http://www.herowithin.com/arch101.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_9-most-racist-disneycharacters.html
http://www.mediaawareness.ca/english/resources/educational/lessons/secondary/gender_portrayal/exposing_gender.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=27565
http://planetrenders.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t116670.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_stereotypes
http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/tp/me080120.htm
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me080220.htm

The pleasent alternative is the archetype. The brianchild of psychiatrist Carl Jung, and archetype is an acknowledgement that certain types of personalities exist, but that these divisions are not defining of actions or appearance. Each one represents a myriad array of possible individualistic expressions, and is contained, according to Jung, in a collective consciousness, imbued in humanity.

What this means, is that an archtype is a more generalized stereotype, based on actually observed truths, and is the measure of a personality, not of superficial qualities. Any number of different people can fit under different stereotypes, but be a consignenment of only one arhcetype, and in the end, that makes it a more openminded, realistic label.

To continue preconceived notions, people turn to manipulating language to achieve a mirror effect in regard to their beliefs, particularly when discrimination is concerned. In the twentieth century the word "gay" came to mean homosexual, an action people who fit the description; after that point the word was commandeered by the homophobes, coming to be a synonym for bad. Today, even among society's more accepting members, it seems to be that the twisting of  a once innocent word has no negative connotations- hence the concept of "acting gay" isn't challenged. Failing to see the problem therein is akin to not understanding how "niggardly" could be construed as an offensive term.

In order to treat certain groups and its individuals badly on principle, a person must take the attitude that the the recipients of the discriminating behavior are inferior or unalterably similar in some respect (immorality, weakness, etc). Effectively, all discrimination has its justification in stereotypes. Utilizing earlier examples, for the entire history of black slavery and widespread racism, African Americans were seen as bumbling simpletons, who shuffled and slurred their words. When sexism was the norm, it was said to be for the good of the oppressed, who were written off as to weak willed and sentimental to function outside of the home with skill. Where the desperate struggle for riches is not involved, nobody has ever faced down discrimination in the absence of stereotypes. In the end, to sustain hatred in the presence of overwhelming evidence of one's own wrongfulness required extreme stubbornness, and the means to justify it.

The greatest distinction of stereotypes is their position in schools, but by the act of designating high schools in particular as full of unthinking masses where such folly can flourish, the point is ignored that students are only reflecting the world around them, and traditional wisdom skirts over this unflattering matter. On the other hand, it is indeed true that the issue is a defining part of schools; however, when one sees that schools, like anything else, have to reflect society, it is readily apparent where the crux of the subject lies, and also that the concentration on schools is an irresponsible shirking of blame. To find the source, one must go elsewhere, further up the power structure.

The weaknesses of stereotyping is important to address. From the moment one person meets another, the two of them begin the process of developing their opinions of each other. To be accurate, these opinions should be based on actual interactions between those people, except often this is not the case (probably part of the explanation for the reputation of judgment in schools- the environment encourages weak thinking). For a similar mistake to be applied to relations between cultural groups or nations even carries with it potentially heft consequences, illuminating just how corrosive mental laziness is on larger scales, with stakes that actually matter behind them.

The world is constantly changing; the only factor that can be assured is this continual state of flux. To be human, to be young especially, is to be awash in the chaotic, disjointed nature of society. By ordering one's surroundings, a person can learn to know his or her place in it from an early age; it is through this process of systematization that the typical being learns how to act-the many ways in which they are expected to talk, walk, even think: in short, the roles they are expected to fulfill, and how these roles interact with the assigned positions of others. To claim that one could function without a form of systematization would be an absurdity, but the naturally inescapable inclinations that bend us all to their will are not the issue. Rather, problems arise when people take their preconceived notions to far, judging others based on standards that they cling desperately to with little or poor justification. It then must be our duty, as respectable allies in the space we inhabit, forced together by chance and whims, and all the more developed for it, to watch the inevitable drifts of our own minds, straying from tendencies to fancy people to be a certain way based on trivialities like appearance.

When turning to differences culturally, to differences nationally and naturally, a collection of unspoken decisions lends itself to forcing strangers into molds, helping with the often daunting task of understanding why they differ (in some cases conflict violently with) and how. The method, effectively, is what has been labeled stereotyping (a multifaceted issue reminiscent of the ancient tale of the hydra, to be sure), and is a way of avoiding acting on a case to case basis, something perpetually difficult, the former example having been a resulting factor. Following 9/11 for instance, there was a surge of anger towards anyone representing, to the uneducated or ignorant United States citizen (itself a stereotype abroad), the terrorists responsible for the attack. The perpetrators of the rage were not well informed even considering the flaw in their argument; the people that faced misplaced retributions often were not muslims at all, and the reason that they had been placed as such was an assumption as to how such people would look, proving that however much truth might have been in the convictions of the typical Muslim appearance, there was substantial falsehood as well.

A stereotype, by its nature pre-supposes how another will act. Some people will be brutish, arrogant, and unsophisticated, others smart though defenseless; still more are expected to display flamboyant and "feminine" traits. These descriptions are to be assigned based on observations of body and wealth, and a final, more unpredictable factor-fortune. Morever, experience with the benefits and flaws of society peels back deception to reveal a rather discomforting truth: among those who reject unfair labeling in the more extreme, blatantly absurd forms it can take, there is still a further division. While it would seem upon first glance that the more foolhardy version of stereotyping would be more dangerous, this is not the case, becuase the ability of the other to gain acceptance among the more intelligent or enlightened members of society makes it more corrupting. When certain crimes are eliminated, those that remain must of necesity be the more vicious ones, pervasive and tied in to society with ingenuity that requires constant vigilance in order to avoid.

By the law that stereotyping plays in systemization, the setting of a country and the times of the world are always important. Slavery, immigration, industrialization: all of these issues involved people who were looked down upon, and the train of though that allowed for this assumed that certain groups of people had certain unchangeable dispositions. In the first of the three, for example, the African American (the term was not around at that point, of course) was looked upon as by his very nature a savage, perhaps educatable, but always lesser than the least respected white in the nation. This view was common, and illuminates what in those days was a fact, and what is in modern times still somewhat true; the people in power were the ones doing the judging. Throughout much of U.S. history this is understood to have been the white male, who was not above delagating even his own kind to lesser positions. Indeed, by this fact, the point made in the previous paragraph can perhaps be reiterated in a more explative way. Women, believed to be inferior for hundreds of years in Europe, also had to deal with the concept of their natural dispositions. Beyond blatant sexism, there was also the idea that women had the distinction of being by nature virtuous and weak willed, an idea that reformists eventually attacked. Descrimination against immigrants was a problem of a different vein. The more came to the U.S the more jobs they took, making it harder for natural born Americans becuase the newcomers could be given lesser wages. Therefore, an influx of massive amounts of people resulted; this led to more crime and depravity among those immgrants when they were forced to live in dangerously close proximity to one another, in overwhelming numbers. It was easy to understand how a soul could be damaged, but the issue was seized upon to make accusations that foreigners were violent and inferior.