Cultural stereotype.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
That performance was excellent.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It still wasn't right. Just like it wouldn't be right for Kid Rock to do an old-style Minstrel show, circa 1920.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Someday, all programming on television will be geared towards the equivalent of sexless, raceless, religionless,cultureless six year olds.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
just stop watching television. It's lame. There's never anything good on. it's mostly just a bunch of stupid old recycled stereotypes. And it's boring.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:OutKast leader Andre (3000) Benjamin issued the following statement later in the day.
"Ugh! We-um want-um you to know we-um make-um big wampum from show!"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: "It was the most disgusting set of racial stereotypes aimed at American Indians that I have ever seen on TV," NACC board member Sean Freitas said in the online statement. "It was on par with white people dancing sexually in black face, or yarmulkes ... I am shocked and outraged."
Actually, the idea of this cracks me up. Obviously what Outkast was trying to convey is that all Native Americans are sexually explicit and morally corrupt.
Why don't black people get offended when he does this performance in his regular clothes? This is pretty dumb.
edit: Ryan!!
yet another edit: Did anyone see his performance on Saturday Night Live? That was an outrage! His portrayal of jockeys was nothing less than prejudiced against short people that ride horses.
[ February 16, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Because Native Americans have their respectful history and hold their traditions?
If this were done in satire of Arabic tradition? Of Catholic tradition? Of Southern culture? Portraying stereotypical views of cultures in without a thought of the disrespect it is?
As a group, a large amount of Native Americans feel quite insulted. We invalidate them and their feelings by telling them, "You aren't really insulted. What you feel isn't true. Suck it up and learn to live with it."
And we continue to make fun of them.
And we wonder why they're pissy about it?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Just because people get insulted doesn't mean something has been done wrong. Sometimes people are just being overly sensitive.
In this case, Native Americans may have been insulted, but they really should not have been. No harm was intended, and I think that was fairly clear from the performance. All OutKast did was a play on their culture, just as they did a play on high school bands. Should band members be offended?
If OutKast comes out sometime dressed as a bunch of European colonists, I wouldn't be the least bit offended, despite the fact that that's my cultural heritage. And if they came out in Arabic, Catholic, or Southern gear, I wouldn't think anyone should be offended either (although inevitably some would be).
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
"It was the most disgusting set of racial stereotypes aimed at American Indians that I have ever seen on TV
Clearly this person has never seen a rerun of Gunsmoke, Bonanza, or especially High Chaparral.
Oh yeah, and Hondo, I think. Wasn't that the John Wayne movie where "Uncle Ethan" plans on killing Natalie Wood because she was kidnapped and doubtlessly "defiled" by the "savages"?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
By saying that they shouldn't have been offended, you negate their feelings on the matter. You have no personal stake in the matter--they do. If one person feels insulted out of an entire group, then maybe something wasn't done wrong. But when a large group of people who feel they were insulted say so--then they were. Continuing to play it down and tell them to stop being so oversensitive is a continuing insult.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
PSI
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But when a large group of people who feel they were insulted say so--then they were.
Is it possible for a large group of people to be oversensitive? I would say yes. The solution is, if you feel insulted by someone or some group, stop listening/watching/reading/patronizing them.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I hate to do it, but I have to agree with Rob, for the simple reason that I know of several groups--including a sizable portion of my own church--that have a persecution complex. Anything that does not go their way becomes the fruit of a conspiracy against them, in their minds. I do not think this is the norm, but it does happen.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Look, even when someone has a delusion, the FEELINGS it produces are real.
The Native Americans in question WERE offended and had every right to do so--and telling them they are oversensitive is minimizing their culture and feelings over the matter.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If one person feels insulted out of an entire group, then maybe something wasn't done wrong. But when a large group of people who feel they were insulted say so--then they were. Continuing to play it down and tell them to stop being so oversensitive is a continuing insult.
Do you believe that if gay marriage offends a large group of Christians then it is wrong?
Do you believe it is "insulting" them if we tell them they should not be offended by gay marriage?
[ February 16, 2004, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: the FEELINGS it produces are real.
People's feelings do get hurt sometimes, but it is not a crime.
quote: and telling them they are oversensitive is minimizing their culture and feelings over the matter.
Only if they allow it to.
If someone tells me that I am a cold hearted libertarian and I don't care about the poor, my feelings get hurt. But this does not do any permenant damage to my political beliefs or my personality. Do I have a right to demand that people stop saying such hurtful things about me? Of course not.
[ February 16, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Sounds like too much of a coincidence to me....the Janet thing one week and now this? Sounds like CBS is trying some new stunts.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Do you believe that if gay marriage offends a large group of Christians then it is wrong?
Do you believe it is "insulting" them if we tell them they should not be offended by gay marriage?
You're talking about a conflict over a social institution. I'm talking about a specific action done portraying a harsh stereotype of a specific culture.
And, yes. Telling them not to be offended is insulting. They have every right to their own feelings and opinions. We've established in the homosexuality threads that religious opinon is fine but it enters into problems when civilly and legally steps on people's toes by denying them rights.
But that isn't the topic of this thread.
OutKast used a cultural stereotype of Native Americans in their stage performance. Native Americans were insulted by that stereotyping. Why? It has already affected them harshly in other realms and if the stereotype is allowed to perpetrate, then it will continue in other aspects of society.
And those of us in the majority, who don't have to be concerned about this sort of insulting stereotyping, tell them that they shouldn't be offended.
Should we be offended if someone makes fun of the mentally retarded?
Or the mentally ill?
Or the handicapped?
quote:Only if they allow it to.
If someone tells me that I am a cold hearted libertarian and I don't care about the poor, my feelings get hurt. But this does not do any permenant damage to my political beliefs or my personality. Do I have a right to demand that people stop saying such hurtful things about me? Of course not.
Actually, you do have the right to tell them to shut up and leave you alone.
So the blacks who suffered greatly at the hands of satirists, racial slurs, and other such attacks shouldn't have allowed it to offend them?
This wasn't a one-person offense against another single person. This was an offense against an entire culture.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Should we be offended if someone makes fun of the mentally retarded?
Or the mentally ill?
Or the handicapped?
Who's to say what we should ALL be offended by? Is it you? I say, leave personal feelings to each individual person, and stay out of this.
quote: So the blacks who suffered greatly at the hands of satirists, racial slurs, and other such attacks shouldn't have allowed it to offend them?
Whether or not they are offended by something, their business, and theirs alone. Minority groups do not need racial indignation coordinators. They are perfectly capable of forming opinions about such issues on their own.
The problem here is that you don't seem to want to let it drop at simply being offended. Do you want some sort of legal penalty leveled on those who offend?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*reads mack's post again*
Where did she say that? Where did she say that she wanted anything more than the already-tendered apology?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:The problem here is that you don't seem to want to let it drop at simply being offended. Do you want some sort of legal penalty leveled on those who offend?
Actually, my main complaint is against those who minimize the reactions of others. If you hadn't figure that you yet and instead put words into my mouth, there's no need for me to continue with this.
And no, I'm not offended, in case you were wondering.
After all, this wasn't on CBS. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: there's no need for me to continue with this.
If you think so, thats fine.
I did not put words in your mouth. Carefully read the lines of mine that you quoted.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You're talking about a conflict over a social institution. I'm talking about a specific action done portraying a harsh stereotype of a specific culture.
So, just to clarify, you DO think it's okay for gays to marry even if it offends large groups of people, no? And therefore you DO think there are times when people are just being oversensitive, and have no right to expect the thing offending them to be stopped? Right?
But you say it's different when we are talking about a "specific action portraying a harsh stereotype of a specific culture."
In that case, if a whole bunch of Jewish people get offended by Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Jews in The Passion of Christ, is it wrong for him to continue to allow it in theaters? Should we stop showing the offensive movie, or should we just ignore the complaints of the offended people?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)