- Moderator
- #81
Lisa exhibits an incredible dexterity in attempting to show that when it comes to ugly stereotypes of Black people, it’s always different than with Jews or Asians or any other group.
I think it’s important to note that Lisa either ignores or is unaware of the very ugly history behind these stereotypes and how it is perpetuated when she makes the argument that these stereotypes hold true for the group but people as individuals might be different.
She has noted before that many stereotypes are based on a kernel of truth (what she calls “data”) that is then taken and applied to the entire group as an inherent attribute.
For example, many stereotypes concerning Jews have to do with the fact that among the very few occupations open to them historically was money lending and banking (because it was considered a sinful occupation by the dominant faiths). That occupation, by its nature, lends itself to greed, penny-pinching and fraud, thus leading to that derogatory stereotype. Now, interestingly, Jews are over-represented in white collar crime. In fact, they even recognize this with humor.
We can similarly deconstruct ugly stereotypes about Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans etc.
If Lisa were honest, she would apply the same standard here as she does with Blacks and crime, but that could a bridge too far.
The vast majority of Blacks do not engage in violent crime and the vast majority of Jews do not engage in white collar crime. In fact, the vast majority of Americans do not engage in any crime at all. So when Lisa speaks of Blacks having a violent crime rate “5 times” that of Whites, she is talking about maybe 2% of the Black population.
So why then does Lisa think these stereotypes accurately depict an entire group as the norm rather than the exception?
I think it’s important to note that Lisa either ignores or is unaware of the very ugly history behind these stereotypes and how it is perpetuated when she makes the argument that these stereotypes hold true for the group but people as individuals might be different.
She has noted before that many stereotypes are based on a kernel of truth (what she calls “data”) that is then taken and applied to the entire group as an inherent attribute.
For example, many stereotypes concerning Jews have to do with the fact that among the very few occupations open to them historically was money lending and banking (because it was considered a sinful occupation by the dominant faiths). That occupation, by its nature, lends itself to greed, penny-pinching and fraud, thus leading to that derogatory stereotype. Now, interestingly, Jews are over-represented in white collar crime. In fact, they even recognize this with humor.
We can similarly deconstruct ugly stereotypes about Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans etc.
If Lisa were honest, she would apply the same standard here as she does with Blacks and crime, but that could a bridge too far.
The vast majority of Blacks do not engage in violent crime and the vast majority of Jews do not engage in white collar crime. In fact, the vast majority of Americans do not engage in any crime at all. So when Lisa speaks of Blacks having a violent crime rate “5 times” that of Whites, she is talking about maybe 2% of the Black population.
So why then does Lisa think these stereotypes accurately depict an entire group as the norm rather than the exception?