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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I think what Ceci is getting at is that europeans were responsible for many horrid acts over the centuries which put them in a place of high power. All other races, in the west at least, are subservient in some way to one of these European overseers. For a person to say that they recognize that people of European descent still have power gained from the rape, and murder of people. While they screwed up lower class white people too, it's been much harder on Blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans. Because they have that power, they are essentially still living off the blood of innocents.

These elite want to keep it elite. Only certain types are allowed in to the mix, and they are very picky about which ones.

A lower class white man can put on a suit, fix his hair, and you couldn't tell the difference between him, and a social elite (at least I couldn't)

Everyone else still looks different no matter what clothes they're wearing.



BH, in regards to the BET name change,
Changing a network name is damaging to the network in many cases. Especially on Cable TV. I'm sure that a name change would be detrimental to their profits which, at the end of the day, is what it is all about.




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I'm not against a tangent of two in a discussion, but the real focus here is the necessity of racially-specific organizations in a culture that has been ostensibly trying its best to rid itself of racially-specific institutions.

[edit on 2006/7/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Do you know what is really bothering me about this thread? Its that everybody here is talking as if civil rights for black or colored people( whichever one you prefer ) is over and done. I, as a black man, know of my history being that wone of the "Founding Fathers" owned my ancestors. Even though organizations such as BET and the NAACP have not been what they were in the past, you must look at the reason that they were started. BET was the first channel to cater to the needs of black people in America. Until then we had to deal with stations that played Archie Bunker calling Sammy Davis Jr. and George Jefferson NIGGERS on tv.

The NAACP helped us gain our rights as human beings where as before most of white America still deemed us as inferior and not respect worthy.
Civil Rights History Lessons

The so-called end of the movement isn't so long ago compared to the 400 YEARS of murder, kidnapping, rape and denial of basic rights that black people had to endure. From 10-12 MILLION people had to go through this.

And just for you "If other groups had..........." people.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


It goes on and on but before you guys start to flame, the Aryan and KKK were the only ones I could find which goes to show............ Maybe someone should start a organization for themselves if they feel left out from the ones that are available. I have no objections as long as they are peaceful and don't bash anyone else.

All I am trying to say is that blacks had a 400 year set back from which we are trying to recover from so just stop complaining and try to help if you care so much.



[edit on 7/29/2006 by Infra_red]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by donk_316
I have said the same thing over and over.

The only minority left without representation is the WHITE MALE.


well duh why else do you think they call it "black entertainment television"!!! did you expect to see a bunch of white guys fighting for their rights or what!



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Ah, don't give me this crap.

I haven't had time to read this entire read, but I've read enough. Let me know when you see more black people oriented into programs on other TV stations and we can get rid of BET. And I'm not just talking about minor characters, I'm talking lead roles.

I find it so funny that you people complain about BET. Why? Can't we have something?
Does it really bother you that much that there's a channel specifically for black entertainment? Maybe you'd feel better if you knew that a WHITE person runs BET...


And, whoever said "Harlemharlot" on that first page should be ashamed of themselves. You know enough that she "went off on a racism rant," but you don't remember her tag?
Taurus feces; that was a cheap shot in disguise.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


A lower class white man can put on a suit, fix his hair, and you couldn't tell the difference between him, and a social elite (at least I couldn't)





Ya cant tell the difference until he opens his mouth, you mean. You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I could tell the difference.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Ya cant tell the difference until he opens his mouth, you mean. You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear.


There is much truth to that observation. GB Shaw treated this subject in his play "Pymalion." Some might be a little more familiar with the musical, "My Fair Lady."


[edit on 2006/7/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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

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]


Look at this crock of sh!t.


You always have some pretty off posts, Flyersfan, but you GOTTA explain this to me. Can you list 5 shows on BET that "go out of their way to belittle whites?" How about 5 that are anti-white? And, do you mean to tell me that I will NEVER see a non-black person on BET?

So, ALL the racists are tucked away on one channel? I watch BET; therefore, I am racist according to you, no?
Do you like that I watch BET so you and the rest of America don't have to put up with me? And, you said it TWICE, BET's purpose is to pull in ALL the racists. I got you right here, you can't deny it.

Yet I'm sure YOU are not racist, right? You say 1) BET is EXCLUSIVELY black, 2) BET is a magnet for racists, 3) BET pulls in ALL the racists, and thus 4) ALL black Americans are racist. Oh, my, that actually DOES appear to be racist...:shk:


LL1

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
my my my...
let's do alittle homework on the Viacom BET relationship...

money.cnn.com...

u can always tell the ones that are not from NY, they lack exposure...



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think we can discuss this matter without the vitriol. In fact, I know it can be done and, in fact, it will be done.

Courtesy Is Mandatory



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Look at this crock of sh!t.

Right back atchya.


I will NEVER see a non-black person on BET?

Nope. I never said that.

I got you right here, you can't deny it.

Actually you got nothing. And yes, I am denying 'it'. You just saw what you wanted.

ALL black Americans are racist ... etc etc blah blah blah blah ...

You can't be serious. You are making up things and also you take what I said
and twist and twist and .. How on earth can you call yourself a truthseeker??

The FACT is that it is separatist; it is totally based on race; it is exclusive;
and the anti-white racists absolutely DO flock to that channel. Jesse Jackson,
Al Sharpton, Whitney Houston, KMBA (Kiss My Black A$$) productions ...
the anti-white guest list goes on and on and on ...

Your claim that I said all blacks are racist is sick. The rest of what you said was
sick as well. Seriously ... if that is what you really saw in my post then you need
some help because you are out of touch with reality.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by donk_316
I have said the same thing over and over.

The only minority left without representation is the WHITE MALE.


kudos to that.


i also hate how at the mvc you can either take the test in ebglish or spanish(im not trying to sound racist but THE ROAD SIGNS IN THE US ARE IN ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)it also makes me mad how they say all white people are racist when its not true at all, they are he racist ones for thinking whites are racist........God i can just go on and on about what i thin about this whole matter



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Thank you Rasobasi, truthseeka and Infra_red for adding other insights to this thread. I especially thank Rasobasi and truthseeka from the bottom of my heart for defending HarlemHottie and myself.


Originally quoted by dgtempe
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.


dgtempe,

I'll say it here again as I have said for many threads:

1)I don't have a chip on my shoulder.

2)I am proud of my heritage and talk about it in many ways.

3) I do like to talk about race. And I have said before, race is not pretty. It is not supposed be a popularity contest. However, people ought to have enough of an open mind to understand the other side of this situation.

4)I am not "crying race". I didn't start this thread. In fact, my interests were being driven to another area. However RetinoidReceptor in a earlier post during this thread insulted me and my friend, HarlemHottie because of our views regarding Bush's speech at the NAACP. He nastily disrespected her name and her ideas. And I answered him and drew attention to it.

Where was the notion of "courtesy being manditory" then? Especially when he called her "Harlem Harlot"?

I then contributed my views about the thread in general. That is all. No one is being accused of anything else.

But, I did think that this thread is set up to belittle people of color through not equally discussing across the board all "race based" organizations. Most certainly, there must be some white organizations that would be thought of as "race based" as well. The thread starter could not solely focus his research on Black organizations if he was truly concerned with this problem.

Myself and others have brought up various examples of "race based" groups and businesses that could fit the shoddy criteria presented in this thread by the one who proposed this issue. If "race based" organizations should be discussed, it should be discussed across the board as a problem equally regarding all races, don't you think?

And also, a complaint began in a thread also equally warrants other complaints. Don't be surprised if some complaints do not agree with the thread starter's assumptions.

For an organization also to be "race based", one must examine issues of privilege, power, elitism, politics and society not only internationally, but within the United States. These issues must be also addressed when talking about "racism". And privilege and power is afforded to those constituted by the majority of the United States. That is derived statistically (thanks to Sporty's post of the CIA statistics of the America racially). Much more truthfully, there is an unequal representation of gender and race in the power structure of society. This also has to be part of the discussion as well.

I would like to say furthermore the "race issue" was brought up at the first post by mooonhoxe. By all due respect, you should bring up your concerns about race with him, not me. I'm not introducing the problems afforded to "white privilege". He and other posters have further expounded on this concept. They are "screaming about race" on this issue more than me.

Besides, I didn't start this thread by complaining that organizations and businesses specifically catering to a particular race was "divisive". Then, there was the proposition that if white people started a station called WET, that the "minorities" would call them racist".

As someone Black, I have answered twice that I didn't think it was racist to start such a channel as WET. And if I probably found something interesting, I would probably watch the network. I never said anyone or anybody was racist for proposing such a station. I would just look at the content. Besides if someone has the money and the license to do such, they are going to do it anyway without anyone else's consent. You've have simply seen acts like these happen in the present administration. Who's to say this is going to be any different in show business?

I just mainly said that the thread starter did not adequately research the entire scope of the question. Many organizations in American society are "race based", but it takes someone with depth to set up a criteria, present a hypothetical question and present clearly an intellectual topic based on this issue instead of a complaint.

I am just bringing up a different view of seeing these situations. It is not crying discrimination. It is, however, is bringing up other information that people ought to be aware of when they bring up issues such as these.

Yes, racism exists. But they have to deal with all parameters of it. Not just one part. And once they understand that, they will start to understand what tolerance and equality truly means.


Originally quoted by snowflake_obsidian.

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.


Yes, it is silly. But it is as ridiculous as assuming that every person of color is going to call you racist for acts without any evidence or meaning. That's what I see here.

The question needs to be re-framed for it to be addressed properly and fairly. It is not wrong to discuss this because we all need to be more aware about how others view this subject matter.

"Race based" organizations are not solely exclusive to Black people or any other person of color. White people have "race based" organizations too that are equally divisive because of their historical participation in society. This also needs to be acknowledged.

In fact, a comparison and contrast should be done between all "race based" organizations in American society across the board from all racial spectrums to see if this theory actually holds. I ask for proof, true research of all these organizations and a comprehensive report.

But first, these things have to be raised:

1)A proper research question regarding racism and "race based" groups regarding the issue.

2)A methodology regarding how the thread starter derived this conclusion that minorities would call whites "racist" for starting a "race based" group. What did he do? A survey? A qualititative, observation-based study? Then we can see if he is biased in his assumptions.

3)And a meticulous research statement drawing upon these conclusions filled with proof without anyone's help. That means he can prove that he isn't biased in his research and has further explored this concept across the board when deriving his theories about minorities and their reaction to whites when they form "race based groups".

I never said these things weren't true. I just asked for more research on the thread starter's part and less bias in his approach to addressing this issue.











[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
When a person begins a discussion and fails to adequately address the issue, it is considered "kosher" to bring those issues up as part of the discussion. That's pretty much why it is called a discussion.

I understand that the issues we discuss here are often touchy, but that's the nature of this forum. Society is fraught with conflict and it would be unreasonable to expect that such would not be reflected here.

However, the benefit of this forum is that the subjects can be discussed rationally and the more provincial among us can be exposed to more cosmopolitan ideas.

And in addition, no one here has any idea what race another person is or any way to confirm a person's race if they choose to declare such. So when a person goes on the offensive about something like race, we can only guess that the person is genuine and not just having a little fun at our expense.

So while those of us who have personal experience that others do not are encouraged to share that information so that we can all be enlightened, we must also remember that when we get beside ourselves with anger, which I have been known to do myself on occasion, we sometimes fail to get our point across because we are putting others on the defensive.

[edit on 2006/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
If that is so, why is this thread considered so one-sided? I didn't see you post the "courtesy is manditory" link for RetinoidReceptor. Yet you did so for truthseeka. Why is that? Why was one chosen above the other when two people brought up RR's post?

And yes, people are touchy. But sometimes, people have to be more thoughtful about the questions they propose and put a lot of work and research into that question if they care for it.

Discussions can require a rigorous investigation of the proposed question by the thread starter, do they not?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Discussions can require a rigorous investigation of the proposed question by the thread starter, do they not?


Ideally, yes, but in reality, no. The more sophisticated among us would do well to nurture those who we feel are not so refined. Even a thread begun with ill intent can lead to fruitful discussion when cooler .s prevail.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Well, I would ask the cooler .s to come forth and bring some sense into this thread by requesting criteria for us to go by when discussing what is and what isn't a race-based organization.

Now that isn't truly hard, is it?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Why don't you lead the way?

I am mightily impressed by initiative, even when it is misdirected.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wang

Whites have been knwon to be racist in the past, and they are still the rich and powerful in america, they control most major media netowrks. So in a sense all major news networks do represent the white view on the world, but yes they do have black journalists to try to show that they aint "white only" but that doesnt mean that the station represents the blacks/hispanic views.
I do understand that there is a double standard, beacuse white people are in power and have to be the one's who cant say "white only", since they are the majority.


U mean again, they can't say 'whites only' again. This, and a select few of other replies, are the only I could read without my eyebrows going up.

BET is actually owned by WHITE people by the way, Viacom. Bob Johnsons sold BET to them in 2000 for $3mil.

Source

And I don't believe a 'white' or 'Jewish' channel or college fund is actually needed is it ? Don't they make all the other shows and own all the other channels on the TV ? Do white people have trouble getting into a college to begin with ? Please.

Besides if you want to see a WET (white entertainment television) go a., nobody's stopping anyone from doing so and I doubt the people who would call that 'racist' probably already think you are anyway *shrug*
Doubt it would pull in viewers like BET though

:shk: @ this

Just sad.


[edit on 30-7-2006 by ImJaded]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally quoted by GradyPhilpott
Why don't you lead the way?

I am mightily impressed by initiative, even when it is misdirected.


And so am I impressed by initiative. However, my request for seriousness and proof regarding the issue is not misdirected.

However, I think I'm_Jaded speaks with truth about this issue. The WET issue should be thought through and proposed into a post or a thread by these paragons of tolerance and equality begging for consideration of their concerns.

If they were the ones to start such a channel, what would they do, run old episodes of Lawrence Welk and Perry Como specials? Ask Eminem or Fred Durst to do a reality show? Please. Spare us the champange and bubbles and the violins.

The station would be taken less seriously because white issues are truly addressed overtly throughout the media. Their views are especially taken with consideration in politics. Who makes up the talk show pundits? Did anyone ever think about that? Name one Black pundit besides Tavis Smiley, Larry Elder or Alan Keyes that you know on cable or commercial television. Or, name other Black pundits with the same type of power (beyond the three) as Limbaugh and Hannity who are nationally known on radio.

I'd be mighty surprised if the same paragons of tolerance and equality can answer these two questions whole-heartedly without vitriol in their acknowledgement of "race based" systems.

Radio and talk punditry is also "race based" in terms of politics and society.

Besides, did anyone consider that you guys already have a WET already? It's called FOX news. Who is it run by? A white male who uses other white males to expound upon what a majority of Americans should be thinking about politics, government and entertainment. It even seizes this control on radio as well. I mean, who else listens to Rush Limbaugh? Mostly White males who agree with him. Who listens to Bill O'Reilly? Mostly other white males. And it is a network that has propelled another white male (Tony Snow) into the seat of the White House Press Secretary. And his boss is a white male who was elected into office as POTUS by a majority of white males in the country.

How "race based" of an organization do you want to get?

If FOX isn't a "race based" channel then the DAR is simply the Daughters of the African Republic in disguise.

About your request:

I am not a white male. You are. That is your department since your are a FSME and you find a common bond with the issue of the thread starter. Demonstrate your leadership ability. Request for more proof and a meticulous study of the information.










[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join