Black history month

[Ginger_Warrior]

I suppose it is theoretically possible that the world of SMT is a 50-50 split between men/women, and that 60% of all females in SMT are on maternity leave (and every single one of their positions being taken temporarily by males rather than another woman). I think it's far more possible, however, that the top jobs simply aren't as accessible to women as they are to men.

 

You've also ignored the fact that, in the UK at least, men have very similar rights on maternity leave to women, but you seem to be suggesting they only affect women.

[Zerker_Jane]

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it.

 

As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great.

 

If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I'm glad you're in favour of WET, but surely you admit you're in a minuscule minority.

 

WET could be created tomorrow; it would just be a huge money sink.

 

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

[Kimberly]

EDIT @above - That argument operates under the assumption that we're all equally competent. Perhaps the figures are distorted by maternity leave affecting experience or education.

 

I'm at a loss for words.

[obfuscator]

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it.

 

As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great.

 

If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I'm glad you're in favour of WET, but surely you admit you're in a minuscule minority.

 

WET could be created tomorrow; it would just be a huge money sink.

 

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

WET could be created tomorrow, eh? Pray tell, what media company would volunteer to sponsor that PR nightmare?

[Assume Nothing]

I suppose it is theoretically possible that the world of SMT is a 50-50 split between men/women, and that 60% of all females in SMT are on maternity leave (and every single one of their positions being taken temporarily by males rather than another woman). I think it's far more possible, however, that the top jobs simply aren't as accessible to women as they are to men.

 

You've also ignored the fact that, in the UK at least, men have very similar rights on maternity leave to women, but you seem to be suggesting they only affect women.

 

They're more relevant to women - there's a stronger psychological attachment to the child, and it's cultural for the mother to spend more time with the baby.

 

I agree that there's definitely some levels of discrimination that prevents accessibility to better posts for women - it's undeniable that employers are still slightly misogynistic because of traditional values. I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm claiming that the difference in rates may not be as significant as the figures suggest, because there's a slight inclination for women to spend less time working in comparison to males anyway.

 

It's also one of the things that prevents employers from employing women, since they're more expensive in terms of productivity (paid maternity leave is costly to a company).

[demby123]

WET already exists, it's called TV. Since whites are the majority, most of the entertainment is for the majority.

 

As far as black history month? I don't really see much of a use for it, not because of most of the reasons above, but because it's only american black history. Throughout my entire time in history classes, I've never actually taken a true world history course including all continents in full detail from the beginnings in Africa to modern times. Instead we just got some world history, and a lot of american and european history.

[HappyNooblet]

Haha, i love morgan freeman <3

such a boss.

[Zerker_Jane]

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it.

 

As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great.

 

If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I'm glad you're in favour of WET, but surely you admit you're in a minuscule minority.

 

WET could be created tomorrow; it would just be a huge money sink.

 

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

WET could be created tomorrow, eh? Pray tell, what media company would volunteer to sponsor that PR nightmare?

 

The one you offered enough money to.

 

I answered your question now please answer mine.

[obfuscator]

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it.

 

As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great.

 

If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I'm glad you're in favour of WET, but surely you admit you're in a minuscule minority.

 

WET could be created tomorrow; it would just be a huge money sink.

 

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

WET could be created tomorrow, eh? Pray tell, what media company would volunteer to sponsor that PR nightmare?

 

The one you offered enough money to.

 

I answered your question now please answer mine.

 

"enough money" would have to be twice the net worth of the media company to get them to do that. And what shows are there on BET that aren't suitable for another channel?

[Will H]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

[Range_This11]

The concept surrounding the entire network is that--at least originally--it was run from the ground up by blacks. In the television industry, many of the executives, directors, and writers were predominantly white. That, I assume, has changed since its inception. A big portion of its inspiration comes from the television show Soul Train (the creator actually just died within the last week) which was one of the first shows to be run completely in the control of blacks.

[Will H]

The concept surrounding the entire network is that--at least originally--it was run from the ground up by blacks. In the television industry, many of the executives, directors, and writers were predominantly white. That, I assume, has changed since its inception. A big portion of its inspiration comes from the television show Soul Train (the creator actually just died within the last week) which was one of the first shows to be run completely in the control of blacks.

 

But is it not entertainment for black people too? That's the impression I got.

 

Also, the idea of having institutions that only hire black people is another problem in this day and age. I refer you to the National Black Police Association (and its official site), which does not allow white people to become full members, as another example. Back in the 1980s, I could understand and praise organisations formed by black people and other people of minority groups that could not otherwise achieve what a white person of equivalent ability could do.

 

However, that was 32 years ago, and these organisations need to change, much like how the rest of the world has. Having organisations only run by certain ethnic groups is the definition of racial segregation. Too many people can't seem to break away from the relics of the Civil Rights Movement, because they are too comfortable with the safety that they bring to minority groups. We should be embracing fairness, not patching over the cracks and hope that nobody notices.

[Range_This11]

I don't even know if BET is totally run by black people anymore. I can't imagine that would even be possible or legal. I was commenting on the origins of it. Mostly they show sitcoms, comedy, and movies--things like that. The occasional talk show. Typically the main characters or hosts are black.

[Zerker_Jane]

[hide]

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it.

 

As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great.

 

If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I'm glad you're in favour of WET, but surely you admit you're in a minuscule minority.

 

WET could be created tomorrow; it would just be a huge money sink.

 

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

WET could be created tomorrow, eh? Pray tell, what media company would volunteer to sponsor that PR nightmare?

 

The one you offered enough money to.

 

I answered your question now please answer mine.

 

"enough money" would have to be twice the net worth of the media company to get them to do that. And what shows are there on BET that aren't suitable for another channel?

[/hide]

 

I'm not going to answer your question if you don't have the decency to answer mine.

 

 

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

[Will H]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

 

Please enlighten me how a TV programme can be made with white people as an intended audience, without making any racist assumptions or generalisations, because as far as I can see, that's logically impossible.

 

This particular white person doesn't comprehend the concept of TV for white people, or TV for black people. It thinks that the 99% of TV is for everybody, regardless of skin colour, and any attempt at the 1% at being different from that is racially motivated.

 

Also, does anyone have an example in particular of something so far removed from the so-called "white society" that we have no interest in hearing about it?

[demby123]

I don't even know if BET is totally run by black people anymore. I can't imagine that would even be possible or legal. I was commenting on the origins of it. Mostly they show sitcoms, comedy, and movies--things like that. The occasional talk show. Typically the main characters or hosts are black.

I believe it was mostly owned by robert johnson up untill the early 2000s, then it was turned over to viacom, and programming (imo) started declining from the mid 2000s.

 

Now it's just black MTV.

[Zerker_Jane]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

 

Please enlighten me how a TV programme can be made with white people as an intended audience, without making any racist assumptions or generalisations, because as far as I can see, that's logically impossible.

 

This particular white person doesn't comprehend the concept of TV for white people, or TV for black people. It thinks that the 99% of TV is for everybody, regardless of skin colour, and any attempt at the 1% at being different from that is racially motivated.

 

Also, does anyone have an example in particular of something so far removed from the so-called "white society" that we have no interest in hearing about it?

 

Are you joking?

 

You don't understand the concept of intended audiences?

 

Then what's your problem with BET? It's logically impossible to you for it to be targeted at black people.

[demby123]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

 

Please enlighten me how a TV programme can be made with white people as an intended audience, without making any racist assumptions or generalisations, because as far as I can see, that's logically impossible.

 

This particular white person doesn't comprehend the concept of TV for white people, or TV for black people. It thinks that the 99% of TV is for everybody, regardless of skin colour, and any attempt at the 1% at being different from that is racially motivated.

 

Also, does anyone have an example in particular of something so far removed from the so-called "white society" that we have no interest in hearing about it?

It's not really a race thing, whites just happen to be the majority, and that's what most TV companies will program for. Selling to the majority demographic is always less risky and more profitable.

[Will H]

[hide]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

[/hide]

 

Please enlighten me how a TV programme can be made with white people as an intended audience, without making any racist assumptions or generalisations, because as far as I can see, that's logically impossible.

 

This particular white person doesn't comprehend the concept of TV for white people, or TV for black people. It thinks that the 99% of TV is for everybody, regardless of skin colour, and any attempt at the 1% at being different from that is racially motivated.

 

Also, does anyone have an example in particular of something so far removed from the so-called "white society" that we have no interest in hearing about it?

 

Are you joking?

 

You don't understand the concept of intended audiences?

 

Then what's your problem with BET? It's logically impossible to you for it to be targeted at black people.

I'm not joking. I understand how you can make programmes for people with different interests, or people who are of different ages (because they'll have different life experiences), or different social positions. People can be easily separated by the ability/desire to tackle certain mental challenges, or whether they like death metal or not, or whether they remember WW2.

 

What I don't understand how you can ethically make programmes for people with different skin colours. It's impossible for BET to be targeted at black people while at the same time not making racial assumptions or generalisations.

 

And since you asked, I think the concept of BET is fundamentally racist in its current form. That's my problem with it. Feel free to challenge my view.

[demby123]

 

[hide]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

[/hide]

 

Please enlighten me how a TV programme can be made with white people as an intended audience, without making any racist assumptions or generalisations, because as far as I can see, that's logically impossible.

 

This particular white person doesn't comprehend the concept of TV for white people, or TV for black people. It thinks that the 99% of TV is for everybody, regardless of skin colour, and any attempt at the 1% at being different from that is racially motivated.

 

Also, does anyone have an example in particular of something so far removed from the so-called "white society" that we have no interest in hearing about it?

 

Are you joking?

 

You don't understand the concept of intended audiences?

 

Then what's your problem with BET? It's logically impossible to you for it to be targeted at black people.

I'm not joking. I understand how you can make programmes for people with different interests, or people who are of different ages (because they'll have different life experiences), or different social positions. People can be easily separated by the ability/desire to tackle certain mental challenges, or whether they like death metal or not, or whether they remember WW2.

 

What I don't understand how you can ethically make programmes for people with different skin colours. It's impossible for BET to be targeted at black people while at the same time not making racial assumptions or generalisations.

 

And since you asked, I think the concept of BET is fundamentally racist in its current form. That's my problem with it. Feel free to challenge my view.

 

But BET IS for people with different interests, ages and social positions........... :mellow: Being of a certain race tends to change all of those except age obviously

[Zerker_Jane]

[hide]

BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence?

 

The desire for a channel to focus around things that aren't like the stuff on other mainstream channels is admirable, but I don't see how the concept of 'the rest of TV is for white people' holds up. How does my skin colour make a difference whether TV programmes are my kind of thing or not? Surely black people are more or less equally interested in sports, documentaries, the news, and whatever is on the TV as everyone else.

 

For the record, I've never seen BET, I don't think it's shown anywhere in the UK. I don't comprehend how you can approach the mission statement "TV Entertainment for black people" without making some racist assumptions or generalisations.

 

What do they show?

 

It's not about the rest of TV being for white people; but for the record, the rest of TV IS for white people. Everything is made with white people as the intended audience. BET serves the black community; bringing light to issues that are too far removed from white society to be of any interest to mainstream channels. I don't understand what the problem is; why do white people want 100% of TV to be for white people instead of 'just' 99%?

[/hide]

 

Please enlighten me how a TV programme can be made with white people as an intended audience, without making any racist assumptions or generalisations, because as far as I can see, that's logically impossible.

 

This particular white person doesn't comprehend the concept of TV for white people, or TV for black people. It thinks that the 99% of TV is for everybody, regardless of skin colour, and any attempt at the 1% at being different from that is racially motivated.

 

Also, does anyone have an example in particular of something so far removed from the so-called "white society" that we have no interest in hearing about it?

 

Are you joking?

 

You don't understand the concept of intended audiences?

 

Then what's your problem with BET? It's logically impossible to you for it to be targeted at black people.

I'm not joking. I understand how you can make programmes for people with different interests, or people who are of different ages (because they'll have different life experiences), or different social positions. People can be easily separated by the ability/desire to tackle certain mental challenges, or whether they like death metal or not, or whether they remember WW2.

 

What I don't understand how you can ethically make programmes for people with different skin colours. It's impossible for BET to be targeted at black people while at the same time not making racial assumptions or generalisations.

 

And since you asked, I think the concept of BET is fundamentally racist in its current form. That's my problem with it. Feel free to challenge my view.

 

Well, it's not really aimed at race so much as culture. But in America, at least, race = culture. Being such a racially segregated country; obviously different cultures have developed for different races. Yes, you find whites in black culture and blacks in white culture but for the most part race is the defining factor.

 

In other words, race is important because we make it important. What I'm really saying is that most of TV is aimed at white culture; and BET is for black culture. If you removed race from the equation we would still be having this discussion; mainstream culture vs 'underground' culture.

[obfuscator]

There is nothing that you could put on WET that couldn't fit under another channel, just as there is nothing that is on BET that couldn't fit under another channel.

 

You make it seem WET only couldn't exist because there's "no market" - completely ignoring the racial PR implications of creating it. Hence my point about no production company creating.

[Range_This11]

Right, I mean Chappelle's Show was wildly popular and Comedy Central features nowhere near the same programming that BET does.

[obfuscator]

Right, I mean Chappelle's Show was wildly popular and Comedy Central features nowhere near the same programming that BET does.

Not sure what you're trying to say?

[the-whisky-bar]

nobody should have their own month.

it's a stupid idea.

freedom is something that should be celebrated every day.

the history of all people should be celebrated every day.

not in the form of an actual celebration, but we should always mind it.