereotypes, not the history of the state of Israel. Why derail an otherwise topical discussion with your historically hypothetical?
I sort of thought the topic was whether Richardson's remarks were "anti-semtiic". Maybe I will reread the intial post. I have re-read it. It was entitled "pc or anti-semitism." The original poster started out: "I'm not going to say whether I think this is anti-semiticism or not yet" Hey if you or other posters want to now only talk about "sterotypes" in general and not anti-semitsm, specifically, go for it.
The question is whether the stereotype of Jews all being crafty constitutes anti-semitism. Your example shines no light on either side of this debate in any way.
That's a danger of PC. Anti-semitism does exist. Racism does exist. And when people start to lump anything that SOUNDS offensive or DISTASTEFUL to their view, or is opposed to their goals as racist or whatever - the oppressed are becoming the oppressors in a way. Free speech isn't just about being able to say what you want without being thrown in jail. Freedom of speech means you can speak and be free with your thoughts without fear of intimidation or retribution. Should people's words be challenged and examined - scrutinized? Yes - absolutely. But that doesn't mean people should lose jobs, political career, and be viciously counter-attacked. They should have their lives ruined over one phrase that may not have had any intent to harm! And the more people become PC, the more others will be afraid to say what they truly think, and racism will become more unspoken, it will be thought, and acted upon. But no one will say anything, and the NAACP won't know who the racists are because people will learn to navigate the speech and hide thier racism and express it in more sinister manners. You have the NAACP going after a guy for using "nappy-head ho's" as a racial slurs. Wait a second. It's insulting for sure. It's certainly tasteless and callous. But why go after them? Perhaps to keep themselves relevant -perhaps because they have the power to. I personally wonder if there's misplaced anger - people taking this guy on because he's a symbol of other racist who they CAN'T identify but stilll want to punish. Calling these guys racist is crazy because no one really knows. How can people be 100% sure? I don't like this guy getting suspended - he made his living on being a "shock" jock. He's supposed to say edgy things. People should be able to gain some leeway. Geez, what a horrible world it would be if we have to make sure everything we say doesn't offend anyone - who doesn't make mistakes?
"Political correctness" kicks ass. No, I'm serious. Don Imus isn't getting hauled off to jail. His right to free speech hasn't been compromised. People are pissed that he said something moronic and, yes, racist, and his employers have decided it's to their economic benefit to suspend him. It's the free market in action. Michael Richards wasn't hanged for his rant. People called him out for it, and were perfectly within their rights to do so. Some folks get angry that one stupid comment can ruin their reputation. They get upset that they have to think about every little implication of every little thing before they say it. You know what? You're ******* right you should think about what you're saying. And if the filter fails, and something slips out, and you get pilloried for it, well, suck it up, kid, and try not to be such a moron next time. After all, the blacks should've gotten over slavery and Jim Crow by now, right? Set 'em a good example - head high, no whining. "Political correctness" is the natural counterpoint to an openly racist society. Given the choice between allowing bigotry to go completely unchecked or haranguing it every step of the way - and there's not a viable middle ground there, right now - I'm taking "PC" every time.
New Yorker, again I find myself surprising largely agreeing with you. I think the Anti-Defamation League is guilty of the same ( I would call it over sensitivity) to the point of counterproductivity as you allege of the NAACP. Claiming racism/ anti-semtism at the drop of a hat does not help things. The term political correct is too freighted with the overall attack on post Depression American society and the American middle class, as existed before Reagan , for my liking.
No. It doesn't. If the "intimidation" or "retribution" doesn't break any laws, it's free speech too. And your posts don't provoke strong reactions (or whatever you said) because your fantasy of being a controversial internet dude are real; they do so because we can't believe you still post after being proven such a freaking idiot so many freaking times. You do this in many ways, but my favorite is the one where you whine about the PC meanies and their threat to free speech (not to mention your expressed love of a good ole racist joke, LYFAO) and then blubber when people tell you you're stupid. Guess what. When you act like an ass we get to call you one. It must drive you apesh*t that you can't blame that on political correctness. Even under the rules of the big, bad NAACP or the totally worse ACLU, idiots are still not a protected class.
Batman, no wonder some of the posters like Jorge find you too much to handle. Great writing style as usual Idiots as a protected class, interesting. Though irritating,I feel they are at least entitled tothe drops from my bleeding liberal heart. . I feel that way about TJ, though I think only sarcasm can reach him and thus help him. A sort of tough love attempt on my part to aid him go beyond his boyhood upbringing in Southern conservative elitism. To make matters worse he went to an elite Southern school which further stoked his feelings of superiority to the rest of working and middle class Americans, not to mention all but the richest immigrants.
