BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

When a Red Indian is not a Red Indian and other un-PC terminology.

  
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
Quantum
09:19 / 20.11.03
note: this is the Head Shop, dude, am I missing something?
A wise Barbelite quoted somewhere else 'You react to being called racist like having syphilis- when it's actually more like having a bogey hanging from your nose, wipe it off and carry on' (or words to that effect).
I think that pretty much sums up how I feel you should respond, racism is a state not a trait. We shouldn't be fighting racists, but racist behaviour. And guess what? We're the ones displaying that behaviour.
Nobody would suggest Olula is a 'racist person' (well, nobody I'd like to know) in the sense that she's a 'female person', but saying R*d In**an was racist behaviour (that I would have been equally guilty of). She examined it, stopped, I consider that a result.

Then again, how do we determine when a ground is firm enough? (Haus)
I err on the side of caution. If it's deemed offensive by some, I try not to use it.
Of course the pitfall of the consensus is when most people are wrong, so it's not ideal, but pragmatically it seems to work. While there is no absolute determinant of correct behaviour (in either manners or PC) we can prune our behaviour toward an ideal that we agree (in this case not racist). If you think a term might be offensive to a group, ask someone from that group or someone who is knowledgable about it (in this case Hunterwolf).
Does that seem like a fair procedure?
 
 
Leap
11:40 / 20.11.03
Most “red Indians” find the term offensive, many “native Americans” have a problem with that term (especially when it has come to be linked mostly with plains culture imagery that is applied in an insulting way across the board), and increasingly, each prefers to be referred to by their tribal affiliation. The group is so broad and dissimilar in practices that the general terms are highly inaccurate anyway.

The polite (note: Not PC) approach is to refer to a common culture (mountains, plains) or by tribal affiliation.

How do I know this? My missus is pretty much becoming THE (western academic) authority in western appropriation of American Tribal traditions (yeah, I’m proud of her, so what! ).
 
 
FinderWolf
12:45 / 20.11.03
>> Hunterwolf, re: the origin of the term 'Indian' as applied to the nstive Americans: even if the origin is the Spanish word equivalent to 'indigenous', I don't think that alters centuries af Anglophone use of the words 'Indians' as a generic term for native peoples in the Americas and in Asia... just a minor quibble really, but I think prevailing usage does often outweigh origin where language is concerned. So perhaps it's not completely daft to find it offensive.

I hear you on this; I'm just saying in my experience of working with American Indian people for 2 years (and various other personal research & study I've done over the years), they pretty much ALL (and I met with and worked with at least 500 over the course of that two years and had contact with many social work and cultural organizations) called themselves some form of "Indian". They called themselves either just plain "Indian" (see what I wrote earlier about claiming this term as their own with pride, as the blacks have done with the previously negatively-tinged word "black"), "American Indian" or "Native American" (very rarely I heard just plain "native people"). I even saw t-shirts in the midwest worn by Native Americans that read "PROUD TO BE INDIAN."

Of course, even my experience with that culture doesn't discount the fact that, as I said in earlier posts, you're never going to get 100% consensus among an entire race or culture about what they want to be called.

p.s. Your wife's work sounds very cool, leap!
 
 
FinderWolf
13:23 / 20.11.03
You're right, this IS the Head Shop, I usually don't post in the Head Shop so I had a mind blank about what category I was in. I was more focusing on Haus' seemingly haughty and condescending comment, which came off (to me, at least) along the lines of 'I'm used to people being able to follow complex thoughts here, which apparently you, sir, might not be able to do'. But maybe I was reading Haus' tone wrong, and I think Haus has contributed some good points here, so let it be what it is.

>> It is possible that you are simply not able to follow the thread of the argument over PC, which is quite complex, in which case I will attempt to express it more simply, but I'm afraid I have grown accustomed to the Head Shop being a place where complicated ideas can be expressed and discussed, and even if this is no longer the case a degree of pour encourager les autres might still be seen as admissable.

And Quantum, I agree with you - I certainly wouldn't call olula a racist, and I don't think anyone else called olula such either here, really (without carefully poring over the thread yet again). I also applaud olula for asking and getting opinions/perspectives.
 
 
Quantum
09:41 / 21.11.03
I don't think anyone else called olula (racist)
Of course not, I would be shocked if we had! I just wanted to point out the difference between 'being' racist and 'doing' racist things.
I do racist things unintentionally, that doesn't mean I must classify myself as 'a racist', despite the point above about original sin (which implies we western whites are all racists and should do our best to transcend our abominable state, shame on us).
 
 
Quantum
09:59 / 21.11.03
Sorry, to address Flyboy's point a bit more clearly;
if we are all nice, well-meaning liberals then it is horribly unfair for either ourselves or our behaviour to be labeled 'racist'. Flyboy
We have to accept responsibility for our racism, I agree, but to turn it into a guilt trip seems counterproductive. Labelling our behaviour racist is fine, but labelling ourselves racist (as a permanent trait as opposed to a temporary state) is a mistake. Ku Klux Klanners might be racist, anguishing middle class liberals probably aren't.
 
 
Leap
14:26 / 21.11.03
There is also the distinction between seperatist and supremicist....
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:40 / 21.11.03
Right, Quantum. Because middle class liberals deserve to be handle with kids gloves, and constantly be reassured of how well they're doing, or because they just can't be racist, by definition?

Because we're so nice, and well-meaning. The fact that we profit from racist power structures is just a terrible unfortunate but inevitable fact of life, and we shouldn't inconveniance ourselves by trying to change things, even by taking the tiny, tiny step of starting at home and trying to change our own attitudes, language use, etc. That would be some kind of crazy radical extremist PC weirdness, wouldn't it?

Ah, the dangerous "guilt trip". It's the new "PC gone mad", y'know. Interestingly, whilst I was re-reading through a previous thread in which I tried to explain why guilt has nothing to do with it, Quantum, I was reminded that you've previously said I'm not a radical feminist or black/gay/workers rights supporter or whatever because in my world those battles have been won - if you're still of that opinion, then obviously I can see why you believe that there is no obligation on middle class liberals to actively attempt to combat racism wherever we may find it, even (or perhaps primarily) in ourselves.

But for those of us who don't believe the battles have been won, then there's no cause for complacency. It's only going to be a "temporary state" if it ends, ie if we achieve a certain level of success, y'know? And until then, whilst discussions like this are definitely a good thing, I think we need to push for more self-examination...
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:21 / 21.11.03
I suspect "liberal middle-class" Angst, Anguish and Guilt are really a sort of luxiory available to those few who benefit from established racial "superority" and yet are, at least marginally, aware of it. Such an individual has a choice, weither to feel that way or not. This privilage is not really available to those born of color.
There's something in here about internalising racial assumptions and ideas; the Micheal Jackson effect?

I don't think such guilt and anguish should be internalised. Better to exorcise it in the active attempts to root out its dynamic, personally and societally. There is a question of "how."

It seems to me that internalising such "guilt" is counterproductive. However, if one IS benefiting from the established racist cultural dynamic and not actively working to dismantle it, are they then guilty of racism? I might think so.
I do like that "racism as bugger" simily.

I also suspect that the distinction between being "racist" and acting "racist" is somewhat artifical. Perhaps created to make allowances for complaciency. It may be that 200+ years of history has not really been a benifit to anyone in terms of race.

In the U.S.A. if you're white you're significantly less likely to be pulled over on a "Random Stop" it doesn't matter if you're a member of the KKK or the NAACP.
I can't imagine some liberal setting out to get pulled over more often as a means of fighting that racial dynamic. So, effort must be devoted towards dismantling the system that creates the phonomenon called "Driving while black." People of color have a vested interest in doing so, "whites" can choose.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:27 / 22.11.03
Quantum said...

Labelling our behaviour racist is fine, but labelling ourselves racist... is a mistake

Than Flyboy said...

we shouldn't inconveniance ourselves by trying to change things, even by taking the tiny, tiny step of starting at home and trying to change our own attitudes, language use, etc

Now, I wouldn't usually bother to do this but it strikes me that Flyboy is agreeing with Quantum to an extent here. You see both of them appear to believe that you can address racist behaviour and stop participating in it. That you can change it by examining and redressing your own attitude and Quantum goes on to point out that he feels a guilt trip would be unneccessary as you would continue to focus on the original attitude rather than move on to fair and erm... not racist behaviour.

Why would you feel guilty about racism that you didn't participate in? Feeling guilty for the actions of other people, even those in your area of society, seems a little far fetched. I would rather not indulge in middle class guilt, rather point out my feelings towards certain language when I felt it was wrong. Being anti-racist is hardly a radical gesture towards society. I prefer to treat middle class racists in the same way as members of the BNP. Argue with them and then avoid them like I would a rabid dog.

Having said that I think I'm on the path to making myself clear. It's an ignorant mistake to assume that anguishing middle class liberals probably aren't racist. I suspect that quite a few of them are aware of the nasty language that they use and fail to address it. That kind of assumption is dangerous and leads us to a place where people don't change their views. I think that Flyboy's words have some merit in that he points out that if we assume people aren't racist we might not point out that they're being offensive and when you don't point it out racism breeds.

Olulabelle is clearly not a racist but she used a racist term. She is not a racist because she has stopped using the term on purpose. It is not so much her lack of original intent but rather her subsequent attempt to change that places her as a person who is not racist. That's okay.
 
 
Quantum
08:36 / 24.11.03
I'm not a radical feminist or black/gay/workers rights supporter or whatever because in my world those battles have been won (me)
- if you're still of that opinion, then obviously I can see why you believe that there is no obligation on middle class liberals to actively attempt to combat racism wherever we may find it, even (or perhaps primarily) in ourselves. (Flyboy)

I am still of that opinion, but I believe there is an obligation on everyone to actively combat racism wherever they find it.
I challenge bigoted behaviour where I find it- colleagues off-colour jokes about homosexuals for example- but the people I spend time with aren't very racist or sexist etc. so it's not a big issue for me because of my environment.
If I saw horrible abuse every day I would no doubt be incensed, join a voluntary group or get a job defending the abused, whether they were suffering racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever. I don't like to see people abused, but it doesn't matter to me what the reason for that abuse is- I feel the same sympathy to a gay person getting hassled as a black person getting hassled, it's a person getting hassled that I see. (The major exception being children, who inspire a more protective reaction in me).

So I combat racism wherever I find it (including within myself) but I don't often find it without going looking because of my environment. It's not often I meet a Native American and see them get offended by people calling them red for example. I do, however, come across sexism, homophobia and discrimination against disabled people, so those are the things I focus on combatting.

But even then, not much. I consider my responsibility to start with me, then my friends and family, then my colleagues and acquaintances and then the world at large, with my responsibility diminishing as my involvement lessens. *Please note I am describing honestly how I behave and think rather than some prejudice free ideal, which would be infinite compassion for everything*

I don't give people a hard time for their colour, gender, sexual preference, religion, disability or age, which makes me a 'passive' anti-racist.
I actively challenge those behaviours in others, which I think often stem from thoughtlessness, so I am an 'active' anti-racist.
But I don't go on marches, volunteer my time or publish articles on racism, so am I not active enough? Tough. I have my own life to lead, and only a finite amount of energy- I think it's more important to me to support the causes closer to me (the environmental armageddon, US hegemony etc.).

I understand what you're saying, Flyboy, it used to be on MTV- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Well, I'm a small part of the solution.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:50 / 24.11.03
Ah, the dangerous "guilt trip". It's the new "PC gone mad"

Stir the broth:

Personally, I don't know whether or not guilt's a good or a bad thing (prolly depends on the individual and how much it galvanises them into action), but, please, Fly, you DID just refer to white privelege as being "akin to original sin"!!

Guilty as charged!
 
 
Oresa delta 20
19:06 / 03.01.04
Okay, i skipped most of this thread, so i don't know if this has already been said, but it occurs to me that most ethnic minorities don't take nearly as much offense at "non-PC" terms as the white bourgoisie who try to stick up for them. Personally, if i'm in a pub, and someone makes a remark that offends one of my friends, i try to step in. however, if he's not at all offended by it, i let it go, even if, on the face of it, it seems like a derogatery remark. There's no point in trying to avenge the honour of someone who's honour's still unscathed. Why the hell should i be offended at something somebody else says about a third person, when the third person doesn't take the slightest bit of offense. I've lived in Scotland all my life, and throughout my short but well-travelled days on earth, several (english, mostly) people have called me a jock, or a skirt wearer (reference to highland dress). I really don't give a shit about any of this, and it doesn't bother me at all. Why should someone totally unrelated to the conversation step in on my behalf?? In the same way, i don't step in to someone else's conversation, based on the condescending assumption that i can defend them better than they can defend themselves. Having said that, I'm still willing to kick the shit out of any racist piece of shit who wants to start a fight with one of my friends. Jesus, i hate testosterone. If any of you take offence, then please call me on it. If any of you think that one of your friends or relatives may have possibly taken offence at what i've just said, on the other hand, ask them before you step in and make an eejit of yourself. sleep well kids.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:09 / 03.01.04
So Jupiter's Child I happen to think the last sentence of your post is condescending, what's your reaction to that? What about all those people who are offended who aren't your friends? Are they wrong to be offended because your friends aren't? Are your friends not offended because they've been so derided that they don't have the energy anymore to say anything back? How do you feel about that? Don't you think that your post assumes more than the majority of posts in this thread? Probably not because you haven't read it.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
00:59 / 04.01.04
Moderator hat: Jupiter's Child, please read threads before posting to them. This helps avoid repetition, and is more likely to produce posts which are more relevant to this discussion at hand.
 
 
El Presidente
17:28 / 20.01.04



I noticed a rather scary fact the other day, in UK political documents the word 'HOMOSEXUAL' is being replaced with the phrase 'SAME SEX ORIENTED'. If the word homosexual has become offensive then why announce it to the world? Surely if you do this then you're only identifying your self by the term, and thus are identifying your self by others hatred?

These words are not weapons, so don't treat them like weapons, they have no power whatsoever. How long has it taken for society to realise that swearing has no real power, that swear words are part of our ever changing language, they're slowly moving from highly offensive to simple puntuation or contextualisation of speech.
 
 
Cat Chant
18:06 / 20.01.04
Quantum:

I'm not a radical feminist or black/gay/workers rights supporter or whatever because in my world those battles have been won

Cool. Can I come and live there, please? It sounds nicer than my world.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:45 / 20.01.04
Hi, El Presidente. I suggest you check out..oooh, all sorts of threads, but this might be a good one. There's lots of very interesting stuff around the sort of question you're raising there, and it ends, oddly enough, about where this one starts.

TBH, I'm not familiar with the case you are describing, but could it be for reasons other than perceived insult? For example, startling as it seems, might it be an attempt to make the language easier to understand? Or to try to synchronise the language a bit more with the way people speak (not always a desirable aim, of course), while avoiding the awkward "gay men and lesbians", which replaced "homosexual" in a lot of documents a while ago. I'm not sure anyone is seeing "homosexual" as *insulting*, per se... but as I say, I'm ignorant of the context.

Deva: In fairness to Quantum, I think he's saying that the battles have been won in the very specific social circle he moves in - whether that is true or not, I have no idea. I'm not actually sure whether one *can* actually exist in a state where the battles have been won, outside a very narrow sense. However, I think he is describing that very narrow sense - that is, that if he is in the pub with his friends, none of them is going to be overtly racist, sexist or homophobic. Flyboy has already raised the question of whether that counts as the battles having actually been won - a comparable position from his point of view might be moving out of the city, living in a gated community with armed guards and then stating that the war on crime had been won. It has, but in a way that might not actually address the root causes. Question the next being to what extent Quantum is responsible for the broader battles, which I don't think he is arguing have been won, which dovetails neatly into me loving the sound of my own keypresses over this...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:45 / 23.01.04
These words are not weapons, so don't treat them like weapons, they have no power whatsoever.

So language has no power? None at all?

Huh. I don't really know where to start with that one. You're aware that there's been a fair amount of extensive, well thought-out arguments put forward saying otherwise, right? If so, how do you refute them? (Thread-rot, maybe - this could be a whole other thread. A whole other forum.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:22 / 25.01.04
I think that, to an extent, that discussion is relevant, if we assume that this thread is in effect now about "PC" and "un-PC" as ways to identify terminology, but it also feeds from lots of other threads, some linked above. New topic might give it a chance to breathe a bit...
 
 
El Presidente
13:22 / 13.02.04
I didn't say language has no power, I said that words have no (intrinsic) power. Language is powerful when it is used to create and descibe concepts, any good novel that causes an emotional intensity proves this. However, words in themselves are not concepts they are mere lables. Substituting a concept with a lable kills the concept, and by making words weapons we are creating new concepts around the lables and not the concepts behind them.
 
 
Hieronymus
14:25 / 13.02.04
Yeah. People are just being overly sensitive. *smirks*
 
 
Mr Tricks
17:40 / 13.02.04
Yeah I remember hearing about the performance and wondering what (if any) reaction it would stur...

hmmm... make me wonder how Emmenem in blackface would be recieved.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:01 / 14.02.04
OK...Mr Tricks, what kind of a reaction did it stir *in you*, to begin with? And Mass, likewise - I'm guessing that you are suggesting that it is not in fact overly sensitive to be offended by Andre 3000 dancing around a teepee, but I'm not entirely sure...could you fill out what your reaction to this news story is a bit?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:54 / 14.02.04
This is rather like a load of Native Americans dressing up and performing an African tribal dance in a way that exaggerated all stereotypes about primitive cultures. I'm not sure this doesn't reek of a lack of sense of humour though. It's very difficult when you don't understand the details of racial politics between two groups. The slightest tension makes a presentation like this wrong.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:02 / 14.02.04
I'm wondering if part of the sensitivity here is also because of the historical and current situation. Put another way, treatment of Native Americans is particularly sensitive because they appear to be on the outs, essentially, and they are on the way out as a result of the action-upon of another culture, in this case manifest destiny-high Europeans. Is that a factor? That is, it's not just "these people are a numerical and cultural minority" or "these people have different cultural traditions that should be respected", but "these people are comprehensively fucked, and we may as well try to offset that by being polite and respectful as their culture and language goes west"?
 
 
grant
19:07 / 16.02.04
That may be part of it, but I think it's mainly an urge to just get the details right. The Navajo didn't have tomohawks or sleep in teepees, and it's not really doing anyone any service to think they did. Or is it? Hmmm.

I'm pretty sure it's about misrepresentation rather than appropriation.

On the other hand, "Miss Indian World"? What the heck?
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:04 / 16.02.04
  • OK...Mr Tricks, what kind of a reaction did it stir *in you*, to begin with? And Mass, likewise - I'm guessing that you are suggesting that it is not in fact overly sensitive to be offended by Andre 3000 dancing around a teepee, but I'm not entirely sure...could you fill out what your reaction to this news story is a bit?


Well, first of all I didn't see the performance first hand. I heard about it while listening to Hard Knock radio, a radio show I highly recommend. The announcer commented on his disapointment with OUTKAST for the use of such "costuming." At that point I recalled this thred and wondered what sort of reaction (if any) would result with-in "mainstream" media.

Do I think it's overly sensitive to be offended by Andre 3000 dancing around a teepee?

No, I don't. Particularly if you're of the culture being parodied in said act. As I mused earlier, I wonder how different the reaction would be if it was Emmenem in blackface.

Off the top of my head I suspect there would be a greater "outcry" as, it seems to me, the African-American community have been more effective in lending voice to these sorts of situations in recent history.

I don't know enough about the particulars of the act and the performers involved, to suppose weither this was a misguided attempt at er... giving "props" to the root culture that spawned those stereotypes. Or if is was just an attempted to do something "new." In either case, sure.. the offended parties should certainly expect or at least request an appology.

Could this be a sort of attempt by a group of coloreds to be more white by treating another group of coloreds in a similar way "they" have been historicly treated?

  • "these people are comprehensively fucked, and we may as well try to offset that by being polite and respectful as their culture and language goes west"


I don't know that being "polite" & "respectful" is even a factor. Yes as a "people" they are being comprehensively fucked, a first step towards correcting it may begin with correcting the "use" of their cultural identifiers...
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:55 / 16.02.04
So anyway... whay the interest in MY reaction?

More personally said here: A Letter to the Recording Academy About Outkast
by Andrew Brother Elk
 
 
passer
01:09 / 17.02.04
Mr. Tricks-

I find an attempt to nicely explain a racist action by a minority as something other than racism by simple ignorance slightly amusing and oddly enough a little racist. (Of course it could be the tongue in check quotation mark and use of the word props raising my hackles.)

Such an explanation works on the assumption that minorities are not normally racist, which is applying a different standard of expectations based on membership in a minority group. Minority status does not exempt one from the ability and culturally ingrained tendency to hold minorities and their cultures in contempt.
This becomes particulary problematic if you use a definition of racism that includes power differentials because it implies that minorities cannot be racist because they do not have enough power to be racist, which in my minds eye victimizes minorities all over again.

On the PC band wagon, is the use of the term colored acceptable where you are? It smacks of back of the bus and separate water fountain to me.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:24 / 17.02.04
Just to clarify - Tricks, I was wondering what response it stirred in you because it seemed to me logical that the next step from wondering what sort of a reaction an action would stir would be considering what it would stir in you, the wonderer, is all. We can just as well look at what it moght stir in somebody else. It's not a big deal.

Passer:

This becomes particulary problematic if you use a definition of racism that includes power differentials because it implies that minorities cannot be racist because they do not have enough power to be racist, which in my minds eye victimizes minorities all over again.

Very interesting point. In one sense, Andre 3000 is clearly *not* powerless. His actions, after all, can be seen by millions. He has large amounts of money. His beliefs are read and interpreted by large numbers of people. So, to construct a straight powerlessness idea does seem a bit limiting.

Then again, there is a bit of a nail-horse-knight-battle-kingdom thing, isn't there? That is to say, could you argue that at some point the economically and socially dominant (who may or may not be white or male, although in the case of the USA that is still a *reasonably* safe assumption) group, through commission or omission, allow or incite high levels of ignorance, hostility and potential offence between other groups because it makes the business of ruling easier. I'd like to make it clear that I am not necessarily *espousing* this view, just proposing it as a concept - the Black Panther idea that persuading threats to hegemony to fight against each other is a mechanism for preserving it.

Hoom, really. Oddly, the idea that less offence would be caused if the women wore kimonos and the men ninja outfits strikes me as an interesting one (from Tricks' link). But that's sort of another thread - much as one can already play games in which one guns down Iraqis on the way to apprehending Saddam Hussein...

Anyway, my favourite argument I think in history must be:

Native Americans attacked Tim McGraw for creating the song that made being a Native American cool, "Indian Outlaw".

Anyone care to pick the bones out of that one?
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:22 / 17.02.04
passer~~
I find an attempt to nicely explain a racist action by a minority as something other than racism by simple ignorance slightly amusing and oddly enough a little racist. (Of course it could be the tongue in check quotation mark and use of the word props raising my hackles.)

The point of my supposition was to bring such racial assumptions to the surface (for myself as well as anyone else); another case of the "thinking out loud" or "typing while thinking" thing I come to this forum for.

As for the word "props" are you asking me to appologise for it's use? if so, why? if not, what are you seeking to communicate to me by pointing out how it "raised your hackles"?

Yes, I agree that such explanations work on the assumption that minorities are not normally racist, which is applying a different standard of expectations based on membership in a minority group.

As for the terms "colored" & "white," I chose them intentionally, along with the Italics, in the process of exploring that logic or lack-of-logic. I wasn't going to misquote the "Field Negro/House Negro" dynamic that I was exploring off the top of my head and am now guilty of butchering in this post.

Haus
Thank you for your clarification. As I mentioned earlier I tend to post while I "think" and am apt to change my mind upon re-reading. To date, I find myself wondering if the performance was intended to be borderline offensive; a publicity stunt. Or was it a misguided attempt to jump ahead of the "next big thing" curb.
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:27 / 17.02.04
.. I ment to type C U R V E
 
 
passer
01:24 / 18.02.04
Haus-

I am willing to allow “nail-horse-knight-battle-kingdom thing” (Haus) as an underlying cause, but I am unwilling to allow it as some sort of excuse to negate the necessity for an apology or an effort to learn to do otherwise.

Would “there be less offence … caused if the women wore kimonos and the men ninja outfits?” The difference here would be the lack of connection between costume and music and costume and culture. Had the costumes been worn while doing another type of dance to music unrelated to the customs of native people, the level of offense would have been lower and perhaps nonexistent. To give another example of the way I see context as the key, I believe it was the always sensitive and responsible R. Kelley who made a song which echoes Asian music and he then felt compelled to put women in sexed-up kimonos in the video. I did find it offensive, though I agree and in some ways lament the fact that fewer people would be / were offended. That being said, I can and do find humor in stereotypes, but I need their use to be more clearly satirical and reasoned. Any ambiguity on either point often ruins the “joke.”

Mr. Tricks-
Regarding the props comment: I was explaining my reaction to it and allowing that my reading could have been shaded as a result. If I had wanted an apology I’m fully capable of asking for one. As for what I was trying to convey? The fact that “I find [this] attempt … slightly amusing and oddly enough a little racist” could be influenced by your use of props.

I’m not sure I’m following your reference to field Negro/house Negro dynamic here. Are you saying that your post was intended to subtly point out that Outkast is acting as house Negro and aiding in the oppression of the field slaves by appropriating the term colored?
 
 
ibis the being
14:02 / 18.02.04
Re. Speedy Gonzalez, I could be wrong but I think what was offensive about the character was that the joke played off the stereotype of Mexicans being lazy. It's a fast Mexican, isn't that hilarious? As I recall, his buddy was a lazy Mexican mouse who laid around napping with his sombrero pulled down over his eyes.

I'm still very much interested in the "Red Indian" question. I have to say that when I first read O's comment to her son I was immediately taken aback, though I then thought the sister fiance's reaction was a little exaggerated or overly judgmental. Where I grew up, there was/is a sizeable Native American population. There was no question of what to "call" "them" - they were Wampanoags. Some of my classmates were Wampanoags - it really wasn't too confusing for me as a child, because they were real-life people, not figures from history. No different from me being part Irish, part Portuguese. If we were talking about the larger, nation-wide group, I think we used Native American.

I agree that children should be taught not to be racist - but I don't think children start out racist, or even predisposed to be racist. It's just that they learn incredibly quickly, which is exactly why not to excuse yourself for using offensive terms when they're young.

As I've said, the community I grew up in was more sensitive than most about Native American history because of the Wampanoag population, so we were taught that the Europeans "took" the land from the native people in school at a young age. I remember when I was a teenager my little brother was in first grade - one night at the dinner table my parents were asking him about school and what he'd learned that day, and he said they'd learned about Native Americans. Oh really, what about them, etc. He said they learned how "they" had taken their land. My parents asked, "Who did?" He answered, "The white people." He understood the story but really had no idea we were "white people." I'm sure he put it all together when he was a little older, but I still think it was good for him to learn the history.

Anyway, I take issue with the cowboys and Indians game in the first place. Specific historical issues aside, the game is a variation of good v evil where good=progress and evil="savages," as I believe HunterWolf already said, or reason/intellect v instinct/nature. I don't think I would want to instill or encourage that imperialistic storyline in my child's fantasy life. I don't even think it's psychologically healthy to set reason in violent opposition to instinct. And if you think I'm being overanalytic or too abstract, I preemptively disagree. Children soak up the subconscious messages of stories and games, that's what fairy tales are all about.
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply