I am strongly against the classification of people. It's easy to say that someone is a jock, a frat boy, a nerd, black, white, etc., but it is a horribly flawed system. I will use myself as an example. I am in a fraternity. This automatically makes me a frat boy, so let's look at those stereotypes: rich, womanizer, and drunkard are the three main ones that I think of. So let's see how well I fit into this stereotype.
- Rich. Anyone who really knows me knows that I do not come from a wealthy background. Now this does not mean that my family is poor, but we're not in the upper middle class. Now I personally feel grateful for this. I have worked summers with my father for a long time, and have earned my money. I know what it means to spend eight hours a day in the hot sun and humid air repairing a house. I know a lot of people at my college who don't know what working is like, and I feel sorry for them. Now I'm not saying that I have it horrible by any means; I have what I need and for the most part what I want. But I am saying that I realize what my parents went through to let me have those things.
- Womanizer. Again, if you really know me you know that I am far from this. I don't even think I will spend much time here, because it's really not who I am. I don't think one-night-stands are attractive in the least. You don't know the person, or God forbid what they might have. I am more of the "Just A Friend" or the "Like A Brother" in this category, and that's another post for another time.
- Drunkard. Now some of you who are reading this might think, "Oh Beast I remember that one time at that party..." To that I would reply, "Well thank you, I do like to ball out." But then I would also remind them that I do not ball out on a regular basis. In fact, I don't even remember when the last time I partied was (and not because I blacked out). I think that letting loose every once in a while is acceptable, but going out just because it's a Tuesday night is a little excessive to me. Even going out every Thursday seems a bit much. Now I get slack from quite a few of my brothers for this, but one of the main reasons why I don't drink is because I'm an RA. Because of this, I will not drink when any residents around. I just feel that I have too much to lose because of drinking.
So as you can see, when you classify someone as a certain thing, you lose what that person might really be. I am sure there are many men in fraternities who fit the frat boy stereotype, but by classifying all of us with those frat boys you misrepresent those of us who aren't.
In my summer class, what I realized the main problem our country has faced has been race issues. Someone is either black or white. I think this is obviously, inherently problematic. By classifying someone as black, those stereotypes are automatically adhered to your judgment of anyone who is black. Even worse, it makes them different than someone who is white. But what is the difference? Every difference between anyone is solely based on that one person. It is an individual difference.
A question was asked, "When will society stop the separation of black and white?" I believe it will be in my generation. But in class, the question was more specifically about the separation of literature classes. She wondered when we would be able to have an "American Literature" class that encompased both white and black literature.
The thing is, would that be right? I don't think that these types of literature should be combined into one. We might be past the separation of a white american and a black american, but when the literature was written they weren't. If we put them together I think that the works, mainly African-American Literature, will lose a certain aspect that they have because they will lose that difference. I believe it is important to realize the suffering that racism has brought, and without studying that we will not be able to prevent it from happening later on.
Another thing we classify is culture, like black culture or white culture. Let's look at rap, for instance. Rap is mostly performed by black men, and listened widely by black people. Therefore, it would make sense to classify it as black culture. But is it that simple? Most of the people at my college, which is predominantly white, listen to rap and I know that the same is true across the country. Not just white college kids but white adults and high schoolers too. So if a large majority of white people listen to rap, which is considered to be black culture, does that really make it black culture? I don't think so. I think it just makes it culture.
So basically what I'm trying to say here is that when you classify someone, you restrict what they really are to just one thing. Yes, I am a fraternity man, but I am not a frat boy. And being a fraternity man is only a part of who I am. I think to understand who someone really is we have to drop what classes they might be in, and look at who they are. So my challenge to you would be to look at what groups you fit into and see if you really do fit into them. I bet you'll see that there's not one class that you fit into.
-Beast
It's your name,.. plus 'ness -you reminded me of you me and dupree, good stuff, we're always going to classify things, and all stereotyping is, is the classification of people, whether we let ourselves create classifications that do more than give general structure is the key, if a classification can be made that does not restrict the person being classified and does not restrict the over-all view of one another then we have met an end and can begin to classify another, classification is not bad; however, the misuse of classification is.
ReplyDeletestereotype is just another word for classification when classification is used to define a human, classification is not bad, it's misuse is, our minds work by streaming together context clues, these context clues for me of you are things like pi kapp, beast, party, movie, gcsu, funny, facial features, gestures you make, size and shape, voice recognition - all of these things are not really binding (in my opinion) and therefore not bad even though they are stereotypes, Stereotypes carry a negative conotation because of the few bad ones that are bining and therefore a misuse of classification of humankind, N****r was used to classify a race as well as bind it to something beneath those outside of this grouping
ReplyDeleteClassification is not bad but instead a natural memory device. When one alows for a classification to keep their mind open to new people they have misused this tool. Classifications should be made after one knows someone else and not before and it is also important that key groups that define known peolpe do not bind that person from future change in that person's mental image and class. Obviously no one person can be classified by one term, so it is even more of a misuse of classification to group an unkown individual or group of people with one term than with a handfull.
It is the close-minded who give stereotypes a bad conotation. It is also the close-minded and ignorant mind that creates a classification that is meant from the start to be binding and un-open to change. These bad stereotypes are the ones that people classify in their mind as the definition of stereotypes and therefore most will believe that all stereotypes are bad when in actuality it is only the misuse that is bad while the correct use is essential to human thought, to regect stereotypes is to regect your own thought process
sorry for no grammar and spelling, not a lot of time or tools here at philmont