Black Men Speak Out!

[Psychic Missile]

1. That is not admitting racism.
2. He was using irony in that thread to make a point about "black pride" and other such things. That you think he was being racist actually proves his point.

It seems OK with people, like Raphael said, for them to have pride in their races and accomplishments, as well as having such things as Black Entertainment TV, Black history week, etc. but only if you are not white. If you are white then you are automagically a racist if you do the same things.

I think it is all racist, and we should concentrate on what we have in common as Americans instead of dividing ourselves among lines like ethnic or racial groups.

If he was using irony, he failed. He did not correct anyone who assumed he was speaking from the heart, and the way he's responded to criticism, I do not think you're correct. I judge people by what they do and say. What's on the inside does not matter if it's never expressed.

For your edification, black pride, BET, and Black History Month are OK with people because black people are a marginalized group, every other network is a white entertainment network, and every other month is white history month, respectively. It is racist for a group that holds the highest position in society to exercise that position and declare a space for themselves, when they already have the default space.

[Cow Poke]

1. That is not admitting racism.
2. He was using irony in that thread to make a point about "black pride" and other such things. That you think he was being racist actually proves his point.

It seems OK with people, like Raphael said, for them to have pride in their races and accomplishments, as well as having such things as Black Entertainment TV, Black history week, etc. but only if you are not white. If you are white then you are automagically a racist if you do the same things.

I think it is all racist, and we should concentrate on what we have in common as Americans instead of dividing ourselves among lines like ethnic or racial groups.

Think what an absolute atomic hissy the media would throw if somebody chartered a "National Association for the Advancement of White People".

Yeah, they'd say "that's the KKK".

[Zymologist]

If he was using irony, he failed. He did not correct anyone who assumed he was speaking from the heart, and the way he's responded to criticism, I do not think you're correct. I judge people by what they do and say. What's on the inside does not matter if it's never expressed.

For your edification, black pride, BET, and Black History Month are OK with people because black people are a marginalized group, every other network is a white entertainment network, and every other month is white history month, respectively. It is racist for a group that holds the highest position in society to exercise that position and declare a space for themselves, when they already have the default space.

Personally, I don't really care if black folks want to talk about black pride, BET, or Black History Month. But I don't really follow the bold. Why is that true?

[Cow Poke]

Personally, I don't really care if black folks want to talk about black pride, BET, or Black History Month. But I don't really follow the bold. Why is that true?

Yeah, I think that's way overblown -- most, if not all, of the "white entertainment" networks portray life pretty much as it is - comprised of blacks, whites, hispanics, orientals....

[seer]

Latino is an ethnicity, not a race. And if you say "The European WHITE RACE is the best and most advanced RACE in history," you're by definition saying that other races are inferior, because for something to be the best means that it's superior to other things, which means that those other things are inferior.

You could've said European civilizations overall are more technologically advanced than some other civilizations, but the minute you emphasize "white race," you're making a claim of racial superiority.

No, the fact is the European culture was largely what we call white. What is wrong with "white pride?" And I never said that they were superior because of race. That is an important distinction. And that was the whole point of the thread - you guys have no problem with "black pride" but "white pride?" That automatically makes you a racist...

And this is what I asked in the OP:

I think the European white race and culture is the best most advanced culture/ race in history. The most prolific race when it comes to science, invention and political structure, ideals. Far surpassing any other race known to man. Is that belief racist in and of itself?

[Psychic Missile]

Personally, I don't really care if black folks want to talk about black pride, BET, or Black History Month. But I don't really follow the bold. Why is that true?

The entertainment industry has a fundamental problem with race. For most TV shows or Hollywood movies, white people are considered the default, and Hispanic, black, or Asian actors aren't cast as leads unless they have broad demographic appeal (like Will Smith or Samuel L Jackson) or the show or movie is about race. White people are disproportionately represented in media because people of color are regarded as economically unsafe.

As for history, people of color are generally disregarded for the actions of white men. In my history classes, the only black people brought up were George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and MLK. Specific Asian or Hispanic people were never mentioned. Native Americans were never mentioned except for Squanto or if a chief fought with a white person. Their struggles, like Japanese Internment camps, the Trail of Tears, or the massacres committed by explorers were never mentioned. From talking with other people, I found this wasn't unusual. Maybe things have changed since then, but I doubt it has changed much if at all.

[Zymologist]

The entertainment industry has a fundamental problem with race. For most TV shows or Hollywood movies, white people are considered the default, and Hispanic, black, or Asian actors aren't cast as leads unless they have broad demographic appeal (like Will Smith or Samuel L Jackson) or the show or movie is about race. White people are disproportionately represented in media because people of color are regarded as economically unsafe.

As for history, people of color are generally disregarded for the actions of white men. In my history classes, the only black people brought up were George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and MLK. Specific Asian or Hispanic people were never mentioned. Native Americans were never mentioned except for Squanto or if a chief fought with a white person. Their struggles, like Japanese Internment camps, the Trail of Tears, or the massacres committed by explorers were never mentioned. From talking with other people, I found this wasn't unusual. Maybe things have changed since then, but I doubt it has changed much if at all.

I've never gotten those impressions. When I look at Hollywood and the entertainment industry, I see a bunch of people of a variety of races, many of whom are quite successful. Anyway, I've never heard the terms "white history month" or "white entertainment network" applied to anything that's not explicitly labeled as "black history month/entertainment network." Just seems like an overstating of the case to me.

[Christianbookworm]

The white male protagonist thing was a problem in the past, but I'd hope it's getting better. Right?

[fm93]

No, the fact is the European culture was largely what we call white. What is wrong with "white pride?" And I never said that they were superior because of race. That is an important distinction. And that was the whole point of the thread - you guys have no problem with "black pride" but "white pride?" That automatically makes you a racist...

And this is what I asked in the OP:

I've already explained this, seer.

Throughout American history, people with dark skin have frequently been denigrated by a white majority who tried to destroy them and portray blackness as something shameful and evil. So when they speak of "black pride," they mean that they refuse to feel the shame that oppressors tried to cast upon them, that they'll instead view themselves with honor and esteem, knowing that to the contrary, it's not at all shameful or evil to be black. When they speak of black pride, they mean that they're grateful and content to be part of a racial group that kept persevering against oppression despite all the obstacles. Though some extremist groups may try to twist it into something different, that is the historical meaning of and reason for the term. Unless one is a relatively recent immigrant to America, to be black in this nation is not only to have dark skin, but also to be a member of that which was societally viewed as inferior, evil and powerless, the historic underdog. That sort of pride isn't "Look at what other black people did hundreds and thousands of years ago!" but rather "I share a characteristic with many other people who have been horrendously denigrated and oppressed precisely because of that characteristic, but I will not let myself be shamed and thereby continually oppressed by this characteristic. I will instead view myself and my fellow people who share this characteristic with esteem and honor."

Meanwhile, white people in America have never been an oppressed minority group; they were never counted as essentially only 3/5ths of a person or told that they're naturally inferior to other races and that their skin color is something shameful and evil. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for them to have "white pride." An important distinction here is that there have been some people in America who had white skin and were legitimately mistreated, such as the Irish, but as crazy as it may sound, the Irish weren't considered "white" back then. By "white people" I don't simply mean "people who have light skin tones," but rather people who are considered to be the default of a nation, the "pure" setting, the majority that holds the power. When speaking of race, "white" never simply means skin color, but also power. It's perfectly legitimate for descendants of oppressed groups who happen to have light skin tones to have Irish pride or German pride or Italian pride, but never "white" pride. To be Irish or German or Italian in America didn't always mean to hold power and be lumped into the default group, but being considered "white" has always meant that.

As Zymologist pointed out earlier, there's no rational reason to be proud of one's race in the sense of having certain physical features or skin tones. After all, you didn't choose or "achieve" those features. You were simply born into them; it was essentially a genetic accident. There's also no rational reason to be proud of one's race in the sense of boasting that people who aren't related to you and lived hundreds of years before you did achieved great things. There's no inherent feature in Europeans that made them capable of achieving all those things. As with most great works, they had to build off the prior accomplishments and discoveries of people from all over the world, many of whom weren't light-skinned. And as I've explained, that's not what black people mean by "black pride."

[Sparko]

If he was using irony, he failed. He did not correct anyone who assumed he was speaking from the heart, and the way he's responded to criticism, I do not think you're correct. I judge people by what they do and say. What's on the inside does not matter if it's never expressed.

For your edification, black pride, BET, and Black History Month are OK with people because black people are a marginalized group, every other network is a white entertainment network, and every other month is white history month, respectively. It is racist for a group that holds the highest position in society to exercise that position and declare a space for themselves, when they already have the default space.

oh, so calling a group "marginalized" makes it OK for them to be racist then?


And it is racist if a group that has the highest position in society to say so? Wouldn't that just be telling the truth then?

[fm93]

Anyway, I've never heard the terms "white history month" or "white entertainment network" applied to anything that's not explicitly labeled as "black history month/entertainment network."

Because whiteness is considered the default in this country. I was born and raised in America; by definition, I am an American. But when I have to provide my race or ethnicity to other people, I'm usually discouraged from simply putting down "American." Instead, I'm usually asked to say that I'm "Asian-American," despite the fact that other than about four two-week long vacations in my childhood, I've never even been to Asia. For some reason, I have to define myself for the rest of society by the nationality/ethnicity of my ancestors. The same goes for people with dark skin tones, many of whom likely have never been to Africa but still have to refer to themselves as "African-American."

Meanwhile, the people who, like me, were also born and raised in America but have light skin tones and are considered "White" generally don't have to refer to themselves as "European-American." Most of the time, they can simply say "I'm American." They don't have to partially define themselves for others by where their ancestors came from. They're considered the picture of what it means to be American. The same usually isn't said for people like me.

So yes, for all intents and purposes, mainstream TV networks are "white" networks. And although the issue of diversity in media has improved a bit, it's still an issue. How can programs set in diverse areas like New York City or Orange County, California feature so few people of other races when in reality you can spot minorities seemingly everywhere in those places?

[Sparko]

Because whiteness is considered the default in this country. I was born and raised in America; by definition, I am an American. But when I have to provide my race or ethnicity to other people, I'm usually discouraged from simply putting down "American." Instead, I'm usually asked to say that I'm "Asian-American," despite the fact that other than about four two-week long vacations in my childhood, I've never even been to Asia. For some reason, I have to define myself for the rest of society by the nationality/ethnicity of my ancestors. The same goes for people with dark skin tones, many of whom likely have never been to Africa but still have to refer to themselves as "African-American."

Meanwhile, the people who, like me, were also born and raised in America but have light skin tones and are considered "White" generally don't have to refer to themselves as "European-American." Most of the time, they can simply say "I'm American." They don't have to partially define themselves for others by where their ancestors came from. They're considered the picture of what it means to be American. The same usually isn't said for people like me.

Didn't you say you were black in a previous post?

and the same areas you claim to have to identify yourself as whatever, also have "Caucasian" on them, so it is not just "American" for whites, you imbecile.

[Zymologist]

Because whiteness is considered the default in this country. I was born and raised in America; by definition, I am an American. But when I have to provide my race or ethnicity to other people, I'm usually discouraged from simply putting down "American." Instead, I'm usually asked to say that I'm "Asian-American," despite the fact that other than about four two-week long vacations in my childhood, I've never even been to Asia. For some reason, I have to define myself for the rest of society by the nationality/ethnicity of my ancestors. The same goes for people with dark skin tones, many of whom likely have never been to Africa but still have to refer to themselves as "African-American."

Meanwhile, the people who, like me, were also born and raised in America but have light skin tones and are considered "White" generally don't have to refer to themselves as "European-American." Most of the time, they can simply say "I'm American." They don't have to partially define themselves for others by where their ancestors came from. They're considered the picture of what it means to be American. The same usually isn't said for people like me.

So yes, for all intents and purposes, mainstream TV networks are "white" networks. And although the issue of diversity in media has improved a bit, it's still an issue. How can programs set in diverse areas like New York City or Orange County, California feature so few people of other races when in reality you can spot minorities seemingly everywhere in those places?

What would be an example of a program that doesn't cast any minorities? I can think of one show that's set in LA, and off the top of my head there were several black characters, at least one Latino character, and overall it seemed like a totally normal casting.

Edit: This show was also about 10 years ago.

[Cow Poke]

Because whiteness is considered the default in this country.

No en Tejas!

[Psychic Missile]

I've never gotten those impressions. When I look at Hollywood and the entertainment industry, I see a bunch of people of a variety of races, many of whom are quite successful. Anyway, I've never heard the terms "white history month" or "white entertainment network" applied to anything that's not explicitly labeled as "black history month/entertainment network." Just seems like an overstating of the case to me.

I think you will find that it is difficult to fine a Hollywood movie that stars a person of color who isn't Will Smith or Samuel L Jackson and isn't about race. I also think you'll find that there are many examples in Hollywood of white people being cast as people of color (not that they wear blackface, but that the original character was a POC).