HISTORY OF STEREOTYPES

COURSE TITLE: INSIGHTS FROM INDIAN HISTORY

NAME: ATMA DINNIE CHARLES

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

3. Stereotyped Teaching in History

3.1 Inaccurate Wisdom

3.2 Case Study

3.2.1. Natives and “the Story” of American History

3.2.2. The Sample Application

3.3 Guidelines

4. Gender Stereotypes: Myth and Reality

4.1 Introduction

4.2 History

4.3 Stereotypical Interpretations That Have Changed

5. The Economic History of Stereotypes

6. Consequences of Stereotyped History

6.1 The Forbidden Staircase

6.1.1. Stereotypes

6.1.2. Discrimination

6.1.3. Racism

6.1.4. Sexism

6.1.5. Communalism

6.1.6. Scapegoating

6.1.7. Demagogues and Propaganda

6.1.8. Minority Persecution and Genocide

6.2 Positive response to Prejudices and Stereotypes

7. Conclusion

8. Bibliography

1.INTRODUCTION

The author Milan Kundera once wrote, "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of

memory against forgetting". The consequences of the above statement appear visible only if

screened through the lenses of History, memory and power relations, which then conveniently

decides who gets ignored and altered in order to fit the rigid script that History was. These

alterations and modifications resulted in the creation of stereotypes surrounding the issues of

class, race, gender, and sexuality. In the History written by the victor, stereotypes are often taken

as facts which when historians repeat one another, becomes the discourse and are in turn

internalized by marginal groups. These stereotypes are incomplete stories which make that one

story, the only story. A stereotype is probably the only thing that spreads faster than human

population, judging by its omnipresence in infinite conversations, movies, books, TV shows and

everything that has the ability to communicate. It is the tip of the iceberg that dives deeper into

Discrimination, Prejudice, Scapegoating, Racism, Dehumanization and even Genocide. The

Nazi Holocaust and Dehumanization of African-Americans were two instances that stereotypes

helped achieve. Another trail leads up to Gendering which is disguised as a demarcation but

holds the dubious credit for possible female extinction. A simple stereotype such as “Blue for

Boys and Pink for Girls” has resulted in a wildfire that will take centuries to douse. A prevailing

stereotype that claims women are “weak” and hence “Inferior”, would render anything feminine

as “Inferior” or “Insulting”. And such stereotypes will give the patriarchal land of India all the

support it needs.

“Congress woman Shirley Chisholm says, “The emotional, sexual and psychological

stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, “It’s a girl.””. Being a girl, this fear had

haunted me till it was replaced by another. Humans, being a race that breathes and breeds

stereotypes, I had found the enemy of equality, myself. I dug myself a grave when I chose pink

over blue without question, when I agreed “Beauty with brains” is a rare catch and when I

couldn’t unlearn the above mentioned discourses. These have been melted into our system that

unlearning remains the only viable solution. By identifying the different stereotypes taught as

discourses and their consequences, I could try undo the wrong that I helped create. This would

give me an opportunity to relearn because the history that I was taught does not account for those

other than the victors.

Literature references for this project can be broadly classified into five: The General theme is

based on Ellen Seiter’s article, “Stereotypes and the Media: A Re-evaluation” which also shares

insights by Walter Lippmann and T.E. Perkins.

The central arguments are further divided into four sections: The first section dealt with

Stereotyped Teaching in History. Robert. C. Aden in his “Stereotyped Teaching in History”

found misleading statements in publisher’s textbooks: The Indian or Red race originally roamed

the Americas, The American Indians made “Wampum” money first of shells and then of beads

etc. The reason of concern is because inaccuracies or half-truths are being presented to the

students. And the student would learn what the teacher teaches- inaccurate stereotypes.

Portraying African-Americans as being unintelligent, lazy, or violence-prone and physically

attractive women as unintelligent and sexually promiscuous are among others. The history of

women has often been selective and subjective. According to Deborah Gray White, "Colonial

white America's perceptions of racial difference were founded on the different way they

constructed black and white women". Women's history and African American history are still

seen as separate narratives. Regardless of whether these stereotypes are true or false; these

stereotypes prevent the production of new meanings and ideas from entering the dominant

narrative of history. This Chapter is followed by a Case Study conducted by John Wills and

mentioned in his article “Popular Culture, Curriculum, and Historical Representation,” where

he sought to examine the perpetuation of stereotypes in the American History curriculum by

examining the treatment of Native Americans. I have ended this chapter with certain guidelines

on how to teach more effectively about Native Americans suggested by The Social Psychology

Network on their page “Understanding Prejudice” written by S. Plous.

The next section is based on Patricia B. Campbell and Jennifer N. Storo’s article, “Girls Are..

Boys Are..: Myth, Stereotypes and Gender Differences” which outline Gender Stereotypes. An

interesting take on this was provided by a web source written by Sargent, J. F. which pointed out

certain Gender Stereotypes that have been reversed over History. They have picked out and

mentioned certain events in History to support their statement as to how it was not the case

before.

The next few dealt with The Economic History of Stereotypes. Journalist Megan McArdle points

out how unnoticed economic changes can fairly radically change our reading of historical work.

A racist scene of black men eating fried chicken is chosen from D.W. Griffith's seminal and

supremely racist 1915 silent movie “Birth of a nation”. The scene is then analysed through

various time periods of differing economy where the racist interpretation of the scene differs

accordingly.

The last set dealt with Consequences of Stereotyped History. In 19th century Europe, Jews were

classified as an "inferior" race. While some believed that it would disappear through political and

social emancipation, others believed that it was genetically and could not be changed. The

emphasis on nationalism made them a "foreign element," which could contaminate the native

stock or may even dominate the native population economically and politically. This long-

standing history prepared a seed-bed for the Nazi ideology and program of genocide. Genocide

is the final step in a continuum of actions taken by those who are prejudiced. The first step of this

continuum is discrimination. Followed by isolation in ghettos and separate schools. The third

step is persecution, followed by dehumanization and violence.

I have collected most of my data from secondary sources. Three of them from journals available

in J Stor, a review by Narayani Gupta and the rest from various web sources. Primary sources

include: the following movies that have helped me identify prevailing stereotypes of that

particular time period in History: The Help, Schindler’s List, The Green Mile, 12 years a slave,

Freedom Writers and The Great Debaters; Harper Lee’s Pulitzer prize winning novel “To Kill a

Mockingbird” that dealt with rape and racial inequality; writings by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya,

K.S.S. Seshan, Ellen Seiter and J.S Wills; and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech, “I have a dream”

which highlights the plight of the Dehumanizing experiences of the African –Americans.

This paper is based on certain objectives that it sought to address. Firstly, I’ve illustrated using

an example and a case study, how different stereotypes were being taught in History. Secondly,

I’ve examined how the interpretations of the same stereotypes have changed over History.

Thirdly, I’ve analysed how the economy has influenced stereotypes in History. And finally, I’ve

identified consequences of stereotyped teaching in History to underline how grave they could be.

GENERAL THEME

How stereotypes are defined by many social psychologists today includes only a part of the

originally meaning coined by journalist Walter Lippmann.

In his 1922 book Public Opinion, Lippmann highlighted the commonsense aspect of stereotypes

apart from their capacity to legitimize the status quo. For Lippmann, stereotypes are “pictures in

our heads” that result from a useful and not necessarily undesirable “economy of effort”. He

believed that we’d hold these “habits of thought” only lightly and would be ready to change

those when new experiences or contradictory evidence was encountered—which he suspected

was related to education. Lippmann’s original discussion of stereotypes stressed that they contain

an evaluation that justifies social differences. The question of the truth or falsity of stereotypes is

immaterial for Lippmann.

A pattern of stereotypes is not neutral. It is not merely a way of substituting order for the great

blooming, buzzing confusion of reality. It is not merely a short cut. It is all these things and something

more. It is the guarantee of our self-respect; it is the projection upon the world of our own sense of our

own value, our own position and our own rights. The stereotypes are, therefore, highly charged with the

feelings that are attached to them. They are the fortress of our tradition, arid behind its defenses we can

continue to feel ourselves safe in the position we occupy (Lippmann, W. 1922:96)

From the above, the significance of stereotypes as an operation of ideology becomes evident.

T. E Perkins in his further developed Lippmann’s definition in ideological terms, suggesting that

stereotypes primarily function by inverting cause and effect. The factors that keep blacks from

succeeding in a white-dominated educational system--an effect of their subordinate position in

society-is represented in the stereotype as a single, racial characteristic: blacks are less intelligent

than whites by nature. Such stereotypes attempt to explain and to justify obvious inequalities in a

society whose official ideology is racial equality.

Often stereotypes are considered to be simple falsities that no liberal-minded and educated

citizen should be guilty of entertaining. On the other hand, other research introduced the “kernel

of truth” hypothesis to account for the existence of stereotypes despite first-person contact with

the stereotyped group. However, this hypothesis fails to analyze the social origins and

ideological motivations behind stereotypes.

Ellen Seiter, in her article, “Stereotypes and the Media: A Re-evaluation” mentions that the study

of stereotypes brings to light a point of intersection between quantitative and qualitative research,

between social science and humanities perspectives, between the cultural studies and

administrative approaches. The authors of a textbook in the field of social psychologists maintain

stereotypes in terms of cognitive skills, as one form of mental category allows us to organize

information. The term does not necessarily associate with falseness or a perversion of social

reality, as it often does in mass communications research. However, the social psychology

definition can obscure the ideological nature of many stereotypes.

Seiter claims that we have generally failed to teach or research the history of individual

stereotypes and their relationship to social and economic power. She maintains that stereotypes

provide an opportunity to connect theory and practice in teaching about ideology. They can be

used to demonstrate to students the various forms of racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia

that circulate in our culture. And behind each stereotype lies a history that relates both to

commonsense understandings of society and to economic determinants. When the content of

individual stereotypes and their relationship to one another is taught in class, a series of new

issues would be introduced, which would eventually lead to confronting and unlearning racism.

Not only does the term ‘stereotype’ has little explanatory value and less theoretical grounding,

but its use suggests many simplistic assumptions about the debased nature of mass media. And

hence, Seiter suggests that research designs must account for change in stereotypes, attach

sensitive to context and the meaning produced on television and must conceptualize the

differences-especially those of race, class, and gender. All stereotypes were not created equal.

Therefore, the relationship of stereotypes to the legitimation of social power must be considered

carefully and their history, content as well as frequency analysed. Finally, Seiter concludes by

urging us to ask ourselves how different social groups will understand stereotypes, believe in

them, laugh at them, embrace them, or despise them.

3. STEREOTYPED TEACHING IN HISTORY

3.1 INNACCURATE WISDOM

Author and Anthropologist Margaret Mead is of the opinion, “Children must be taught how to

think, not what to think.” We normally put words in their mouths and normalize a strict set of

convenient practices as soon as there are born into the world. Then they are subjected to

continuous years of moral policing to establish the above mentioned ‘convenient’ practices.

Finally, when they are off on their own and are beyond the clutches of tutored thoughts and

ideals, they stumble upon the sudden realization that the whole world was a lie. It is a never

ending cycle that starts from stereotypes, which draw generalizations that draw assumptions

which eventually leads back to stereotypes.

This put on repeat, up until the child is an adult results in another vicious cycle involving

stereotyping, discrimination, corruption and eventually varied forms of de humanizing. This is

when the intellectuals, arm-chair philosophers, social scientists and “modern” liberal social

workers ring bells for “Educating the Youth” through countless and rather, pointless awareness

campaigns. It is a widely accepted fact that human nature is by birth inclined to cynicism and

their idea of ‘Problem Solution’ is the dubious ‘Blame Game’. Evidently, being non-ideal

humans, everyone ends up with varied shares of fault. And the objective of problem solution is

often buried amidst the reconciliation talks that follow. It’s time we put an end to this age-old

tradition of correcting our mistakes, it’s time we prevent them.

Let’s go back and start where we went wrong initially: Education. Unfortunately, we haven’t

been blessed with the gift of free thought. As social beings, every thought or idea that we

conceive is consciously or sub-consciously a result of things we’ve read about, learnt or heard.

The level that successfully injects absolute damage is the one where we are taught what to think.

This is where you’re taught incomplete and inaccurate lessons.

As only a fraction of what has happened in the past is recorded as history, the very discipline is

selective in its presentation. History, therefore, depends on the individual perspective of those who invoke

the past to reconstruct it. It is but natural that what we value most in the present, we tend to search in

history. (Seshan, K. S. S. 2015)

We acknowledge that History is not what happened but only a story of what happened. As long

as humans write History, we can never completely ascertain that one narrative is right and

another isn’t.1 However, there are certain ‘truths’ in History that we “believe” are pure and true.

Although without a time traveler we can never proof read those. And when these truths are

altered intentionally and unintentionally, that is where we need to point the spotlight.

1 Perhaps nobody has changed the course of History as much as the Historians. However, this limitation is not confined to History alone, all schools of thought involving human contact share the credit for being biased.

I would like to cite examples from Robert C. Aden’s ‘Stereotyped Teaching in History’ where he

explains the dangers of sweeping generalizations. In 1528, Conquistador Panfilo de Narvaez2

sailed from Spain to Tampa Bay, Florida in search for gold. Unable to complete its quest, the

company embarked for Mexico. After a shipwreck in 1536, only two men, Cabeza de Vaca3 and

Estevanico4, a Negro slave, survived to reach Mexico City.

They traveled during the eight years across the Gulf regions, the plains of Texas and down into

Mexico. Slaves at times to Indians, they gained the right to travel from tribe to tribe by becoming

medicine men. Estevanico had the advantage of using as cures, his own tribal dances apart from

Catholic rituals as he was newly Christianized. He also acquired a harem and a few turquoise

stones on his way to Mexico.

Cabeza de Vaca reported to the Viceroy in Mexico City and also told him of the Seven Cities of

Cibola known as the Seven Cities of Gold5. Fray Marcos de Niza

6 headed an expedition to

discover and explore these cities. Estevanico had impressed the Indians of Texas and hence went

along to insure the success of the expedition.

Estevanico was a day ahead than the main group and entered the first Zuni7 pueblo. Through an

interpreter he demanded women and turquoise tribute due a great medicine man and an

ambassador of the great white men of the south. The Zuni was unimpressed and hence, ordered

him away. When Estevanico persisted in his demands, the Zuni drew a line with the sacred

pollen and warned him not to cross it. Confident after his success with Indians in Texas and

thinking that Indians were Indians, Estevanico danced across the line whirling his rattles and

singing. He was put in jail and held for trial. And when he tried to escape that night, he was

clubbed to death by the guards.

He died because of the sweeping generalization that Indians were Indians.

Aden also points out that this stereotyping would extend to other areas in History. This is

because an author who is a specialist in one area of American history might neglect a closely

allied area, the area of settlement by Europeans in America.

2 Panfilo de Narvaez was a Spanish conquistador and soldier who participated in the early conquests of the

Caribbean. 3 Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca was a Spanish Explorer of the New World and one the survivors of the 1527 Narvaez expedition. 4 Estevanico was a Moroccan- Berber from sub-Saharan origins who was the first known person born in Africa to land in present-day continental United States. 5 Seven Cities of Cibola or the Seven cities of Gold is a myth that led to several expeditions by conquistadors in the 16th century. 6 Fray Marcos de Niza was a Franciscan friar and a missionary explorer in Spanish North America. 7 The Zuni people are a tribe of Pueblo Native Americans in the United States.

In books picked from a collection of publishers’ textbooks, I find the following statements which

mislead rather than inform:

1. The Indian or re d race originally roamed the Americas.

2. The American Indians made “wampum” money first of shells and later of beads.

3. The calumet (peace pipe) was smoked by American Indians when treaties of peace were made, or

as a sign of friendly hospitality to strangers.

4. The American Indians sought sweet grass (a fragrant kind of grass) for the making of baskets and

mats.

5. In the pueblo dwellings of the North American Indians there was a long room which was shared

by all the members of each house.

6. Some of the North American Indians built long wooden and bark houses that were fortified by a

palisade. Others lived in wigwarms and used tepees when travelling or hunting.

7. Their beds and furniture were made of spruce boughs and tanned skins. (Aden, R.C. 1954: 161)

The inaccuracy of these statements is not life- threatening to us now but they are still

important because they represent the inaccuracies or half truths that are being presented to us

and our students. The students learn what the teacher teaches, which in this case, are

inaccurate stereotypes.

The Indians are not a separate race. They are considered to be an offshoot of the Mongoloid

race, but they range from Mandans through almost classic Mongoloids to those Indians, the

black Caribs with almost typical Negroid features. There was no ‘Indian race’.

Wampum was an Algonkian specialty. It was made first from shell beads and later from glass

beads. Initially, only the chiefs could wear wampum, but when shells become more common

and where glass beads were introduced, women began wearing it as ornaments. It was also

used as ransom for captives, payment for crime, tribute, and a written record for public

agreement. The Iroquois8 borrowed the idea from the Algonkian

9 and used wampum in

ceremonies, by presenting a string of wampum after a public statement as a signature or in

decorating a white dog that was supposed to be sacrificed and eaten later.

The calumet was originally a long, elaborated ornamented stem. This term was later applied

to the whole pipe. The pipe bowl originally might have been the neck and head of a duck.

Later, it was carved from Pipestone. It was used to greet strangers, ratify treaties, as an

appeal to their gods, to insure its bearer safety among alien tribes, and as a symbol of

declaration of war and peace. However, the use of this pipe was limited to the Ojibwa or

Chippewa, the Ottawa, the Menomini, the Potawatomi, the Macsouten, the Winnebago, the

Sauk or Fox, the Kickapoo, the Illinois, the Miami, the Shawnee and the Santee Dakota. The

other tribes who knew the pipe’s symbolic qualities used other pipes.

8 The Iroquois also known as the Haudenosaunee, are historically powerful and important northeast Native American confederacy. 9 Algonkian or Algonquian is a speaker of any of the Algonquian languages.

There were different kinds of piper, for instance, one with several stems so that more than

one person could smoke at a time. There were others with a “Y” shaped end which was

inserted into the nostrils. But there were also tribes who did not smoke until the custom was

introduced by European traders or settlers.

Some tribes also made baskets and mats. Others had wooden boxes pottery or birch bark

containers. Each tribe made their baskets and mats from their own different materials and

techniques. Very good baskets and mats were made from cedar bark, reeds, split willow

wands, elm bark, and birch bark. Again, the Indians who used sweet grass for the making of

baskets and mats have been used as a stereotype for all Indians.

The pueblo dwelling of the United States were confined to the Southwestern Area. These

dwellings were made two or three stories high. They were the early apartment houses of a

closely knit, urbanized people who still depended on agriculture. Although, the allied

families may have a communal storage space, they lived in separate apartments.

Although, it is true that some Indians lived in long wooden and bark houses that were

fortified by a palisade, those were the Iroquois and some of the tribes of the Southeast. The

author claims that to his knowledge, there were no Indians who lived in wigwarms and used

tepees when traveling or hunting. The wigwarms were characterized by a dome-shaped top,

which might be oval or round and of any size. It could be constructed of poles or saplings,

birch bark, and bulrushes. This was covered with mats of cattails, grass, or cedar bark tied on

to the frame. This type of house was used by the Algonkian. The tepee was of skin

construction on a framework of poles. It was used by Indians of the Plains. The northern

hunters of the Algokian did have bark constructed tepee, but they never lived in wigwarms. It

is too dangerous to make any generalization about all the Indians of North America.

And finally, it is evident with this in mind, to see why all the beds and furniture could not

have been made of spruce boughs and tanned skins. The foremost reason was that spruce did

not grow in every region of the United States. Also, other materials were used. For instance,

the Indians of the Southeast used cane as material for building furniture, the Iroquois made

mattresses and pillows out of corn husks, and the Navabo wove their blankets.

The next part of the article dealt with authenticating the illustrations of Indian life. There are

some textbooks that perfectly describe the relationships of the European settlers and traders

with the Indians and the different Indian tribes’ way of life. However, the illustrators, many

at times, do not take sufficient care to examine any of these sources for material describing or

depicting the different Indians as the early Europeans saw them.

In most cases, illustrated books are better teaching tools than those which are not illustrated.

But in reality, often incorrectly illustrated books cause more damage than texts which are not

illustrated. Reputable publishing companies repeatedly publish textbooks including mistakes.

Aden has further pointed out several mistakes in illustration from certain books. He has also

not failed to mention those that are fairly reliable.

The excellent illustrations of Theodore de Bry, Le Page du Pratz, John Smith, John White, Thomas

Jefferys, Jacques Le Moyne, and J.F. Lafitau for the earliest period of historical contact with Indians

of the Eastern Woodlands and later those of Schoolcraft, Remington, Bodmer, Catlin, and other for

the Plains, the Plateau, the Southwest, the Pacific Coast, and the Northwest, as shown in Ralph Henry

Gabriel’s The Pageant of America, Vol. I, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), might be used

extensively as correct models for modern artists. (Aden, R. C. 1954:164-165)

Stereotypes have succeeded in their purpose of life as the Indians left today have adopted the

stereotypes demanded by an uninformed public. For example, the Cherokee10

will wear

Plains’ headdress. Other Indians have begun carving totem poles, although totem poles

belong only to the cultural pattern of the Northwest Indians. Hence, a modern illustrator

would find difficulty to obtain a correct picture of the different Indians unless he copies from

the earlier illustrations or reads the descriptions as set forth by the early European settlers or

by the anthropologists.

There are two very readable books which give accurate information about the Indians of North

America that I should like to suggest to history teachers who are confronted with teaching this early

period of American history. One of the more recent is Red Man’s America by Ruth Underhill,

(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1953); the other, Indians Before Columbus by Martin, Quimby, and

Collier (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1947). [T]hey are very good reading without too many

technical terms. (Aden, R.C. 1954: 165)

For illustrations, I would suggest, in addition to the book mentioned previously, the sixteen volume

work by Edward S. Curtis, The North American Indian (Cambridge: The University Press, 1907-

1930) and those of W. Langdon Kihn in various issues of The National Geographic Magazine

(Nov.’37, Nov.’40,etc. ). (ibid.)

Aden concludes with a bold statement which establishes that if history is to remain clear and

concise, we must ruthlessly attack and refute the tendency towards teaching stereotypes by

using sweeping generalizations and inaccurate illustrations.

Barbara. C. Cruz, in her article titled “Stereotypes of Latin Americans Perpetuated in

Secondary School History Textbooks”, mentioned that in her study, she had reviewed six

history textbooks widely used in grades 7-12 across the U.S. Using a story-line analysis, she

found that textbooks reinforce negative stereotypes of Latin Americans as lazy, passive,

irresponsible, lustful, animalistic and violent; with the use of subtle or not-so-subtle

adjectives and adverbs; and Latin America and Latin Americans are usually included in the

context of conflict, either the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War. The

10 The Cherokee are a Native American tribe indigenous to the Southeastern United States.

study asserts that textbooks can be a useful resource but a balance of presentation must be

maintained.

Narayani Gupta is her review titled, “Stereotypes versus history” of Brajadulal

Chattopadhyaya’s “Representing the Other? Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims” stresses how

misleading an underprepared text can prove to be. “Professor Chattopadhyaya's book should

make both practicing historians and amateurs realise that writing history is not to be

undertaken lightly. Eagerness and preconceived notions are not tools for finding answers;

history cannot be read backwards from present day pre-occupations; and one cannot

generalize for 'India'—it is too vast an area and the sources simply those which happen to

have survived. The inscriptions and literary texts used in this book must be the tip of the

iceberg of what was written.” If History is written correctly, we are one step ahead as then,

we only have to worry about the teacher altering it.

3.2 CASE STUDY:

3.2.1. Natives and “the Story” of American History

In his article “Popular Culture, Curriculum, and Historical Representation,” John Wills sought

to analyse the perpetuation of stereotypes in the American History curriculum by examining who

the Native Americans were treated. He found that despite a variety of representations of Indians

in the curriculum, teachers and students tended to emphasize a romanticized stereotype of Plains

Indians. This indicated that challenging narratives were shaped by racial and ethnic stereotypes.

Wills, a professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Riverside,

spent an academic year in three 8th-grade classrooms examining the interaction between cultural

texts and their readers. He videotaped 130 lessons at a predominantly white suburban middle

school in San Diego County, transcribing teacher lectures, class discussions, and student

presentations.

To his surprise, he found that although these teachers were concerned with challenging

stereotypical representations of Native Americans, they often found great difficulty to move past

overly simplistic portrayals. Refuting one stereotype of Natives as uncivilized savages, teachers

perpetuated another: the romanticized image of Natives as buffalo-hunting nomads.

As research by other scholars has revealed, American history classrooms are often characterized

by a dominant narrative of perpetual progress. Here, racial and ethnic minorities remain largely

incidental to the story being told. The exceptions include the enslavement of African Americans

and the removal of Native Americans from conquered territory. And despite changes in

textbooks, Native Americans were still confined to a small place in popular historical narratives.

Natives only “fit” into the story during the period of westward expansion. Beacuse this was the

established “place” of Native Americans in the popular story of American history, they were

predominantly represented as nomadic, buffalo-hunting Plains Indians.

More racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women and members of the working class, were

added to the story of American history. This provided the students with more diverse images of

particular groups. However, as long as these images are framed by the dominant narrative of

perpetual progress, students’ understandings will be limited and partial, compromised by

stereotypes of these groups.

3.2.2. Sample Application

One of the teachers in Wills’s study opened the year with a lesson from the textbook, A More

Perfect Union on early contacts between Europeans and Native Americans.

She encouraged the students to consider what life was like for Indians living on land that would later

be colonized: “Not all Indians were nomadic. They didn’t all travel around and follow buffalo herds.

Some of them farmed. And they needed land to farm on.” (Wills, J. S. 1994)

After this unit, the class did not talk about Native Americans again for several months. Encouraging

students to consider the perspective of those who removed Natives from the land, [T]he teacher

referred to John Winthrop’s claim that in order to have a right to land it had to be farmed, mined, or

changed in some way. She then followed up with a question that, for at least one student, seemed to

draw on their earlier lesson:

Teacher: “Okay. Now, that’s a real important point because did the Indians farm, mine or, build very

often?”

Student: “Farmed.”

Teacher: “They farmed, some did farm, some were farmers. But they would were farmers and…Well,

that’s real funny ‘cause some of those…Okay…Most of them did not, farm, most of them traveled

around. And so, one of the reasons that, the people who were moving west—though it seems very

racist—but at the time, they had this idea in their head that: “Hey, if they haven’t improved the land,

then it’s not really their land.” So it wasn’t like they went in and they uprooted these guys’ houses

and stuff…” (ibid)

Evidently, the teacher struggled to reconcile what she had taught the students earlier in the

course—that not all Natives were nomadic buffalo hunters. Indian removal is a tougher, when

Natives are represented as farmers rather than nomads. It, is not only more historically accurate,

but also challenges students to think in more complex ways about American history.

3.3 GUIDELINES

The portrayal of Native Americans is often stereotypical, inaccurate, or outdated. The Social

Psychology Network has come up with a page, “Understanding Prejudice” written by S. Plous,

which offers several tips on how to teach more effectively about Native Americans.

A Checklist of Dos and Don’ts:

The following checklist is based in part on recommendations from the Council on Interracial

Books for Children11

:

Do not equate Indians with "things." For example, if alphabet cards say, "A is for

apple, B is for ball, I is for Indian," pick another word that does not suggest Indian

people as objects.

Do not speak of Native Americans in past tense. There are nearly one million Native

people in the U.S. today, yet there are books and videos with the titles “ How the

Indians Lived.”

Do not perpetuate the myth that a few Europeans defeated thousands of Indians in

battle. What really defeated Native Americans were European diseases from which

they had no immunity.

Do not let children to imitate Indians with stereotypes such as one-word sentences

("Ugh," "How"), Hollywood-style grammar ("Me heep big hungry"), or gestures

(e.g., war whoops and tomahawk chops).

Do not encourage children to dress up as Indians for Halloween. Even wif they do so

by good intention, costumes involving imitation feathers, face paint, headdresses are

disrespectful of traditional Native dress which many Indians consider honorable or

even sacred.

Do not divide Indians and non-Indians into "us" and "them." What you must actually

do is explain that Indians were the first Americans and that today Indians are

American citizens with the same rights as all Americans.

Do highlight the Native American philosophy of respect for every form of life and for

living in harmony with nature.

Do discuss a variety of Indian nations, such as Hopi, Lakota, and Navajo, rather than

dumping all Native Americans together. This will make kids aware of the fact that

each nation has its own name, language, and culture.

Do challenge TV and movie stereotypes of Native Americans. Discuss the meaning

of stereotypes.

Do understand that Native American children are not always aware of their heritage.

They sometimes know more about "TV Indians" than about their own heritage, and

hence should not be singled out to provide a Native perspective.

11 The Council on Interracial Books for Children has been entrusted by the U.S government with the task of “reeducating” American Children by producing new textbooks that would reflect unbiased views.

Lastly, the single most important ingredient in teaching is respect. Native Americans have

been stereotyped for so many centuries that it has become hard to recognize when they are

being demeaned. For example, Indian Princess and Indian Guide youth programs often

promote stereotypes without realizing it. We must therefore remember that Indians are living

people still carrying on past beliefs and practices in today's world.

*****************************

4. GENDER STEREOTYPES: MYTH AND REALITY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Patricia B. Campbell and Jennifer N. Storo in their article, “Girls Are.. Boys Are..: Myths,

Stereotypes and Gender Differences”, state that sex is not a good predictor of academic

skills, interests or even emotional characteristics. Observe the following graph:

Predictive relationships (or correlations) range from 0 (no relationship) to 1(a perfect

relationship). The closer the relationship to 1, the better the prediction.

For instance, the relationship between Sex and Quantitative Skills is about 0.1, as is the

relationship between Sex and Verbal Skills. This is very low and means that if all we know

about you is that you’re a woman then we cannot decipher if your quantitative(or verbal

skills) are high, low or in between.

They claim that differences between individual girls or between individual boys are much

greater than those between the “average” girl and the “average” boy. And averages can be

very deceiving. Consider:

The average temperature of Oklahoma City is 60 degrees — but it does not tell us about the

temperature on any specific day. In Oklahoma City, the temperature can range from -17 to

113.

The concept of "statistically significant differences" is widely accepted and can be proved

whereas; there is no general concept of statistically significant similarities. Also, to deal with

complexity we often depend on simplicity — we tend to categorize and later make

judgements. This is why we stereotype.

4.2 HISTORY

It is a popular misconception that men have always been the principal producers since they

are so in the “modern” society. In fact in earlier times, women were the main food-gatherers

and producers, there were matriarchal societies where women had high status, and were

glorified as goddesses.

There are multiple theories as to why and how this changed:

"Woman is our property we are not hers because she produces children for us — we do not yield any

to her. She is therefore our possession as the fruit tree is that of the gardener." (Napoleon)

Researchers also used women’s reproductive capacity to conclude women's intellectual inferiority,

and then turned around and concluded that using the intellect would destroy reproductive capacity.

For example:

Female students were concluded to be pale, in delicate health and “prey to monstrous deviations from

menstrual regularity.” (Clarke, 1873)

The woman who uses her brain loses her “mammary function first and had little hope to be other than

a moral and medical freak.” (Hall, 1905)

Women are “closer to children and savages than to an adult civilized man.” (Le Bon, 1879, reported

in Gould, 1981)

At times in history it has been said that women are better than men. At other times it has been said

that men are better than women. Both are wrong. (Campbell, P. B., Storo, J. N. 1994 :6)

4.3 STEREOTYPICAL INTERPRETATIONS THAT HAVE CHANGED

If society has been successful in one thing, it is in easily attaching amendments to that very

bill, claiming that all sexual and gender stereotypes date back to the early days of human

evolution.

The following are a few Gender stereotypes that used to be the exact opposite. Again, the

source for the content about to follow is the very same source that reversed the stereotypes in

the first place: History. Hence, neither can I assure the validity nor can I narrow down which

interpretation is right.

(1) “Pink is for Girls” is a recent idea

Colour coding is a highly important invention when it comes to new borns and it tell us

what color of clothes and toys to get them -- pink or blue? Just as the umbilical cord is

cut, an infant is first washed and then outfitted with his or her uniform (a blue T-shirt or

pink headband, respectively) so there can be no confusion. You don't want your baby to

turn out gay, do you? This is because, “inherently” pink is a girly colour that reminds you

of flowers, sweet smells and delicacy whereas blue is, maybe football, trucks and

anything rough and tough.

But at One Time ...

Up until the start of World War I, people didn't care what color their kids' diapers were,

because it was the 19th century! That was the last thing on their mind when they had to

deal with insanely high infant mortality rates, the Civil War and Cholera.

Luckily, all our gender issues were resolved by the 1910s, when it was decided that we'd

assign colors to each "team": blue was for girls and pink was for boys. No, it was not a

stereotype: A 1918 editorial from Earnshaw's Infants' Department stated that pink was “a

more decided and stronger colour, more suitable for the boy; while blue, which is more

delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl” " It made sense: Pink is the color of a nice,

raw, manly steak, or the blood of your enemies splattered on a white uniform.

But things had started to switch by 1927, and there was disagreement as to which gender

should get which color. The Time magazine even printed a chart that showed which

stores are advocating each. It was in 1940 that the colors switched and advertisers

decided to just go with pink for girls.

(2) Crying used to be a symbol of Manliness

A man crying in a movie can only mean two things: Either that man has lost his grip

beyond all human ability to endure that he may be termed abnormal if he does not cry, or

he's more of a soft, sensitive, romantic type than an action hero. It's just natural: We see

crying men as weak and lame. That’s how it’s supposed to be because that’s how it has

always been.

But at One Time ...

The epics of ancient Greece had a different tale to narrate. Odysseus would break down

into tears periodically, at least once just because he listened to an emotional song. This

was because in ancient Greek culture, "men were expected to cry if their family's honor

was at stake." One of the greatest signs of true manliness was to shed tears.

This idea was spread through most cultures, and continued through the Middle Ages and

up to the Romantic Movement. Japanese samurai and even medieval heroes cried

throughout their adventures. As recently as the 19th century, male tears were

actually celebrated as a sign of honesty, integrity and strength. And it probably also

meant you were confident that no one would mock you, since you had just won a battle

or tackled a man eater.

(3) Gay stereotypes have changed considerably.

One thing media has taught us is that making gay people and straight people interact will

have weird consequences. The reason assigned to this conclusion is that gay men actually

have a lot in common with straight women, and gay women who aren't "lipstick lesbians"

are, of course, motorcycle-riding tattooed rebels. This creates individuality even before it

is conceived. There must be specifically only two kinds of gays both for men and women.

Of course, anyone who has actually met or is a gay would know that these things aren't

necessarily true, but it's hard to break stereotypes that are centuries old.

But at One Time ...

As this list is starting to show, "acting straight" and “acting gay” has never been the same

thing always. But trying to separate cultural influences from biology turns into a big mess

every single time.

For instance, despite the current stereotype that gay men are effeminate, during the

Renaissance a big part of being “manly” was being bisexual. And as recently as the

1930s, "manly" women, that is those who enjoyed sports and acted like tomboys were

seen as dangerously straight girls who are rebels who would refuse to get along with their

moms.

A big part of this relatively recent idea that "gay" is a distinct class of individual is

something that didn't actually come along until the 1860s. Although, homosexuality was

widely considered to be immoral way before that, back then, anyone could have been

doing it. And there was no way to spot them because the only difference was their sexual

habits.

(4) A “Man’s Place” and a “Woman’s Place” is whatever makes the most economic

sense.

Almost anyone would be of the opinion that women's liberation is a good thing now, for

as long as society has existed, men have been the hunter-gatherers and women have been

the domestic homemakers. They will insist that there’s nothing sexist about this as it is

simply, the reality.

But at One Time ...

However, the distinction between the "man's world" and the "woman's world" is actually

fairly new, and by fairly new I mean the Industrial Revolution.

Running a house was nothing less than a nightmare back in the 1800s. While a

contemporary father knowing how to change diapers and do dishes is considered a

"catch" or "progressive", back then it was just, being a dad. Making sure a baby lived

long enough to help out on the farm was a vital responsibility, and hence, instead of

arguing over whose job it was, people just did it.

There are many reasons why things had shifted, but it basically boils down to the rise of

out-of-home labor. Working in factories meant not being in the house all day, and men

got most of the factory jobs. It was then that the "cult of true womanhood" appeared, and

the idea of motherhood as a full-time profession became popular and accepted. As the

industrial world became more brutal and competitive, a stronger and more distinct border

between the two spheres became the norm.

The more research we do, the more we affirm that the only behavior consistently

considered normal is the tendency to be way too strict about what normal behavior is –

and then trying to get people to conform. And it’s fascinating how the only things

keeping gender stereotypes from being 180 degrees different are the numbers on the

calendar.

*********************

5. THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF STEREOTYPES

What we read into racist messages isn't necessarily what others saw when they were created

Megan McArdle in her article “The Economic History of Stereotypes” outlines the effect of

economy in deciphering racist messages. In her article, she describes an instance where

professional golfer Sergio Garcia joked about having Tiger Woods for dinner and serving

him fried chicken. Although Garcia apologized and the hype subsided like any other is

another matter altogether, what we need to point at here is the long surviving stereotype that

African Americans’ love for fried chicken.

Where did this stereotype come from, anyway?

McArdle further jokes about how she’s certain that most black people love fried chicken,

because everyone loves fried chicken except vegetarians and women from New York who

have convinced themselves that they don't like anything with more than 15 calories. And that

fried chicken is sublimely delicious when done right, and is still not bad even when done

wrong.

How did people get the idea that loving tender, crispy fried chicken was some strange thing

that only racial minorities do?

She asked Claire Schmidt12

for her insight. Schmidt said that chickens had long been a part

of Southern diets, but they had particular utility for slaves as they were cheap, easy to feed

and a good source of meat.

And then came ‘Birth of a Nation’.

D.W. Griffith's seminal and supremely racist 1915 silent movie about the supposedly heroic

founding of the Ku Klux Klan13

was a huge sensation when it debuted. One scene features a

group of actors portraying shiftless black elected officials acting rowdy and crudely in a

legislative hall. (The message to the audience: These are the dangers of letting blacks vote.)

Some others are shown drinking and had their feet kicked up on their desks. And one of them

was very ostentatiously eating fried chicken.

Schmidt said that this image really solidified the way white people thought of black people

and fried chicken.

12 Claire Schmidt is a professor at the University of Missouri who studies race and folklore. 13

Ku Klux Klan(KKK) or simply “the Klan”, is the name of three distinct movements in the United States. The first began violence against African Americans in the South during the Reconstruction Era of the 1860s. The second was very large, controversial, nationwide organization in 1920s. And the third occurred during 1946-2000. All have called for purification of American society. This organization utilizes propaganda and terror against African Americans, Jews, Catholics and other minorities to express its extremist racist and anti-Semitic views.

Although McArdle agrees that this is a very interesting theory, she points out the only

problem: while she may be right that this bizarre stereotype may be traceable back to

Griffith, Schmidt misread the significance of the chicken in that scene. And unfortunately,

the correct reading is even more racist than what she suggested.

Until World War II, chicken was not cheap; infact, it was more expensive than beef.

Although, we don't have good price data for the pre-Civil War south, considering the relative

scarcity of meat in 19th century diets, it is highly unlikely that plantation owners were giving

their slaves a lot of chicken. Anyhow, by the time DW Griffith made that movie, chicken

was definitely not something that poor people were accustomed to. Chickens were mostly

kept for eggs, not meat. And fried chicken, which was made using a tender young fryer

rather than a stringy old hen that had given up laying, was especially even more expensive.

The opening of western grazing lands and the great stockyard complexes of the midwest had

made beef the relatively cheap meat. Cookbooks as late as 1950 contain instructions for

making "mock chicken" dishes using veal. Hence, it can be ascertained that slaves weren’t

stuffed with chicken as assumed.

This was why Herbert Hoover14

promised "a chicken in every pot"; it was then, the

equivalent of promising filet mignon in every refrigerator. However, this all changed after

World War II, when people started industrially farming chickens, stacking them on top of

each other and forcing rapid growth. Chicken’s price dropped precipitously, making it much

more ever-present than it was in the prewar era. Chicken went from a exclusive treat for

Sunday dinner to a staple of the American table.

Hence, though Schmidt may well be right about ‘Birth of a Nation’ establishing this

stereotype, she's reading the racist message backwards. Griffith was not suggesting that black

legislators during reconstruction were bringing their poor people food into office with them.

Rather, eating fried chicken portrayed them as getting above their station and gorging on

luxury foods. That is the correct message that audiences in 1915 would have read into that

scene.

It's still racist, of course, more racist than her reading. McArdle does not intend to criticize

Schmidt and she’s certainly not defending DW Griffith's execrable opinions. Rather, she

highlighted how unnoticed economic changes can fairly radically change our reading of

historical work. That scene was written, and interpreted by its audience, in a racist way. But

she further explains that, that is not the racist message that we now see, because to us, a big

steak or a Maine lobster, is the ultimate luxury meat.

14 Herbert Hoover was the 31st President of the United States (1929-1933).He achieved worldwide gratitude as “The Great Humanitarian” who fed war-torn Europe during and after World War I.

6. CONSEQUENCES OF STEREOTYPED HISTORY

“Watch your thoughts; They become words.

Watch your words; They becomes actions.

Watch your actions; They become habits.

Watch your habits; They become character.

Watch your character; It becomes your destiny.”

These are the words of Lao Tzu, the Father of Taoism. Something as deadly as Mass annihilation

can start from a simple common slang or even an offensive doodle. What you think, is what you

say and what you say, is what you act. These actions could prove to be detrimental to someone

else tomorrow. Your contribution might help in establishing the stereotype as a discourse and

who’ll indirectly have blood on your hands, blood that you are indeed accountable for.

In this chapter, I would like to trace the steps by which a group becomes the target of prejudice,

discrimination, persecution and violence.

6.1 THE FORBIDDEN STAIRCASE

The first step of this continuum is discrimination or treating certain groups of people differently.

The second step is isolation, such as the physical segregation of minorities in ghettos or setting

up separate schools. The third step is persecution, followed by dehumanization and violence.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a group of people is the ultimate

expression of human hatred.

The Genocide we know as the Holocaust has roots in attitudes and behavious that we see around

us in everyday life. When these behaviours are attribute din extremes, it will result in a

Genocide.

6.1.1. Stereotypes

A "stereotype" is a generalization about a person or group of persons. We develop these when we

are unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information we would need to make fair judgments

about people or situations. Our society often innocently creates and perpetuates stereotypes, but

these stereotypes often lead to unfair discrimination and persecution..

These generalizations have their roots in experiences we have had ourselves, read about in

books, seen in movies, or have had related to us by friends and family. Sometimes, these

stereotypical generalizations are reasonably accurate. Yet, in virtually every case, we are

resorting to prejudice without knowledge of the total facts. Quite often, we have stereotypes

about persons who are members of groups with which we don’t have firsthand contact.

Stereotypes also evolve out of fear of persons from minority groups. For example, many people

view a person with mental illness as someone who is violence-prone. This conflicts with

statistical data, which indicate that persons with mental illness tend to be no more prone to

violence than the general population. Similarly, the movie industry portrayed African-Americans

as being unintelligent, lazy, or violence-prone. Some stereotypes emerge when a series of

isolated behaviors by a member of a group is unfairly generalized to be viewed as a character of

all members of that group.

6.1.2. Discrimination

When we judge people and groups based on our prejudices and stereotypes and treat them

differently, we are discriminating. It can take many forms. We may create subtle or overt

pressures to sent away minorities living in our neighborhood. Women and minorities have been

discriminated against in employment, education, and social services.. Many clubs have

restrictive membership policies which do not permit Jews, African-Americans, women, and

others.

The civil and criminal justice system has not been applied equally to all. For instance, some

studies indicate that African-Americans convicted of first degree murder have a significantly

higher probability of receiving a death penalty than whites convicted of first degree murder.

When political boundaries have been drawn, a process known as "gerrymandering"15

has often

been used in city councils, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress.

6.1.3. Racism

Anthropologists, scientists accept that the human species can be categorized into races based on

physical and genetic makeup. Virtually all scientists accept the fact that there is no credible

scientific evidence that one race is superior to another.

Yet despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, there are people who maintain that

their own race is superior to all others. These people are known as "racists”.

In 19th century Europe, Jews were classified as an "inferior" race with specific physical and

personality characteristics. There were two beliefs: while some believed these traits would

disappear if Jews received political and social emancipation and could assimilate into the broader

society, others felt that these traits were genetically passed on and could not be changed.

Nationalism also highlighted the Jews as a "foreign element," which could contaminate the

native stock and culture and potentially dominate the native population economically and

15 Gerrymandering is the division of voting districts to give one group an advantage over another.

politically. This long-standing history provided a seed-bed for the Nazi ideology and program of

genocide.

In North America, African-Americans were brought from Africa as slaves, and their descendants

endured centuries of oppression. During the Civil War, slaves were freed and granted citizenship.

However, discrimination continued. "Jim Crow" laws in the South required separate bathrooms,

buses, and nursing homes for African-Americans. Poll taxes and literacy tests were required

solely for the purpose of disenfranchising minorities. Before the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme

Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education, segregation of school systems was legal.

Decades later, many school systems remain segregated.

African-Americans are still victimized by insurance red-lining, and the racism of whites and

others is exploited by block-busting, a practice which is illegal in Pennsylvania and many other

states. And racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan have been actively recruiting and

holding rallies in Pennsylvania and other states and spreading their messages of hate against

African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other minorities.

6.1.4. Sexism

I will be taking the example of United States of America to highlight the disparity in treatment

between men and women.

Legal rights for women have evolved in the United States since the early 1800s. Pennsylvania

was the first state which set up a medical school for women in 1850. Other professions also

began to permit women to practice. However, most states did not admit women to practice law

until the middle of the 19th century. In most states, married women were not permitted to own

property or enter into contracts until the mid-1800s.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted giving women the right to vote. In

1933, a woman served as a member of the President's cabinet (Frances Perkins, Secretary of

Labor) in the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited sexual discrimination with regard to most employment

issues. A proposed amendment to the Constitution to grant women equal protection under the

law also known as the "Equal Rights Amendment", was passed by the Congress in 1972, but

failed to obtain approval from three-fourths of the states needed to ratify it in the prescribed time

period for it to become effective.

"Comparable worth" laws have been proposed in several states which would end the disparity

between the pay of women in historically "female" dominated professions (such as teaching,

nursing, and secretarial work) and "comparable" positions which are dominated by males.

Although sexual discrimination remains a problem at all levels of society, women have risen to

leadership positions in government, business, and the professions, but not to the same degree as

their male counterparts. And unfavourable stereotyped attached to women have a considerable

role to play in all of the above.

6.1.5 Communalism

The recent case of violence in the Ambedkar College of Law by the Tevars on the Dalits in

Chennai is a fine example of caste hate. By linking achievement, status and merit with caste, the

SC/STs are made to internalise inferiority themselves. Perpetuation of social stereotypes of

inferiority leads to feelings of self-hatred, humiliation and isolation and this is turn, affects

achievement. The silent prejudice, the unspoken hatred that gets expressed in violent deeds and

the inaudible threats pose a challenge to their very being. We cannot work towards a secular state

with stereotypes of this kind on sections of communities. It is very clear that the communalists

desire to divide communities by myths and stereotypes. They are against development of the

subalterns and the marginalised. If we fall is prey to such a divisive agenda, it would be tragic.

6.1.6. Scapegoating

Scapegoating is the practice of blaming an individual or group for a real or perceived failure of

others. The origin of the term comes from the Bible. The high priest in Biblical times would

place his hand upon a goat's head and transfer the sins of the community to the goat, which was

then released into the desert. Unemployment, inflation, food shortages, the plague, and crime in

the streets are all examples of ills which have been blamed on minority groups.

6.1.7. Demagogues and Propaganda

Prejudice against Jews, called anti-Semitism, has been known for more than two thousand years.

The passions of hatred against minorities by the majority are stirred up by charismatic leaders for

their own political ends. These leaders are called "demagogues," and they depend upon

propaganda and disinformation to achieve their ends. Now, the reason that many demagogues

have been successful is because people want to believe that there is a simple cause of their

problems. As a population becomes educated, it becomes less easy to sway with propaganda.

6.1.8. Minority Persecution and Genocide

Minority groups may be subjected to dehumanizing experiences by being subjected to degrading

and humiliating experiences based on prejudice. Examples in history have been:

African-Americans being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

German Jews being required to wear a yellow "Star of David".

Minorities being referred to by pejorative slang names.

Minorities being the subject of jokes in discussions involving the target's race, religion, or

ethnic origin, and which rely on stereotypes.

Japanese-Americans being isolated in camps during World War II.

Native Americans having their land confiscated in violation of treaties, being the victims

of government-sponsored massacres, and being placed on reservations.

In Eastern Europe, random violence directed at Jews, called pogroms, resulted in the massacre of

thousands. Today, there are groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the White Knights16

, the

Order17

, the Posse Comitatus18

, and neo-Nazi Skinheads, which openly condone discrimination

and advocate against certain minorities as part of their doctrines.

During World War II, Hitler's through the use of propaganda successfully convinced millions of

followers that the Jews were to blame for Germany's troubles and six million Jews were

annihilated. The Armenian genocide of the early 20th century and the murder of millions of

Cambodians by Pol Pot19

and his Khmer Rouge20

are other examples of genocide in the 20th

century.

6.2 POSITIVE RESPONSES TO PREJUDICES AND STEREOTYPES

Understanding the nature of prejudice, scapegoating, stereotypes, and discrimination is the first

step in combating these practices. All of us have prejudices about members of groups different

from ourselves hence we must consciously keep trying not to treat people differently because of

these stereotypes and prejudices.

In his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial, civil rights activist Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation

where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

His message was not exclusively for African Americans but for all oppressed minorities. Dr.

King devoted his life to fighting bigotry and prejudice as a result of which he was subjected to

personal injustices which culminated in his murder at the hands of a racist assassin. Yet his

message of brotherhood has endured.

All of us face peer pressure to conform and not voice ourselves when confronted with a joke

which puts down a certain minority. It takes immense courage to raise objections to these jokes

16 The White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are considered the most militant as well as the most violent chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in history. 17 The Order or Silent Brotherhood was a white nationalist revolutionary organization active in the United States. 18

The Posse Comitatus is a loosely organized, far right social movement whose members spread a conspiracy-minded, anti-government and anti-Semitic message in the name of white Christians to counter what they believe is an attack on their social and political rights. 19 Pol Pot was a Cambodian socialist revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge from 1963 until 1997. 20 Khmer Rouge was the name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia.

and pejorative names. It is important to stand up against injustice, and fight the discrimination,

stereotypes, and scapegoating because in the long run it has served us violence and genocide.

***************************

7. CONCLUSION

The entire paper deals with varied aspects of Stereotypes like its presence, its propagation, its

reversal and its consequences. It has proved with instances from History that Stereotyping is just

the first bit of snow that creates an enormous snow ball as it descends deeper. The inaccurate or

half truths perpetrated through education is the hardest thing to undo as it is thing education that

narrates to us our way of life. This has been explained in Robert. C. Aden’s article titled,

“Stereotyped Teaching in History” through the example of the often taught romanticized version

of Native Americans. We further analysed Gender stereotypes: it’s History, Myth and Reality.

The section continued to show how certain stereotypes believed to have been unshakable and

hence since inception, were not so and is hence baseless. The later part of the paper dealt with

the Economic History of Stereotypes explained with the help of Megan McArdle’s article by the

same name. She illustrated how the same stereotype had one interpretation initially, which

changed with the economic scenario and finally, an altogether different third interpretation in

relation to present economy. Unfortunately, all the three were caught in the rat race as to which

would be the most racist. I concluded by roughly outlining the stages of the vicious cycle that

stereotyping sets you in. Its consequences have been put forth not as mere speculations but

accompanied by instances from History, such that it may seem valid. The choice of which

history to teach can never be "neutral" or "objective." The choice is between those who want to

keep things going as they are or those who want to work to make a better world. If we choose the

latter, we must seek out the tools we will need. History is just one tool to shape our

understanding of our world. And every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. Ed Koch states that,

“Stereotypes lose their power when the world is found to be more complex than the stereotype

would suggest.” Our way out of the labyrinth woven by this modern society of judgement and

stereotypes is to simply be ourselves. You have no need to conform to the stereotypes others

have defined for you.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aden, R. C. (1954, November). Stereotyped Teaching in History. Peabody Journal of

Education. Vol. 32. No 3. J Stor.

2. Anti-Defamation League's "A World of Difference".

3. Campbell, P. B., Storo, J. N. (1994). Girls Are.. Boys Are..: Myths, Stereotypes and

Gender Differences. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

4. Chattopadhyaya, B. (1998). Representing the Other? Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims.

5. Cruz, B. C. (1994, January) Stereotypes of Latin Americans Perpetuated in Secondary

School History Textbooks.

6. Grobman, G. M. (1990). Stereotypes and Prejudices. Retrieved 28th

November, 2014

from

http://remember.org/guide/History.root.stereotypes.html

7. Gupta, N. (1999). Stereotypes versus History. India International Central Quarterly.

Vol.26. No.2. pp 168-171.

8. Kowalski, J. (2009). Stereotypes of History: Reconstructing Truth and the Black

Mammy. Retrieved 26th

November, 2014 from

http://www.albany.edu/womensstudies/journal/2009/kowalski/kowalski.html

9. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963, August 28). I have a dream.

10. McArdle, M. (2013, March 6). The Economic History of Stereotypes. The Daily Beast.

Retrieved 29th

November, 2014 from

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/03/the-economic-history-of-

stereotypes.html

11. Naffziger,C.C. & Naffziger, K. (1974, July). Development of Sex Role Stereotypes. The

Family Coordinator. Vol.23. No.3. J Stor.

12. National History Education Clearing House. Stereotypes in Curriculum.

Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved 27th

November, 2014 from

http://teachinghistory.org/issues-and-research/research-brief/25155

13. Niekerk, G. V. (2000). Stereotyping Women in Ancient Roman and African Societies: A

Dissimilarity in Culture.

14. Padgett, K. History of Blackface. Black face! Retrieved 26th

November, 2014 from

http://black-face.com/

15. Pinto, A. (2009, March 28). Communalism and Hate Speech. Mainstream Weekly.

Vol.XLVII. No.15

16. Plous, S. Understanding Prejudice. Social Psychology Network. Retrieved 20th

February

from http://www.understandingprejudice.org/teach/native.htm

17. Rahme, J. G. (1999). Ethnocentric and Stereotypical Concepts in the Study of Islamic and

World History. The History Teacher. Vol.32. No.4. J Stor.

18. Sargent, J. F. (2012, April 24). 5 Gender Stereotypes that used to be the exact opposite.

Cracked. Retrieved 27th

November, 2014 from

http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-

opposite_p2.html

19. Seiter, E. (1986). Stereotypes and the Media: A Re-evaluation. Journal of

Communication.

20. Seshan, K. S. S. (2015, Feb 12). Uncanny craft of Manufacturing myths for history.

21. Wills, J. S. (1994). “Popular Culture, Curriculum, and Historical Representation: The

Situation of Native Americans in American History and the Perpetuation of

Stereotypes.” Journal of Narrative and Life History. 277–294.

*****************************