Letter to the Editor
Stereotyping
Published Saturday, April 26, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!April 23, 2008
To the editor:
It is my experience that when people hear the word “stereotype” they often think of an uneducated or hurtful opinion.
Well, as defined by dictionary.com, a stereotype is “Sociology. A simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.” So according to this definition, a stereotype is neither good nor bad.
Stereotypes are just that — an opinion held by many. If we’re honest, humans categorize extremely well if nothing else. Just look at the animal kingdom. What is race? It’s simply a man-made stereotype to organize Homo sapiens further.
All humans are the same species; we just look different because of our different experiences (i.e., location, geography and environment).
So instead of degrading people for stereotyping poorly, either enlighten them or move on, because we all stereotype, whether we think we do or not. Also, people get offended far too easily by far too minor things.
The less people get offended, the better the world would be. And if you are offended by something that you know is not important, just rise above the offender and tell yourself that you are a better person than that.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
"Stereotype: A fixed, commonly held notion or image of a person or group, based on an oversimplification of some observed or imagined trait of behaviour or appearance."
"most stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to the person or group being stereotyped. "
"Stereotypes ignore the uniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group with the same brush."
Source: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/sp...
The example cited by Mr. Ferree, the American stereotype about cowboys and Indians, serves more to disprove rather than support his contention. That stereotype is a myth created by dime novelists and, in turn, embellished and perpetuated by Hollywood. As such, it bears little or no relationship to reality.
Maybe there is something to this. Why should anyone get upset if someone uses the term drunk native, shiftless Mexican, lazy black, stupid blonde, or flaming gay. Grow a backbone and let bigots enjoy themselves?
Didn’t mean the last sentence to be a question, posting too early must have coffee.
I agree. Let people spew their misunderstandings and show their ignorance. If people choose to be hateful and blanket a people group with negatives, step up and say something; help them understand. That's not to say fire them from their job or sue them for a billion dollars. Just offer up some correction, if you don't, you're just continuing the trend....
"Humanity, Mr. Alnut, is what we're put here on earth to rise above!"
Hope I quoted Katharine Hepburn's character in "The African Queen", correctly.
Yes, everyone stereotypes people. Individually, we are expected to rise above that fault. As you live, you're expected to mature, to grow. One cannot do so, if one refuses to recognize the unique qualities of our fellow humans. Even more than that, to realize that The Almighty created every human being. And I don't believe he takes kindly to any of us who degrades what he, himself, created.
Those who call themselves Christians, i.e. followers of Jesus, the Christ, would do well to absorb the words of Jesus. Did he not say that whatever you do to the least of his children, you do it to him?
We always see Jesus as light-skinned; statues, holy pictures, crosses, etc! He is never swarthy. He looks like he's from a northern country.
From the moment one arises, to bedtime, one sees white images everywhere. On tv, in the movies, there are no Native Americans, except in a few "stereotypical" roles.
Good Morning,
I appreciate Mr. Ferree's comments in this morning's paper.
Far too many people scrutinize the words, or actions, of others to find fault with, or be offended by. If I may be so bold as to add, that many of the online comment-ors taking part in this new feature offered by DNM are a splendid example of that trend.
Hear, hear, Mr. Ferree, {RK tips her bonnet your way!}
-RK
OK RK
I guess you’re saying people who want to be offensive should be allowed to speak, but people that respond because they find it offensive should be silent. Is that what you’re saying?
Sorry Scrabble,
I take offense when I hear those terms. Bigotry propigates more bigotry. By encouraging tolerance we put today's youth at risk of learning the same values. Here are some streotypes we should tolerate: Narrow-minded Bigot, Hateful Bigot, Ignorant Bigot. Now those I could live with (the terms not the bigots).
Sorry Cardigan Pete that was a lame attempt at sarcasm. I’m just shocked that anyone would want to advocate the use of the stereotypes I mentioned.
You know, in my opinion people who comment on stereotyping are all the same.
Cardigan_Pete - While I understand what you're trying to say, I disagree with one part. I dislike all stereotypes, including those about bigots.
Each individual categorized as a bigot is unique, just as with other stereotypes. Some hate more, some hate less, and they each direct their hatred towards specific people within a wide range of possibilities.
I'm not against the bigots themselves, I'm opposed to displays of bigotry. I object to the acts they commit against others because of their hatred. As for the people themselves, I can't force them to change and trying to do so will tend to deepen their hatred. Let them wallow in their hatred, as long as they keep it to themselves.
Personally, I pity them. How can they possibly love anyone when they're so busy hating someone they don't even know?
Griff --
Although your post makes a lot of sense, I have to disagree with you on one point. Maybe we should ignore individual bigots, however what about institutionalized bigotry?
Our country has a very LARGE group that has institutionalized bigotry. In our current society, those who lead these institutions are not to be pitied -- that should be saved for those who are bigots and DO NOT KNOW ANY BETTER. Those who willfully choose to be bigots (in spite of knowing it is wrong) do not deserve our pity, they deserve our anger and ridicule.
The reason is that as long as they are willfully perpetuating bigotry, there will continue to be displays of bigotry by those who accept the message and lack self-control (and/or empathy).
Thus, the insitutionalized bigotry that seems so prevalent in Fairbanks and across America threatens our society simply by existing, because we KNOW FOR A FACT that those teaching WIIL be acted upon eventually.
Does that make sense? Or am I just stereotyping?
end of 2nd to last paragraph should have read
"... that those teachings WIIL be acted upon eventually."
newsreader - Yes, extemely valid point, I agree completely.
Thanks Griff, I value your opinion highly.
The problem I have now is supporting my last post without turning into a "hate filled bigot" myself. I'm having some trouble with that part, but I'm trying to work it out.
:)
In my forty plus years I learned that everyone is put into a group
I never liked it but I have come to deal with it.I never thought of it as being hateful.
When I grew up there were even sterotyping in school,
cowboys were called "kickers"
kids with money and good grades were called"jets"
kids that smoked cigs or pot called "hippies"
and the list goes on
It will never end, and then How do we describe ourself????
Maybe thats why I changed my name to MeLinda
"Maybe there is something to this. Why should anyone get upset if someone uses the term drunk native, shiftless Mexican, lazy black, stupid blonde, or flaming gay. Grow a backbone and let bigots enjoy themselves."
I believe those are oxymorons not stereotypes...
I think there is a difference between stating your displeasure when somebody has said something in poor taste, and taking offense. You don't need to allow them to have the power to bring you down to their level by being bitter.
My Grandfather couldn't get a job for being too native, but got beat up as a kid on a reservation for being too white. He never let that hold him down, and instead of blaming others he worked his butt off and became a very respectable, accomplished person. He felt bad about people who were stupid enough to miss out on what he had to offer because of their ignorance. He stood his ground, but didn't let other people's ignorance run his life.
We can rise above it, because it's all a stupid thing to get caught up in. Do your part and don't give the idiots attention, because that's all they want anyway.
Newsreader-
What kind of institutionalized bigotry are you talking about?
There is a big difference between being prejudiced against PEOPLE and being prejudiced against ACTIONS. We may categorize an individual person according to his actions, but we should never lump similar people together because of one person's actions.
For example, there is such a thing as a drunk Native. But not all Natives are drunk. Let's try to direct our negative feelings toward actions, not at people.
That, by the way, is what Jesus taught.
Actions would not occur without people, so I'd submit that it is fair to direct negative feelings toward people who do negative things.
Jesus might not be cool with that, but he didn't get the final say.
And therein lies the heart of bigotry.
brialaska --
The other day I was driving down the New Steese toward Fox when I see this sign lit upon on the side of the road reading
"Sodomy has always been Wicked, and it always shall be."
The other day on the Day of Silence posts, "theTruth" said
"I influence hundreds of teenagers every week.
I will be teaching them that homosexuality is wrong this week.
... I will not stop spreading the Truth."
This is the institutionalized bigotry of which I speak.
As they were growing up, both of my children attended Christian churches, although not the one newsreader is referring to. I neither encouraged nor discouraged their attendance because I felt it was an important step in discovering their spiritual awareness.
Eventually, both of them quit going and I later discovered why. Although they both had been going to different churches at different times, both became disenchanted with the bigotry they kept encountering. I think the disenchantment built up over time but, in both cases, they cited a discriminatory joke as the final straw.
It's worth noting it was through no fault of the minister or pastor -- they both like and believed in the messages delivered in the sermons. Instead, it was a constant tide of "better-than-them" bigotry by congregation members that drove them away.
As for the church mentioned by newsreader -- although offensive to many, they are entitled to free speech. On the other hand, if they carry their message of hatred onto my property again, I WILL file trespass charges, just as I promised the last time I found one of their brochures hanging on my doorknob.
There is another church with a sign in town. It's the Lutheran Church on Farmers Loop. Their sign invariably has an uplifting message (a recent one read "We are called to be witnesses, not juries"). If I suddenly decided I needed to return to the fold (no danger there), I'd consider this church long before I ever thought of visiting that other church with a sign.
"The Sign" is designed to make people think.
Sounds like it doesn't work for some people.
All "the sign" does for me is make me think I'll never see the inside of that particular church, nor will I read a mailing or pamphlet. I also think that I can be comfortable in this decision through what my faith teaches.
To the point of the letter. There is a tendency for people to get offended by the silliest things these days, and then in the name of political correctness we lose a little more freedom. There is no "freedom from being offended" anywhere in our founding documents - nor should there be - it's silly.
As for stereotyping, humans do tend to organize things in ways that make sense, yet it defies logic to attribute characteristics of a single example to another person or an entire group who share superficial similarities. Each of us is unique, and deserves to be treated as such until the time comes that our behavior needs to be corrected, either formally or informally.
Alaskaflower says "Let's try to direct our negative feelings toward actions, not at people" - the key word here is "people" - for the most part, the best direction for negative feelings is toward the person behaving in some fashion, not the group.
All I can say is that the sign at the church on the Steese compels me to stereotype the people who attend that church. No one with the moral comprehension of a doorknob would ever set foot in that place, given the hate-filled drivel that routinely spews from its sign.
A few years back someone torched the church's old sign. A friend of mine insisted this was God's handiwork. It goes without saying that if there is a God, he, she, or it will never be found inside that building.
Long Live Whitey!!! Lol.
I'm curious...
What level does a derogatory remark need to be in order for it to be classified offensive, .. or in the instance of my concern, way overboard and downright evil.
Earlier last week, there was a person who was found dead and the death classified as a homicide in a hotel room and under it was a couple of comments that weren't, in my opinion, human. In fact, it made me stereotype these two commentors as heartless and mindless monsters.
Their comments brought to mind, the level of thought "Joshua Wade" had of Della Brown who lay dead in that dirty shed. Makes me sick to my stomach, and I hope the proper authorites