REVERSE STEREOTYPING IN ADVERTISING : MORE INSULTING THAN REGULAR STEREOTYPING?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Stereotypes fascinate me because everyone taught me to revile them. It is a dirty word. You are not supposed to stereotype anymore. But what is stereotyping, actually? It means making generalizations about particular people or things, then exaggerating those generalizations in a pejorative way.

Stereotypes are pernicious when applied to "disfavored" groups. They are even worse when a person in "superior social position" directs the stereotype against a person in an "inferior social position." In other words, it is "politically incorrect" for a wealthy white man in America (i.e., a person with a historically "superior social position") to stereotype against a poor black man (i.e, a person with a historically "inferior social position"). Yet when people in traditionally inferior social positions stereotype those in superior social positions, it is somehow more forgivable. After all, who gets up in arms when black comedians say all white people are awkward? No one: Because everyone knows that white people have historically enjoyed a "superior social position" over blacks in America. In this sense, stereotypes are objectionable only in context: They are "bad" only when directed downward from a superior social position against an inferior one.

Still, it is hard to talk about stereotypes without inviting anger. Even outside the racial context, stereotypes raise emotions because they depend on uncomfortable--and sometimes remotely true--assumptions about others. No one likes to be mocked for their intrinsic characteristics, even if their intrinsic characteristics are less than praiseworthy.

It is even difficult to analyze the stereotyper. Ten years ago, I angered the American government when I applied for a Federal scholarship to study the systematic way in which American media stereotypes Germans. I did not get the grant. Apparently, the Federal government did not want to fund a paper that would tell it how shortsighted, ignorant and simplistic most Americans are when thinking about Germany. At the time, I was disappointed I did not get my grant. But it taught me a valuable lesson: Neither the proponents nor the victims of stereotypes like talking about them.

Whether or not the Federal government chooses to recognize it, stereotypes are everywhere in this country. They surround us. We even buy into them without even knowing it. To start, it is hard to watch American movies without encountering some condescending racial, sexual or national caricature. Even in a sci-fi action movie like Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen, the "hip" robots have black voices and banter in ebonics. Most gay characters are pathetically effeminate, with the lisps, hair and flamboyance to match. And people from other countries? Forget it: Germans are merciless, icy, calculating, humorless villains (Schindler's List; Hellboy II). Italians are lusty, hairy, slicked-back tough Guidos who use big hand gestures and talk about their families all the time (Saturday Night Fever). Russians are crafty, suspicious tyrants with thick accents (Rambo III; Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). The French are perfumed, well-dressed, snotty, red-lipped, arrogantly petulant metrosexuals with perfect hair who usually wind up buying baguettes or espresso at some point in the movie (The Matrix : Reloaded, Ronin)(Jean Reno is the default American choice for a Frenchman). The British are absurdly prim, polite, insistent on protocol, silly or villainous (The Patriot). Arabs are maniacal terrorists who wear turbans, shout "Allah, Ackbar!" and blow things up (True Lies). Asians are generally kung-fu-fighting, sword-wielding comic relief with funny accents (any Jackie Chan movie).

Of course, not all American movies support racial, sexual and national stereotypes. There are exceptions in every category. But the fact that so many mainstream films thrive on stereotypes means something. It means that America has an appetite for them. They like laughing at smooth-talking black robots and silly gay men. They expect Italians to be gangsters and Germans to be killers. After all, stereotypes are easy to grasp. They distance "us" from "them." They allow "us" to feel secure in our identities by condescending toward the way "they" speak, act and move. Stereotypes unite through ignorance.

Hollywood films are not the only medium that supports rank stereotypes in the United States. Even so-called "neutral" news networks reinforce racial and national generalizations. Whenever news agencies report on street crime, they usually point out that the suspect is a "black male," or they just show his face onscreen: Just another scary-looking black guy with unkempt facial hair. Whenever news agencies report about China or Russia, they usually make ominous comments about sinister motivations and repressive governments. And when they report about destitute Third World countries, typically they focus on some ridiculous sideshow, like peasants cooking dirt shavings or worshipping a river bank.

In short, Americans get their stereotypes from multiple sources. Stereotypes help them order their world. They help them remember who "they" are. Yet no matter how much Americans love their stereotypes, and no matter how often they buy into them, they also hear a countervailing message: "Stereotyping is bad." Students learn that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about ethnic, national, sexual and religious groups. Even corporations instruct their employees that it is "wrong" to generalize about "others." It might not be wrong to exclude "them" from the workforce or relegate "them" to the mail room. You just can't make callous remarks about their low station.

We have lived in the era of "political correctness" for several decades now. Some people have gotten in trouble for breaking the official rules about stereotypes, like Don Imus and some other indiscreet white men. But despite the "official" stance against stereotyping, it survives. It lives on in men's hearts. People can dutifully watch what they say in public without privately abandoning stereotypical thinking. It is very easy to be "politically correct" in observance, yet politically incorrect in spirit. Even the worst bigot can navigate the sparse minefield of forbidden phrases that demarcates "politically correct speech." You just need some minimal public discretion.

But what happens when traditional stereotypers try too hard to show their political correctness? In advertising, for instance, I have noticed an increase in so-called "reverse stereotyping," namely, painfully obvious attempts to portray traditionally stereotyped roles in the opposite light.

Take these examples: A major garment company runs an ad showing a married black man in a very nice home choosing a white starched shirt from a hickory-paneled closet. In the next ad, a home security company shows an affluent black family in a very nice home being terrorized by a white burglar, then calling police. In another ad, a life insurance company hawks its wares by showing an extremely well-dressed black man behind a desk in an office building. He is an "insurance executive;" and a desperate-looking white man calls him to ask about life insurance options. In yet another ad, a trade school notes that "times are tough," then it shows an unemployed white man struggling to find a job. It suggests that he get an education in order to stop receiving public assistance.

What is significant about these ads? In my view, they are even more condescending to "disfavored political groups" in America than flat-out stereotypes. After all, pernicious stereotyping generally operates in a "downward" manner, from people in a "traditionally superior social position" against people in a "traditionally inferior social position." In all the social contexts relevant to these ads, black Americans generally occupy the inferior position: They do not have nice homes; they do not wear button-down shirts; they are not even married; they are the burglars, not the ones who call police; they do not buy life insurance, let alone run the insurance company; they are unemployed and need educations to get off welfare. A flat-out stereotype would have shown white people buying button-down shirts, calling the police on black burglars and running an insurance company. But here the ads simply reverse the stereotypes, placing black people in the traditionally superior positions, while white people fancifully occupy the traditionally inferior positions. This "racial reversal" so obviously contradicts predominant social realities that it invites scorn.

It is easy to see why the corporations did this. They did not want to "appear stereotypical" by portraying blacks in "traditionally inferior social positions." They wanted to comply with "political correctness." But in attempting to avoid stereotypes, the corporations came off as even more patronizing than they would have had they simply stuck with the generalizations everyone expects to see. Americans expect to see black burglars; that's what they see on the news all the time. Americans expect to see white insurance executives; after all, insurance executives are basically all white anyway. And Americans expect to hear about unemployed black people on welfare; laziness is a classic racial stereotype that has long fueled resentment between racial groups in America.

In sum, anyone can see that these ads do not correspond to social reality in the United States. That fact confirms that Americans like their stereotypes. It makes them uneasy--and even disbelieving--to see black people portrayed outside their traditionally inferior social positions. No one will ever believe that black people will run insurance companies. Nor will anyone believe that white Americans will commit street crime in the same proportions as black Americans. Americans are too comfortable with their stereotypes. A few advertisers will not change anyone's assumptions by reversing stereotypical roles that have existed in Americans' minds for generations.

No, Americans still have a voracious appetite for stereotypes. Just go to the movies or turn on the news. And ironically, attempting to be "political correct" only worsens stereotypical thinking. That's because telling Americans that "stereotyping is bad" is like telling a star baseball player that baseball is bad: Stereotyping is what we do--and we really like it. Telling us to stop doing what we like will result in confused, disingenuous absurdity, just as we see in these ads.

AL QAEDA SURRENDERS

*BIG NEWS FLASH*

IT'S OFFICIAL : BIN LADEN THROWS IN THE TOWEL; HANDS HIMSELF OVER TO U.S.

Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden has "given up the war" against Western imperialism. He handed himself over to U.S. forces stationed in Puerto Rico. "You idiots thought I was in Afghanistan the whole time. All the while I was sunning myself right under your noses. Well, I'm giving up because I just don't feel like fighting anymore, not because you beat me. I need a break."

Mr. bin Laden spoke for al-Qaeda when he said that there was "no point" fighting against the United States any longer. "We keep on killing you and you just keep shopping. No matter how many people we blow up, you never change. What's the point? I'm sick of banging my head against the wall trying to convince you guys that you're not living right. Oh well; I'll sign whatever you want me to sign."

Commanding American general Raymond D. Odierno accepted Mr. bin Laden's surrender. He also demanded that Mr. bin Laden sign a peace treaty with the United States. "We end wars with treaties," explained General Odierno.

Under the treaty--informally named the Chillocothe Protocol of 2009 after a town in Ohio (for no particular reason)--Mr. bin Laden admits that he started the War on Terror and that he lost. He also admits that he is responsible for property damage exceeding $5.00 worldwide. The treaty provides that Mr. bin Laden and al-Qaeda will pay compensation for starting the war, as well as apologize to the San Francisco Fire Department for forcing its members to undergo additional disaster training. Mr. bin Laden further agrees to help Larry Silverstein--owner of the World Trade Center real estate--find a suitable new property for his commercial ventures. In short, Mr. bin Laden promises that he will not be a terrorist anymore. Rather, he promises to meaningfully contribute to the American economy.

For his part, Mr. bin Laden said that it was getting "tiresome" fighting U.S. Forces abroad. "They invaded our homelands, they defiled Mecca and they killed our families with cruise missiles. We tried to hit back at them, but they just keep coming. We wanted to show that they were Western barbarians obsessed with profit and oil. But no matter how many civilians and soldiers we killed, they just kept going to Wal-Mart without fear. You have no idea how frustrating it is to dedicate yourself to terrorism, and after 10 years Americans still aren't afraid. Does Kanye West look scared? How about Tom Brady? Dick Cheney? They're more afraid of the IRS than me. True, I suppose I've made some Americans' lives difficult by forcing them to endure strip searches and long lines at airports, but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to show the Americans that they are wrong about life. I've failed: They still just want to make money, go to the movies, eat fast food, watch Sunday sports broadcasts and purchase homes. Well, I suppose if you can't beat them, might as well join them. I give up. Screw it. Most of them will die of obesity-related illnesses anyway."

American authorities are pleased that Mr. bin Laden has proven so cooperative with U.S demands. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Mr. bin Laden for his "extraordinary efforts to comply with American requirements:" "Mr. bin Laden even agreed to convert to Christianity and celebrate Christmas with the Metropolitan Baltimore Caroling Society. He has agreed to buy Wii home entertainment systems for low-income children in the Bronx. In short, Mr. bin Laden has gone from villain to Santa Claus overnight. What an astonishing turnaround."

Despite Mr. bin Laden's agreement to cooperate with the United States, American authorities worry what his al-Qaeda followers will do now that he has surrendered. Thankfully, many former al-Qaeda operatives--including previously undiscovered "sleeper" agents both in the U.S. and abroad--have voluntarily given up and agreed to convert to Christianity. Like their leader, these operatives agree that fighting the United States is a hopeless cause. Many--including suspected mass murderer Mohammad Zazabi--have even agreed to abandon terrorism and work in the private sector. Mr. Zazabi even said that he was willing to wear an elf costume this Christmas season and hand out free perfume at Macy's in New York City. "If I cannot kill them, I will provide them fragrant waters. I will now show that I, too, can be someone in America," he said.

Hollywood celebrities are overjoyed that al-Qaeda has surrendered. "The War on Terror is over," said Zac Efron. "Let's welcome our new friends into our lives." Mr. Efron said that Disney has already begun planning a musical based on Mr. bin Laden's surrender in which Mr. bin Laden will meet the cast of High School Musical and dance several numbers, including: "I Used to Terrorize, Now I Just Texticize LOLLERS," and sing the solo "Tora Bora No More-A More-A."

Mr. bin Laden is a busier man now than he ever was as al-Qaeda's shadowy leader. He now has a schedule packed with interviews, book signings, university commencement speeches and motivational talks about leadership with Fortune 500 corporate boards. He is even slated to appear on FOX News as a Middle Eastern commentator.

"He knows what he's talking about," said Bill O'Reilly of his new colleague. "I can let bygones be bygones. Osama told me he doesn't like Obama, so he's OK in my boat."

"I am a rational man," Mr. bin Laden said during treaty negotiations. "I know when a cause is hopeless. Americans do not respond to terrorism, so I will not be a terrorist anymore. I'm a result-oriented person; I'm not going to play a losing game. I abandon strategies that don't work. Instead, I will just get with the program and pursue more profitable endeavors."

Mr. bin Laden's remarks about "results," "profit" and "winning strategies" won him kudos from industry leaders nationwide. "Part of winning means giving up on losing," said J. Ferguson Bradworth, CFO of Schluck Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT PLOT

A REFLECTION

I often talk to people about writing. Interestingly, I rarely get consistent advice. Some people say I should write less. Others say I should revise more. Still others think I should take everything I’ve written, put in on paper and turn it into a book. A few have even said I should write a novel. Basically, I can’t possibly accommodate all these suggestions at once. If I did, I would be contradicting myself.

I still learn from these conversations, even if I cannot follow them all. Most importantly, I have learned that “blogging” might not be the best medium for my writing. I turned to blogging without really knowing what it was. I just wanted a regular forum in which to post my thoughts, satires and views. My blog provided the discipline I needed to keep writing, as well as to develop coherent themes. After writing several hundred pages, however, I began to see that most “blogs” are not really “literature-based” or even “text-based.” To the contrary, many “popular blogs” are more picturebook than book. One successful blogger told me that internet users don’t want to read. Rather, he said they want to check, peruse, skim and maybe type LOL. He said that if I wanted more hits, I would have to write much, much less—and post more pictures.

This depressed me. I had more faith in people than that. I believed that people want more from life than to look at pretty pictures and laugh. I know that I like to read provocative essays and stories. I thought that people felt the same way. The day after hearing the successful blogger’s advice, I thought I had failed. But my spirit soon rebounded. No matter how well picturebooks work for the “successful blogger,” they don’t work for me. I declared my independence from “internet thinking.” I apologize to everyone who can’t read a page for more than 20 seconds, but I don’t write twitter-sized bites. If you want vacuous brevity, you won’t find it here. I write here as if I were writing a book. I am laying bare my thoughts about issues I care about. I can’t do that in 140 characters or less. If that makes me unpoetic, so be it. Still, I never feel that I waste words. I might write a lot, but only because there is a lot to say about important questions. Style is essential to me. It just isn’t a 4-word-per-sentence/quarter-page style.

I do not mind being an outlier. I eschew convention in most life matters, anyway. It should not surprise anyone that I defy internet convention, too. Nonetheless, I can be realistic when I need to be. I understand that my content would find better expression in paper form. In that light, I plan on printing out everything I write here, tightening it up and transforming it into a printed package. I like seeing words on paper more than on a screen. That might show my age. But it also shows my belief. I don’t shrink from it. I only have one opportunity to say how I really feel today. When I write, I take that opportunity. In this sense, I am taking the advice to turn my blog into a book.

This does not mean I will close the blog. To the contrary, the blog is my laboratory. Here, I merge my creative impulses with discipline. The blog gives me a ready forum in which to post my thoughts immediately after formulating them. That is a fantastic resource. My ideas first see light on the blog. I let them season here, then decide whether to tinker with them further. Ultimately, the well-seasoned stuff will make it into the book, with revisions and probably some additions. I want my book to present a relatively coherent picture about my views. To that extent, my blog archive is a huge help. In some sense, I have already categorized my thinking in many areas. I don’t like to say I am a categorical person. But I won’t deny that I can “categorize” subjects I like to write about.

I will not write a novel. At least, not a traditional one. I won’t write a novel because I don’t like writing plots. Plots are too ordinary for me. I will only dream up a plot to the extent necessary to create a framework for satire. I have always resisted entreaties to “think up cute stories” or “love tales.” I can understand why some people suggest this, because most “literature” and “entertainment” centers heavily on plot. Audiences take comfort in “exciting stories” about men, women, events, romances, turnarounds, developments and resolutions. Trash novel writers make millions writing insipid plots lines and banal dialogue. They know what people want. Plot pays.

But I need more than plot to get excited about writing. I need messages. I need criticism. I need observations. I need irony. I need opinion. I need ambiguity. If I want plot, I can watch the news or buy the New York Post. Plot is ordinary. It is about who, what, when, where and how. This is not to say that great novelists do not weave messages, criticism and observations into their plots. Dostoevsky did that masterfully. But that’s why they were “great novelists;” they did not just recite a plot line. The difference between “literature” and “plot writing” is the ability to make lasting observations about humanity while entertaining the audience with a good story.

Yet literature does not sell as well because it is harder to read: Grisham will outsell Dostoevsky any day. In that sense, literature mirrors the problems I face contending with “internet convention.” Internet reading parallels “plot reading.” Like plot readers, conventional internet readers want quick, easy-to-follow “factual” reports about people and events. Facebook and Twitter prove this. Most internet writing—and many blogs—discuss what some random individual “does” on a certain day; and there is nothing profound about it. “I went shopping.” “I saw Kim.” “Billy is soooo cute XD XD.” “OMG I have a math test next period.” This is internet writing. It is “plot-like.” It is easy to read. It does not dwell on lasting issues, nor is it intended to make a rhetorical impact. It just tells you what someone is doing. If you don’t know the person, you can be forgiven for saying: “Who the fuck is this and why should I care if they got a haircut today?”

I have the same reaction when I read plot-based writing. What do I care? What does this writer want to say? If I do not have an emotional or intellectual connection to the events being described, there is no reason why I should follow it. Hollywood makes money on plot by interspersing routine events with explosions, good-looking people, violin flourishes and special effects. But without the bells and whistles, most Hollywood plots are instantly forgettable. They don’t really say anything. They just provide easy-to-follow entertainment.

When I write, I consciously try to avoid that fate. I do not want my writing to last only for the brief moment in which I write it. I want it to make a statement on an issue that will be just as important next year as it is today. That is why I don’t write plots, unless I am satirizing conventions that use plot. I acknowledge that my writing may not achieve great “popularity” because it does not spin plots, but that does not bother me. I am content to put my beliefs, impressions and thoughts on paper. I comment on issues that confront us all. In the process, I challenge my own assumptions; in the end I usually conclude that I know very little. I prefer ideas to events, even though events in many cases provide the philosophical fodder for ideas. I take my time in developing ideas. If it takes five pages some days, then I write five pages. I cannot squeeze them into Twitter-sized morsels. That is just the way I write.

As always, I am thankful for everyone who takes the time to savor what I write. I know it takes time. I certainly make no claim to be a great writer, nor do I want fame. I just know that I care deeply about transcendent issues that go beyond “what I’m doing today.” It makes me feel good to inscribe my thoughts upon them, if for no other reason than to say: “This is what I believed; it doesn’t matter whether it’s right.” Whether I attack issues satirically or ponder them in an essay, my attitude toward them is the same. Genuine issues deserve genuine discourse. I use my blog to generate that discourse. I am developing a way to look at the world. I am using my time to understand what I really think. Amazingly, I really did not know that until I started writing in earnest.

I never would have discovered my own thoughts if I just wrote plots. That’s why I don’t like them. They contribute nothing to self-discovery, enrichment or individual personality. They just pass time. And we don’t have much.

TORTURED PERSPECTIVES : GERMANY

AN ESSAY

Living in the United States, you could be forgiven if you truly thought that all Germans were militaristic killers who secretly worship Hitler. You could be forgiven if you thought that Germans were all icy technocrats who prize efficiency over all else. You could even be forgiven if you thought that all Germans hate Jews. In a word, the American media--through television, film and press--has perpetuated a dangerous stereotype linking "Germans" to "Nazis." Television programs involving Germany typically focus on some barbaric cruelty inflicted during World War II, while most movies involving Germany show Germans murdering innocent civilians, or at least goose-stepping around in slickly-polished boots. The image alternates between the savage and the ruthlessly efficient. If these are the only images an American sees, he can be forgiven for thinking that all Germans are like the sadistic concentration camp commandant in Schindler's List or the treacherous soldier in Saving Private Ryan who slowly stabs an American Jew to death. If this is all you see, what impression will you form?

At the outset, I must be very clear: the Holocaust DID happen and I cannot condemn more strongly the conduct of Germany's National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945. But I find it unfortunate--and historically unfair--to judge Germany solely on these 12 years. By focusing exclusively on Nazi atrocities during World War II, we blind ourselves to earlier German history. That history reveals an image far less brutal than the one so often shown in movie theaters.

World War II fascinates virtually everybody; and for good reason. There has never been such a cataclysmic encounter between clear "villains" and "the forces of freedom." No war in history has even approached the immense scale and horror experienced between 1939 and 1945. But for all our fascination, we cannot view World War II in a vacuum; earlier events led to the war. The key "earlier event" was World War I.

Almost no one talks about World War I anymore. Almost all World War I veterans are dead. Hollywood does not make movies about it, and it all seems impossibly remote to a modern listener. This is a terrible mistake, because World War I is the key event in modern history. World War II--along with the villainous Germany that facilitated it--would never have happened had World War I never taken place. No other war in history has so altered accepted political and social systems as World War I. Before 1914, monarchs held sway over vast European and foreign empires. After 1918, monarchy was out. The true "modern age" had begun, along with all its intractable modern complexities and industrialized violence. World War II continued the battles left unfinished in 1918. Yet because its scale and drama was greater than World War I--and because it came later--it overshadowed its predecessor. World War II is like the noontime sun, while World War I is like a star that cannot be seen during the day: The light from the sun overpowers the light from the star, even though the star is right there next to the sun.

What does all this have to do with Germany? Just because World War II has burned itself more intensely into our collective memories does not mean it should blind us to other history. If we use World War II as our only historical guide, we would be right to think that Germany was always an intolerant, brutal Nation, even in World War I. But this would be utterly inaccurate. I have often asked acquaintances what they think would have happened had Germany won World War I. Most say that Germany would have conquered all of Europe and subjected all Nations to Hitler-style persecution. I disagree with this assessment, but I know where it comes from: The superimposition of World War II onto all other historical inquiries concerning Germany.

So what was Germany like in the years preceding World War I? Was it a ruthless, intolerant dictatorship as so many Americans believe? Absolutely not. Germany was a constitutional monarchy ruled by a Parliament and an Emperor. The Emperor--like an American President--had Executive power but could not make laws. All males could vote, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Polish or Muslim. The fact that only males could vote at the time should not be seen as repression; even in the United States women were excluded from voting during the same period. Beginning in the 1880s, Germany guaranteed health care, unemployment insurance, social security pensions and accident compensation to all its citizens. Germany dedicated an immense part of its budget to caring for wounded veterans. In 1901, Germany had the third-largest Jewish population in Europe, thanks to a State policy of religious tolerance and excellent commercial opportunities. In 1912, Marxists composed the largest contingency in Parliament. Although the Emperor was unelected, he depended on the democratically-elected Reichstag to enact legislation. There was even a constitutional free press guarantee.

Does this sound like Nazi Germany? Religious freedom? Freedom of the press? Universal health care and unemployment insurance? Marxists in Parliament? Democratic elections for representatives in Parliament? It is hard to imagine a starker contrast. Although Imperial Germany vested executive power in a monarch, virtually every European country embraced monarchy in some form during this period. Even "democracies" like the United States did not provide social care to their citizens, nor did they so readily tolerate left-wing political expression in government.

Why does no one remember these liberal traditions in German history? Again, World War II has poisoned foreign understandings about Germany. It would not fit the barbaric stereotype about Germany if Americans suddenly learned that Germany had universal health care and unemployment insurance in 1884. After all, barbaric governments do not provide such compassionate assistance to their citizens. Nor do tyrannical governments allow political expression and universal suffrage. Yet Imperial Germany provided all these things to its citizens at a time when even the United States did not.

World War II also poisoned foreign understandings about Germany's motives in World War I. Under the "World War II" view, Americans think that Germany was a belligerent Nation bent on world domination. In 1939, Germany launched a war of aggression against its neighbors. It initiated vicious racial purification programs in the conquered territories, eradicating both ethnic and political opposition. It appeared to have no intention to relinquish the countries it conquered. But in 1914, Germany blundered into war without any intention to permanently annex new territory, let alone to exterminate millions in ethnic and religious minorities. Germany invaded France because it had treaty obligations to Austria-Hungary, which foolishly triggered war with Russia, France's ally. Throughout World War I, Germany was not fighting to exterminate "Untermenschen" or expand Germany's "Lebensraum." It was fighting due to a failed system of European alliances. If Germany had won World War I, there would have been no World War II-style oppression. Most likely, Germany would have taken some punitive steps against its adversaries, but would certainly not have begun slaughtering Jews, Poles, gypsies, homosexuals and Communists. After all, Jews, Poles, Communists and--although not declared as such--homosexuals formed essential parts of Germany's political system. In a word, Germany in World War I was not an intolerant Nation bent on world domination. Yet through the lens of World War II, many Americans assume that Germany "has always been" both intolerant and repressive.

I do not hide the fact that I am partial to Germany for several reasons. First, I am of direct German descent. Second, based on my studies I believe that Germany has borne an unfair stigma for a very limited period in its history. While this does not excuse Germany for its actions between 1933 and 1945, it also does not excuse us from simplistically assuming that Germany "has been and always will be" a violent, repressive society. Indeed, any fair investigation will reveal that precisely the opposite has been true for many centuries. Germany has a long history of liberalism, from artistic excellence to religious tolerance to intellectual freedom. The corrupt legacy of World War II has unfairly overshadowed all these cultural achievements. True, Germany also has a profoundly militaristic history, but its unique position in central Europe--caught between at least three powerful foreign enemies--partially explains its insistence on military strength. Furthermore, it is unfair to brand Germany "militaristic" for its actions during a time when all European powers jockeyed for military dominance, whether at home or in overseas colonies. In that sense, Germany's military prominence in the 18th and 19th Centuries is hardly unique. If military power alone signified a tendency toward repression, then Great Britain must certainly be counted as a "naturally repressive" State. Indeed, Britain waged nearly constant war during the 19th Century, from North America to Belgium to Portugal to South Africa to the Crimea to Hong Kong to India. It constantly maintained the world's most powerful navy, yet few Americans today view Britain's military prominence as proof that it was a naturally repressive State.

In sum, I think German history has suffered from gross historical distortion. Modern media has perpetuated this distortion. Unless Americans do their own research about German history, they will have no reason to think that Germany has been--and always will be--something akin to the Third Reich. Germans are profoundly aware of this distortion. While virtually all Germans deeply regret the darkest part of their history between 1933 and 1945, many now feel that continued prejudice against them is unwarranted. For generations now, Germans have been instructed to be ashamed of themselves for actions they never took. They have been instructed to suppress patriotic expression because they are told it is "dangerous" to have nationalistic feelings for Germany. These impositions have led to greater and greater resentment, precisely because Germans understand that they should not be over-punished for a discrete period in their long history. They know that for generations Germany has been a beacon for liberalism and tolerance in Europe. Yet in world media they see themselves portrayed as inveterate Nazis. These portrayals ignore all German history aside from World War II, perpetuating a lasting historical distortion.

Once living links die, media and second-hand accounts shape public understanding. We no longer have a living link to World War I, and the trauma of World War II has so dominated popular thought that it allows little room for reflecting on what came before. But it is dangerous to rely on popular history, because history will always reflect a distinct political or social perspective. Only by investigating all the evidence can we gain a clearer understanding about historical events. That means looking beyond stereotypes forged from a single historical experience. When it comes to German history, it is essential to examine more than just the National Socialist experience. We must look further back to see what Germany truly was. It is not an exaggeration to say that postwar Germany simply picked up the pieces scattered by the Nazis in 1933. Modern Germany--like Imperial Germany before it--enshrines many of the liberal ideals that have traditionally found expression in German life. Postwar Germany broke radically from the Nazi regime, but it did not break radically from overriding German political and social traditions. Today, Germany is again one of the most liberal Nations on earth. But that is nothing new; it only seems surprising because many Americans think that before 1945 Germany had never been anything but a savage, repressive State.

America has a perplexing interest in maintaining the idea that Germany is a dangerous, habitually violent Nation. In 1999, I applied for a Fulbright scholarship under which I proposed to explore many of the ideas raised in this essay. I wanted to illustrate that America has distorted the historical record about Germany by creating a stereotypical understanding about Germans that fixes all inquiry on World War II. My application was denied on "political grounds." It was too inflammatory. Apparently, the American government did not want me to disturb the fabric underlying German-American relations, or to expose the embarrassing cultural myopia that plagues most Americans' understanding about Germany. In America today, many still equate Germans with Nazis, thanks in large part to the endless media bombardment that reinforces that connection.

In hindsight, I am happy that I did not receive funding from the American government. I have given up on America's ability to conduct fair foreign relations. Perhaps Obama will restore some of America's credibility on the world stage. But I doubt he will influence the endless tide of negative press and media about Germany. Only time will tell whether the historical distortion about Germany will ever subside.