Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on August 01, 2013, 09:19:28 PM
-
The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled an established White Student Union in Maryland has a hate group... lol
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/freshman-starts-informal-white-student-union-at-ge/nY887/
‘White Student Union’ started at Georgia State
Freshman Patrick Sharp said he started the club so that students of European and Euro-American descent can celebrate their shared history and culture and discuss issues that affect white people, such as immigration and affirmative action.
Sharp, who is from Birmingham, Ala., enrolled this summer. Six students complained to the university after seeing his fliers around campus, said Doug Covey, vice president for student affairs. Covey said he responded to each by explaining he group is within its right to exist and that speech is protected even if offensive to someone.
-
I love how it's only racist if whites do it... WTF? You can tune to TV anytime of day and find exclusive shit for other races but don't you dare bitch about it. Any other race or creed, go for it... If you're white, shut your fucking mouth.
Would anybody say anything about a Latino Students Union or Black Student's Union? No, they already have that kind of shit. If you're white, fuck you... YOU WHITEY, by default are not allowed to do jack shit with each other without being a RACIST!!!!
Oh, you're not a racist you say, too bad dickhead, you're still not allowed to form racist organizations like blacks and Latinos can. ::) Why? Because the media and gov says so....
What are they doing by doing this? Yup... Turning people on all sides that were not racist into racists. NICE JOB IDIOTS.
-
When I attended college there was the AHANA organization for asian and hispanic students. The blacks had their own organization.
Why is it wrong for white students to have their own union? It isn't and this is coming from a hispanic.
-
They need it now more than ever. White culture is being exterminated. In the old days whites held minority groups back. Now minorities of every kind are making the rules of society and white heterosexual males have a target on their backs. They better wise up and start standing up for themselves or they are going to get trampled.
-
I love how it's only racist if whites do it... WTF? You can tune to TV anytime of day and find exclusive shit for other races but don't you dare bitch about it. Any other race or creed, go for it... If you're white, shut your fucking mouth.
Would anybody say anything about a Latino Students Union or Black Student's Union? No, they already have that kind of shit. If you're white, fuck you... YOU WHITEY, by default are not allowed to do jack shit with each other without being a RACIST!!!!
Oh, you're not a racist you say, too bad dickhead, you're still not allowed to form racist organizations like blacks and Latinos can. ::) Why? Because the media and gov says so....
What are they doing by doing this? Yup... Turning people on all sides that were not racist into racists. NICE JOB IDIOTS.
Western culture is white by default. The "exclusive shit" for minority groups is a result of how exclusionary mainstream society is.
-
Western culture is white by default. The "exclusive shit" for minority groups is a result of how exclusionary mainstream society is.
lmfao what exactly about mainstream society is discriminatory against minorities?
-
lmfao what exactly about mainstream society is discriminatory against minorities?
I said exclusionary.
-
I said exclusionary.
to exclude is to discriminate against those that you exclude...
if you feel that mainstream media excludes minorities, ::) please do explain in what areas and how.
-
to exclude is to discriminate against those that you exclude...
This is wrong, but it would be pointless to try to explain why to someone who thinks "fundy libtard" is something that makes sense.
if you feel that mainstream media excludes minorities, ::) please do explain in what areas and how.
I've used these examples before, on this forum, but let's start with some popular tv shows:
First, there's "Girls". A show that received a ton of attention the last two years and landed its star and creator a slew of magazine covers and the moniker "Voice of a generation". She also received a fair amount of criticism because the show is filmed and takes place in NY, yet rarely features any minorities, much less has a minority starring or supporting character. When she addressed the criticism, she said she didn't know how to write for black characters.
Matthew Weiner, head writer and executive producer of "Mad Men", might have the same problem. The hit show manages to almost never feature minorities with the exception of a black, female secretary who pops up a few times a season and has no storyline. It's convenient that she pops up 3 or 4 times a season, as the show is a period piece that takes place during the civil rights movement.
Some have said that maybe the time period and setting is a reasonable explanation as to why "Mad Men" features so few minorities. Yet, another massive AMC hit, "The Walking Dead", takes place in the present- in Atlanta of all places- yet manages to keep its selection of minorities as scant as possible. There is the stalwart Asian character, whose been with the show since the beginning and what seems to be a revolving door of a maximum of 2 black characters who can be featured in storylines at any given point. Which is actually a recent improvement, as the rotating, disposable black characters weren't really featured in any storylines until the third season of the show.And this is actually a DEVIATION from the source material. Interestingly enough, this American produced show that takes place in Atlanta included four white British actors in major roles during the last season.
"Game of Thrones" , a show about the magical forces that transpire in non-existent kingdoms on an alternate world, is a show that sticks to "realism" when it comes to race. Outside of a race of swarthy barbarians (none of whom rise to the level of supporting player, even) almost the entire show is cast white. Which, really, why wouldn't it be? ::)
So, those are just a few examples. I eagerly await your "rebuttle", which will no doubt start with "lol" and end without making any sense.
-
This is wrong, but it would be pointless to try to explain why to someone who thinks "fundy libtard" is something that makes sense.
I've used these examples before, on this forum, but let's start with some popular tv shows:
First, there's "Girls". A show that received a ton of attention the last two years and landed its star and creator a slew of magazine covers and the moniker "Voice of a generation". She also received a fair amount of criticism because the show is filmed and takes place in NY, yet rarely features any minorities, much less has a minority starring or supporting character. When she addressed the criticism, she said she didn't know how to write for black characters.
Matthew Weiner, head writer and executive producer of "Mad Men", might have the same problem. The hit show manages to almost never feature minorities with the exception of a black, female secretary who pops up a few times a season and has no storyline. It's convenient that she pops up 3 or 4 times a season, as the show is a period piece that takes place during the civil rights movement.
Some have said that maybe the time period and setting is a reasonable explanation as to why "Mad Men" features so few minorities. Yet, another massive AMC hit, "The Walking Dead", takes place in the present- in Atlanta of all places- yet manages to keep its selection of minorities as scant as possible. There is the stalwart Asian character, whose been with the show since the beginning and what seems to be a revolving door of a maximum of 2 black characters who can be featured in storylines at any given point. Which is actually a recent improvement, as the rotating, disposable black characters weren't really featured in any storylines until the third season of the show.And this is actually a DEVIATION from the source material. Interestingly enough, this American produced show that takes place in Atlanta included four white British actors in major roles during the last season.
"Game of Thrones" , a show about the magical forces that transpire in non-existent kingdoms on an alternate world, is a show that sticks to "realism" when it comes to race. Outside of a race of swarthy barbarians (none of whom rise to the level of supporting player, even) almost the entire show is cast white. Which, really, why wouldn't it be? ::)
So, those are just a few examples. I eagerly await your "rebuttle", which will no doubt start with "lol" and end without making any sense.
wow. You really showed him. /sarcasm
-
First, there's "Girls". A show that received a ton of attention the last two years and landed its star and creator a slew of magazine covers and the moniker "Voice of a generation". She also received a fair amount of criticism because the show is filmed and takes place in NY, yet rarely features any minorities, much less has a minority starring or supporting character. When she addressed the criticism, she said she didn't know how to write for black characters.
Matthew Weiner, head writer and executive producer of "Mad Men", might have the same problem. The hit show manages to almost never feature minorities with the exception of a black, female secretary who pops up a few times a season and has no storyline. It's convenient that she pops up 3 or 4 times a season, as the show is a period piece that takes place during the civil rights movement.
Some have said that maybe the time period and setting is a reasonable explanation as to why "Mad Men" features so few minorities. Yet, another massive AMC hit, "The Walking Dead", takes place in the present- in Atlanta of all places- yet manages to keep its selection of minorities as scant as possible. There is the stalwart Asian character, whose been with the show since the beginning and what seems to be a revolving door of a maximum of 2 black characters who can be featured in storylines at any given point. Which is actually a recent improvement, as the rotating, disposable black characters weren't really featured in any storylines until the third season of the show.And this is actually a DEVIATION from the source material. Interestingly enough, this American produced show that takes place in Atlanta included four white British actors in major roles during the last season.
"Game of Thrones" , a show about the magical forces that transpire in non-existent kingdoms on an alternate world, is a show that sticks to "realism" when it comes to race. Outside of a race of swarthy barbarians (none of whom rise to the level of supporting player, even) almost the entire show is cast white. Which, really, why wouldn't it be? ::)
So, those are just a few examples. I eagerly await your "rebuttle", which will no doubt start with "lol" and end without making any sense.
Are you crazy? haha...
-
wow. You really showed him. /sarcasm
But I did, though ;)
Feel free to elaborate. I'm guessing you're in the "four examples don't prove anything" camp?
-
Networks produce content that sells. If shows with more blacks or black centric attracted viewers and thus more advertising, the airways would be filled with them. You only have to look at the music industry to prove this is true. Rap music by black entertainers sells therefore record companies release a ton of it.
This is the distinction between traditionally white owned networks and black centric entertainment networks like BET. BET is intentionally racially exclusionary while the other is not exclusionary because their main goal is profit not race. Also, privately owned television networks and film studios shouldn't be obligated to be fair. They are in the business of making money, not soothing hurt feelings or fighting for social justice.
-
wow, albert first your argue that obamacare isnt bad for the economy and now this....
-
Networks produce content that sells. If shows with more blacks or black centric attracted viewers and thus more advertising, the airways would be filled with them. You only have to look at the music industry to prove this is true. Rap music by black entertainers sells therefore record companies release a ton of it.
So, in other words, mainstream media is white by default ::)
-
So, those are just a few examples. I eagerly await your "rebuttle", which will no doubt start with "lol" and end without making any sense.
Blacks are roughly 13% of the population in the USA. Since you are using television shows as the basis of your argument you might be interested to know that they are actually over-represented there.
-
This is wrong, but it would be pointless to try to explain why to someone who thinks "fundy libtard" is something that makes sense.
I've used these examples before, on this forum, but let's start with some popular tv shows:
First, there's "Girls". A show that received a ton of attention the last two years and landed its star and creator a slew of magazine covers and the moniker "Voice of a generation". She also received a fair amount of criticism because the show is filmed and takes place in NY, yet rarely features any minorities, much less has a minority starring or supporting character. When she addressed the criticism, she said she didn't know how to write for black characters.
Matthew Weiner, head writer and executive producer of "Mad Men", might have the same problem. The hit show manages to almost never feature minorities with the exception of a black, female secretary who pops up a few times a season and has no storyline. It's convenient that she pops up 3 or 4 times a season, as the show is a period piece that takes place during the civil rights movement.
Some have said that maybe the time period and setting is a reasonable explanation as to why "Mad Men" features so few minorities. Yet, another massive AMC hit, "The Walking Dead", takes place in the present- in Atlanta of all places- yet manages to keep its selection of minorities as scant as possible. There is the stalwart Asian character, whose been with the show since the beginning and what seems to be a revolving door of a maximum of 2 black characters who can be featured in storylines at any given point. Which is actually a recent improvement, as the rotating, disposable black characters weren't really featured in any storylines until the third season of the show.And this is actually a DEVIATION from the source material. Interestingly enough, this American produced show that takes place in Atlanta included four white British actors in major roles during the last season.
"Game of Thrones" , a show about the magical forces that transpire in non-existent kingdoms on an alternate world, is a show that sticks to "realism" when it comes to race. Outside of a race of swarthy barbarians (none of whom rise to the level of supporting player, even) almost the entire show is cast white. Which, really, why wouldn't it be? ::)
So, those are just a few examples. I eagerly await your "rebuttle", which will no doubt start with "lol" and end without making any sense.
ever stop to think that the majority of ppl who subscribe to cable and other movie channels are guess what? WHITE???
they arent excluding blacks or minorities on the basis or race you moron they are giving the CUSTOMERS what they want.
If their main customer base was black they would show more blacks, this isnt exclusionary based on race although I can understand how a simpleton who is looking for racism at every corner would jump to that conclusion.
::) yet another swing and a miss
-
Blacks are roughly 13% of the population in the USA. Since you are using television shows as the basis of your argument you might be interested to know that they are actually over-represented there.
hahah YOU FUCKING QUIT MAKING LOGICAL POINTS RACIST PRICK!!!!!!
-
So, in other words, mainstream media is white by default ::)
Yes, it is but that wasn't my point.
-
Networks produce content that sells. If shows with more blacks or black centric attracted viewers and thus more advertising, the airways would be filled with them. You only have to look at the music industry to prove this is true. Rap music by black entertainers sells therefore record companies release a ton of it.
This is the distinction between traditionally white owned networks and black centric entertainment networks like BET. BET is intentionally racially exclusionary while the other is not exclusionary because their main goal is profit not race. Also, privately owned television networks and film studios shouldn't be obligated to be fair. They are in the business of making money, not soothing hurt feelings or fighting for social justice.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Until these capitalist pigs are ousted, this is what we are left with.
-
Blacks are roughly 13% of the population in the USA. Since you are using television shows as the basis of your argument you might be interested to know that they are actually over-represented there.
Goes to show that most people can not conceive what being fair really means. It's not fifty-fifty.
-
The White Student Union should perform a semantic inversion of the C-word in order to agitate its conventional meaning as used by blacks. In other words, in order to diminish the nefarious connotations of the C-word, whites should appropriate the word 'cracker,' with all its encoded anti-white inflammatory meaning, and embrace their own use of the derivate term 'cracka,' with a very distinct semantic value.
Instead of connoting such former negative associations as, among other terms and phrases, 'slave master,' 'white devil,' and 'peckerwood,' the term 'cracka' can be newly encoded by whites with a description such as 'member of the group that gave the modern world its most awesome intellectual and cultural advances, not to mention fair eyes, silky, long-flowing hair, and Doctor Who.'
If armed with the proper socio-cultural keys of semiotic interpretation, in-group members, i.e, wonderful white people, can execute a revolutionary semantic inversion of the C-word from its not-so-wonderful black-encoded meaning that can serve to instill in-group feelings of rightful dignity and pride, while the continued use of the C-word by out-group members, i.e., non-white stinkards, would be abysmally insensitive, inappropriate, and outlawed.
-
"The Walking Dead", takes place in the present- in Atlanta of all places- yet manages to keep its selection of minorities as scant as possible. There is the stalwart Asian character, whose been with the show since the beginning and what seems to be a revolving door of a maximum of 2 black characters who can be featured in storylines at any given point. Which is actually a recent improvement, as the rotating, disposable black characters weren't really featured in any storylines until the third season of the show.And this is actually a DEVIATION from the source material. Interestingly enough, this American produced show that takes place in Atlanta included four white British actors in major roles during the last season.
PS the walking dead doesnt take place in atlanta, it spent a few episodes of the first season in atlanta. Dont even take into account that the majority of characters where from the SUBURBS of Atlanta and only went to the city b/c they heard there was a safe zone with medical treatment in atlanta.
dont take into account that the main character was actually saved by two blacks, that there is a black, asian, 3 indian and a hispanic character in the first season you seem to want to bitch about.
-
Goes to show that most people can not conceive what being fair really means. It's not fifty-fifty.
goes to show you most ppl who cry racism dont actually recognize racism when its in their face.
I bet albert believes the zimmerman case was about race as well ::)
-
PS the walking dead doesnt take place in atlanta, it spent a few episodes of the first season in atlanta. Dont even take into account that the majority of characters where from the SUBURBS of Atlanta and only went to the city b/c they heard there was a safe zone with medical treatment in atlanta.
dont take into account that the main character was actually saved by two blacks, that there is a black, asian, 3 indian and a hispanic character in the first season you seem to want to bitch about.
And you might argue that minorities in urban centers would be the first to go because of the high population density. Again, none of this matters because the writers are under no obligation to include minority characters if they don't want to.
-
ever stop to think that the majority of ppl who subscribe to cable and other movie channels are guess what? WHITE???
they arent excluding blacks or minorities on the basis or race you moron they are giving the CUSTOMERS what they want.
If their main customer base was black they would show more blacks, this isnt exclusionary based on race although I can understand how a simpleton who is looking for racism at every corner would jump to that conclusion.
::) yet another swing and a miss
Retardo.... how exactly does this disprove that white is the default in mainstream society? It doesn't .IT PROVES IT . You will always be you. ::)
-
And you might argue that minorities in urban centers would be the first to go because of the high population density. Again, none of this matters because the writers are under no obligation to include minority characters if they don't want to.
Rick was actually saved by a black father and his son in the first few episodes. The mother/wife also makes an apperance for a few episodes as well.
The father comes back to play a role in season 3 for a few episodes. There are multiple blacks and hispanics in the woodbury, michonne the sword carrying bad ass. Obviously albert is just parroting some race baiting bull shit he overheard somewhere anyone who has seen the walking dead can call his bullshit out a mile away
-
Yes, it is but that wasn't my point.
Well, you responded to me, and that was my point. ;)
-
Blacks are roughly 13% of the population in the USA. Since you are using television shows as the basis of your argument you might be interested to know that they are actually over-represented there.
This actually isn't ture. It was true during a brief period, near the turn of the century, largely because the WB network and UPN both existed and they both attempted to grow their viewership by focusing on a virtually ignored demographic. However, those two networks don't exist in the same way anymore and that statistic is no longer true about network tv.
-
Retardo.... how exactly does this disprove that white is the default in mainstream society? It doesn't .IT PROVES IT . You will always be you. ::)
This is like going to an italian restaraunt and complaining b/c they dont have thai food....something Im beginning to believe you probably do on a regular basis
-
This actually isn't ture. It was true during a brief period, near the turn of the century, largely because the WB network and UPN both existed and they both attempted to grow their viewership by focusing on a virtually ignored demographic. However, those two networks don't exist in the same way anymore and that statistic is no longer true about network tv.
They don't exist because their viewership was low. Low viewers means no advertising dollars, the life blood of television. Its all dollars and cents.
-
This actually isn't ture. It was true during a brief period, near the turn of the century, largely because the WB network and UPN both existed and they both attempted to grow their viewership by focusing on a virtually ignored demographic. However, those two networks don't exist in the same way anymore and that statistic is no longer true about network tv.
actually its a little less than 13%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
Americans
308,745,538
100.0 %
White or European American
223,553,265
72.4 %
Black or African American
38,929,319
12.6 %
Asian American
14,674,252
4.8 %
American Indian or Alaska Native
2,932,248
0.9 %
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
540,013
0.2 %
-
I firmly believe that most of the average citizens in the USA, while still having small biases and some interspersed ignorance, are completely through with racism for racism's sake. Most reasonable adults in this country just want to get along with their neighbors, work and raise their families. It's the Jessie Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of the world that refuse to allow this because it would mean that they would be out of a job. They need to pretend that we are still living in a world that is institutionally racist even though there is a mountain of evidence that refutes that position.
-
This is like going to an italian restaraunt and complaining b/c they dont have thai food....something Im beginning to believe you probably do on a regular basis
No, it isn't. You are an idiot. You cannot keep track of more than one line of thought.
If we live in a society that is white by default, then there is a HUGE difference between a white student union and a black student union
I cannot believe how dumb you are..
-
No, it isn't. You are an idiot. You cannot keep track of more than one line of thought.
If we live in a society that is white by default, then there is a HUGE difference between a white student union and a black student union
I cannot believe how dumb you are..
said the race baiting hate monger!!!
-
so albert you feel that 13% of blacks in tv shows is not enough....the are grossly overrepresnted in the walking dead
-
No, it isn't. You are an idiot. You cannot keep track of more than one line of thought.
If we live in a society that is white by default, then there is a HUGE difference between a white student union and a black student union
I cannot believe how dumb you are..
No, there isn't. First of all, white students should have the right to promote their own interests without the fear of social pressure. Further more, groups that are largely white, are not formed on the basis of being white but around a common interest outside of race. Most importantly they are not intentionally exclusionary based on race. Black campus groups are intentionally exclusionary. I couldn't join one if I wanted to.
-
And you might argue that minorities in urban centers would be the first to go because of the high population density. Again, none of this matters because the writers are under no obligation to include minority characters if they don't want to.
you know whats funny is that if all the zombies in atlanta had been black albert would have been one of those morons yelling racism...to fuking funny man
-
oh yea dont forget about the nursing home full of vato's who in atlanta during the first season...
-
This actually isn't ture. It was true during a brief period, near the turn of the century, largely because the WB network and UPN both existed and they both attempted to grow their viewership by focusing on a virtually ignored demographic. However, those two networks don't exist in the same way anymore and that statistic is no longer true about network tv.
I question if you own a television or have turned it on in the last 20 years. Television programs are spearheading the social engineering movement. They go out of their way to show a diverse group of characters even when it paints a less than realistic picture of the world that we live in.
-
So, in other words, mainstream media is white by default ::)
:D
-
you know whats funny is that if all the zombies in atlanta had been black albert would have been one of those morons yelling racism...to fuking funny man
It seems like its never enough for some people. I remember when Resident Evil 5 came out and black people were complaining for just that reason. The game was set in an African country and the zombies were black. Capcom ended up changing the game to add more non-black zombies.
-
I question if you own a television or have turned it on in the last 20 years. Television programs are spearheading the social engineering movement. They go out of their way to show a diverse group of characters even when it paints a less than realistic picture of the world that we live in.
he thought your 13% number was from the turn of the century!!!!
this retard is fucking clueless
-
In other words
hahahahahaha!!!!!! Very considerate of you to break it down for getbig!!
;D ;D
Let the healing begin!!!!!!!
-
Ma cracka!
Takin the word back from hateful raciss like Rachel Jaintaile.............. :D
-
No, there isn't. First of all, white students should have the right to promote their own interests without the fear of social pressure. Further more, groups that are largely white, are not formed on the basis of being white but around a common interest outside of race.
Yes, there is. Whether or not majority White groups are formed on the basis of race, the fact that they are ultimately almost exclusively white is the issue.
Most importantly they are not intentionally exclusionary based on race. Black campus groups are intentionally exclusionary. I couldn't join one if I wanted to.
Yes, you could. I'm assuming you never went to college, or at least college in America, but student unions often have members of different races. They are not exclusionary. They are inclusionary. This isn't even a matter of semantics.
-
he thought your 13% number was from the turn of the century!!!!
this retard is fucking clueless
Your stupidity knows no bounds. It's very clear from that post, that I was saying the "overrepresentation" of blacks on network tv is no longer true, not that the population of blacks has changed.
-
Yes, there is. Whether or not majority White groups are formed on the basis of race, the fact that they are ultimately almost exclusively white is the issue.
Yes, you could. I'm assuming you never went to college, or at least college in America, but student unions often have members of different races. They are not exclusionary. They are inclusionary. This isn't even a matter of semantics.
so by that same logic the nba and nfl are exclusionary against whites?
I mean they pick players on athletic ability but the leagues are predominately black so...::)
what a fuking moron
-
Your stupidity knows no bounds. It's very clear from that post, that I was saying the "overrepresentation" of blacks on network tv is no longer true, not that the population of blacks has changed.
LOL so you think that blacks make up less than 12.3 percent of the actors on tv?
-
African American people are over represented in every aspect of life, it's not even worth arguing about it's so blatant.
From college, sports, entertainment, etc...
Thanks for derailing my thread by the way..... >:( >:( >:( >:( ;D
-
It's bad enough that 1/10 people are black, without all these efforts to bring them out of the proverbial woodwork even more. :-\
-
so by that same logic the nba and nfl are exclusionary against whites?
I mean they pick players on athletic ability but the leagues are predominately black so...::)
what a fuking moron
Once again, inability to follow a point. We don't live in a society in which the default is white. Both leagues have majority white owners and coaches. What do you even think you are talking about?
-
Yes, there is. Whether or not majority White groups are formed on the basis of race, the fact that they are ultimately almost exclusively white is the issue.
They are not formed specifically for a particular race nor are they exclusionary based on race either, at least not in the same way minority groups are. They may be exclusionary based on economic or social status but not intentionally by race. Minority groups are and yet they receive no social pressure for greater diversity. Considering that most blacks grow up in black neighborhoods, I think it would be good for black groups to be more inclusive and less racially isolationist.
-
African American people are over represented in every aspect of life, it's not even worth arguing about it's so blatant.
From college, sports, entertainment, etc...
Thanks for derailing my thread by the way..... >:( >:( >:( >:( ;D
Your posts in this thread have been worthless... including the opening post. Beat it!
-
(http://livingcivil.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/red-tails02.jpg)
BET Awards, nominated for Best Movie
NAACP Image Award, won for Outstanding Motion Picture and Outstanding Independent Motion Picture.
Budget: $58 million.
Box Office: $50 million
;D
Waiting on Al Doggity to comment......
-
They are not formed specifically for a particular race nor are they exclusionary based on race either, at least not in the same way minority groups are. They may be exclusionary based on economic or social status but not intentionally by race. Minority groups are and yet they receive no social pressure for greater diversity. Considering that most blacks grow up in black neighborhoods, I think it would be good for black groups to be more inclusive and less racially isolationist.
That is major point of most ethnic student unions.
-
Once again, inability to follow a point. We don't live in a society in which the default is white. Both leagues have majority white owners and coaches. What do you even think you are talking about?
ahhh so you pick and choose which areas to highlight and which ones to ignore...I see how you come the ignorant conclusions you do....
I bet your probably upset that there werent any blacks in dancing with wolves too
-
We don't live in a society in which the default is white.
Western culture is white by default.
LOL Im sure you will tell us next that the US is not western culture
-
That is major point of most ethnic student unions.
Unfortunately they fail miserably. If the intention of a minority only organization is to broaden their exposure to various cultures, forming a group only with members like themselves and excluding everyone else is a poor way of going about it.
-
The solution is clear, the government should subsidize African American movies and TV shows to make them economically viable. Let's put an end to white privilege once and for all.
-
The solution is clear, the government should subsidize African American movies and TV shows to make them economically viable. Let's put an end to white privilege once and for all.
hahah you joke but there are morons out there probably championing this very idea...and there you will find albert along with andre and benny
-
hahah you joke but there are morons out there probably championing this very idea...and there you will find albert along with andre and benny
haha!!
I hope Albert gets Andre in here, this is entertaining. ;D
-
ahhh so you pick and choose which areas to highlight and which ones to ignore...I see how you come the ignorant conclusions you do....
I bet your probably upset that there werent any blacks in dancing with wolves too
No, it's just your examples are stupid. Everything I've said has been consistent.
-
Unfortunately they fail miserably. If the intention of a minority only organization is to broaden their exposure to various cultures, forming a group only with members like themselves and excluding everyone else is a poor way of going about it.
Student unions don't exclude people unlike their members. Female student unions have male members. Black student unions have white members. And almost all student unions co-mingle with others.
-
LOL Im sure you will tell us next that the US is not western culture
Oh, c'mon. That was clearly a typo. Even you have to be able to put 2+2 together in that instance. But I guess anything to grasp at, right ;)
-
Student unions don't exclude people unlike their members. Female student unions have male members. Black student unions have white members. And almost all student unions co-mingle with others.
Student Unions are really a collection of various organizations. While they do socialize in the same area, they are distinct groups differentiated by various interests, including race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. I was a member of an organization that met in the student union and I socialized with members of others groups but I was not a member of those groups.
-
Student Unions are really a collection of various organizations. While they do socialize in the same area, they are distinct groups differentiated by various interests, including race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. I was a member of an organization that met in the student union and I socialized with members of others groups but I was not a member of those groups.
??? I'm not saying you were a member of the groups you socialized with, I'm correcting the fallacy you've repeated several times that you wouldn't have been allowed to join a specific union based on race or sex. You don't have to be black to join a black student union. Being a certain race, gender or religion isn't a requirement to join a student union. And the various student unions intermingle, so even if the my previous statement wasn't so, they do encourage diversity.
-
No, it's just your examples are stupid. Everything I've said has been consistent.
so in your mind the nfl and nba are not exclusionary against white players?
-
??? I'm not saying you were a member of the groups you socialized with, I'm correcting the fallacy you've repeated several times that you wouldn't have been allowed to join a specific union based on race or sex. You don't have to be black to join a black student union. Being a certain race, gender or religion isn't a requirement to join a student union. And the various student unions intermingle, so even if the my previous statement wasn't so, they do encourage diversity.
I never mentioned student unions.
-
so in your mind the nfl and nba are not exclusionary against white players?
No, I don't.
-
No, I don't.
So if everyone can join any group they please, where are the white groups that exclude other people by race? Where are the white groups formed around the premise of being white? You said they existed.
-
I never mentioned student unions.
Then your reading comprehension skills could use work, because I have mentioned them several times, they are in the title of this thread and it is what this discussion is about.
-
So if everyone can join any group they please, where are the white groups that exclude other people by race? Where are the white groups formed around the premise of being white? You said they existed.
No, I didn't.
-
No, I didn't.
Im confused as to why you have a problem with white student unions.
-
No, I don't.
so the "mainstream media" is exclusionary by race even if the reason the exclude is not based on race but the NFL and NBA arent even though they do the same thing?
-
Im confused as to why you have a problem with white student unions.
haha!!
All that, and it turns out he doesn't really even have a problem with it. He was confused ;D
-
Quote from: Archer77 on Today at 07:56:56 PM
No, there isn't. First of all, white students should have the right to promote their own interests without the fear of social pressure. Further more, groups that are largely white, are not formed on the basis of being white but around a common interest outside of race.
Yes, there is. Whether or not majority White groups are formed on the basis of race, the fact that they are ultimately almost exclusively white is the issue.
Why is it an issue? Don't they have a right to associate and advocate for t heir interests?
-
Im confused as to why you have a problem with white student unions.
My first post in this thread was a reply to someone pointing out that using ethnocentric television to justify a white student group is asinine. There is no comparison. BET and Univision and the like exist because they focus on a demographic that would be completely ignored otherwise. Western culture is white by default.
-
Quote from: Archer77 on Today at 07:56:56 PM
No, there isn't. First of all, white students should have the right to promote their own interests without the fear of social pressure. Further more, groups that are largely white, are not formed on the basis of being white but around a common interest outside of race.
Why is it an issue? Don't they have a right to associate and advocate for t heir interests?
the issue being what the difference between a white student group and other type of student group is.
-
so the "mainstream media" is exclusionary by race even if the reason the exclude is not based on race but the NFL and NBA arent even though they do the same thing?
Oh, brother. You attempting logic again...
One of the reasons mainstream media use to exclude IS based on race.You admitted that.
NFL and NBA don't. They are two of the country's only true businiess meritocracies.
-
haha!!
All that, and it turns out he doesn't really even have a problem with it. He was confused ;D
I can see why you and McTardo get along so well...
-
I can see why you and McTardo get along so well...
Good come back broseph :D
-
My first post in this thread was a reply to someone pointing out that using ethnocentric television to justify a white student group is asinine. There is no comparison. BET and Univision and the like exist because they focus on a demographic that would be completely ignored otherwise. Western culture is white by default.
They are ignored not for racist reasons but because it is not profitable to invest large sums of money appealing to a small demographic. The amount of advertising dollars would not justify it. UPN is a prime example. UPN failed because not enough people were watching their minority centric shows and they couldn't generate any revenue. It's a mistake believe that a private company has any obligation to level the playing field. Equality is not their business, generating a profit is.
As I said, the distinction between BET and any other network is that BET is racially motivated, while the major networks are motivated by profit. Again, the music industry is a prime example of this works. Music by black artist sell well so record companies release a disproportionate number of works by black entertainments.
Blacks are represented well on television if you consider their actual percentage of the population. If you don't see as many minorities as you like, it may mean your conception of equality is skewered. It's a mistake to believe that equality means fifty-fifty. Also, equality doesn't mean that every situation requires the presence of a minority.
If you ever watch black-centric shows it is immediately apparent that whites and other minority are woefully underrepresented. Where are the whites and minorities? You'd think that black people being such a small portion of the population, would be encountering other groups of people quite frequently. Beyond the occasional white guest star or white/minority peripheral character-usual the focus of derision by the way- they are barely visible. I doubt you noticed this because you weren't looking for it.
-
As I said, the distinction between BET and any other network is that BET is racially motivated, while the major networks are motivated by profit. Again, the music industry is a prime example of this works. Music by black artist sell well so record companies release a disproportionate number of works by black entertainments.
There are a lot of factual errors in your last post. I don't really feel compelled to deal with most of them, but the one I will correct is the one I quoted, just because it's so blatantly wrong. BET is as much a profit driven business as any other network. The fact that its focus is a particular demographic doesn't change that. I'm tempted to deal with that music business comparison, but :-\
Still, the fact remains that Western society is white by default, which was my original statement and is not really debatable. Whether or not you feel this fact is justified by economics was not something I ever brought up. Just the fact that it was true and that a white student group has a completely different connotation.
-
Good come back broseph :D
8)
-
There are a lot of factual errors in your last post. I don't really feel compelled to deal with most of them, but the one I will correct is the one I quoted, just because it's so blatantly wrong. BET is as much a profit driven business as any other network. The fact that its focus is a particular demographic doesn't change that. I'm tempted to deal with that music business comparison, but :-\
Still, the fact remains that Western society is white by default, which was my original statement and is not really debatable. Whether or not you feel this fact is justified by economics was not something I ever brought up. Just the fact that it was true and that a white student group has a completely different connotation.
Whether BET is a profit driven organization is secondary to its main purpose and the reason it exists and was created, to promote blackness at the exclusion of others. It doesn't matter if every other network is white by default, it is not racial exclusionary by design, BET clearly is. BET doesn't have the same social pressure major networks to accurately represent other groups, thus, the limited diversity in black entertainment. This is the greater tragedy because the lack of diversity isolates black people within a very narrow social bubble.
A white student union has the connotation you give it based on your own preconception and bias. You falsely equating whiteness with racism, therefore, in your mind, the purpose of any group who identifies as white is innately racist or their aims are to undermine anyone who is not white. In a free society, whites should have the same right to celebrate and advocate the interest of their culture as any other group.
Again, networks are not obligated to right inequities and you should not feel entitled to demand change. They owe you nothing. What you want is fifty-fifty but unfortunately population demographics and economics will not allow this.
-
There are a lot of factual errors in your last post. I don't really feel compelled to deal with most of them, but the one I will correct is the one I quoted, just because it's so blatantly wrong. BET is as much a profit driven business as any other network. The fact that its focus is a particular demographic doesn't change that. I'm tempted to deal with that music business comparison, but :-\
Still, the fact remains that Western society is white by default, which was my original statement and is not really debatable. Whether or not you feel this fact is justified by economics was not something I ever brought up. Just the fact that it was true and that a white student group has a completely different connotation.
Westetn society is white by default but you can't assume this means western culture, or whites specifically, have any obligation to promote your interests at the expense of their own.
-
Whether BET is a profit driven organization is secondary to its main purpose and the reason it exists and was created, to promote blackness at the exclusion of others.
No,BET is a business. This is like saying McDonald's main purpose is to feed people and making a profit is secondary. Providing blackcentric entertainment IS the business model. They are not mutually exclusive goals.
It doesn't matter if every other network is white by default, it is not racial exclusionary by design, BET clearly is.
Yes, it does matter, we don't live in a cultural vacuum. The end result is what matters, and if there is a hole, someone enterprising will come along and fill it.
BET doesn't have the same social pressure major networks to accurately represent other groups, thus, the limited diversity in black entertainment. This is the greater tragedy because the lack of diversity isolates black people within a very narrow social bubble.
Wrong again. it's not a tragedy. Part of the music thing I didn't get into in the last post...Why do you think that is? Why do you think black music has become so popular over the last 20 years. A huge part of that was BET playing music that MTV wouldn't play.
A white student union has the connotation you give it based on your own preconception and bias. You falsely equating whiteness with racism, therefore, in your mind, the purpose of any group who identifies as white is innately racist or their aims are to undermine anyone who is not white. In a free society, whites should have the same right to celebrate and advocate the interest of their culture as any other group.
Again, networks are not obligated to right inequities and you should not feel entitled to demand change. They owe you nothing. What you want is fifty-fifty but unfortunately population demographics and economics will not allow this.
This is all stuff that you have imagined that has nothing to do with anything I've posted. Where did I mention racism? Where did I say that networks were obligated to "right inequities" or that they owe me anything? I have corrected a lot of your factual errors, but you are largely having an argument with yourself.
-
Yes, they are intending to make money but at the exclusion of others. It would be the equivalent of McDonald opening a black only restaurant.
It is a tragedy that blacks only value diversity when it benefits them. It demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for or interest in other cultures and perspectives, including other minorities and in particular women. The absence of diversity in black entertain, specifically positive and diverse representations of whites, other minority and especially women does create a cultural vacuum while simultaneously developing unhealthy preconceptions about non-blacks and woman. When such a person goes out into the world they will be severely handicapped by ignorance, bias and prejudice.
Black music has been popular for more than twenty years. The reason black music is popular is because people like it. In turn record companies provide it to the consumer in mass. If more people enjoyed black-centric television as they do black music, the networks would be tripping over each other to produce television content. This was my entire point of bringing up the comparison between the television and music industries.
Do believe that networks should be obligated to present a more diverse representation of demographics in the United States in order to promote equality? If you don't, why did you bring up television? You do not believe the under representation of blacks is based on economics. In your opinion, what else could it be? You’re obvious implying its racially motivated, which it clearly is not.
-
Yes, they are intending to make money but at the exclusion of others. It would be the equivalent of McDonald opening a black only restaurant.
No, it would be the equivalent opening up a restaurant that specialized in burgers- or Italian food. There is nothing stopping whites or any other race from watching BET. Many different ethnicities, do in fact, watch BET. Its programming keeps in mind what a black viewer would be interested in seeing and is not getting elsewhere, but no one is excluded from enjoying the content.
It is a tragedy that blacks only value diversity when it benefits them. It demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for or interest in other cultures and perspectives, including other minorities and in particular women. The absence of diversity in black entertain, specifically positive and diverse representations of whites, other minority and especially women does create a cultural vacuum while simultaneously developing unhealthy preconceptions about non-blacks and woman. When such a person goes out into the world they will be severely handicapped by ignorance, bias and prejudice.
LOL, yes because most black people only watch BET ::)
Black music has been popular for more than twenty years. The reason black music is popular is because people like it. In turn record companies provide it to the consumer in mass. If more people enjoyed black-centric television as they do black music, the networks would be tripping over each other to produce television content. This was my entire point of bringing up the comparison between the television and music industries.
There have always been popular hits by black musicians, but until about the mid-90s, popular music was highly segregated. Pop radio rarely played R&B, much less hip-hop. Mtv relegated hip-hop and r&b to weekly shows. BET's format was like 80% videos in the 80s and 90s and it was hugely culturally influential. It completely changed the way MTV and radio thought about their audiences. So, yes, the surge in popularity of black music is relatively recent and it is directly attributable to the existence of BET.
Do believe that networks should be obligated to present a more diverse representation of demographics in the United States in order to promote equality? If you don't, why did you bring up television? You do not believe the under representation of blacks is based on economics. In your opinion, what else could it be? You’re obvious implying its racially motivated, which it clearly is not.
I brought up television because it is the most obvious case of how American culture is white by default. The other stuff is your own deal, and it's not really logical to infer those things based on what I wrote. I never said, or even implied, that networks should be obligated to do anything or make any changes. I did say that networks do make decision based on race. If a network steers away from programming because the protagonists aren't white, then it is a racially motivated decision, regardless of whether or not economics comes into play. It's like saying a restaurant owner who doesn't hire an Indian waitress because he thought customers wouldn't be comfortable around a minority didn't make a decision based on race. Sure, economics was ONE of the factors, doesn't change the fact that it was a decision based on race. You can make the argument that the restaurant owner was just doing what he thought would appeal most to his customer base, doesn't change the fact that the young lady's race was a strike against her.
-
I brought up television because it is the most obvious case of how American culture is white by default.
America is white by default because whites have always been the majority.
Derp.
-
America is white by default because whites have always been the majority.
Derp.
This literally adds nothing to the conversation.
-
This literally adds nothing to the conversation.
Its not meant to do anything but point out much time you wasted arguing the obvious.
And your whole spiel about television is retarded. If you go by population percentage, then every show with 5 or 6 main characters would have 1 black character. (Which has been my experience at about every job I've ever worked at).
In my experience blacks tend to keep to their own social circles, they tend to live in the same neighborhoods, and they tend to work the same jobs. They exclude themselves, which is Archers point. But when white people do the same, they're called racist.
-
Its not meant to do anything but point out much time you wasted arguing the obvious.
Except that this is literally the point of my argument. ::)
-
I just wish there was a way that society could trade in all the Andres, Al Doggitys, and Blackens for Wiggins, Parkers, and McWays. :o
-
Al is a pretty good troll.
-
I'd even take a few Goodrums over a Benny Blanco ;D
-
This thread's showing signs of mild hypoglycemia, let's take a brief time out for some Sugar Shack.
(http://africanamericanblackgifts.com/catalog/images/wrbbarnes_ernie_sugar_shack.jpg)
-
Networks produce content that sells. If shows with more blacks or black centric attracted viewers and thus more advertising, the airways would be filled with them. You only have to look at the music industry to prove this is true. Rap music by black entertainers sells therefore record companies release a ton of it.
That's the argument, however, those of us familiar with the entertainment industry understand the truth. It is not about whether the content sells, ...it is about whether the content DELIVERS the desired audience to the advertiser. TV shows do not exist to "entertain" an audience. They exists to DELIVER commercials to an audience. Yes, you heard me correctly. TV shows are merely there as vehicles to provide commercial content to a target market. That's why we see so many fabulous, critically acclaimed shows with high ratings get cancelled.
A perfect example was "30 something" many years ago. It always came in #1 in it's time slot, great ratings, great writing, great performances etc., etc., etc., ...but the corporation that owned the commercial time slot wanted to deliver commercials to a much younger audience than 30 something was delivering. 30 something was cancelled. That's why you'll see shows like "JackAss" staying on the air, while quality content is not even put into production. Some corporations want to sell products to audiences prone to lighting their farts on fire, over trying to sell to a more cerebrally active crowd.
This is the distinction between traditionally white owned networks and black centric entertainment networks like BET. BET is intentionally racially exclusionary while the other is not exclusionary because their main goal is profit not race.
Just so you are aware, BET is Black in name only. BET is a White owned television network that is trying to profit off the African American community.
Also, privately owned television networks and film studios shouldn't be obligated to be fair. They are in the business of making money, not soothing hurt feelings or fighting for social justice.
And why shouldn't a privately owned television network be obligated to play fair?
They are using the PUBLIC airways. They are receiving public monies, federal funds, and are subject to FCC / CRTC guidelines for content they put forth over PUBLIC AIRWAYS. Why shouldn't they fight for social justice? They are taking tax payer money and going into every home in the land. Make no mistake, they are already fighting, ...but for years, that fight has been to propagandize, and establish fear, animosity, division and denigrating stereotypes, while promoting other groups favourably. Make no mistake about it, the TV networks have been propagandizing for years, ...and it has been an active participant in much of the problems we observe today. So what's wrong with all of a sudden being fair? Adopting an inclusive policy or at the very least a representative policy is not about "soothing hurt feelings", ...it's about providing a modicum of truth. And I dare say will most likely be of far greater benefit to white populations than any benefit Blacks, Asians, hispanics or any other non euro descendent ethnicity would receive.
The more "mainstream" America sees of all ethnicities, in a fairer, and more representative light, ...the less fear, ignorance & paranoia that escalates out of control there would be. The less likely kids like Trayvon Martin would be to assume a chubby hispanic guy was gay and looking to jump his bones. the less likely a guy like George Zimmerman would be to assume a black kid in a hoodie was casing a future burglary location, ...and it really takes away the power of the race baiters & poverty pimps to polarize a society along racial lines.
-
ever stop to think that the majority of ppl who subscribe to cable and other movie channels are guess what? WHITE???
they arent excluding blacks or minorities on the basis or race you moron they are giving the CUSTOMERS what they want.
If their main customer base was black they would show more blacks, this isnt exclusionary based on race although I can understand how a simpleton who is looking for racism at every corner would jump to that conclusion.
::) yet another swing and a miss
That was the argument network execs made for years, until Cosby turned that argument on it's ass where it belonged. They made the same argument about feature films as well, ...then they produced "Waiting to Exhale", ...and turned that argument on it's ass again.
People are not going to pay good money to sit in a theatre and watch themselves denigrated on the screen.
In many cases there is a very good reason why their "customer base" is not Black!
It's the same reason why I suspect the majority of Pastor Manning's congregation is white.
What self -respecting Black person would listen to his garbage? Racist white's however find it pretty humourous.
-
so by that same logic the nba and nfl are exclusionary against whites?
I mean they pick players on athletic ability but the leagues are predominately black so...::)
what a fuking moron
Why do you insist on labeling people while you display the very label you attach to them?
Yes, the NBA & the NFL pick their players on athletic ability, but that doesn't in any way compare to TV content.
You can't say in TV performers are picked based on talent & ability because it all starts with the content.
I remember when "The Hunt for Red October" came to town. HUGE HUGE budget, and every actor wanted to put a piece of the budget in their bank account. But the bottom line is, the storyline was about a bunch of young Russian sailors stuck in a submarine. Halle Berry, Jennifer Hudson and Octavia Davis are all very talented Oscar winning actresses, however, there is no way on God's green earth that they would ever be included in that cast. They would NEVER even get to apply. They wouldn't even be considered because they could never pass as young Russian seamen. They could chug a gallon of Kahlua and wash it down with a pint of milk, ...and they still wouldn't pass for Black Russians. It just ain't happening!!!
So comparing the film & TV industry to the NFL or NBA... don't even go there. And you call Al a moron? ::)
-
They are ignored not for racist reasons but because it is not profitable to invest large sums of money appealing to a small demographic. The amount of advertising dollars would not justify it.
That is a well accepted myth, ...but a myth nonetheless. Shows like Cosby and a slew of films like Waiting to Exhale etc., proved how innacurate such a premise is.
UPN is a prime example. UPN failed because not enough people were watching their minority centric shows and they couldn't generate any revenue. It's a mistake believe that a private company has any obligation to level the playing field. Equality is not their business, generating a profit is.
UPN failed NOT because they were producing shows with Black leading characters, but because the content they were producing was not delivering the audiences they were targetting. The numbers were there for them to be successful. Believe me, no one invests in the kind of money required to initiate the venture without adequate feasibility studies. The problem is not just a lack of inclusion at the cast level, ...it starts with the content.
Do you honestly believe that you can have a bunch of non-lifting sloths write a TV show about body builders, and attract a large enough audience of body builders to make it profitable? Do you believe some guy who horks down McD's everyday, can even begin to write anything with a sense of realism. Do you think s/he would even be aware of the pain you guys go through, the drama, all the stuff that exists in your world, in a real enough way that would make you guys want to tune in? ...or do you think you might end up with a caricature that might prompt you to channel surf? That's the difference. Some guy whose heaviest life is the tab on the beer can which he rests on his gut... might not necessarily be fully equipped to write about your experience. To give that show a fighting chance, it's not just enough to cast a few serious lifters in the leads, but to extend the inclusiveness to having a writer behind the scenes who can write knowledgebly & credibly about the bodybuilder experience and make it relatable to the target audience. And then you had better pray to Mr. Weider in the sky, that the commercial airtime is not purchased by Tampax or Revlon, ...cause I would guarandamtee ya, the story lines would change to a bunch of women griping about what inconsiderate pricks their boyfriends are for going to the gym to play with weights rather than take them out on the town for their birthday. If there is not full vertical inclusion from the script to the screen, all you will end up with is a caricature of yourselves, and the perpetual stereotype of you as just a bunch of dumb meatheads.
As I said, the distinction between BET and any other network is that BET is racially motivated, while the major networks are motivated by profit. Again, the music industry is a prime example of this works. Music by black artist sell well so record companies release a disproportionate number of works by black entertainments.
Blacks are represented well on television if you consider their actual percentage of the population. If you don't see as many minorities as you like, it may mean your conception of equality is skewered. It's a mistake to believe that equality means fifty-fifty. Also, equality doesn't mean that every situation requires the presence of a minority.
Blacks are NOT represented well regardless of their percentage of population.
Throwing a person up on a screen is hardly representation, ...and certainly not when the images are periferal, inconsequential, or derogatory. That's not representation, ...that's portrayal, ...not representation.
If you ever watch black-centric shows it is immediately apparent that whites and other minority are woefully underrepresented. Where are the whites and minorities? You'd think that black people being such a small portion of the population, would be encountering other groups of people quite frequently. Beyond the occasional white guest star or white/minority peripheral character-usual the focus of derision by the way- they are barely visible. I doubt you noticed this because you weren't looking for it.
I've noticed, ...but I along with alot of people don't make a habit of watching racially derisive shit!
Could be a reason why so many fail at creating content for delivering product to an audience. The audience simply cannot relate to the crap they are spewing, and tune out.
-
They need it now more than ever. White culture is being exterminated. In the old days whites held minority groups back. Now minorities of every kind are making the rules of society and white heterosexual males have a target on their backs. They better wise up and start standing up for themselves or they are going to get trampled.
THIS!!!!
-
I totally disagree 24k but instead of retreading all my previous arguments I will again affirm my arguments. Even BETs rating, a network exclusively designed for black audiences, are abysmal in comparison to television designed for general audiences or any other compariable cable network for that matter
As far as demographic representation, if we go down that road, any show that deals with situations which naturally have low black participation to begin with, you'd see even less blacks on television. Again, this really has to do with perception. Because you dont see blacks on television as often as you would like, doesn't mean they are under represented. Equality is not fifty-fifty. In any real situation 12% of the participants will not be black nor will 13% be Hispanic.
I understand this is a personal cause for many minorities and emotion is involved but let's be rational about it. It's not the responsibility or in the interest of a money making venture to promote equality at the expense of profit. Personally, I don't care that BET exists to appeal to a particular audience, that is their right to do so. I'm offended by the argument that white people have some obligation to minority interests even if it goes against their own. Or that it is somehow wrong for white people to persue their own issues.
-
That was the argument network execs made for years, until Cosby turned that argument on it's ass where it belonged. They made the same argument about feature films as well, ...then they produced "Waiting to Exhale", ...and turned that argument on it's ass again.
People are not going to pay good money to sit in a theatre and watch themselves denigrated on the screen.
In many cases there is a very good reason why their "customer base" is not Black!
It's the same reason why I suspect the majority of Pastor Manning's congregation is white.
What self -respecting Black person would listen to his garbage? Racist white's however find it pretty humourous.
And do you know why Cosby was such a hit? It was a hit because despite having black characters it was a show that all people could relate to and was not aimed exclusively at black audiences.
As far as degrading images, why would whites have to degrade minorities when they do an excellent job of that themselves. This is a clear example of scapegoating. Blacks need to start holding themselves accountable for their own behavior.
By the way, most of pastor mannings congregation are not white. I'd recommend you look into that further.
-
I totally disagree 24k but instead of retreading all my previous arguments I will again affirm my arguments. Even BETs rating, a network exclusively designed for black audiences, are abysmal in comparison to television designed for general audiences or any other compariable cable network for that matter
That is because they are trying to cater to a "niche"
As far as demographic representation, if we go down that road, any show that deals with situations which naturally have low black participation to begin with, you'd see even less blacks on television. Again, this really has to do with perception. Because you dont see blacks on television as often as you would like, doesn't mean they are under represented. Equality is not fifty-fifty. In any real situation 12% of the participants will not be black nor will 13% be Hispanic.
You're missing a key portion of "representation". Representation is not based on numbers as a percentage of the population. That is merely "portrayal". Not representation.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by representation vs. portrayal.
Let us take BET as an example. If you were to have a show on BET that had a cast that consisted of 13% Black characters, and 87% white characters, ...however each white character was an inbred troll married to his sister and named Billy Bob, and was also a member of the KKK, would you say the white characters were being represented fairly... after all population demographics say 87% white?
And in a culture so segregated as the USA (relatively speaking) what impression does that leave in the minds of Blacks who rarely interact with whites? Throw in a race baiting media & a few poverty pimps, and the moment you show your face, people are going to assume your white hood was at the dry cleaners.
I understand this is a personal cause for many minorities and emotion is involved but let's be rational about it. It's not the responsibility or in the interest of a money making venture to promote equality at the expense of profit. Personally, I don't care that BET exists to appeal to a particular audience, that is their right to do so. I'm offended by the argument that white people have some obligation to minority interests even if it goes against their own. Or that it is somehow wrong for white people to persue their own issues.
I have never said it was wrong for white people to pursue their own issues. I was simply addressing the misinformation and myths believed with regards to the entertainment industry.
I have no issue whatsoever with a "White Student Union", ...especially if one were to be established on a campus like Morehouse or Howard etc.
I do agree with Al that considering the default culture in America is white, the formation of a white student union certainly has "connotations" to it, however, one should monitor to ensure it is what it claims to be, and not just an excuse to exploit perceived grievance in order to foment hate.
-
And do you know why Cosby was such a hit? It was a hit because despite having black characters it was a show that all people could relate to and was not aimed exclusively at black audiences.
Exactly!!!!! Cosby created quality content with fair contextual representation.
I also find it interesting that you would include the phrase despite having Black characters" when you could have simply said "It was a hit because it was a show that all people could relate to."
The fact that it also aired on FREE public TV, one of the big 3 networks prior to the fractionalization of the markets also helped in it's success. Nowadays there are so many alternatives for the viewing audience viewer concentration doesn't exist anymore.
It all starts with the "creative process" and unfortunately the majority of film majors for the past 100 years were weaned on one of the most disgusting degrading pieces of propaganda ever created "Birth of a Nation" When the ban was removed, ...and I saw the film for the first time, ...I literally vomited. No joke. I stood up, went into the bathroom, and lost the contents of my stomache. It was all too clear to me why we have had the content we have had over the past century. No question Birth of a nation was a masterpiece and introduced ground breaking techjniques to film making, ...but oh what a legacy.
And it is a truth that no one dares to touch. When Marlon Brando dared to touch on it on Larry King, his career was ended.
As far as degrading images, why would whites have to degrade minorities when they do an excellent job of that themselves. This is a clear example of scapegoating. Blacks need to start holding themselves accountable for their own behavior.
Possibly for the same reason countries propagandize about other countries and the lack of freedoms & human rights abuses there, while stripping their own citizens of their rights, secretly spying on them, and sending global hit squads to assassinate them based solely suspicion alone.
The same reason why some people would point fingers at Manuel Noriega as being a drug dealer, while they import tons of heroin & cocaine into their own country, and destroy the leadership of other countries who have the audacity to end the outflow of heroin from their country.
Possibly to placate a populace from seeing how shitty their lives are because they can always say, ...at least I'm not one of those, ...and they can continue to feel good about themselves, ...confident in the knowledge that they are superior beings and their nation stands for freedom, liberty, and justice for all. That they are the greatest nation on the earth who are greeted as liberators. who knows?
By the way, most of pastor mannings congregation are not white. I'd recommend you look into that further.
-
The legacy of black culture is essentially a cornucopia of nothingness and stupidity. Beyond the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of black culture as a whole, the only other lasting impact of the "black experience" on the United States which warrants any recognition (besides generational government dependency) is the absurd amount of time and effort non-blacks dedicate to the inane and tedious politics of victimization.- George Whorewell
-
Curious connection: I've heard Cuban-Americans use the terms 'niche' and 'nichardo' as pejorative terms for blacks.
I'm not a Cuban American, and I use the term niche in a way consistent with the Oxford Dictionary
noun
1a shallow recess, especially one in a wall to display a statue or other ornament:
each niche holding a shepherdess in Dresden china
2 (one's niche) a comfortable or suitable position in life or employment:
he is now head chef at a leading law firm and feels he has found his niche
Ecology a role taken by a type of organism within its community:
the niche left vacant by the disappearance of wolves
3a specialized but profitable segment of the market:
[as modifier]:
a niche market for quality food
verb
[with object]
place (something) in a niche:
these elements were niched within the shadowy reaches
niched statues
Origin:
early 17th century: from French, literally 'recess', from nicher 'make a nest', based on Latin nidus 'nest'