Black history month

[Zerker_Jane]

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.

 

So for African-American comedy/Drama etc I go to which channel?

 

Other than BET I mean.

 

It's a risk for channels to play black oriented programmes; that's just being honest. Unless it's Fresh prince of bel air or some shit from Dave Chappelle/Chris Rock most channels won't touch it.

 

But I suppose if BET closed down tomorrow you would then move on to complaining about there being African American programmes/films?

[Giordano]

But what is black culture? Being raised in the hood and talking about the difficulty of life being poor? What the hell is black culture without going into generalizations that blacks would find offensive if I (a white person) said?

 

American culture vs. Hispanic culture is a bit easier to define, but really, its' the same thing just in Spanish. Less baseball more football, talk shows, and comedy skits. So between Black and White culture in the US it's...sort of the same, just with black hosts or white hosts?

 

 

 

Actually, come to think of it, the only big differences I see between White/Black/Hispanic cultures on TV is just their comedy. But BET isn't based entirely around that neither is all of TV.

 

 

I asked more questions than I would of thought in the making of this post. :mellow:

[Zerker_Jane]

But what is black culture? Being raised in the hood and talking about the difficulty of life being poor? What the hell is black culture without going into generalizations that blacks would find offensive if I (a white person) said?

 

American culture vs. Hispanic culture is a bit easier to define, but really, its' the same thing just in Spanish. Less baseball more football, talk shows, and comedy skits. So between Black and White culture in the US it's...sort of the same, just with black hosts or white hosts?

 

 

 

Actually, come to think of it, the only big differences I see between White/Black/Hispanic cultures on TV is just their comedy. But BET isn't based entirely around that neither is all of TV.

 

 

I asked more questions than I would of thought in the making of this post. :mellow:

 

That's just how white people see black 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.

 

So for African-American comedy/Drama etc I go to which channel?

 

Other than BET I mean.

 

A program that's focused solely on black people? I've no idea. My point is that any of the programs on BET could fit onto another channel.

 

 

It's a risk for channels to play black oriented programmes; that's just being honest. Unless it's Fresh prince of bel air or some shit from Dave Chappelle/Chris Rock most channels won't touch it.

 

But I suppose if BET closed down tomorrow you would then move on to complaining about there being African American programmes/films?

 

Yes, it is a risk for networks to play black-oriented programs; not nearly as much to start a channel specifically with white people in the same manner as BET.

 

I have no issue with there being television programs focused on a certain race. It does irk me, however, that shows on BET, for instance, are allowed to have people of only one race; and every other show has to be multi-cultural.

 

My issue with BET is the double standard - that's all. If there are a group of people who only want to see black people on television - that's fine. Doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that if you apply that to any other race it's called racism and would never happen.

[Nomrombom]

Couldn't put it any better than that.

[Zerker_Jane]

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.

 

So for African-American comedy/Drama etc I go to which channel?

 

Other than BET I mean.

 

A program that's focused solely on black people? I've no idea. My point is that any of the programs on BET could fit onto another channel.

 

I did understand your point but you didn't understand mine. Most of the programmes are not high-budget by any means; if BET closed these programmes would not be shown on other channels. BET is a way for people who would otherwise not have a voice, to have a voice. I also just enjoy black sitcoms more than white sitcoms (though I find it telling you don't consider these focused solely on white people). One of those is found on every channel that shows comedy; the other is mostly only shown on BET.

 

 

It's a risk for channels to play black oriented programmes; that's just being honest. Unless it's Fresh prince of bel air or some shit from Dave Chappelle/Chris Rock most channels won't touch it.

 

But I suppose if BET closed down tomorrow you would then move on to complaining about there being African American programmes/films?

 

Yes, it is a risk for networks to play black-oriented programs; not nearly as much to start a channel specifically with white people in the same manner as BET.

 

When I said a risk I meant money-wise.

 

But as we've already established anything that could be shown on WET is shown on mainstream TV. This is not the same with BET.

 

I have no issue with there being television programs focused on a certain race. It does irk me, however, that shows on BET, for instance, are allowed to have people of only one race; and every other show has to be multi-cultural.

 

My issue with BET is the double standard - that's all. If there are a group of people who only want to see black people on television - that's fine. Doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that if you apply that to any other race it's called racism and would never happen.

 

You do realise there are channels specifically for Hispanics and Asians, right? I just assumed you knew this but wanted to complain about black people.

[obfuscator]

I did understand your point but you didn't understand mine. Most of the programmes are not high-budget by any means; if BET closed these programmes would not be shown on other channels. BET is a way for people who would otherwise not have a voice, to have a voice. I also just enjoy black sitcoms more than white sitcoms (though I find it telling you don't consider these focused solely on white people). One of those is found on every channel that shows comedy; the other is mostly only shown on BET.

 

Ahh okay, I understand.

I don't care who the sitcom is focused on at all...as a matter of course I think sitcoms are stupid. But that's for another topic.

 

When I said a risk I meant money-wise.

 

But as we've already established anything that could be shown on WET is shown on mainstream TV. This is not the same with BET.

 

Well, that's not entirely true. In theory, a WET operating in the exact same manner as BET could show programs consisting solely of white people - I can't think of a single show that follows that standard currently.

 

You do realise there are channels specifically for Hispanics and Asians, right? I just assumed you knew this but wanted to complain about black people.

 

Two things with this post.

 

Firstly, I wasn't aware there were channels specifically for Hispanics and Asians. Although in retrospect I supposed I should have assumed that, but my point still stands.

Second, thank you for implying I'm a racist. This is why these discussions can never go anywhere - because if you're white and have a problem with preferential treatment of other races or some other kind of segregation, you're labeled a racist.

 

I expect your next post to be an apology, or I'll stop bothering to respond to you.

[Zerker_Jane]

I did understand your point but you didn't understand mine. Most of the programmes are not high-budget by any means; if BET closed these programmes would not be shown on other channels. BET is a way for people who would otherwise not have a voice, to have a voice. I also just enjoy black sitcoms more than white sitcoms (though I find it telling you don't consider these focused solely on white people). One of those is found on every channel that shows comedy; the other is mostly only shown on BET.

 

Ahh okay, I understand.

I don't care who the sitcom is focused on at all...as a matter of course I think sitcoms are stupid. But that's for another topic.

 

Personal opinions on the TV programmes in question are really quite irrelevant. I brought up sitcoms but there are a lot of different things that can only exist on BET.

 

When I said a risk I meant money-wise.

 

But as we've already established anything that could be shown on WET is shown on mainstream TV. This is not the same with BET.

 

Well, that's not entirely true. In theory, a WET operating in the exact same manner as BET could show programs consisting solely of white people - I can't think of a single show that follows that standard currently.

 

Even BET can't do that. There has to be a token white person in every black programme (unless it's a real life documentary that happens to not involve any white people); just like how the reverse is true (although with that said there are still programmes on TV with an almost all-white cast).

 

You do realise there are channels specifically for Hispanics and Asians, right? I just assumed you knew this but wanted to complain about black people.

 

Two things with this post.

 

Firstly, I wasn't aware there were channels specifically for Hispanics and Asians. Although in retrospect I supposed I should have assumed that, but my point still stands.

Second, thank you for implying I'm a racist. This is why these discussions can never go anywhere - because if you're white and have a problem with preferential treatment of other races or some other kind of segregation, you're labeled a racist.

 

I expect your next post to be an apology, or I'll stop bothering to respond to you.

 

I was being honest with you. It's only when you brought up other races that I realised you might not know that. I wasn't even inferring you were racist (though I'm sure you were just dying to throw that at me). I'm not going to apologise for acknowledging my assumption was incorrect. If you want to use that as justification for ending this discussion then so be it.

[Guest jrhairychest]

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.

 

I have to agree with this, and it's a really well thought out comment. From my point of view these organisations had their place in yesteryear but times change. We've moved on quite a lot but it seems that no-one wants to give up the ghost here. Employment law and criminal law have evolved significantly. In fact, I think these organisations create more resentment and bring more problems than they solve.

[Range_This11]

At what point does it become a stifling of black pop culture expression? At least indirectly. Forcing people to become integrated tells them that the previous culture they had--whether or not it is based on ethnicity--is something that is not okay. I would rather there be a vibrant, culturally heterogeneous society in which the many different ethnic groups are able to express their culture on their own terms. Culture and ethnicity are very intertwined in the United States. Eliminating that relationship is not only impossible, but threatening to the cultural autonomy of any given ethnic group.

 

Of course BET doesn't represent the culture of all backs, anyone who thinks that or uses it as a launching point for an argument is misinformed.

[Zierro]

But then again, many people in this country (and a few in this thread) are narcissistic cretins that believe the world will be forever divided on ethnic issues, and that celebrations of ethnicity and culture serve only to highlight tensions and racism. To those of you who truly believe this, I have saved a very special part of my heart that mourns for your limited perspective of the world.

 

What is pride without discrimination?

[Nomrombom]

There's nothing wrong with being proud of who you are (thought it's pretty stupid; you didn't pick your race or ethnicity so you have no reason to be proud of it). What is wrong is that some can be proud of their race/ethnicity and it's seen as some kind of empowering thing, while if others said they were proud of their race, they'd be labeled racist and ignorant.

[Range_This11]

I think there's a big difference between saying "I'm proud to be Caucasian" and " Caucasians are a superior ethnic group." The same applies for any other ethnicity. While you may not have a choice of which part of the globe or which ethnic group you are born into, pride in one's heritage is something that brings people together culturally; and culture is a very powerful rallying point. Culture and ethnicity are two crucial parts of a person's identity. We all define ourselves and our realities by the things we experience, for instance, a shared culture or ethnicity--and by nature, we group ourselves and identify with people who share similar cultural or ethnic traits.

[Zierro]

Praising specific cultures and traits while you leave out others is the definition of discrimination. We all discriminate on a daily basis, some much more severe than others. But my point is that talking about our differences for the sake of talking about our differences does generally tend to lead to a lot of unnecessary conflict; after all, you are drawing an ostracizing line and contrasting people based on only one of the most shallow features that a human being has to offer. I'm not claiming this will never change, but I am curious to know how it could.

[Range_This11]

As I said before, ethnicity and culture are the two most vital aspects to a person's identity--and like it or not, they are here to stay. They are not shallow features in the least. This is simply an opportunity to celebrate the heritage of a very important group of people and, as I have shown earlier, many different ethnic groups have months or weeks dedicated to recognizing their heritage and contributions to the development of the United States. Whether you see it as an opportunity to celebrate differences and build unity or as a discriminatory event that elevates one ethnic group over another is totally up to you. My opinion on the matter is quite clear.

[Zierro]

Very well, I just don't see how believing racial tension is a big problem in mankind makes someone narcissistic. :unsure: I mean, shit, I live in Florida and there were damn race wars at my school. If I saw broadcasting race as a more unifying act than an alienating subject, my opinion would be much more different... I don't know what vanity has to do with that.

[Jonanananas]

As I said before, ethnicity and culture are the two most vital aspects to a person's identity--and like it or not, they are here to stay. They are not shallow features in the least. This is simply an opportunity to celebrate the heritage of a very important group of people and, as I have shown earlier, many different ethnic groups have months or weeks dedicated to recognizing their heritage and contributions to the development of the United States. Whether you see it as an opportunity to celebrate differences and build unity or as a discriminatory event that elevates one ethnic group over another is totally up to you. My opinion on the matter is quite clear.

 

I don't see how ethnicity is one of the two most vital aspects to a person's identity. What would it matter to me if I lived in the exact same situtation except for being black(As long as you live in a country where racism doesn't happen often at least)? I don't see why it matters. To me, ethnicity is 100% irrelevant. Doesn't mean I might not have some subconscious stereotypes, but on a rational level, it doesn't matter at all.

[Range_This11]

Ethnicity alone is not but when it becomes intertwined with culture it becomes part of the larger picture. Obviously there is no universal set of traits for an ethnic group, that I know, but when culture, geographical placement, and ethnicity are all combined (as they are in America), they forge the core of a person's identity.

[Assume Nothing]

I think the reason why ethnicity matters is simply because of the cultural upbringing that goes hand in hand with ethnicity. On it's own, however, it's almost irrelevant though.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It's irrelevent to know that black people are three times as likely to need an organ because they're more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease and kidney death? I'm not sure the medical professionals called to care for a black or Asian patient suffering from acute renal failure would agree with you there.

 

Stop making blanket generalisations.

[Assume Nothing]

There's this thing called context; I wasn't referring to the medical status - I was referring to social/economical/political status, and the role ethnicity has on one's identity.

 

Stop making baseless assumptions about my motives. Oh, and try to note the term 'almost'. It really helps if you actually read my posts.

[Guest jrhairychest]

It's irrelevent to know that black people are three times as likely to need an organ because they're more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease and kidney death? I'm not sure the medical professionals called to care for a black or Asian patient suffering from acute renal failure would agree with you there.

 

Stop making blanket generalisations.

 

Isn't what you've just said a blanket generalisation? :huh:

[Ginger_Warrior]

One backed by scientific evidence rather than "Oh, I think that..." type statements. We are still working under the assumption that points should be backed by evidence, yes?

[Range_This11]

One backed by scientific evidence rather than "Oh, I think that..." type statements. We are still working under the assumption that points should be backed by evidence, yes?

Everyone here is an established cultural critic, I thought you were aware? No need to back up any arguments with evidence.

[Assume Nothing]

Are you implying that you're on moral high-ground here? I don't see the necessity for the disrespect.

 

There's a difference between supporting ideas with reason, as opposed to supporting ideas with evidence. Do realise that you're the one who has gone into the tangent of discussing medical issues, not me. I was still referring to cultural and ethnic identity.

 

Who's points are irrelevant now?