(no subject)

[jaala]

I have now seen not one but three uses of North American Indian[1] stereotypes in popular culture here, things that would have perhaps gone over in Canada about 25-30 years ago but would be painfully unacceptable (and possibly incite lawsuits) now. People don't seem to think it's offensive in the least. When I mentioned my discomfort with the first instance a while ago, I was asked why Australian stereotypes (and German, French, Scottish, etc.) are not offensive if Indian ones are. I dare say that my response about historical power inequalities and memories of colonial injustices (not to mention centuries of unfavourable Hollywood depiction) was received with a fair bit of skepticism.

It's an intriguing issue, the line when cultural stereotypes become offensive. It reminds me of the stand-up comics who make sweeping generalisations to poke fun at their own ethnic/religious/cultural/racial/sexual background or group. It's okay for Margaret Cho to make fun of her mother but if anybody who wasn't Korean(-American) did that accent as part of their act it would be massively offensive. Perhaps Margaret Cho[2] is a poor example; I don't think she bases her entire act on racial or cultural stereotypes, unlike some comics I've seen.

Is it that one is only allowed to parody one's own group? Or is it poking fun at outsiders, especially those who are disenfranchised--kicking them when they're down (or have historically been so), you might say--that is seen as mean? Or is it embarrassment for centuries of "white culture's" inaccurate or demeaning depictions of other ethnicities? Why do Shaun Majumder's [South Asian] Indian jokes make me more uncomfortable than his Newfoundlander jokes? Why don't the gay and German jokes in The Producers disturb me?

[1] And no, I'm not using that term out of insensitivity. As far as I can discern from my conversations with North American Indian people and my limited (but more extensive than some) exposure to books, television, plays and movies made about and by them, that's what a lot of people prefer to call themselves. "Indian" is less cumbersome than "Aboriginal", "First Nation" or "Native American". Still, no offense intended if someone prefers a different term.

[2] Disclaimer: what I've seen of Margaret Cho I have, in all honesty, found pretty damned hilarious. Just to let you know.

Comments

[gridlockjoe.livejournal.com]

(I'm probably the only person south of 49 who likes the term "First Nations". Yet I still would say "Indian".)

At the Dallas Comedy Festival, we saw Negin Farsad's hilarious one-woman show "Bootleg Islam". She was excellent parodying her culture. I don't think the same material would have gone over as well had it been a white woman doing it.

[sherbear82.livejournal.com]

This is not entirely related, but I'm reading a self-help book right now about "shacking up." While I know it is directed almost entirely towards women, some of the assumptions made about the woman reading the book are so presumptuous that it offends me. Sentences like, "Go ahead and consult your Magic 8-Ball, but what you really need to do is some serious thinking" bothers me because it implies that women are simply romantics, and "Women are kicking serious butt in the workplace" reminds me of men who describe feminism as "cute but annoying" (I seriously know a guy who said this).

So yeah, I really dislike stereotypes in general. Being in Cochrane I'm very aware of how racist people are here, simply because the community is predominantly white, and the few native people here almost always cause trouble of some sort. It's not fair, but here it tends to be accurate. Still, it was really painful to hear my grandfather say he never wanted to go to Quebec because the french people in town are causing the family business trouble. I'm glad I don't live here anymore.

[gerald_duck]

Hmm. It's a minefield.

A person says something. The simple question is what they meant and whether or not it was offensive. However, the listener might misunderstand them to have meant something offensive… and it could perhaps be the speaker's fault that the misunderstanding occurred.

But then… maybe nobody misunderstands, but nonetheless subtly, insidiously, the choice of language causes an undesirable shift in opinions. This is, of course, the way much propaganda works — whether for good or ill.

I wrote here about one specific example of potentially offensive language, in response to a posting by wonderleafy. (And, incidentally, I notice gridlockjoe lurking over there as well as in your journal. (-8 )

In this case, I should first mention that Red Indian is still probably the most usual term in the UK, and I see no particular reason why it should be regarded as offensive. I have my suspicions it may have fallen out of favour in North America during the McCarthyist era, actually!

Can you say what the actual stereotypes of Red Indians were? While there are admittedly a lot of cretins in the UK who can say mind-numbingly offensive things about almost anyone, there are definitely differences in outlook. We in the UK might be a little overly-sensitive about mocking peoples we abused in the colonial era; I imagine North America might have similar sensitivities in this case.

Also, in the UK, Red Indians are viewed more as a historical phenomenon than a present-day one, and therefore subject to the same level of caricaturing as, say, the Goths or Knights Templar. This could show a contemptible lack of awareness on our part that they're still around, though equally the USA clearly wants to kid itself they've been less comprehensively eradicated than is in fact the case.