Why old kids' books and movies have content advisories: understanding stereotyping and cultural appropriation

 Hello my Omschooligans! Today in the Omschool, we're exploring issues surrounding cultural diversity, stereotyping, cultural appropriation and sensitivity. These conversations are relatively young but the issues stem from roots buried deep in the darkest periods in history (colonialism, enslavement, prejudice, cultural "inferiority", manifest destiny, segregation and other blights). The need for cultural awareness or wokeness now came about just because society has been so ignorant, arrogant and closed-minded over time. Here are some issues and terms to understand. 

Why did they take our mascot? 

You might hear grownups complaining that their school mascot has been "stolen." They aren't talking about an actual object. They are referring to a name that the school used which has since been deemed cultural appropriation or insensitive or both. For example, the Muskegon Big Reds featured an "Indian" in full headdress. Their city hockey team was the Mohawks. Both have been removed and changed for several reasons:

• The term "red" in reference to supposed color of skin of the native indigenous constitutes racism and profiling, or stereotyping. 
• The idea that the image of the native "belongs" to the school is inaccurate. It is appropriation of cultural heritage content. However, native tribal code doesn't include individual ownership as such. So they can't "patent" or "copyright" it. But ownership is implied in the fact that  he represents them. 
• The "mascot" hasn't been stolen because native chief doesn't belong to anyone, let alone a "dominant culture" team using it as a branded logo or property. Removing the image doesn't return it as such but it does acknowledge that it was not theirs to use.  

  🌍 Unsettling Historical Context:

  Using members of an ethnic group as mascots is a micro, and latter-day example of the Manifest Destiny concept. This teaches that the "white man" (their words) was always predestined by God to claim ownership over anything and anyone he wished. This one false teaching has spurred many of the most evil deeds in history. 

Why do some old kids' books and movies now have a content advisory?

The original content advisories and rating system (G, PG, R, X) were placed because films contained explicit material, adult themes, violence, drug use and things like that. The old Disney movies fell into G for general audience, mostly. Now however, some of those very movies are being labeled to warn viewers that some of the content "contains outdated cultural depictions" or negative portrayals that "were wrong then and are wrong now." Additionally some older children's literature selections, like Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys, while being considered very "wholesome" contain bigoted, xenophobic, biased, racist, sexist, ageist and ableist references. The issues is noted but the content was left intact rather than remove it, to provide a framework for conversations such as we are having in this blog post. 

📝 Omschool Sensitivity Building Exercise:

Watch one of the old Disney movies with a content advisory, like "The Jungle Book." Or read one of the Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys books. Talk with students about what is wrong with the depictions and how they might be hurtful to people. 

What is "cultural stereotyping"?

Stereotyping or profiling is making assumptions based on superficial details or physical traits of some members of a group and then applying them to the entire group. On a benign level, it's like saying that all people in Michigan love apples because apples grow there. On a more insidious level, it is character assassination based on false, presupposed notions about the ethnic group as whole. That all people of that group are lazy, ignorant, thieving, childish, untrustworthy, etc. These are not positive associations. 

💡 Discussion Point:

But what if the stereotype is positive? In the Big Reds example, many people thought there was no offense because it showed Indians as courageous, tough or cool. So there was nothing wrong with this. Discuss with students why this is still profiling and why it may still be offensive.

How stereotyping, good or bad, hurts

There are several issues with what was acceptable decades ago and what we now see as wrong. Sadly, it was so ingrained in us that those of us, like Teacher Omi, who are much older, have a hard time processing it. We certainly didn't fully understand it as kids. I blissfully read Laura Ingalls books' and somehow overlooked that fact that Ma was a blatant racist. And Pa was a treaty-violating, land-grabbing squatter. So I am glad that we are talking about it now. And I'm proud of my Omschooligans who get what was and is still wrong with it. 

Let's look at stereotyping from a first-hand perspective. Consider this. You are an 11y/o boy from Michigan. You like snowboarding. But is that all you are? No. You are a full person, not a 2D image of a kid with an apple and snowboard. But if you are shown this way, it may seem like that's all you are. And that's a gentle example. Here's one that's not so nice. 

Let's say your brother found some apples that had fallen from the neighbor's tree. He put them in a bag to return them. Your neighbor sees him and assumes he's stolen them because you have red hair and all red-haired people are thieves. And now your neighbor treats you all as thieves because you all have red hair. That's the slippery slope of stereotyping. It minimizes your wonderful whole to a few oversimplified props. Or, worse, yet paints you as a villain simply by a physical trait over which you have no control and which has no bearing on how you act. 

The Eight Steps down the Slippery Slopes of a Stereotype

• The prejudice. Stereotyping is about the stereotypist not the stereotyped person. It is rooted in irrational hatred and fear.
• The innocent incident or accident of birth. (finding apples, having red hair)
• The assumption based on prejudice. The neighbor, for whatever reason, doesn't like people with red hair. So she assumes your brother is a thief. 
• The generalization. She says all redheads are guilty by association. And she spreads rumors that  you're all thieves. 
• The first version dilemma. People have a bad habit of believing unsubstantiated gossip,  especially if it's the first version they hear. 
• The gang mentality. People join the rumor mill, add to it and keep it going. 
• The stigma. Your red hair becomes a red flag to warn others that you are a thief, liar or anything else they've added. 
• The generational discrimination. Now, based on one harmless biological feature, you can't get a job, a home. You can't vote or have rights as a citizen. Your children can't. Their children can't. All because of three windfall apples and your hair color. 

Problems with Stereotyping based on generalizing and prejudice 

• Tokenism: Reducing a culture or nationality to a single, easily digestible, or superficial set of symbols (like clothing or props or red hair!) It's not just symbolic. The symbol becomes the group. It's like a flag waving a person instead of a person waving a flag. 

• Eurocentric / Ethnocentric: Viewing or portraying other cultures primarily from the perspective of one's own culture, often casting non-Western cultures as exotic, "other," or backward. Famous example from my childhood was showing all dolls as blonde and blue-eyed, or with templated western features, just different hair or eye colors. One cartoon that broke this mold was "Lilo and Stitch" which featured the characters with more authentically indigenous Polynesian. 

• Homogenizing cloaked as diversity. There is a strange phenomenon which people who fancy themselves unprejudiced, engage in. In an effort to "normalize" racial diversity, they homogenize all people to look the same, but with the blueprint of the dominant culture prevailing. At its worst was a cringeworthy episode of "Bewitched" in which Sam and Darren were shown with brown paint on their faces. The intent was probably good but the reality came off as condescending white supremacy. 

  
  

• Parody/ Caricature: Overaccentuating a feature or body structure some members of a group may have. Often it was African or Asian people.  A terrible example is the early minstrel shows and Vaudevillian "blackface" trope such as Al Jolson performed. 

• Dated / Anachronistic: Reflecting the biases and paternalistic attitudes of past eras (such as colonial-era depictions or mid-century schoolbooks). The original Nancy Drew was a patronizing, know-it-all paragon who treated people from other cultures as foolish wayward children. 

• Menial Labor Motif. All characters were shown in menial labor grades: porters, waiters, housekeepers. This wasn't just a depiction, it was reality that books and movies were based on and it was a self-fulfilling vicious cycle of stereotype. 

Why can't we dress like Indians anymore?

This one's a little more complicated, but just as important to overturn.  And I think the younger folks get it better than we olders do. We all had happy memories of making paper bag Indian vests and headbands with cheesy feathers in them. We were told to draw patterns so we all just doodled. But, I was also adopted into the Tlingit Pacific Islander tribe. I used to play under the work table of an elderly woman who made seed bead blankets in those iconic Inuit patterns. Hers was precision art handed down through generations. My toes curl when I think of back to making those costumes. Patterns it took eons to perfect, we were just randomly doodling and badly! What we were also inadvertently doing was...

Cultural appropriation which refers to the adoption, use, or borrowing of elements from one culture by members of another, dominant culture—particularly when it is done without permission, understanding, or proper respect, and often for profit, fashion, or entertainment. Our little headbands weren't just an innocent part of Michigan history because the native American history wasn't taught at all. If we had been shown actual patterns like those on totem poles, and explained to what they meant, then we could have tried our hand at drawing them. But the way we did it was almost spoof. 

To understand it more clearly, it helps to look at a few key dynamics:

• Power Differential: It typically involves a dominant or majority culture borrowing without asking, from a marginalized or minority culture (often one that has experienced historical oppression or colonialism).

• Lack of Context or Respect: Elements like sacred clothing, religious symbols, hairstyles, or indigenous art are stripped of their historical, spiritual, or cultural meaning and treated merely as a costume or trend.

• Double Standards: Members of the culture of origin are often mocked, stigmatized, or marginalized for wearing or practicing their own cultural traditions, while members of the dominant culture are praised or seen as "trendy" or "edgy" for adopting them. Nowhere is this so prevalent as with Roma, Sinti and other travelers. 

  🔍 Frequently Overlooked:

  Two groups that have traditionally been marginalized but which are often overlooked in discussions on appropriation and discrimination are Roma and Sinti and other nomadic peoples. The entire gypsy persona came from them yet they are ostracized being that. 

Appropriation vs. Cultural Exchange

It is important to distinguish appropriation from cultural exchange. Exchange is a reciprocal sharing of ideas, art, or traditions between cultures on equal footing, driven by mutual respect, understanding, and permission. Appropriation, on the other hand, involves taking without permission or reciprocity.

Unmasking your heroes

It's embarrassing to recall how I overlooked racism in literature but it's also enlightening to see in retrospect what was wrong with it. Now I read Nancy Drew and my head hurts. I can't see the "girl wonder" as anything but a fraud. And yes it's cringy to recall how common these attitudes were. Though she was a pretty bad example! And reading Laura Ingalls "Little House on the Prairie" reminds me that these people who we idolized stole land from native peoples many times. Ma insisting they get off "her property" that had been taken from them, by exploiting their non-ownership customs and generosity just boggles. 

So let's keep the discussion going.