If a great many people agree that a particular trait is associated with a particular nation, does that make it true? There is fairly widespread theory to the effect that “Where there's smoke there's fire”, or, in other words, that the very existence of a stereotype is, to some extent at least, an argument in favour of its truth. Otherwise, the argument runs, where does the stereotype come from? How would it come into existence. There is, however, a good deal of evidence that stereotypes may develop without any kernel of truth whatsoever. We all know how widespread is the notion that intelligent people have high foreheads, yet scientific investigation has failed to reveal any such relationship. The stereotype of the criminal as bearing in his features the mark of his criminality is widely accepted, but it is equally without foundation. The stereotypes frequently change. In some cases it may be argued that this corresponds to a real change in the people; in others, however, it seems much more likely to be due to circumstances which have little or nothing to do with the group concerned. The Dutch sociologist, Schrieke, has for example studied what people have said about the Chinese during the course of their residence in the state of California, U.S.A.

People Stay the Same but Their Reputation Changes Completely When the Chinese were needed in California, in order to carry on certain types of occupation, they were welcome there. During that period newspapers and journals referred to them as among “the most worthy of our newly adopted citizens”. “the best immigrants in California”, they were spoken of as thrifty, sober, tractable, inoffensive, law-abiding. This flattering picture prevailed over a considerable period of time, but around 1860, presumably because economic competition had grown much more severe, there was a marked change in the stereotype of the Chinese. The phrases now applied to them included: “a distinct people”, “unassimilable”, “their presence lowered the plane of living” etc. They were spoken of as clannish, criminal, debased, servile, deceitful, and vicious. This startling change can hardly be accounted for by any real modification of the characteristics of the Chinese population of California. The most acceptable explanation is that when it became advantageous to reduce the competition from the Chinese, the stereotype was altered in a direction This sculpture of Lord Kitchener, done by a West African, is another example of the white man seen through the eyes of a coloured race. As in the photograph on page 40, we see a majestic, almost godlike figure, more feared than loved. (Berkeley Galleries, reprod. from Unesco Courier) which would help to justify such action. In this historical case it seems reasonable to conclude that the change in the characteristics ascribed to the Chinese throws doubt on the notion that stereotypes must necessarily contain some truth.

Brave and Chivalrous — Savage and Lazy Another Dutch sociologist, Den Hollander, has studied the historical changes in the stereotype of the Hungarians in Europe. He points out that