by fazzle on Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:47 pm
Stereotypes are actually rarely couched in ignorance. They're usually couched in observed patterns (with a too small sample), or, better stereotypes are couched in statistical reality.
The first type of stereotype, the observed patterns one fails usually because the sample is too small. If this is ignorance, well, then most of our conclusions in life are ignorant. I'm good with that, but you have to be good with that too for your argument to work.
The second type of stereotype, the statistical reality, is only harmful if applied abjectly and absolutely to everyone of the group. For instance, if it is true that Japanese people are much more likely than other groups to consort with prostitutes, than it is statistically true. That does not mean every Japanese person should be arrested for solicitation, since not every single one performed a positive action and hence, should not be arrested. But, its no crime, and certainly not hateful, to say that statistically Japanese people are more likely to hire a hooker than other groups (if it were true).
Same deal.
You need not hate a group, or a person, to state statistically true stereotypes about that group. If your definition of stereotype excludes 'true' things, than, well, your issue is with slander and libel, not sterotyping.
Evlar is correct though. Today's racists, especially the organized ones, are rarely ignorant. In fact, they usually have a better grasp of 'racial' facts than most people. They just choose to sterotype and then ACT upon said sterotypes. Seperating the two things is rather important, especially if you ever plan to make a generalization about anything ever again.
Fazzle sometimes speaks in the 3rd person. He apologizes.
2+2=Whatever it needs to.
"There go the people, I must follow them, for I am their leader."