BET - Black Entertainment Television

Ed Bradley on CBS.

Wendell Goler, chief White House correspondent on FOX.

Juan Williams is a pundit, or FOX News All-Star on Specail Edition on FOX.

Bernard Shaw is or was an anchor on CNN.

There are others.

Black Journalists Google Search


[edit on 2006/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]

Once again I feel like I am being forced to repeat the thinking behind posting this thread. I only used the two organizations because of how they are titled.

Black Entertainment Television and United Negro College Fund.

I truly feel that if someone was to start a group entitled White Entertainment Television or United Caucasian College Fund, that these organizations would not be given the chance to last as long as either of the groups I am basing this discussion on. Boycotts and riots would kill them before really being able to proceed. Based on how they are titled.

I am not seriously advocating starting such groups. I do however think that it would be an interesting experiment to have happen. Ceci2006 has stated more than once that he/she wouldn't be too offended by it, but I don't think Ceci2006 represents the entire black population. I feel that MANY would cause an uproar. And not just blacks, but most minorities. And a lot of whites also. That is why I think this is a conspiracy. I guess this hypothesis can't really be proven until someone actually starts a group like this.

I realize that there are white supremacy groups out there. Case in point, Ku Klux Klan is a hate group based on historical evidence. Even if WET or UCCF were created and never had a shred of hatred portrayed, I feel that minorities would see that just based on the name, that they are racist. And rightfully so.

There is no reason to bang your fingers black and bloody to make the same points over and over again. You can either ask that people reread the thread or you can post links to the appropriate posts.

Those who have posted their rebuttals already and refuse to advance the topic any further do not deserve a response, if you feel that you have adequately stated your position.

Those who take issue with your position can either post post their own objective analysis or they can be ignored.

There is no reason to allow malcontents to derail the discussion because they don't like the thread. It is just as easy to redirect the discussion by the posting of opposing views, but the old "ad hominem" attacks don't deserve response.

They have the right to post objective data in an academic manner, if they so choose.

[edit on 2006/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady, they aren't pundits in the true sense of the word. I think you are missing the point of my question.

1)How have they demonstrated media power in the same way as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly?

2)What kind of salaries and contracts are they given in comparison to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly?

3)What has FOX truly given Juan Williams in terms of media punditry and power? Really--on their "race based" network using "divisive issues"?


There is power and privilege afforded to people knowing how they look like and can speak to an audience. And who is the majority audience watching FOX news? Who makes up the majority of the pundits who influence certain citizens on how to see issues? Certainly not Juan Williams and William Goler.

Of all the names, Bernard Shaw is the most prominent and august of the old school journalists. For about a long period of time, he did anchor the desk at CNN until he retired. So you are right about Mr. Shaw. He has even anchored Presidential elections with Judy Woodruff.

However Ed Bradley, of course, is part of 60 Minutes and he is given the chance to lead for a bit. Yet, he does extraordinary work. But has he anchored on CBS? In your memory? Has he ever been in the likes of Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer? Or now, Katie Couric? Really? Connie Chung was at a time put ahead of him to co-anchor with Dan Rather. And she got fired.

But mooonhoxe, you are wrong. None of us are arguing that these groups shouldn't exist for white people. They already do. And we have pointed them out. And some of these White organizations have scholarships, fellowships and internships, not to mention philanthropy for the more distinguished of the white "race based" groups.

And they have a record of historically reported acts to test their racist factor on.

You have not explained beyond a name how BET and UNCF is divisive and racist for White people.

You have not gone beyond your assumption how people of color who name a group "racist" because of the name.

Three of us have already said that we didn't find it racist. And most of us encouraged a WET to be started.

Why are you so upset over this?

However, a lot of us just question the biased inferences based upon this question of "minority" attitudes especially when they deeply involve "white privilege and power" based on a small group of elites which in reality oppress all of us through their money, exclusivity and prestige.

Racism isn't just conveyed with a name. They are brought forth by acts. Now if you had proof of these acts attached to a "race based" organization, then, there is meat to this issue. A lot of posters pointed this out, also and already provided proof.










[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]

I would request of you, that courtesy is manditory, even for a FSME--especially when you are bringing up malcontents.

How would you define them? Are they malcontents because they don't agree with mooonhoxe's proposition of the issue?

That's a pretty harsh thing to say.

I thought we had a First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Or did they remove that between yesterday and this morning?


[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Ceci

Please remain on topic. I've made my case. You may accept or reject, as you wish.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no reason to bang your fingers black and bloody to make the same points over and over again. You can either ask that people reread the thread or you can post links to the appropriate posts.

Those who have posted their rebuttals already and refuse to advance the topic any further do not deserve a response, if you feel that you have adequately stated your position.

Those who take issue with your position can either post post their own objective analysis or they can be ignored.

There is no reason to allow malcontents to derail the discussion because they don't like the thread. It is just as easy to redirect the discussion by the posting of opposing views, but the old "ad hominem" attacks don't deserve response.

They have the right to post objective data in an academic manner, if they so choose.

[edit on 2006/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]

Thank you. I was hoping by rephrasing my inital post that my point might get across. I guess I'm just gonna have to take your advise. No matter how many ways I say it, it's just not gonna sink in. I am only trying to bring up what I feel is a valid point on the fight against racism. I'm only trying to do what I can to help.

edited to add 'do' to last sentence

[edit on 30-7-2006 by mooonhoxe]

But Grady, I am remaining on topic.

No one deserves to be called a malcontent for disagreeing with this topic. That is as part of the issue as it is to speak of support of it. No one should be called a derogatory name for expressing discontent with a topic.

Or is this topic so important that you even overlook your own manners for the sake of defending the core values of this issue?

As for academic studies, I agree. People should post academic studies based on this issue that either refute or support the claim made in this thread. I hope they come. Then the topic will be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Then please mooonhoxe for the rest of us explain this valid point of racism.

What is it about BET and UNCF by virtue of their names gives you the most trouble?

Is it the fact they exist?

However, can you list the acts perpetrated by "race based" groups in your definition that would make them "racist" in nature? Beyond the names?

Can you please list your reasons why "minorities" would call a white organization racist by virtue of their name?

That is what I would like to know.

Originally quoted by mooonhoxe
I feel that MANY would cause an uproar. And not just blacks, but most minorities. And a lot of whites also. That is why I think this is a conspiracy. I guess this hypothesis can't really be proven until someone actually starts a group like this.

They might--if they demonstrated "ill will", hateful rhetoric and abhorrent action towards people of color and whites who disagree with their topics and shows.




[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by mooonhoxe
I truly feel that if someone was to start a group entitled White Entertainment Television or United Caucasian College Fund, that these organizations would not be given the chance to last as long as either of the groups I am basing this discussion on. Boycotts and riots would kill them before really being able to proceed. Based on how they are titled.

There is the rub. I feel no one would complain (except racist groups) about White Entertainment Television but it will never be created. Why? Not racism. Not the fear of retaliation from racist (race-empowerment) groups. One simple reason: competition. BET has very little competition for their brand of programming. What would WET do to differentiate themselves from ABC, CBS, NBC, USA, TNT, TNN, and on and on. The point is that 80% of the television out there already is WET. It is the ubiquity of WET that enables the exact opposite of that brand of networking to survive, nay, flourish in the form of BET.

On the topic of the UCCF, if you want to start one go ahead. There is nothing and no one who will stop you - as long as you gave scholarships out without regard to an applicants race.

All I see here is another "the strong white man is a dying race"-type post filled with only IMAGINED and overblown fears.

Jon

[edit on 7.30.2006 by Voxel]

Once again, a good thread has been totally derailed.

This thread WAS about a very important aspect of race issues and race relations in the US today, but has now been purposely degenerated into a race war just like every other thread that even mentions race these days, and some that don't.

What this thread WAS about is double standards. People don't want a "Whites Only" world, but a "Blacks Only" world is OK. In fact, there's a mindset that the whites owe something to the blacks and we shouldn't complain about blatant racism on the part of black people or that makes us racist.

The double standard is that it's ok for black people to be racist, but not ok for white people to be.

The double standard is that you had better not call a black person a "negro", but the organization that gives them money for college is called the United Negro College Fund and that's ok.

The double standard is it's politically incorrect and outdated to call blacks "colored people", but the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) calls them just that. But that's ok.

The double standard is white people had better never be heard using the N word, but it's fine for black people to use it freely and ubiquitously.

The double standard is that if Ebony Magazine were met with Ivory Magazine, it would be called racist, skinhead, supremacy bullcrap.

Black Pride = Good
White Pride = Bad

The double standard is that a "whites only" anything is considered racist, but a "blacks only" anything is considered owed to them and acceptable.

You've got your Irish-American, your Italian-American, your African-American, your Mexican-American, your Japanese-American... but if you're just a regular old white guy, you don't get a special name or any kind of special help. You're on your own. You, sir, are an English-American and there's no such animal. Have a nice life.

Don't get me wrong, there was a time when we desperately needed the NAACP and UNCF and they are still needed today. Racism against blacks and other minorities still exists and I'm a huge proponent of working to get rid of it. That's why I'm so passionate about threads like this.

But the answer isn't to turn the tables and allow racism against whites to be the norm. And that's what I see happening. People like Ceci group non-whites and whites into their respective cubbyholes and make the whites the oppressors and everyone else the victims of the nasty, powerful, elite white race. What a joke! That's the way it used to be, but it's no longer like that. We dislike those people nearly as much as you do! But because of the color of our skin, you group us in with them as if our skin color makes us think and act the same as they do. Sound familiar???

It's much better than it used to be. It's not perfect, but we're going in the right direction. And in my opinion, the names of these organizations that cater to "Colored People" and "Negroes" and "Blacks" are holding us in the past. At the very least, the names should be changed to reflect the current advancement of black people in the US today.

If you want to be EQUAL, then act equal. Claim your space in the world. Not as Blacks, but as people first! Having TV networks, magazines, months dedicated to your race only ADDS to the perception that you're not equal and that you need something "special" and "different" set aside for you. That's not equal, that's separate.

You complain about having once been separated from whites by a Whites Only world. So instead of claiming your place, you've developed a Blacks Only world that builds and strengthens the barrier between the races.

When I see threads like this, I can only surmise that black people (the ones participating here) don't really want equality, they want revenge. It really seems to me that you want to turn the tables on the white people whose ancestors enslaved your ancestors. It's the very same thing that's happening between religions of the world today and it breaks my heart.

Because I truly believe that equality between the races is possible. But not as long as there's so much anger around what happened in the past, that none of us, by the way, has any control over. None of us. There's not a damn thing we can do about what happened in the past. And I refuse to feel guilty about it and I refuse to grant special dispensation (in any way) to the people who have never been enslaved.

Racism against blacks exists. Yes. But it's less now that it's ever been. And it's getting less all the time. But in my opinion, the movement of black people to get revenge against "the man" is going to ruin any progress that the civil rights movement has made. We're going to end up in world where there is hatred between the races. Not because white people think blacks are 'lower' or 'lesser', but because black people can't let it go.

Some segment of black people (represented here) simply can never forgive the white people of today (the white power elite) for what happened over 100 years ago, even though we had NOTHING to do with it. It's the color of our skin that makes us so guilty. It's the color of our skin that makes us worthy of hate. And somehow I think that some people are just fine with that.

And the whole point of this thread (which was purposely shoved into the dark corner) was that BET is fine! It's great! But the double standard exists that if a White equivalent to ANY of these organizations were to pop up, it would be considered racist.

If black people want equality and to abolish racism, shouldn't they work to dissolve the division between the races instead of feeding it, by making special Black everything?

Originally posted by SportyMB

Ok, substitute race for color. It's still means the same. I don't see how it's racist

Ok, I see what happened here. I got confused in your syntax.

I assumed when you said race, you meant someone not of the Homospien Species. And I thought that odd.

I also realize that when you said:

The majority of black Americans (especially the younger ones) have a taste for hip-hop, rap, r&b, etc... Many white Americans like country, rock, oldies and that techno trash. Many hispanic Americans like spanish music more than other Americans do.

I don't see where the confusion is at. Where did I say that any of that was "BECAUSE of their genetic make up"? I didn't give a reason why people like what they like, I assume that ATSers are smart enough to know it's due to enviorment, not color.

Even though you 'technically say', becuase a person is black/white/hispanic, that's why they like certain things, you also say that it's part of their environment. Although that contradicts (in the way it's worded), I can see what you were trying to say.

People of similar genetic make-up often live in groups of others who are genetically similar. Because of this, it SEEMS as though being of a certain genetic make-up makes you like certain things, but it's the cutlure within that community (and not exclusive to that community) that causes the adoration of certain things. It's not the genetic make-up. but it's correlation to the fact that most people of similar genetic make-up 'hang out' together and therefore make their own culture.

It's a fine line, but I think more people should be aware of it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Once again, a good thread has been totally derailed.

The thread has been re-railed. It will remain railed as long as participants refuse to let it be derailed.

Anyone has the right to present tangential issues or to even grind an ax or two, but we the participants determine how far off track we go and how long we remain off track.

Woo-woo! All aboard!




[edit on 2006/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]

mooonhoxe - I totally understand what you are saying. It's not about the fact that there are things such as the NAACP and BET but that most likely, if there were things that catered specifically to caucasians, it would be considered racist.

Anyone can come on here all day long and say that no it wouldn't, why doesn't anyone do it then..blah blah. But lets be realistic here. Sure anyone could start something specifically for whites but why do that when you can stand up and say "let's all be proud that we are alive and are who we are"?

I think the point is, we should all be intergrated by now. Some people can't get past a skin color or the past. I don't hate anyone because of the American Revolution, but maybe thats because I was never there to fight in it?

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
Once again, a good thread has been totally derailed.

This thread WAS about a very important aspect of race issues and race relations in the US today, but has now been purposely degenerated into a race war just like every other thread that even mentions race these days, and some that don't.

By all due respect, spare us the lecture about "true equality". You don't even practice it. And neither do I. None of us do.

The thread was never de-railed. It was only considered "derailed" because some posters did not expect the amount of disagreement that would happen because of this issue. And because some posters feel disturbed over their feelings in "playing the victim" and "playing the race card", they cannot easily claim that people of color do this all the time.

What this thread WAS about is double standards. People don't want a "Whites Only" world, but a "Blacks Only" world is OK. In fact, there's a mindset that the whites owe something to the blacks and we shouldn't complain about blatant racism on the part of black people or that makes us racist.

That's right. When some white people complain about minorities being "racist" then it is taken for granted. But when some posters of color say that they don't care about setting up those white "race based" organizations and rather encourage them in the name of diversity, then it's "all wrong". And when other posters of color bring up white "race based" organizations that cater to only white people then it's considered that the "thread has been derailed" and "malcontents have taken over the thread".

Still haven't heard about the country clubs and a good explaination about the DAR. I also didn't get a good explanation why some whites who participated in Jim Crow whole-heartedly shouldn't owe Blacks compensation or even an apology. It's not about slavery anymore. Jim Crow happened in this Century. We are still feeling its effects today. So stop playing dumb about "reparations". Let's talk about segregation in the forties, fifties and sixties--especially when these policies hurt a lot of people of color in dreadful ways. And some of these perpetrators of violent intimidation during Jim Crow could be your grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, mother or father.

Yeah, talk about double standards. White people can complain about Blacks being racist, but when people of color explain situations and events in which whites are actually being racist (i.e.,detailing acts, for example), some have a hissy fit and play stupid ignoring the most heinous of racist acts against non-whites historically and in the present day. Some even have said they didn't care in harsh terms. And then those posters who don't care call our experiences stupid, "sick" and "misguided" or "side-tracking" the topic. Go figure.

Some posters of color get insulted all the time because of what we say. And yet the other posters ignore it and laugh about it. This thread, in fact, is a big insult for "tolerance" and "equality" when we get told we're the trouble makers and the white posters are not.

So I would ask all of you to do the same. Do not single out one race when exposing a "race based" group. Go across the board to prove your case. Act equal in your questions and take the answers good or bad in equality--and don't have a fit when the opinion of others' don't reflect your point of view.

The problem is that we all could be considered racist for saying or doing something that wouldn't be considered racist in other circles. However, we all have different categories of racism and what we tolerate. Isn't that true?

The double standard is that it's ok for black people to be racist, but not ok for white people to be.

Who is saying that? Well, I guess you are. Not me. I don't believe it's okay for anyone to be racist.

But the answer isn't to turn the tables and allow racism against whites to be the norm. And that's what I see happening. People like Ceci group non-whites and whites into their respective cubbyholes and make the whites the oppressors and everyone else the victims of the nasty, powerful, elite white race. What a joke! That's the way it used to be, but it's no longer like that. We dislike those people nearly as much as you do! But because of the color of our skin, you group us in with them as if our skin color makes us think and act the same as they do. Sound familiar???

It sure does. It sounds like a misconstrued statement by someone who asked repeatedly not to be "misconstrued" by her statements. And yet you are doing it here. The irony of the situation.

But I don't think that way. People have a good side and a bad side in this world. That has nothing to do with race. But there are inequities--even when some people who try to mean well with their statements turn another's words into utter libel.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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.

AH, HA HA HA HA!!!

You are a LIAR! You're a liar. You have the nerve to lie when I quoted YOUR OWN WORDS!!

I know what your problem is. You can't stand seeing a bunch of black people on TV. You're probably the type who hates it when a bunch of black people come into IHOP while you're having a meal. Or when a bunch of black people come into your aisle in a store. Well, too bad; you're just going to have to deal with it. Ha ha ha!!

Anyway, I was thinking of an example of why BET would be created, and I found a good 1: Girls Gone Wild. Seriously. Those videos are getting pretty popular, but if you watch the commercials, you eventually notice something. NONE of the girls are black.

Is this because black girls don't go wild? I doubt that. But, we later see Snoop come out with a video called Black Girls Gone Buck. Now, look at that. Seems pretty exclusive by the name, doesn't it? Seems racist, huh? But, when you look at how it went down, you will see that the supposedly generic "girls" in the original is actually exclusive as well. Difference is it's not stated in the title.

See what happens when you don't have adequate representation of a group? Someone comes along and represents the group, but that's only because they're racist...

You're still a liar, FlyersFan. I see you failed to list any shows that belittle whites, big surprise. The only thing you could do is LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH. You said BET is EXCLUSIVELY black, but deny that you implied only black people are ever shown on the channel. You liar.

I think calling a fellow poster "liar" is a bit harsh, dont you?

Can we keep it civil?

Originally posted by dgtempe


I think calling a fellow poster "liar" is a bit harsh, dont you?

Can we keep it civil?

Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it.

It's 1 thing to make mistakes, we all do. Anytime I get something wrong, I'm quick to admit the error. But, when you openly lie, even when someone has quoted you, what else can be said? You're a liar in that case.

Hey, dg, the only thing that FlyersFan doesn't lie about is her dislike for Black people. She does it repeatedly and no one, not even you, ever tells her to stop.

So why isn't she any different in this issue centering on the slings and arrows concerning "white privilege?"


[edit on 30-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
She does it repeatedly and no one, not even you, ever tells her to stop.

What power do we have to "tell her to stop"? We don't control what other people say. If I had the power to make people to stop saying things, I still wouldn't because I'm a strong supporter of free speech. What possible good would it do to tell her to stop?

If you can say what you want, why can't she? Because she disagrees with you, you'd have US shut her up? YOU tell her to stop. Good luck on that.

Regardless, direct attacks on fellow members is against the T&C.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]