Would WET be considered racist?

[LostHiWay]

I was just thinking about this. If there was a TV station call "White Entertainment Television" (WET) it would be called racist. Yet we have BET and it's not.

Kinda seems unfair

 

[Piano Man]

I believe WET is also known as TNN and CMT

 

[thereds]

w3rd

 

[LostHiWay]

hehe....very true

 

[Modeps]

I thought it stood for Womens Entertainment Television ... hehe.. .WET! WOO

 

[Ns1]

lol @piano man

 

[Beau]

<< I believe WET is also known as TNN and CMT >>

lol

Actually, it probably would fly. Just with a lot of scrutiny. Though many people will argue that most of the networks on tv are predominantly white, none of them proclaim to be white only, like Black Starz and the likes.

 

[prodigy]

<< I believe WET is also known as TNN and CMT >>

 

[luv2chill]

dingdingdingdingding!

Piano Man is the winner!!!

LostHiWay, thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts....

l2c

 

[brxndxn]

The idea of a black-only network is stupid. Black people watch Friends.. White people watch Fresh Prince - who gives a fvck what network they're on...

Culture shouldn't be based on skin color. I know white people that are blacker than most black people.

 

[notfred]

Any TV network called WET wouldn't be considered racist, it'd be considered porn.

 

[jjones]

i'd prefer a tv station called LET.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< The idea of a black-only network is stupid. >>


Tell that to the Latinos, Arabs, Koreans, Russians, etc. that all have their own cable/air channels around here. Is it stupid because you feel it is not revelent to you?

 

[geno]

<< Would WET be considered racist? >>


No, it would be considered redundant, we already have TNN.

 

[Maetryx]

I think it would be totally appropriate to have a European American (aka white) channel. I think the denial of the existence of white culture and white interests is harmful to the white race.

Whites are socially limited to multiculturalism and tolerance, the background matrix in which minority groups form cohesive racial identities. I think the shrill objections to white solidarity stem from a basic understanding that the various racial gaps would become glaring chasms of separation if the shrinking white majority became a cohesive group.

 

[minendo]

WET would be a great name for a porn channel

 

[geno]

I'm actually curious to know what would be on this channel that would make it so different from any other channel out there?

 

[lo5750ul]

<< Tell that to the Latinos, Arabs, Koreans, Russians, etc. that all have their own cable/air channels around here. Is it stupid because you feel it is not revelent to you? >>



mithrandir2001,

I have not yet made my decision on which side I fall on in this discussion, but I would like to point out the difference between having a television station based on your nationality and a television station based on your skin colour.

From what I can gather (and anyone please correct me if I am wrong) BET's programming is solely shows whose lead characters and stars are negro. Therefore there is no reason why there can not be a WET station whose programming consists solely of shows whose lead characters and stars are caucasian.

I do not know what stance TNN and CMT have on their programming.

 

[rml]

<< WET would be a great name for a porn channel >>



and they should get the domain name as www.wet.cum

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< I have not yet made my decision on which side I fall on in this discussion, but I would like to point out the difference between having a television station based on your nationality and a television station based on your skin colour. >>


Then consider BET a station for the African nationality if skin color is too polar of a characteristic. It's legitimate because the station covers programming that lies outside of the mainstream.

Would a "White Entertainment Television" station be racist? From a legal standpoint, probably not, though you'd wonder what's the purpose. I'd venture that minority populations are more close to their fellow members than majority populations. This may be a poor analogy, but consider OJ Simpson. I recall polls indicated that 90%+ of the black population thought OJ was innocent in his trial. Now, suppose OJ was white. Do you think 90% of the white population would feel he was innocent? I don't think so. I believe that the black population identfied with OJ because of their day-to-day struggles with police injustice, irregardless Simpson's guilt or innocence. But police injustice is something that the majority typically doesn't have to overcome. It's two different experiences.

Although I am caucasian, I would probably be embarrassed if they established a "WET" channel. This has nothing to do with shame or heritage, but rather that such a station would miss the point of why demographically-oriented stations exists. The caucasian population is too generic and too mainstream for a targetted station.

 

[KatLei]

Gee.. then why don't we just have AET (Asian Entertainment Television), HET (Hispanic Entertainment Television), etc...

 

[TheBlondOne]

Would a "White Entertainment Television" station be racist? From a legal standpoint, probably not, though you'd wonder what's the purpose. I'd venture that minority populations are more close to their fellow members than majority populations. This may be a poor analogy, but consider OJ Simpson. I recall polls indicated that 90%+ of the black population thought OJ was innocent in his trial. Now, suppose OJ was white. Do you think 90% of the white population would feel he was innocent? I don't think so. I believe that the black population identfied with OJ because of their day-to-day struggles with police injustice, irregardless Simpson's guilt or innocence. But police injustice is something that the majority typically doesn't have to overcome. It's two different experiences.

Although I am caucasian, I would probably be embarrassed if they established a "WET" channel. This has nothing to do with shame or heritage, but rather that such a station would miss the point of why demographically-oriented stations exists. The caucasian population is too generic and too mainstream for a targetted station.



I couldn't have explained how I feel any better. Here here!

--Sarah

 

[Mustangrrl]

I think the whole point of creating BET is that without it, and now WB which has many shows with African-American/Black entertainers, there would be no people of color on television. We don't need WET because it already exists--every major television channel in the United States. Just because the "white" part isn't explicitly advertised, doesn't mean that's not what it was.
~robyn

 

[killface]

<< I'm actually curious to know what would be on this channel that would make it so different from any other channel out there? >>



Exactly.
Well, with the exception of WB, most channels have a disproportionate (with respect to US population) number of shows featuring whites. I don't think I've ever seen a black person on "Friends" or "Frasier" as well as many other shows. Even "The Simpsons" only has 1 black guy per 20 or so white people (Springfield must be in the mid-west j/k)

 

[lo5750ul]

<< ... most channels have a disproportionate (with respect to US population) number of shows featuring whites. I don't think I've ever seen a black person on "Friends" >>

What are the U.S. racial demographics? Btw, there was a big thing in the news about Friends and they had a negro woman in the last series.