Well, this seemed less like an opinion and more like a kneejerk reaction. Of course what Martel was doing was stupid. Every good liberal would agree with that. But Maus? I mean, attack the graphic novel canon (I say canon here b/c this is something that's often assigned for courses and whatnot) if you want, but read it first, and back it up with a good argument. I haven't read it either, but I'm not going to agree with you just because you've tapped into the right "Racism is Bad" and "Stereotyping is Bad" beliefs.
First of all, stereotyping is a fact of life. It's how people think. It's a shortcut for the fact that groups and categories have real social meaning, and until you get rid of the real causes for that social meaning, stereotypes will continue to exist. The best you can hope for, I think, is people recognizing that stereotypes are just that and being willing to recognize individuals as such and revise their perception to fit individuals that they meet.
Admittedly, I did not know that Maus was intended to be a satire of this tendency, and that sort of confuses me, because I'm not sure how that would be accomplished by replicating the tendency.
And this is why I think your reaction was kneejerk. You assume, based not even on having read the book, that Maus is doing the same thing. A lot of times replicating something has to be done in order to point to it at all. And I think in general, raising people's ire about this sort of thing is a better sign that you're hitting on the real issue than getting the reaction "Oh yes, that's bad, we know that's bad, let's all rant about how stupid it was to do something so stereotypical nowadays and ridicule them," because I think we're not fundamentally better. We're just as subject to stereotypes. We gain more from questioning them than pointing fingers at others.
And well, I can see the "good" and "evil" animals thing for maybe, say, Disney movies, but I think that's sort of a lazy way to read/watch such things. If the author is being that lazy, okay, but they aren't necessarily, and assuming they are is just as lazy on the reader's part.
no subject
First of all, stereotyping is a fact of life. It's how people think. It's a shortcut for the fact that groups and categories have real social meaning, and until you get rid of the real causes for that social meaning, stereotypes will continue to exist. The best you can hope for, I think, is people recognizing that stereotypes are just that and being willing to recognize individuals as such and revise their perception to fit individuals that they meet.
Admittedly, I did not know that Maus was intended to be a satire of this tendency, and that sort of confuses me, because I'm not sure how that would be accomplished by replicating the tendency.
And this is why I think your reaction was kneejerk. You assume, based not even on having read the book, that Maus is doing the same thing. A lot of times replicating something has to be done in order to point to it at all. And I think in general, raising people's ire about this sort of thing is a better sign that you're hitting on the real issue than getting the reaction "Oh yes, that's bad, we know that's bad, let's all rant about how stupid it was to do something so stereotypical nowadays and ridicule them," because I think we're not fundamentally better. We're just as subject to stereotypes. We gain more from questioning them than pointing fingers at others.
And well, I can see the "good" and "evil" animals thing for maybe, say, Disney movies, but I think that's sort of a lazy way to read/watch such things. If the author is being that lazy, okay, but they aren't necessarily, and assuming they are is just as lazy on the reader's part.