Hi everyone, this is the first time, so apologizes in advance if I did not follow the proper net-etiquette.
I have read the entire thread and a few things come up. Since I majored in sociology and minor in media studies, perhaps I can add a few ideas, which have been tangentially mentioned.
I think the word racism is overused and does not describe the intended meaning, since many people of different races can look white or non-white or ‘colored’ as it was known in the 1950s. I think a better word would be discrimination against color.
In the a society where the majority are of Caucasian origin, the socio-ecomo-industro political machinery will be driven by the majority and a ‘status quo’ will result, in which the economic position will be maintained at the expense of a morally-driven equalitarianism.
The whole issue about slavery paradoxically is not that the slave-owners were ‘racist’ or ‘hated blacks’, because if we read their journals, diaries, we understand that they did not ‘hate blacks’, but thought of them in economic terms as commodities and exploited them for economic gains. This was black exploitation for economic gain rather than ‘hating blacks’. On the contrary, the owners knew that if a slave was mistreated, he/she couldn’t work at 100%, if he could not work at 100%, productivity would decrease and their profit would decrease. Their objection to giving blacks the vote was that the status quo would change and their economic position would deteriorate, because unlike the northern states, their primary industry was agrarian-based, which required manual intervention in the form of slave labor. Paying them would lower their profit margin. In addition to this main argument, another argument was fostered that the blacks would not ‘survive in the real world, because they were inferior intellectually but superior athletically and hence the best for both societies was blacks do the manual heavy work, because genetically they could not handle the intellectual rigors. Obviously hand-in-hand with this argument was the fact that blacks were forbidden to educate themselves except in ways that would make them fit and ready for manual labor. Intercultural association was forbidden because the offspring would fit neither camp and again the status quo would be disturbed am sure we cal all think what the consequences can be of a society where one is told, one is good at manual labor and nothing else and where one cannot enjoy the benefits of one’s labor and is told who he/she can associate with. The people, who did know own slaves, were afraid of blacks because of the propaganda, which the rules of society would break down, if they were allowed ‘free will’. The facts that society did not break down, proves how erroneous these arguments were based factually and morally, but their legacy still lingers like a moon-lit shadow reflecting on a lake. If we were descended from slaves, this unfairness would still linger in our souls because of the inherit hurt, such a system would enforce. If blacks chose to do manual labor and got a decent wage, the hurt would be less, but they were never given that position, a position to decide. Ironically after slavery was abolished, a bulk of former slaves worked for their former ‘owner’s for a wage, so their was not the racism we think of today, but their was black economic exploitation and enforced cultural and institutional –discrimination on a vast scale.
The point that BET is racist because it has black in the title is a illogical, because the ‘B’ in BET stands for more than B. ‘Black’ is not a literal explanation of the color black, but a metaphor of what the channel serves, which is music, politics, sports that is culturally tailored and for lack of a better expression, they use black. We do not have a WET, because the status quo that favors the majority, serves the needs and desires of this majority. The needs that cater for the majority are everywhere and so no ‘specialization’ is required, but where one has a minority, then specialization does make sense, to cater to that minority because they have limited supply from outside, but also to encourage the majority to sample the wares of this specialization, just like non-Chinese people go to a Chinese restaurant, say in Texas. One does not think why don’t they have the phrase Texas Restaurant. It is because the bulk of food courts serve food that approximates to what the majority eat, lack of a better phrase ‘Texan cuisine’, whereas a Chinese restaurant serves two roles. One to cater to people of Chinese descent who would appreciate ‘home cooking’ and one to native Texans, who have not come across this type of food before. No one would think that as offensive and neither should anyone view any organization that has ‘black’ in the title, unless their explicitly manifest is anti-majority.
In this movie, a script was tailored to what the primary actor is known best for. At this level with well known stars, many movies are customized to meet the primary actors needs, just like an action movie would make sly or Arnie the hero’s, the roles plays upon their perceived status as a ‘hero’, ‘comedian’. His dialogue is supposed to inflect some antidisestablishmentarism mannerism on what we see. “Is it because I am black’, therefore is a metaphor to say, is this status quo maintained by implantation of radical socio-politics which lead to disenfranchisement of a sect, based upon phenotypic profiling. Although funny in the first instance, repeated usage tends to blunt the ironic comic tendencies. It this reverse-discrimination or simply bad script writing, for it to be reverse-discrimination in the classic sense, it would have to be whereby the status quo is disrobed and some part of the majority become disenfranchised. A classic example is a revolution, where the ruling class becomes the ruler en-mass and ruled in such a manner that they are exploited in a non-equitable manner (e.g. ‘forced labors’). This isn’t reverse racism in the classic sense, but can be viewed as at least bad manners, where joy is taken at someone’s discomfort by placing them in an unfortunate scenario and this placement is motivated by color. In the worst-case scenario, it is discriminative propaganda defamatory.
In any society where one ethnic class rule to maintain the status quo, discrimination is inherit ant, another example is Romania where some portion of the bulk Slav population have negative tendencies towards the ethnic gypsies, even thought they are ‘white’, they are viewed as petty criminals. This is view is widespread enough that a contestant in a ‘pop idol’ contest claimed she was eliminated, for her ‘gypsies appearance’. Although the official policy is everyone is equal, some form of negative discrimination does occur, if it is not based upon economic, political exploitation, then it ought not to be feared.
We ought to for fear this, if it is not economic, let me conclude by citing a trivial example, I am a brunette, some guys prefer redheads or blondes over brunettes, this is a form of discrimination and this form is not an issue, what would be an issue is if someone used their position in authority (the status quo) and barred brunette from having an economic place in society or implemented a policy where they were used as ‘sex-slaves’. That would be forced economic exploitation on an non-equalitarian basis and as such ought to be resisted, however the former, if someone doesn’t like brunette, to me its not a big deal, the latter, where one is discriminated or exploited is a big deal.
reply
share
Full_Blooded_Italian
21 years ago
"The needs that cater for the majority are everywhere and so no ‘specialization’ is required, but where one has a minority, then specialization does make sense, to cater to that minority because they have limited supply from outside, but also to encourage the majority to sample the wares of this specialization, just like non-Chinese people go to a Chinese restaurant, say in Texas. One does not think why don’t they have the phrase Texas Restaurant. It is because the bulk of food courts serve food that approximates to what the majority eat, lack of a better phrase ‘Texan cuisine’, whereas a Chinese restaurant serves two roles. One to cater to people of Chinese descent who would appreciate ‘home cooking’ and one to native Texans, who have not come across this type of food before. No one would think that as offensive and neither should anyone view any organization that has ‘black’ in the title, unless their explicitly manifest is anti-majority."
Here's where we disagree, see haivng a black resturant is fine, but then don't not serve whites, and the bitch when whites don't let you in. Or have your own channel, but declare an all white channel racist, or have your own padget, then expect to be accepted in the other one. Majority or minority dosn't matter, one can't have their own, and delcare another group having their own racist.
reply
share