|
Loki45 -> RE: Vanity Fair: Racist? (2/5/2010 12:37:54 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
I don't see how your point is a counter-challenge to what I've stated. Exclusion would lead to slight, ya think?
Didn't say it was. But if they can exclude, so can vanity fair.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
Do we really have to? I haven't watched a BET awards show in years and it's not exactly top notch entertainment but I know enough to state that you are flat out wrong. In the past, there have been celebrities of other races that have appeared as presenters and performers. As I recall, Robin Thicke recently performed on the show. But I guess one that doesn't actually 'watch' or bother to follow these types of things wouldn't know. Now would you?
Let's highlight the important part of what you just said, shall we?
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
Do we really have to? I haven't watched a BET awards show in years and it's not exactly top notch entertainment but I know enough to state that you are flat out wrong. In the past, there have been celebrities of other races that have appeared as presenters and performers. As I recall, Robin Thicke recently performed on the show. But I guess one that doesn't actually 'watch' or bother to follow these types of things wouldn't know. Now would you?
Celebrities and presenters.....but not honorees. Yet in other awards shows, blacks, whites, browns and blues all get put in for the same awards. Why then, I wonder, do the blacks, hispanics, etc *still* feel the need for their own awards? Is it a continuation of affirmative action? Up against performers of other races, do the blacks not feel they will win?
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
I'd like to know when the Counsel of Conservative Citizens are going to give Oprah her humanitarian award? When? I think never.
I'd be ok with her getting one when she builds a school in AMERICA instead of africa, and not before. But that's a whole other topic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
No, they very much have their place in the now.
Spoken like a true segregationist. I guess race will always be a factor in this country because.....'some'....will always use it as a factor.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
Wow by your statement, I'd assume that one black President and we're living in post-racial America. So we don't have major city neighborhoods that are still 'voluntarily segregated' like Chicago and clearly that's because of Black people and those of color? And we don't have a high concentration of Caucasians living in the suburbs and or rural areas because, black people want to keep away from the riff raff?
Yeah there are people who willingly want to be segregated and by my observations it's not the people of color in this country. Why? Because for some people of color, as soon as they get a little money, they move into a neighborhood that consists of majority Caucasian people. That's very telling. Doesn't sound like willful segregation to me.
See, now you're just throwing around accusations. For everything you've seen to indicate that it's 'the man' who desires 'willful segregation' I can point to an example that shows that it's those 'of color' who would prefer it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
But to specifically address the publishing industry: clearly they did not get the memo you did. Why? Because in 2009 the U.S and Canada alone published nearly 25,000 (I counted 24,242) magazines and periodicals. Based on statistics from 2005, roughly 10,000 of those are more than likely U.S publications. Out of the 10,000 magazine 2,000 are widely circulated. Out of those 2,000 only three or four are explictly stated to be 'black' interests publications.
Those are :
Ebony/Jet- a magazine featuring stories and topics of interest to black men and women.
Black Enterprise - A magazine featuring info on black owned business and business people.
Essence - A magazine featuring stories and topics of interest to black women.
But I'll be honest, I made that last part up, because in the statistical data from last year, black interest and what was labeled 'African-American interest' magazines were not even counted. I guess they were deemed so insignificant, the data analysts said, "why bother." I don't know about you but that seems kind of suspect.
Gratefully, our gay and lesbian citizens got 113 publications counted (although I'm not sure what percentage was American or Canadian, nor if they were widely circulated). A small drop in a big pond but better than nothing or 3 or 4.
The thing about all those publications, is that none of the 'white' publications are actually that way. They're just 'assumed' to be that way. The ones like Ebony (where's Ivory?), Jet, etc. ......ALL those willingly admit to being a "black" publication. Yet if a magazine or channel openly said it was a 'white' channel, the race cards would pile up to the ceiling.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theobserver
Is this really an argument? One comedy spoof compared to dozens maybe hundreds of films in the past couple of decades? And of course, we wouldn't want to go much farther than that because then we get into some very sticky territory in regards to the portrayals of blacks in films and television.
It ABOSLUTELY is an argument. Look at some of the comedy they introduced. Then turn it around and put two white guys at the helm. Jesse Jackson himself would lead the boycott.
Black comedians throw around the phrase "white boy" and yes, we *all* know they are not using it affectionately. But if a white comedian did the same....whoa, look out.
My problem in this area is the same as my problem with feminism. They no longer seek to be truly equal. They want to be superior. And until they are, they will hold fast to their race cards and drop them at the slightest hint of anything having to do with race (in their minds).
|
|
|
|
