What is the American Stereotype?

So these kids came over from france and visited our french class. They said the typical american stereotype is that Americans are all very very fat.

If you aren't in the U.S, what do you think of when you here 'American?'

it's true that I can only speak about the tribes in Florida. But they thrive, by their own definition.

and there is absolutely no system of government, society or economic matrix on the planet that does not exploit the proletariate. just sayin'.

195: true. But it is true of the majority, legal and illegal. or else they wouldn't come here. That is not a perception, or steroetype, it's a statistical fact.

People come here for a better life and most get it.

Original Post by alibuch:

peaches... Your post is pretty naive I'd say. If you're brought up on a reservation with no money, no where to go... how are you going to leave and succeed?

 
it could be contrued as a bit offensive to suggest that no american indians are successful... or even capable of succeeding

How does anyone ever escape poverty?

Hard work + Exploiting opportunities for education + Networking + Good luck (or absense of Bad luck) --->> Success

Native American recipients of Congressional Medal of Honor

I didn't say none. Sure, there are always the exception to the rule in any situation. But that doesn't mean it happens often enough...

'gator, there are systems of governance that don't exploit the proletariat because there are/have been societies in which there is no proletariat.

traditional indigenous societies (as i understand them, and i'm just a privileged white middle-class euro-canadian, so my understanding is limited) are based on true equality - not equal opportunity, but the idea that everybody and everything has an equal, though different, value to the world.  there is no property, no ownership, so ability to produce is irrelevant.

nomo, that's assuming that "success" means the same to everyone.  there used to be agreement about this in indigenous communities, but now there's division between traditional definitions and western, eurocentric definitions of just about everything, success included.

PG, I knew the majority of that. There are some things I did not know -- like the last residential school in Canada closed in the 80s. That is terrible.

I never said people should get over it, least of all, oppressed people. But I disagree that I should feel large amounts of shame and guilt for something that *I* never did. I live my life with love and compassion. I donate large sums of my time and money. I believe people should be held accountable for their actions.  As someone who is part Miami, I haven't ever felt a lot of anger, or pain, at what was done to my ancestors.

You can't change the past. Are there solutions to this problem that we can do? I don't know -- you're more educated on this topic than I am.

----------------

I also wanted to let it be known that something you said a few months ago on the topic of capital has stuck with me and is something I've been toying with. In a country with as much power and possibility as the US, what should our goals be? I used to believe the phrase "Greed works" because it has proven very effective for our economy. The problem is that when I look around me, I see stressed out, unhappy, miserable people who aren't connected with their families and are swimming in debt. Maybe greed doesn't work when it comes to humans. Maybe our society should have bigger, better goals: like providing for everyone, like being happy, like spending time with loved ones.

Just so you know... I'm not vomiting right now.

as I understand the societies to which you refer, there is the heirarchy of status. There is always a leader. There are always followers. Human nature. The ability to produce is never irrelevant, just our industrialized definition of it.

oh, good.  glad you're not vomiting.

i think until we get beyond nationalism and protectionism, it's going to be extremely tough to change our goals and our ideas about what sucess means.

btw, personal responsibility is huge in indigenous belief systems, but it comes attached to responsibility to and for others, the natural world, etc.  they can't be separated.  discipline in the way that we think of it doesn't exist; bad actions have natural consequences. 

and debate is non-existent.  every view is respected and heard, but not responded to.  if you ever get the chance to be part of a traditional talking circle, take advantage of it; it's an amazing process.

As to the op:

I'd say that most Americans are of the mindset - for both good and bad - that barring major fortune or misfortune you are where you are because that's what you've earned. If you want something better, then YOU need to go out and get it yourself.

It's got a lot of truth to it, but the consumerism is what bites us in the ass.

Meaning that the way most Americans view a better life(ie. in terms of material possessions) is expensive, and they can easily achieve (at least the appearance of) better through spending their future earnings (via credit cards) until they become beholden to those that actually do have greater material wealth.

The middle-class definitely got squeezed by the rich, but that's nothing new. What's new is that what little wealth the middle-class had and their future earnings are now going towards interest payments on a depreciating lifestyle they couldn't afford, but unfortunately couldn't resist.

In my studies of the Native peoples in North and South America, there were few truly communal tribes. Mostly, there were tribal leaders, and in some cultures, Kings who were believed to be Gods.

Ah... I see we've come to the "revising and romanticizing the past" part of the discussion :p

edit: count me out, I've got work to do anyway

no, 'gator, there isn't "a leader."  there are people with different areas of expertise whose opinions carry more weight.  they are "elders", a term that has very little to do with age.  rather than leaders and followers, it's more about teachers and learners, but the teachers aren't always the same people; everyone is a teacher. 

and i meant an individual's ability to produce.  obviously every culture needs to produce, but a person's value to a culture isn't necessarily in proportion to the measurability of their personal contribution.

the idea of an Indian Chief is based on eurocentric perception and was formalized and imposed when europeans needed representatives to bargain with. 

i really can't speak to south american indigenous peoples.  the colonization piece is the same, but i don't know anything about the traditional ways.

edited to add: like i ever count iggy in?

I'm thinking more of the indigeneous people of South and Central America and Africa, who currently exist in tribal communities. Not the historical perception of the way of life of the Native American indians.

Ah, I see. I mostly studied the larger cultures, which had the highest numbers -- which happened to be in northern South America, Central America, and southern North America.

Original Post by alibuch:

peaches... Your post is pretty naive I'd say. If you're brought up on a reservation with no money, no where to go... how are you going to leave and succeed?

 

Well then I guess I'm naive.  Silly me.  I figured that if people from other countries can come here and do it, then people from our own country could do it as well.  I guess nobody who comes from poverty ever goes on to succeed, right?

also, please forgive my ignorance - am uncertain of all PC vocab guidelines - so if I have referred to anyone in a way that is offensive I apologize.

coincidentally (?) there aren't a lot of indigenous pyramids and temples in north america.  hmmm.

all part of the hierarchy, guess.  if you elevate "god", the next logical step is to figure out who among the rest of us is closest. 

those pyramids are proof of the aliens that landed here several thousand years ago, Pg. Every American knows that. ;)

peaches, who's "own country" are you referring to?  because "america" is not the country of indigenous north americans.  they are occupied peoples, living in nations within nations.