Stereotypes are odd. I know several people of assorted races/religions who massively fit their stereotypes. Never joked about it cos it'd probably go down like a knackered lift.
At the end of the day, stereotypes exist for a reason, it would be unreasonable to think that there aren't black people who don't love fried chicken and can run really fast, and think they're rappers (I actually fit in all three categories proudly) therefore we shouldn't talk about the issue of stereotypes because they might get offended.
It's when they are used to perpetuate the idea that they're reflective of that entire group/race/culture which then forms negative opinions and assumptions, especially in media.
I think talking about these kind of topics is much healthier than keeping it to yourself, and I would encourage more people to talk to other ethnicities about these kind of topics, you wont learn anything by surrounding yourself with likeminded people who can only see one perspective.
@vi1lain i appreciate your posts here on a topic I'm not too sure about, especially since my initial instinct was to say "safe space? What a load of shite!" - so thanks for broadening my mind a bit here. I'm still not sure how we, or who gets to, reliably define what a 'dominant'/'oppressed' group is, there's so many shades of grey, and oppression occurs within such groups as well as against them. Take the Irish - subject to some truly awful stereotyping, historically oppressed but also successful, both colonized and colonizer. Watch the reaction of any Irishman witnessing an English person making fun of his accent and you'll see how thin-skinned we can be, yet we can take that shit from just about anyone else ( obviously due to the history of power relations between us). So do we have a case to get the English to stop making fun of us, but have to accept it off, say, the Angolans?
Also by labeling a group as 'oppressed', do they ever get a chance to break free of such a category?
Sorry if these questions seem a bit amateur, your posts have me thinking (out loud in this case).
Thank you, it's much appreciated!
Good question and I think the answer is both subjective and contextual depending on where you are in the world. But I think it boils down to mainly power and individualism.
So you are part of an oppressed group if:
On a personal level you are able to face prejudice & bigotry (racism)
On an institutional level you can face discrimination (harder to get a job)
And on a structural level you can face oppression (poor government funding, education etc)
This is why i said its contextual because its not the same for all races, or in every country, it varies hence why there's so many shades of grey, but at it's absolute basic level thats what it boils down to.
The Irish is a good example, awful history of oppression & lots of stereotyping today - I would say that while being Irish means on a personal level you can face prejudice & bigotry, being Irish is unlikely to hinder you on an institutional or a structural level.
I don't think that's grounds to have a case to make anyone stop poking fun at you, I mean there are always going to be bigots in this world, that can't be stopped.
Second question is good too - I think as things stand labelling groups is necessary.
Labels don't cause inequality, people do. There's no point arguing about changing the names of groups if the systemic and institutional structures are still in place to oppress those very groups.
Plus without labels we lack the vocabulary to really discuss these topics.
Labels can be seen as empowering for some, can be used negatively by others but removing labels removes this option completely.
Safety! Safety!