It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BET - Black Entertainment Television

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
And why can't you conceed that white people use these topics to openly belittle other races of color without feeling guilty?


HOW HAVE I BELITTLED ANYONE?




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
In many ways. Through not fully stating your true intentions about "race-based" organizations, you have opened the door for some posters to belittle other races and ethnicities because you started this thread more as a "complaint". When people take it as a complaint, they get a lot of mileage out of it by blaming other races without intellectual thought.

Is that what you want?

You also did not set up any criteria to base your judgments on. Nor, did you apply a defintion of what it means for an organization to be "race specific". There are a lot of things to consider when dealing with this question--especially when it comes to employing bias to pick specific organizations to demonstrate what you are trying to get across. And choice can be "easily substituted" for bias when setting up this issue.


The DAR did try to ban Marian Anderson from singing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. She was an African-American contralto. Since when is "stopping someone" from performing somewhere because of the color of their skin not derogatory in behavior?

In the end, who truly cares about BET? It's just a cable station just like HBO. Or do you watch BET all the time and think about it obsessively enough to name it in this post?





[edit on 29-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Ceci2006>>Reference your post about picking on the Presidency for not employing a minority:

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


I see nothing in there about having to be a white male. There is nothing preventing a member of a minority from becoming President. To me, you seem to believe that it's just improbable for it to ever happen. Just FYI, the United States Supreme Court (The highest court in the nation) has a white WOMAN and a BLACK man.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
You are reading Article II of the Constitution literally. But socially, politically, sexually and racially you aren't taking this entire thing into context about the POTUS.

The "membership" of the Presidency has remained very racial and gender specific. I wonder why it is. Because the American populace and electoral college simply wanted white, male presidents? Or because the power system in this country singularly catered to an "electably viable" small group of elites to be leader of this country? In turn, choosing the POTUS on these small details further demonstrates institutional prejudices in place in terms of selecting candidate nominations. The work of the "power elite" also influences voting practices of the citizens, especially when the media gets into the fray.

The "membership" belong to the POTUS is just as "race-based" as any other.

About the SCOTUS, I wasn't talking about them, but since you brought it up, they've only had two Blacks (Thurogood Marshall and Clarence Thomas) and two women (Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginzburg) in their entire existence since the inception of the United States.

Don't you think after two centuries, that something is quite contrary when the highest court in the land does not reflect the population changes within the United States? Do you think the Presidents and their attitudes about race might contribute to their selection of SCOTUS nominees?

Did you ever wonder why people of color started groups that specifically catered to them in the first place?

Or did you lodge this complaint about "race-based groups" because you're feeling left out?

Just simply calling an organization "race based" is more complicated than you think.















[edit on 29-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
In response to SCOTUS, I was just thinking that you might feel like they have a better track record as far as minority employment goes compared to the Presidency.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Most truthfully, the SCOTUS does not. And neither does the presidency. They both are still "race and gender-based" organizations that cater specifically to a small group of eligible American elites.

But, I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander in terms of complaining about "racism" and who "practices" it.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
ceci, America is 82% white and 13% percent black. That's 1 to 8. So the chances of a white person being elected as president are much greater than it is for a black person. There are other factors involved, like how many of that 82% and 13% are eligible to run, how many of them would be prime candidates (held office before, higher education, no criminal convitions, etc..).

As you could imagine the numbers drop for both white and black Americans.


CIA world factbook (www.cia.gov)
white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)

(it's about half and half for the sex ratio)

Nothing is stopping a black person from running for president. I'm sure there are many white Americans that would not vote for a black person based on color, but there are also many black Americans that WOULD vote for a black person solely based on color.

If a black candidate were to ever make it to the finals, I think the negative voting of both whites and blacks would almost cancel each other out.

As for myself, I'll vote for whoever I think is best qualified....I screwed up last time



Sporty

[edit on 29/7/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Sporty,

Thanks for your information. Your explaination gives an interesting spin to this entire question. I will take that under consideration.

But, I still have to say, that within our body of representatives (both Senate and House), it is still under represented by minority groups and women. It is not a body truly reflective of the country.

And since you proved by virtue of the CIA fact book about America being 82 percent white, all these questions statistic-wise about "reverse racism" or "race based" groups do not make sense. As a majority, they also have a high percentage of groups which represent them in totality. Therefore, with that representation poltically and socially, they should not have to complain about being underrepresented in other groups that advocate specifically to a segment of the population.

But I do admit, that bias and prejudice plays a large part in our world. It's a sad fact.

But how would you fit the growing Latino population into representation?

[edit on 29-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I really don't know what to say being of several ethnicities myself. I mean seriously...wth? People that like to keep it all "black and white" are the ones that are contributing to this racial non-sense. Frankly, the differences I see are not in skin color, but in culture. Why can't anyone simply acknowledge that? I consider myself hispanic because of where I was born, but people seem so surprised when I tell them because I just don't "look" that way or "act" that way. It's ridiculous what people come to expect when labels are thrown around, can't you all just admit you're a bunch of primates taking yourselves too seriously.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Through not fully stating your true intentions about "race-based" organizations, you have opened the door for some posters to belittle other races and ethnicities because you started this thread more as a "complaint".


So, then anyone who starts a thread that is somewhat of a 'complaint', let's say about the government or President Bush, they 'open the door' for other posters to belittle the government, republicans, conservatives... and should be held responsible for what other posters write?

I don't think so.

This thread has a very valid point. And that is that if somoene started a network, a magazine, a fund or a month for white people, they'd be called racist. The OP has no control over what other posters say. And even if they had formulated their post exactly as your critique suggest (which they have absolutely no obligation to do) the same responses would have resulted.



In the end, who truly cares about BET?


Nobody. What people care about is the fact that WET would get slammed as KKK or skinheads or something. I suggest you read the OP again and limit your attacks the people who ARE being racist on this thread instead of the ones who are trying to discuss race civilly and, in your perception, 'opened the door' for the racists to come out.

Or would you just have us just keep the door closed and not disccuss these things at all?



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But, I still have to say, that within our body of representatives (both Senate and House), it is still under represented by minority groups and women. It is not a body truly reflective of the country.

I agree, it is under represented by minorities, if you wish to look at it that way. But why is that not reflective of the country? It's reflective of the country because it reflects who the people voted for. Are you saying we should AA for our elected officials?

I'm sorry sir, you won the vote, but we need a [insert color and sex here] to fill the position. Better luck next time.

There are not many minorities in Congress because not many minorities are running for office It has nothing to do with how the Americans are voting. And that leads to more questions like why are many minorities not running for office?, but that's for another thread and it's a whole other ball game, imo.



Therefore, with that representation poltically and socially, they should not have to complain about being underrepresented in other groups that advocate specifically to a segment of the population.

Good point, but I think the thread is about minorities complaining when the majority creates or has a group that advocates the majority. With the exception of a few members, that has been the census in this thread so far. BET - good to go.....WET - not gonna happen because the minority will deem it as racism and discrimination.

ceci, I'm assuming your'e black? Would you see a WET as being "racist"?


But I do admit, that bias and prejudice plays a large part in our world. It's a sad fact.

It is sad, but I think it's slowly been getting better. Give it another 20 years and let's see what happens.


But how would you fit the growing Latino population into representation?

Why do we have to fit them into representation? Why not just vote for who's the best man (or lady) for the job? And the latinos will have no problem doing that on their own.


I guess governments on all levels will reflect the people. In my city and county we have almost all black elected officials, from mayor to school board to police cheif, because I live in a predominately black part of the state. Since the U.S. is predominately white (by far), we will have a predominately white representation in our congress, etc..


Sporty


[edit on 29/7/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
In the scheme of things, I wouldn't care really about WET, because it doesn't appeal to my viewing sensibilites (unless they have a specific show that might interest me.). But really, BET is just a cable network with a target audience. They appeal to that viewership with specific tastes.

But having a station simply called WET wouldn't be racist. There are plenty of stations--some in Chinese, Japanese, French, German and Russian. But I wouldn't see the point. The majority of cable stations in some way address the needs of the white population so much so that complaining about BET seems like overkill.

Besides, I would judge the station on its content, rather than a name anyway. And I'd watch the station like any other with a jaundiced eye. Who says I wouldn't like WET or one of its shows?

It all comes down to the assumption that diversity is not accepted.

However, your point Sporty brings up something else to consider in this discussion.

When one has accepted the mantle of power and privilege, he or she must take all the good and the bad of being part of the majority group. It's not the problem of people of color to have groups advocate for them. It's the problem of the dominant culture to accept that the advocacy groups are there. I just find it highly odd for the majority to complain about being called racist when other racial groups have been lynched, their rights taken away, their property confiscated, legally segregated and underrepresented in society.

These actions do not exclude some whites, of course. There have been some white ethnicities that have experienced horrible prejudices from the same power structure of small elites historically because they immigrated here in the 19th and 20th centuries.

But some of the majority--especially in the elites--still effectively practice institutional racism. And others in the majority are silent and complicit in the implementation of this privilege withheld from other racial groups. Until they are called upon it and have to answer for it. Then, they cry "reverse racism".







[edit on 29-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Frankly, the differences I see are not in skin color, but in culture. Why can't anyone simply acknowledge that? I consider myself hispanic because of where I was born,
Where were you born?
Just curious.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
complaining about BET seems like overkill.


Nobody is complaining about BET. Again, we're complaining about how WET would be viewed by society.


As long as you insist that we're complaining about the existence of BET, we're not communicating.



When one has accepted the mantle of power and privilege, he or she must take all the good and the bad of being part of the majority group.


And how would one go about rejecting this mantle of power and privilege? Being born white doesn't at all mean that we automatically "accept the mantle of power and privilege... "



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
The majority of cable stations in some way address the needs of the white population so much so that complaining about BET seems like overkill.


You have entirely missed the point. Either that, or you are just seeing
what you want to see.

BET exists and it is racist ... but no one really cares.

1 - The 'majority' of cable stations do NOT 'address the needs of white people'.
The majority of cable stations are there simply for entertainment of people
regardless of their race. They are not EXCLUSIVELY addressing 'white needs'.
Not even close. (and the majority of white people don't 'have racial entertainment
needs'
)

2 - The few cable stations that provide education and 'address the needs of white
people' also address the needs of everyone else -black, red, brown, purple ..
whatever.

3 - NONE of the cable stations are exclusively white. That is the major problem
with your statement. There is NOT a WET channel that is exclusively white in
nature and that has modern programming that goes out of it's way to
belittle blacks.

4 - However, the BET is EXCLUSIVELY black and has programming that is
anti-white and 'comedy' that ridicules whites and other non-black groups.

BET is race exclusive. Its entire purpose is exclusive. It makes sure it is
exclusive in all aspects. It is therefore - racist.

If someone came up with a WET with an agenda similar to BET then there would
riots in the streets. However, in regards to BET, most of America doesn't care.
As long as the racists are all tucked away on one channel the rest of America
doesn't have to put up with them.

BET actually provides a service. It is a magnet for the racists so they gravitate
there and that in turn keeps them off the rest of cable TV (for the most part).
The rest of us can just turn the channel and ignore them (like we do with racist
blogs on the internet).









[edit on 7/29/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
BET was founded in 1980. If anyone is going to say that the media was completely integrated and represented black people evenly then, they are wrong. BET was a place for black people to get entertainment that wasn't being supplied by the mainsteam white media. Now that BET has been moderately successful for 26 years([jk]of course due to the support of honkey owned companies [/jk]), would you have them change their name?

The UNCF was founded in 1944 when black people had almost no chance of getting into colleges, let alone paying for it. And, even though they would claim otherwise, 'white' schools would deny admittance to blacks. They were successful through some of the most violent civil rights clashes in American history. Would you have them change their name because some people don't see the racism that still exists in society?

Besides, these days BET doesn't exist to enlighten and praise African American culture, but instead propogates racial stereotypes. They do this so that Black children know what music they are supposed to listen to. Same with white people and MTV, and other white people with VH1.

The fact is that mainstream media's only purpose is to catagorize, organize, and direct the thoughts of the people. We are only supposed to listen and watch what we are told. The rivalry that is now forming is either a known or unknown side effect of that programming.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Now that BET has been moderately successful for 26 years([jk]of course due to the support of honkey owned companies [/jk]), would you have them change their name?


Well, yeah, I would. But not so I'd be more comfortable, but to remove one more piece of the division between the races. To deny the idea that there's certain entertainment for black people and the entertainment for white people and never the two shall meet.
To deny the idea that only black people would ever watch BET (I watch it sometimes) and that the rest of TV caters to white people. Yeah, I'd have them change it to something more accurate so as to stop feeding racism. Yes, sir, I would.


The very concept of the name of the network is divisive and separatist.



Would you have them change their name because some people don't see the racism that still exists in society?


Again, yes, but not because of your reasons. But to more accurately convey who they are. And to put the past in the past and move together toward a more unified future. The more we hold on to these ideas of the past, the more racism abounds.



They do this so that Black children know what music they are supposed to listen to. Same with white people and MTV, and other white people with VH1.


MTV tells black people what music to listen too!



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

MTV tells black people what music to listen too!




True, but it's usually the safe for black/white music that is on MTV.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Ceci-

Why do you carry such a chip on your shoulder?

Look, and i'll be blunt here. I am a Cuban. I am a citizen of the United States. But i dont look American. I have white skin (my ancestors are all from Spain), very dark eyes and dark hair. I have a Spanish name. Its origin is Russian, but most people catch on that i dont look Russian.
I have had my share of ignorant people treat me differently because i still to this day have a slight accent. BUT i dont carry a chip on my shoulders. Anyone with any common sense, and thats the majority, treats me equally. And why? Because i have an air of equality. I dont go around saying "oh, this one looked at me funny, or that one didnt hire me because i look a certain way.....
When you start acting as you should, proud of your heritage, people will see you as equal.
I dont like to talk about race, because i dont want to offend anyone. That's not my style (or at least try not to)
If you spend your entire life crying "race"! you will never be equal. This thread did not turn into a "racial" issue until you jumped in. I'm sorry to say.
You have a lot to be proud of. Black history is admirable. Why do you insist that some think you're inferior??? That's BS.
I'd like to see you post things like, i'm black and i'm proud.

I'm Cuban and i'm darned proud of my heritage. Anyone who knows me knows i never cry "descrimination". EVER. To do so, i would be lowering myself to a level some, unfortunatedly, would like to see.
See what i mean?
Be black, be proud, be a human being. After all, that's what you are. A worthy beautiful human being.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I just find it highly odd for the majority to complain about being called racist when other racial groups have been lynched, their rights taken away, their property confiscated, legally segregated and underrepresented in society.

These actions do not exclude some whites, of course. There have been some white ethnicities that have experienced horrible prejudices from the same power structure of small elites historically because they immigrated here in the 19th and 20th centuries.

But some of the majority--especially in the elites--still effectively practice institutional racism. And others in the majority are silent and complicit in the implementation of this privilege withheld from other racial groups. Until they are called upon it and have to answer for it. Then, they cry "reverse racism".

[edit on 29-7-2006 by ceci2006]


Wait, let me see if I am understanding this correctly. Are you saying that just because I am white, even though I am not a racist, I should be fine and dandy with being called one just because I am white? Isn't that kind of like saying that all black people shouldn't complain about being called criminals since the majority of people in prison are black?

No that's silly. In my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join