race: a few simple minded questions?? (NO flame war - NO FLAMING!!)

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: ed21x
usually when i hear of white people, i think of KKK members actually going out and DOING damage by attacking jews and burning crosses. But this black pride type stuff is usually just a harmless thing- sometimes done for comic effect, othertimes to make up for being such an underrepresented minority

 

[dullard]

"i would almost say that 95% for entertainment today follows the Star Trek diverified crew formula ( included expendible red shirted crew member )."

"Can you elaborate on that?"

On Star Trek crew members needed to die on occasion to be realistic. For obvious reasons you can't have your stars dying off all the time (unless it is a soap opera where resurection is common). The solution is to have minor actors die. Any time you see a new actor on the show, I bet there is a 90% probability that actor would die in that show or the next one. Star Trek also wanted to include more minorities on their shows - but not as major actors. Solution: have the dying minor actors all be minorities - that way you can claim that 50% (or some other silly number) of the total actors are minorites. The result: almost all minorities ended up with one line parts and then died.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: docmanhattan

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: diskop
There is no W.E.T because 95% of television already IS white entertainment. There is no white history month because the other 11 months of the year are white months.

So people celebrate white pride in every month except February?

And what do you mean that 95% of television is white entertainment. Explain.

i would almost say that 95% for entertainment today follows the Star Trek diverified crew formula ( included expendible red shirted crew member ).

Can you elaborate on that?

sure. just take a look at sitcoms. you have the token {insert minority here} character to placate the interest groups. the only real exception to this is Friends and sitcoms targeted at any other minorities. Even Friends, though, has mde pretty tranparent attempts to diverisfy the cast: TV Guide link.

But look at all the black comedies for example. There are several that go the same route as Friends, but do not get the heat for not having divesity.

 

[Fausto]

I think the biggest issue regarding the things you listed are that one group is a minority (who up until very recently did not posess the same rights as the majority).

BET exists to provide a source of black-oriented programming in a sea of channels dominated by what is effectively white-dominated programming (even though BET actually does a tremendous disservice to blacks by promoting stereotypes) Check out The Boondocks. Aaron MacGruder (who is black) loves to rip on BET for this very reason.

Black History Month exists because most of what is taught in schools is Western Civ.....eg: White History Millenium.

Black pride exists (and is generally acceptable) because it's an affirmation that they are indeed equal citizens to those around them....especially after so many years of not even being considered human. White pride, in theory, is perfectly acceptable (ie- my ancestors are from the UK....we invented some interesting things and had many contributions to modern society). Unfortunately the reality of white pride is "I feel that minorities are encroaching on my previously-untouchable position at the top of the social food chain....this is bad".

That said, I think we're really at a turning point in the status of "race" in the US. An excellent example of this is the much-publicized GA 4th district congressional race (I live and vote in this district BTW). The incumbent (Cynthia McKinney) has employed the "Us vs Them" brand of black politicking which has been prevalent (and effective) here in the south since the civil rights movement. She attempted to employ this same strategy against her most recent opponent (Denise Majette) despite the fact that Majette is both black and a Democrat. She painted her as "effectively a republican" and "effectively white". She also spent a lot of time loudly pointing out that Majette received a lot of money from pro-Jewish/Israeli groups (since blacks and jews have at best a tense relationship).

What happened? McKinney lost.

Why? Because blacks in the US have made so much social and economic progress in the last 20 years (especially in southeast Dekalb county.....lots of black doctors/lawyers/politicians living there) that they no longer identify as strongly with the Al Sharpton-style "FIREY RHETORIC(tm)" that once galvanized the black community. A local columnist (also black) summed this up very neatly:

But the same tactics are less useful, even counterproductive, these days. Because so many black Americans have joined the great mainstream, it is much harder for us to rail against it with any credibility.

It's because of examples like this that I think the way in which both blacks and whites think about racial issues is in a state of flux. I like to think it's for the better.

Fausto

 

[SpongeBob]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: SpongeBob

Originally posted by: diskop
There is no W.E.T because 95% of television already IS white entertainment. There is no white history month because the other 11 months of the year are white months.

Exactly. I don't see why other people don't get this.

Because most of us don't have our heads embedded securely in our asses?



Viper GTS

Oh....Bravo. How can i argue with such an intelligent statement?

Ever watch friends? 6 white people sitting around a coffee shop talking about their problems. If I was black I would probably hate the show cause I can't relate to sitting with 6 white people in a coffee shop talking about their problems. That show is basically the model for all other network sitcoms. This is why BET exists, there is a market for it. However, there is a much larger market for WET, because white people are a majority. That's why on your cable band, 95% of the stations feature shows like Friends, and maybe 5% are minority stations.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Why is it that Black History Month exists, but no White History Month exists because it's racist??

When black history month was created, there were roughly 8% blacks in America - Feburary is roughly 8% of the year. Thus by that logic, the other 11 months are all white history months.

hmmm, then we should have an Asian History Week / Day whichever is deemed appropriate based on population?

 

[ElFenix]

history in schools is usually the story of a bunch of white people. its eurocentric up until about 1815 (gotta get napoleon in) then switches over to a patriotic hit parade. then they talk about a few notable black people, usually ending the lesson with MLK/1960s things at the very end of the year. but you don't get things like the cultural revolutions of harlem and jazz or things like that.

 

[StattlichPassat]

I have always wondered the EXACT same things, ffmcobalt. Their own channels, months, and pride ARE racist unto themselves whether they like to believe it or not, but multiculturalists certaintly wouldn't agree with that! Reparations! Reparations! The people who support and promote these types of things believe it's the African American group's way of getting ahead/back (as if they need to in this day and age anyway

maybe a century or 40 years ago, but not now), which is just absolutely absurd. I dunno. These same people (again for clarification), who support and promote this kind of stuff are also too ignorant to recognize just how racist their channels, months and pride are, but they couldn't put themselves in the shoes of whites. That is NOT saying everyone though- there are many African Americans who see this and are trying to get away from it, because it's all so ridiculous. It's always a riot to watch someone who believes and doesn't believe in these kinds of measures debate it out on O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes. It's usually Alan Keyes (or Walter Williams- "black by popular demand" ), and he always comes out swinging and laughing his butt off at the other guy at the end (downright furious, pissed off, and intellectually stumped by Keyes, and that a fellow African American would side with such 'horrible' ideas!). Mr. Keyes rips into someone from, say, the NAACP, on this kind of stuff and they never have any worthwhile comeback or legitimate answer for him or the viewers. And these are usually top ranking 'officials' or spokespersons for the organization! Alan Keyes is THE man.

My friend and I have always *joked* about starting the White Entertainment Television (WET) channel after college.

 

[Moonbeam]

When i was a little boy i couldn't celebrate my birthday because there was nothing special about me and my Mom didn't want be to act special if front of others who didn't have one that day. She thought it would foster separation. But you can see what it's done to me.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Ever watch friends? 6 white people sitting around a coffee shop talking about their problems. If I was black I would probably hate the show cause I can't relate to sitting with 6 white people in a coffee shop talking about their problems. That show is basically the model for all other network sitcoms.

really?? wasn't there a joke that WB was basically a black network?? Cosby Show and hits spin offs were huge. there have been more than a few black shows.

It seems to me that if discrimination against black people does exist, the entertainment industry is where it is least visible.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ffmcobaltOne would think that there's a bigger market for those who are in the majority of the market instead. Like how Personal Computers sell more than Apples.

...unless, of course, that everyone's afraid of offending the apple users.

There is a bigger market. However if you make an all white channel, how will that land you more advertizing money? Those advertizers would be boycotted and shunned by the black community. So a white only channel would have to charge less than a black only channel or a white and black channel. If you have a business plan that forces you to charge less, it is a crappy business plan. BET on the other hand gets to charge more, since its audience is well defined and messages are targetted to the customers. Any business plan where you can charge more is a good business plan.

It goes by the numbers. I bet there are hundreds of channels where ads focussed on whites can be run. There is 1 channel where ads focussed on blacks can be run. Thus by running your black focussed ad on one single channel you can hit 90% of your target audience. If instead you run a white focussed add on one single channel you are probably only hitting 1% of your target audience. Things would be much different if black channels dominated and white channels were rare...

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: dullard
"i would almost say that 95% for entertainment today follows the Star Trek diverified crew formula ( included expendible red shirted crew member )."

"Can you elaborate on that?"

On Star Trek crew members needed to die on occasion to be realistic. For obvious reasons you can't have your stars dying off all the time (unless it is a soap opera where resurection is common). The solution is to have minor actors die. Any time you see a new actor on the show, I bet there is a 90% probability that actor would die in that show or the next one. Star Trek also wanted to include more minorities on their shows - but not as major actors. Solution: have the dying minor actors all be minorities - that way you can claim that 50% (or some other silly number) of the total actors are minorites. The result: almost all minorities ended up with one line parts and then died.

I interpreted the original statement the other way. Look at the major characters on the original Star Trek crew:

Kirk
Spock
McCoy
Uhura <-black
Sulu <-Asian

Ummm, that's really all that I can think of when it comes to 'named characters' who were on every show.... and then the red-shirted guys (I actually picture the 'typical' red-shirt as a white guy, but whatever) and the enemy/Admiral/love-interest/whatever who also is a major player in a given episode. ST:TNG kept up about the same formula... significant black and Asian characters, but the majority were white. About the same as the racial composition of the US.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: bizmark

Originally posted by: dullard
"i would almost say that 95% for entertainment today follows the Star Trek diverified crew formula ( included expendible red shirted crew member )."

"Can you elaborate on that?"

On Star Trek crew members needed to die on occasion to be realistic. For obvious reasons you can't have your stars dying off all the time (unless it is a soap opera where resurection is common). The solution is to have minor actors die. Any time you see a new actor on the show, I bet there is a 90% probability that actor would die in that show or the next one. Star Trek also wanted to include more minorities on their shows - but not as major actors. Solution: have the dying minor actors all be minorities - that way you can claim that 50% (or some other silly number) of the total actors are minorites. The result: almost all minorities ended up with one line parts and then died.

I interpreted the original statement the other way. Look at the major characters on the original Star Trek crew:

Kirk
Spock
McCoy
Uhura <-black
Sulu <-Asian

Ummm, that's really all that I can think of when it comes to 'named characters' who were on every show.... and then the red-shirted guys (I actually picture the 'typical' red-shirt as a white guy, but whatever) and the enemy/Admiral/love-interest/whatever who also is a major player in a given episode. ST:TNG kept up about the same formula... significant black and Asian characters, but the majority were white. About the same as the racial composition of the US.

That is what i meant. Just the major characters. The red-shirted crew member aside was more just for giggles.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ffmcobaltOne would think that there's a bigger market for those who are in the majority of the market instead. Like how Personal Computers sell more than Apples.

...unless, of course, that everyone's afraid of offending the apple users.

There is a bigger market. However if you make an all white channel, how will that land you more advertizing money? Those advertizers would be boycotted and shunned by the black community. So a white only channel would have to charge less than a black only channel or a white and black channel. If you have a business plan that forces you to charge less, it is a crappy business plan. BET on the other hand gets to charge more, since its audience is well defined and messages are targetted to the customers. Any business plan where you can charge more is a good business plan.

It goes by the numbers. I bet there are hundreds of channels where ads focussed on whites can be run. There is 1 channel where ads focussed on blacks can be run. Thus by running your black focussed ad on one single channel you can hit 90% of your target audience. If instead you run a white focussed add on one single channel you are probably only hitting 1% of your target audience. Things would be much different if black channels dominated and white channels were rare...

The other thing to consider as far as TV programming is that it's 100% market-driven. The bottom line is that channels want viewership and will create and air whatever kind of programs get high ratings. It's only a matter of time until the programs more accurately reflect the racial makeup of the US since the audience will demand it. Take a good look at MTV 10 years ago and MTV today: it used to be all white-guy hair bands and a few "lite" R&B/hip-hop acts sprinkled in here and there. Now it's probably closer to 50/50 with the "black" acts being much more controversial than they were back in the day. Why? Because that's what the viewers (both black and white) want to see. They're mostly teenagers who have grown up in a much more integrated society than even I did as a child of the 80's. Hence, that's what they identify with and that's what the folks at MTV air.

 

[SpongeBob]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Ever watch friends? 6 white people sitting around a coffee shop talking about their problems. If I was black I would probably hate the show cause I can't relate to sitting with 6 white people in a coffee shop talking about their problems. That show is basically the model for all other network sitcoms.

really?? wasn't there a joke that WB was basically a black network?? Cosby Show and hits spin offs were huge. there have been more than a few black shows.

It seems to me that if discrimination against black people does exist, the entertainment industry is where it is least visible.

The WB lineup probably includes a higher percentage of "black" entertainment than other networks, however it is still dominated by shows such as Smallville, Gilmore Girls, Dawson's Creek, etc. Sure the Cosby Show, its spinoffs, the Bernie Mac show, and others were popular on major networks, but these shows probably make up no more than 5% of the network's programming.

I don't see it as discrimination, there are different markets available, and like any other business television will exploit as many as possible. One small market is for "black programming", that is why there is BET. The other networks are not called WET simply because there are so many, and there needs to be other ways to distinguish them from each other.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I think the biggest issue regarding the things you listed are that one group is a minority (who up until very recently did not posess the same rights as the majority).

That's bigger bullsh|t than race-specific entertainment. Blacks have had "white rights" if that's what you wish to call them for decades.

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Just a reminder: the mods are probably watching this thread like hawks. Let's keep it civil.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I agree with the intent of the article, and have another blurb...

There are a large number of very wealthy black families, and they've pulled off a great trick, they've convinced the world that they don't exist...

The large personal fortunes of a few free blacks in the Deep South permitted them to own slaves. By 1830 13,000 black slaves were owned by nearly 4,000 free blacks. Many bought slaves in an effort to protect family members, but others sought to expand personal fortunes. By 1860 free blacks in the Deep South owned an estimated $9 million worth of property, more than most Southern whites and nine times as much as free Northern blacks.

Ripped from africana.com

IMHO, seperationism in any form is bad.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
history in schools is usually the story of a bunch of white people. its eurocentric up until about 1815 (gotta get napoleon in) then switches over to a patriotic hit parade. then they talk about a few notable black people, usually ending the lesson with MLK/1960s things at the very end of the year. but you don't get things like the cultural revolutions of harlem and jazz or things like that.

Are you serious? This is just laughable. I hear this alot about how there needs to be more blacks taught in history class. Heck - let's just make some up! Let's face the facts. There is a LOT of history. People devote their lives to being historians and they are only experts in a small fraction of events that occured in the past. Schools need to choose to teach topics which are of importance. Important wars, people, and other events are what need to be taught. There simply aren't many blacks that had worldly important roles in the past. This is largely due to how blacks were suppressed in the past in many places. Why is there the "need" to add more blacks to history lessons? I want my child to learn how the world worked and why it is the way it is today in history class. I don't want him to learn fluffy history just because it involves more blacks. Which is more important? The development of Europe during the industrial revolution, or harlem and jazz turning big? Think about it. Try to look past color.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

I think the biggest issue regarding the things you listed are that one group is a minority (who up until very recently did not posess the same rights as the majority).

That's bigger bullsh|t than race-specific entertainment. Blacks have had "white rights" if that's what you wish to call them for decades.

nik

agreeing with nik

 

[bGIveNs33]

What about slave reparations? Does anyone think african-americans should get those? And if I'm from Africa, but caucasian, do I still qualify as an African-American?

-Billy

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Those advertizers would be boycotted and shunned by the black community

why would that matter, if they were the minority? It's all about being scared to tell someone to their face that they expect too much.

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
What about slave reparations? Does anyone think african-americans should get those? And if I'm from Africa, but caucasian, do I still qualify as an African-American?

-Billy

Maybe reparations should be made to those slaves that are still alive since it happened ONLY TO THEM, but not to anyone else.

Hell, do I go complain to the Russian government that I deserve sh|tloads of money from them because my great-grandfathers (I dunno how many "greats" but it's up there) were a personal guard to the last royal family (and thus considered family) and one of the higher ranking generals in the Russian army (either that or the personal iron-worker for the royal family, making custom swords for them - it's in family despute) because I'm "related" to them and we were run out of the country by the revolution? My great aunt has one of the last oil paintings of the last royal family with both of my great grandfathers next to them

No.

It didn't happen to me.

The idea of reparations made to blacks now is rediculous. :|

 

[Pooteh]

because its your duty to patronize the inferior. :Q

 

[roncarter]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Why is it that B.E.T. exists and no White Entertainment Television exists because it's racist??
Why is it that Black History Month exists, but no White History Month exists because it's racist??
Why is it that there's so much black pride existing and acceptable, but no white pride existing because it's racist??

Now, I'm when I say "white pride," I'm not talking about anti-black. When I say White Entertainment, I'm not talking about anti-black. If other races can get away with having anti-everything-else, why are whites accused of being racist if they do the same thing??

Honestly, it's just a simple question. I'm not trying to start anything. What would you think if such white "services" existed?

Im not white, but I ask the same exact questions that you do. I really think its a bunch of bull cr@p when blacks start saying that EVERYTHING is RACIST!! I HATE IT!! They need to get over it