Stern is a horses ass. However, I am having trouble seeing how this so offensive. The items you mention above are legitimate. This is no a case of a black guy eat a watermelon.

>> Smoke signals <<

They used them!

>> War drums <<

Them, too!

>> "Funny" Indian names <<

Some of them are kind of funny. Even a lot of Indians think so.

>> A scantily-clad maiden <<

Again, they were often "scantily-clad"

>> Feather bonnets <<

They used them.

>> Buckskins <<

And these.

>> War paint <<

These...

>> Dancing in a circle <<

They still do it.

>> Teepees <<

More real Indian culture

>> Tomahawks <<

This, too.

Isn't political correctness going a little to far? Stern does satire. If he ignored Indians, then I could see you claiming racism.

>> Stern is a horses ass. <<

Mr. Jamison:

I agree about Stern. He reminds me of the kid in second grade who gets his giggles by shouting "Tittie!" each time the teacher's back is turned. Most of us thought this was funny.....the first time it happened in the second grade. Li'l Howie and his fans, however, haven't gotten past that stage—intellectually and emotionally. Troglodytes all!

>> However, I am having trouble seeing how this so offensive. The items you mention above are legitimate. This is no a case of a black guy eat a watermelon. <<

Stereotypes aren't necessarily false. They're just a few activities of the targeted group which are carefully chosen in order to portray them in a negative manner.

>> Smoke signals

They used them!

War drums

Them, too! <<

Yes, and many African-Americans really eat watermelon, some are lazy, and a few even talk like Stepin Fetchit. That doesn't mean that these are not insulting stereotypes when they are (falsely) portrayed as the norm.

Also, you're lumping all Indians—in their =hundreds= of nations, languages and traditions—together. Not all Nations used smoke signals or lived in teepees or used war paint. Didn't you know that?

(Indeed, your failure to recognize even this simple error is a telling example of the harm of such stereotyping. Whether you realize it or not, these stereotypes certainly seem to have influenced your thinking about Indians and how they live.)

And stereotypes needn't be negative to be harmful. Witness, for example, the Mystical Eco-Warrior stereotype that is applied to Indians (I'm posting from alt.native). While, on the surface, it seems complimentary, it takes away the power of cultures to define themselves and places it in the hands of outsiders.

As an example, I wish I had a buck for each time I heard a mainstreamer chide an Indian for failing to live up to that stereotype. As if they couldn't be Real Indians and, say, support a casino on their land, be Christian or vote Republican.

Worse, when depicted as a happy, spiritual people living pastoral lives as Noble Savages, it's easy to forget (or, more accurately, to ignore) the fact that they suffer from the =worst= standard of living of any ethnic group in North America. That they have the highest rate of infant mortality, the lowest incomes, the highest rates of Third World diseases like Plague and Cholera, the highest rate of death-by-exposure, the highest incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse and, for those living on reservations in the U.S., a life expectancy of around 45.

Put differently, it's not a question of whether what's being said is true (if only sometimes), but what is =not= being said that represents the harm.

Regards,

Mac

>> Stern does satire. If he ignored Indians, then I could see you claiming racism. <<

I don't see anyone claiming racism. They attacked his stereotyping. Stern has a right to do his satire. These folks have a right to trash his satire.

>> Smoke signals

They used them! <<

Which tribes?

>> War drums

Them, too! <<

Which tribes?

>> "Funny" Indian names

Some of them are kind of funny. Even a lot of Indians think so. <<

Who?

>> A scantily-clad maiden

Again, they were often "scantily-clad" <<

Which of "them"?

>> Feather bonnets

They used them. <<

"they" did? Which "they"?

>> Buckskins

And these. <<

Who did?

>> War paint

These... <<

These what? Who? When?

>> Dancing in a circle

They still do it. <<

Do "they" now? When and why?

>> Teepees

More real Indian culture <<

Is it?

>> Tomahawks

This, too. <<

For who?

>> Isn't political correctness going a little to far? Stern does satire. If he ignored Indians, then I could see you claiming racism. <<

Hey, I guess it's true that if any indians anywhere at any time have ever done any of this stuff, then it's true for all indians everywhere, always. Nothing like blacks eating chicken and watermelon, which is just a stereotype, nope, these things are Real Indian Culture.

Dude, I'm one of the few who finds Howard Stern funny. Repetitive (how many fart jokes can a person take before growing weary?) but amusing. I am fond of satire and I think he incorporates many layers of satire into his show. It's not that I'm offended. But I think your reasoning was silly.

>> Smoke signals

They used them!

Which tribes? <<

Many tribes...

>> War drums

Them, too!

Which tribes? <<

Many tribes...

>> "Funny" Indian names

Some of them are kind of funny. Even a lot of Indians think so.

Who? <<

Don't be such an idiot...

>> A scantily-clad maiden

Again, they were often "scantily-clad" << >> Which of "them"? <<

Many of them...

>> Feather bonnets

They used them.

"they" did? Which "they"? <<

Don't be such an idiot...

>> Buckskins

And these.

Who did? <<

Don't be such an idiot...

>> War paint

These...

These what? Who? When? <<

Don't be such an idiot...

>> Dancing in a circle

They still do it.

Do "they" now? When and why? <<

Don't be such an idiot...

>> Teepees

More real Indian culture

Is it? <<

Yes

>> Tomahawks

This, too.

For who? <<

Don't be such an idiot...

>> Hey, I guess it's true that if any indians anywhere at any time have ever done any of this stuff, then it's true for all indians everywhere, always. <<

Who said "all"? (I mean, other than what your racist mind inferred...)

>> Nothing like blacks eating chicken and watermelon, which is just a stereotype, nope, these things are Real Indian Culture. <<

Not the same and you know it.

>> It's not that I'm offended. But I think your reasoning was silly. <<

Well if you think so. Why not reply instead of saying such stupid things as "who", "really?", "Is it?"

Was there a point to your comments?

>> Was there a point to your comments? <<

Yes, and everyone seemed to get it except you. I think there are over five hundred Indian Nations in North America alone. Add in Central and South American and you have even more. The overwhelming majority did/do not have the cultural traits listed. In fact, US blacks eating watermelon is more universal (though not totally) that all the so-called Indian cultural traits listed.

>> Well if you think so. Why not reply instead of saying such stupid things as "who", "really?", "Is it?" <<

I did reply, and the point to my reply was that you were making exactly the kind of generalizations that the prior poster was complaining about being perpetuated through mainstream entertainment. They were EXACTLY the type of gross stereotyping as blacks eating watermelon, despite the irony of your statement declaring otherwise.

And the reason I asked you WHO and WHICH TRIBES was to point out that just as MANY blacks do eat watermelon, that is not a valid basis for perpetuating a stereotype about blacks eating watermelon. Would it be valid for me to paint an image that whites, generally speaking, paint themselves blue and run into battle naked and screaming?

But "many" do. Or DID, which is a fairly important distinction.

What makes a stereotype a stereotype?

If I see a white man in a business suit in a movie, is it reasonable for me to claim I am being stereotyped as a business person? If a woman has a part in a movie where she plays a waitress, is it reasonable for her to say "women are always being stereotyped as waitresses?"

If 99 out of 100 times a white man appeared in a movie he was wearing a business suit and carrying a briefcase, that would be stereotyping. If 99 out of 100 times a woman appeared in a movie she was a waitress, that would be stereotyping. Those numbers are for example only and not to be taken as definitive.

One movie, one tv show, one reference does not CREATE a stereotype, it can only perpetuate it. A stereotype is created when through repeated portrayal or presentation, the idea is formed that most or all (fill in the blank) people do some particular thing or some set of things or act in some particular way. So-called positive stereotypes exist, and are really no more beneficial than the negative ones.

The idea that indians wear feather war-bonnet headdresses is a stereotype. The stereotype causes people to assume that the practice was/is common and widespread, when in reality only a few groups used/use feather war-bonnet headdresses, and the use is very restricted to only a few people.

The idea that football players are big and stupid is a stereotype. The stereotype causes people to assume that pro football players are almost universally below-average intelligence, when in reality most are not only intelligent but also well-educated.

The idea that black people eat watermelon is a stereotype. The stereotype causes people to think that for some reason blacks have some special affinity to watermelon, when in reality most people are fond of watermelon. This is a "dead stereotype"; it is nearly universally recognized as a stereotype and thus is not commonly believed as literal truth.

An example of a "positive" stereotype would be that indians are more spiritual and closer to the earth than other races, or that Asian-Americans are smarter.

All stereotypes are based in a kernel of truth; indian feather war-bonnet headdresses are real. There are some big, dumb football players. Most black people eat watermelon. (I've only ever met two people in my life, of any race, who don't enjoy watermelon in summer.) Many indians strive to live up to a heritage of spiritual ideals that include respect for earth. Asian-American test scores tend to be higher... in recently immigrated families. The problem is when these kernels are expanded and magnified and presented as universal, or nearly universal, for all members of a group they may apply to.