So Meyer wasn't trying to discriminate, but she did it anyway? Is that what you're trying to tell us?
I think you're confusing conscious discrimination with unconscious racism. They aren't the same thing. In fact, I'm not even sure they're connected. I think one can discriminate without being a racist and be a racist without discriminating.
Do you think discriminating is the same as being negative and hurtful? Because it isn't. Many TV shows and movies have depicted sweet, loving Indians who ended up happily. For instance, The Lone Ranger and Tonto, The Go-Go Gophers, Paw Paws, Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, Pocahontas, The Education of Little Tree, The Road to El Dorado, Shanghai Noon, End of the Spear, and The Emperor's New School--to name a few.
That doesn't mean these works weren't based on racist assumptions. Or that they were devoid of mistakes and stereotypes. Negative portrayals are only the most obvious sign of discrimination or racism. They aren't the only sign.
Have you heard of minstrel shows? Amos 'n' Andy? The Song of the South? Aunt Jemima? These sweet, fun-loving portrayals of blacks had little or nothing to do with reality. They were discriminatory and racist.
Yet their creators would've said they didn't intend to discriminate against blacks. And their fans would've defended the portrayals to the hilt. Which is roughly the position you and Meyer have taken on Twilight's Indians. Get the picture?
Below: "I'm a sweet, fun-loving stereotype!"
12 comments:
It's hypocritical to complain about Indian stereotype while making ignorant blanket statements like these.
"He confirms that Americans are ignorant or shortsighted about the world around them."
In my book ignorant anti-American rants are just as sickening as racial stereotypes. Plus it would help your credibility to avoid quoting the vile Ward Churchill.
Oh and please excuse the errors in my first post; I've been dealing with insomnia and some other problems so my built in spell checker is not what it used to be.
I was not sure how else to reach you, (I'm sure you have an email, but its getting late in my grave shift so if I did not see it in an obvious place, oops...)
Anyways to my main point, have you done a review on a book called Love and Consequences: A Memoir of Hope and Survival? It turned out to be a complete fabrication but what makes it relevent to your blog is the fact that the author claimed to be half native american which turned out to be false.
LMAO, omg rob. That was hilarious!
Good job hunting down a quote that has nothing to do with this posting, Anonymous. FYI, it comes from my page on America's Exceptional Values.
Are you seriously arguing that Americans aren't ignorant about world affairs? That's pretty funny considering that most Americans admit to such ignorance.
Here, educate yourself on the typical American mindset:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070822064927.3gb131i5&show_article=1
Two-thirds of US adults admit to being in the dark about political issues outside the United States, and only a third are well-versed in US politics, the results of a poll published Tuesday showed.
"Well over half (57 percent) say they do not like learning about political issues in other countries," and 32 percent expressed a lack of interest for homespun politics, the Harris Poll group said.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00385.html
"For decades we've been reading about how American schoolchildren can't find Mexico or Canada on a map, and yet nothing seems to change," says Ransdell. "These people who don't know the difference between Switzerland and Swaziland then become the main consumers of news. And in poll after poll they tell us that they want less foreign news and more of what I call 'selfish journalism'--which stocks to buy, sex and beauty tips, 10 steps to a healthier colon and so on. It becomes this horrible feedback loop where people are sent out of our schools in a state of complete ignorance of the rest of the world and then, maybe because they're embarrassed, clamor for even less information on something they know almost nothing about."
In short, my statement wasn't a stereotype or even an opinion. It was a factual claim based on reams of polling data.
As for Ward Churchill, yes, I've quoted him a few times on my website. Even if he's a white man pretending to be an Indian.
FYI, I've quoted everyone from Aristotle to Jesus to Columbus to Washington on my site. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they said.
Except for his "little Eichmanns" comment, Churchill made some good points about 9/11. He was right to say the terrorists weren't just madmen who attacked us for no reason.
He also was one of the first to apply the UN's definition of genocide to what happened to America's Indians. No way do I not quote him on this issue when he made the case so well.
I covered the Love and Consequences controversy in Author Fabricated Native Memoir, Mikst.
"Good job hunting down a quote that has nothing to do with this posting, Anonymous. FYI, it comes from my page on America's Exceptional Values."
My point is that you claim to be against stereotypes and yet you stereotype the American population (which obviously includes Indians)as idiots.
"Are you seriously arguing that Americans aren't ignorant about world affairs? That's pretty funny considering that most Americans admit to such ignorance."
I'm arguing that the entire American population are not ignorant.
"In short, my statement wasn't a stereotype or even an opinion. It was a factual claim based on reams of polling data."
The poll said that a percentage of Americans are ignorant of world politics; you on the other hand posted that all Americans are ignorant. See the difference?
Also it's not like ignorance doesn't exist outside America:
http://www.eng.gees.org/articulo/340/
The sad fact is that ignorance is a world wide problem; not just an American problem. Not to mention such anti-American statements and stereotypes are just as hurtful to Native-Americans and Americans in general. I think that the American government deserves a great deal of scorn however to label an entire nation of people as ignorant is simply bigotry.
Re "I'm arguing that the entire American population are not ignorant": Are you really so dense that you don't understand generalizations? When I say something like "Americans are ignorant," it's a statement about Americans in general. It includes many or most Americans but not all of them.
Next time you think I mean all Americans, go ahead and quote me using the word "all." In other words, put up or shut up. Until then, stop wasting our time with this semantic nonsense.
Re "See the difference?" Yes, I do. The difference is that I said Americans are ignorant and you falsely inserted the word "all." The problem here is your inability to quote me accurately. Either that or your inability to read and understand what I wrote...I don't know which.
P.S. You're really tempting me to delete your false and malicious comments, Anonymous. Next time, quote me accurately and don't put your erroneous spin on it. Or don't bother writing.
Re "I'm arguing that the entire American population are not ignorant": Are you really so dense that you don't understand generalizations?"
Oh I understand them perfectly, I understand how harmful they can and how they're used to attack groups of people. Here are some other similiar generalizations:
"Indians are drunks."
"Reservations are slums."
etc.
"When I say something like "Americans are ignorant," it's a statement about Americans in general. It includes many or most Americans but not all of them."
If that's true than you should have used the words "some Americans" or a "percentage of Americans".
"Next time you think I mean all Americans, go ahead and quote me using the word "all."
You used the word 'Americans' )which means all Americans not 'some Americans' or a 'percentage of Americans'.
"In other words, put up or shut up. Until then, stop wasting our time with this semantic nonsense."
It's hardly semantic nonsense
"Re "See the difference?" Yes, I do. The difference is that I said Americans are ignorant and you falsely inserted the word "all."
I didn't alter your quote and I proved saying 'Americans are ignorant' is the same as saying 'all Americans are ignorant' because it fails to make a distinction between the Americans that actually are idiots and intelligent Americans.
"The problem here is your inability to quote me accurately."
In my first post on this entry I copied and pasted that quote with changing it, so I'd say I quoted you accurately.
Re using the words "some Americans" or a "percentage of Americans": Then it wouldn't be a generalization, bright boy. It would be a specific statement, not a general one.
It's still not clear to me that you know what a generalization is or why writers use them. When you're a professional writer like me, perhaps you'll understand the proper use of generalizations.
Re "You used the word 'Americans' which means all Americans not 'some Americans' or a 'percentage of Americans'": This is your (stupid) opinion, not a fact. The fact is that I didn't use the word "all." To reiterate, next time you think I mean all Americans, go ahead and quote me using the word "all."
Re what you "proved": You didn't prove a thing other than your ability to assert your opinion repeatedly. Now that we know your opinion, trying citing and quoting a valid source for it. Give us something, anything, other than your worthless opinion.
For instance, give us a source that says generalizations are universally true and not merely generally true. Good luck with that, since "generalization" means a statement that's generally applicable by definition.
Re "I'd say I quoted you accurately": You misquoted me when you wrote "you on the other hand posted that all Americans are ignorant" in your third comment. You falsely inserted the word "all" to make your false point.
Re the harm of generalizations: They can be harmful when they're not based on facts and evidence. In this case, I gave my reasons for stating that Americans are ignorant of foreign affairs. This statement is generally true and--unlike you--I proved it.
Post a Comment