Hey, check this out! If you look and sing like a member of the Partridge Family, you can try out for VH1's new reality show. So in other words, white folks only, please.
I'm not saying it's a travesty or anything, I just think it's funny. It seems like reality shows tend to have a racist undercurrent. In the first episode of Joe Schmo 2, an otherwise-inferior sequel that spoofs Bachelor/Bachelorette type shows, all non-white contestants are immediately eliminated by the bachelor and bachelorette. SpikeTV knows what it's talking about; on those kinds of shows, blacks never even seem to be semi-finalists, let alone winners.
Joe Millionaire? Twice white, twice picks white girls. The Bachelor and his female counterpart? Over the course of seven seasons, they've always been white, and always picked white mates. Average Joe and Average Joe Hawaii? The white women twice weed out the fat black guys before the fat white guys (and then end up dumping the fatties altogether in favor of better-looking guys, but that's a whole other issue).
So, white people are just attracted to other white people, right? Well, maybe -- but on the other hand, we know reality TV is largely fixed. Evan, the first Joe Millionaire, claimed that the show's producers convinced him to pick Zora to win, for example. And non-whites don't fare too well in non-relationship reality shows, either.
Survivor, the one that started it all, has the best track record: one out of the eight survivors has been black. (In the more recent All-Stars series, two out of the 18 contestants were non-white, and neither made it to the finals.)
In four seasons, The Amazing Race has never had a winning non-white team (blacks are so lazy!). Don't expect their fifth season to be much different, as only one of the eleven teams is black.
Big Brother? White, white, white, white. Big Brother 5 has a 1:13 chance of being black. Good luck, Marvin the Mortician from Conway, SC. It ain't gonna happen.
I know what you're thinking: American Idol. Three seasons, two black winners. Well, ya got me. But if that show didn't have phone-in voting, things would be different. Believe me, the producers are not happy with the results. They'd love to make another From Justin To Kelly, but a romantic comedy about an interracial same-sex couple is just too...too...what's the phrase I'm looking for? Worth seeing?
At least the first Big Brother did have a Black male. He was the first voted off because he was a Black Panther.
I don't think your argument stands very well in relationship shows where the person picks which people he wants to get with. It's not really a question of racism, it's more of a question of what humans think is attractive. It's been pretty much proven that Black women on average are not thought of as most beautiful by any race on Earth. While White women tend to be most preferred by most races.
Look at our few Black supermodels, almost all of them have very light skin.
Have any of these shows had a Black man/woman deciding who stays and who goes? That's what needs to happen.
As for the Patridge Family, how else would you do it if they're not all White? They're a FAMILY. Would you want an interacial marrige with Mulatto children? Although possible, it would be tough to buy with the whole Mormon thing. And it would get really complicated and look like a stupid attempt at being overly PC.
At least the first Big Brother did have a Black male.
A lot of shows start out with one or two non-white contestants; they just never seem to win.
It's not really a question of racism, it's more of a question of what humans think is attractive. It's been pretty much proven that Black women on average are not thought of as most beautiful by any race on Earth.
Pretty much proven? By whom? You ought to know that you can't just make a claim like that without extremely strong support -- and I don't mean "this article I read once" or "a study they did." It's completely pointless to make a false claim or invent a percentage. Your argument is not helped.
Now, you and I have argued before about whether or not you yourself are a racist. For some reason, I can't seem to convince you -- even though I know you believe that people of different races have intrinsically superior/inferior traits. If you're a racist, then fine, my argument will not work on you; the inherent superiority of whites at winning reality shows is all the reason you need.
Look at our few Black supermodels, almost all of them have very light skin.
And I'm supposed to assume that this means light-skinned women are intrinsically more attractive? Mightn't I instead assume that racism is a factor?
Have any of these shows had a Black man/woman deciding who stays and who goes?
I think I covered that, but in case you weren't reading close enough: no.
As for the Patridge Family, how else would you do it if they're not all White?
Look, the thing is totally stupid in the first place! They're trying to put together a copy of the Partridge Family! Why? For what greater purpose? What idiot came up with this idea?
My point is: it shouldn't be done. Not just because it's the stupidest idea ever, but also because there can't be any black people. This should be something that goes through someone's head before they green light a show like this: "Am I disenfranchising an entire group of people based on the color of their skin?"
As a point of distinction: Big Brother was very successful in Europe long before Americans stole it. They had far more long-running black (what the hell do you call people on these shows?) "characters"
Y'know, as soon as I saw the title of this post and the color of the type, I thought to myself: Andrew's writing about racism - this certainly will turn out well.
He's pretty much correct about everything he said, of course. I'm just saying that finely honed Spidey-sense about when a post is going to get a little touchier than does-Dom-Delouise-suck-as-an-actor-or-what was going apeshit from the beginning.
Word.
Andrew, on stupidity, we are entirely in agreement. Fake Partridge Family reality show = dumb. The idea never should have gotten past the mid-level Network exec saying to whoever pitched the thing, "Are you high?"
BUT, assuming you get past that stage, you really believe that the next question should be "Are there any black people in it?" And that if the answer is no, the thing gets tossed? I don't think I'm a racist, and to the best of my knowledge, I don't think you think I'm one. I also don't think you can conclude that the moron who gave this show the go-ahead is one.
Before I argue with you, I'd like to know your position. Are you saying a)every new show brought to the air must include black people (how many, in what kind of roles, etc?); b)networks should be sure x% of shows brought to the air are "geared predominantly to black audiences" (or whatever the PC way to say that is), and if so, what is the "x"; or something else.
Let's discuss after a few drinks in Vegas.
There are no shows with stuff bears either. What about that audience? Granted, the audience may only be a handful that are currently being locked up in asylums.
Serious though. Andrew's points are correct. The continuation of having white participants in television shows foster the norm towards what is the norm, or what is desired, etc. Familiarity breeds what becomes desired.
As is shown in multi-racial families, these children grow up to have no preferences or believes that each race (that are in the family) are equally attractive. If you grow up seeing a majority of only one specific race, than naturally you will believe that race to be more attractive.
The following statement is wildly incorrect. This is EXACTLY what a racist would say. Or one who has NO idea what scientific research would look like.
"It's not really a question of racism, it's more of a question of what humans think is attractive."
Not to be rude, well yea, I do mean to. This statement is completely idoitic and self-centered racist. My god, get out of your damn bubble.
"It's been pretty much proven that Black women on average are not thought of as most beautiful by any race on Earth. While White women tend to be most preferred by most races."
There are 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion people from India. I will bet your bottom dollar they DO NOT all prefer white women. Stop thinking you're the most desired of everything simply because you have the most screen time you loud obnoxious fucks.
Liaps -- I think the conversation should have gone something like this:
"Okay, here's my idea: 'The Partridge Family.'"
"I hate it. But my kid needs orthodonture, so maybe. Keep talking."
"We get people who look and sing like the Partridge Family together, and then -- profit!"
"Wait, does that mean only white people?"
"Yeah."
"Okay, this is the stupidest idea ever. Next!"
Pup-Is that why you only date white people? LOL!
Andrew - for clarity, what would the conversation have been like if the pitch were for a fake Jackson 5 reality show? I'd still end up at "Are you high?" but where would you go with that one?
I definitely think a reality show that excludes white participants is a bit less offensive than one that excludes blacks (since blacks are by and large disenfranchised by reality programming).
With the Partridge thing, what I'm trying to say is: if the premise of what you're doing excludes non-whites, it had better be a damned good premise. Re-creating the Partridge Family is not that premise.
I think maybe you're not watching the same reality shows I'm watching. The Real World has long had good minority representation, and, terrible as it is, America's Next Top Model always has several black contenders who do not get systematically eliminated right away. The Apprentice had two black contestants out of 16, one of which was in the final two. Those home improvement type shows that I like, such as Trading Spaces, seem just as likely to feature minority families as white families. And even thought it's too awful to watch, that NBC reality show about the comedians had quite a few black comedians on it too.
More questions. Is your observation confined to reality shows, or are we talking about TV in general? Is the problem with portraying "reality" as whiter than it should be, or are you actually advocating more shows like Method & Red in place of, I don't know, another Seinfeld?
I almost think trying to apply your rule to reality tv is harder than application to a sitcom or action/drama. A sitcom can be made up; I could cast a black guy as President of the US, a la 24. But on Fear Factor (which, incidentally, has good minority representation), the winner has to get there by displaying some "skill," even if that skill is eating more inches of horse anus than his competitors (and I don't know if there's a stereotype about any particular race truly digging the horse anus).
If you're considering things like Real World reality shows, they might fall into the "easier to manipulate by race" category, since anybody can be chosen to live in a house with strangers. That's not reality; MTV doesn't go knocking on doors in the East Village and saying "Hi - did you recently invite a total stranger to share this 350 sq. foot studio apartment, and if so, can we film every minute you're hom together?"
"Oh, and if that stranger is black, even better."
Yes, I'm only talking about reality shows -- specifically "contest"-type reality shows, which is why I didn't mention The Real World or Trading Spaces. (I mean the big group, all-season-long, elimination type shows, so the home-improvementy shows don't really count.)
I didn't mention America's Next Top Model because I've never seen it, and it's not established like other shows I don't watch (like The Bachelor or what have you).
I didn't mention Last Comic Standing because, well, I didn't think to -- but I should have. I've been watching the show, and right now if I'm not mistaken there are two black comics out of eight or ten or so (and one of the black comics is the funniest, in my opinion). But check this out: last season, a comic named Dat Phan won the contest. This season, no Asians made it to the semi-finals. I kid you not. We must have seen something like 100 semi-finalists, and I couldn't find a single Asian among them. Messed. Up. (Reminds me of Quiz Show.)
I didn't mention The Apprentice because that show has a different problem: sexism. As long as the teams were divided along gender lines, the men lost week after week after week; and yet, when we get down to the final two, they're both men? Whaaa? (Not that it should surprise us that The Trump will favor a white dude when it comes to hiring.)
>> The Apprentice had two black contestants out of 16, one of which was in the final two.
Isn't this kind of proving Andrew's point if the BEST example you can point to still underrepresents blacks as a percentage of the total population?
I'll agree with Andrew about the sexism on the Apprentice, though I don't think it had anything to do with who Trump chose to fire. Not once did I think that the person who got fired didn't deserve it. A friend and I have had many conversations about why the women fared so poorly on the show, and I came to the conclusion that it was reflective of the way men and women are socialized to perform in a group situation. Men are taught to be leaders; women are taught to be team players. Obviously that's not how I think things should be, but I do think that's the way they are.
What irked me about the women on the show was that they did seem to resort to using their sexuality to get what they wanted. I believe one particular business strategy involved tube tops and short skirts as a crucial element. If you have to resort to shoving your boobs in someone's face to get what you want, you're just admitting that your brain isn't quite up to the task.
Totally true. But on the other hand, think of the task where they had to do advertisements for a private jet company; the womens' campaign was unquestionably better. Stuff like that should have weighed in more heavily on the firing decisions. Personally, I think Amy should have won.
Now, you and I have argued before about whether or not you yourself are a racist. For some reason, I can't seem to convince you -- even though I know you believe that people of different races have intrinsically superior/inferior traits.
The reason you can't convince me that I am a racist is because....oh I don't know....You ought to know that you can't just make a claim like that without extremely strong support.
Every time you have told me that I'm racist, you've never once given even a small example of a situation which shows evidence that I am. And never once did you assert that I was making racist arguements in any of our LL disputes. It's always come up in a rather stupid real life situation, such as your being surprised that I know a trivia fact about a Black actor. Why I asked? "BECAUSE YOU'RE A RACIST!". What makes you say that? "OH COME ON, YOU KNOW YOU ARE!".
Your assertation that I am remains even stupider than your belief that I'm only attracted to girls with long hair because I'm "homophobic".
And I'm supposed to assume that this means light-skinned women are intrinsically more attractive? Mightn't I instead assume that racism is a factor?
Well, before we continue, let me ask you a few things. Do you believe that the majority of heterosexual men on planet Earth prefer thin women (of course not all cultures, just most)? How about straight hair? And what about women who shave their arm pits and legs, is that more preferable to the majority than women who allow their body hair to grow? Are noticeable firm chested women preferred over flat-chested women? If any of these things are so, why must it absolutely be racist for one to assume that skin tone can also be a factor? It's nothing more than a physical feature. In my opinion, seeing skin colour as more than that, is more racist than seeing it as nothing more.
Now just to clarify, I do believe this show will utterly fail, and was a horrible idea.
Your assertation that I am remains even stupider than your belief that I'm only attracted to girls with long hair because I'm "homophobic".
Dude, these were your words to me: "If I liked a girl with short hair, that might mean I was gay." I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret that.
Well, before we continue, let me ask you a few things. Do you believe that the majority of heterosexual men on planet Earth prefer thin women (of course not all cultures, just most)? How about straight hair? And what about women who shave their arm pits and legs, is that more preferable to the majority than women who allow their body hair to grow? Are noticeable firm chested women preferred over flat-chested women?
I have no idea. I don't know the answers to any of those questions. Body type? Straight hair? Body hair? Chests? These are all things that vary wildly within our own culture, let alone cross-culturally. I've never heard of any reputable study that tells us which of these traits is considered attractive and which isn't, so I can't pretend like I have some kind of special knowledge about it. I have my own preferences (many of which would probably surprise you), but I'm not going to assume that the rest of the world conforms to them.
I think a lot of the physical qualities that Huha is describing as attractive are not only culturally limited but also a reflection of the times. Just 100 years ago, the great Western European painters were obsessed with body types that are very different in proportion and feature than the "ideal" that runs on European and American magazine covers today.
One example: for centuries, women with wide hips (read: big asses) were not only preferred but coveted.
And you really don't even have to go that far back. Huha says that firm-chested women are preferred over flat-chested - just in the last 30 years, America has gone through two cultural periods where that wasn't true. The first was in the 60's and early '70s with the rise of Twiggy - she was idealized while sporting a 32-inch chest.
Too far back still? Go back about eight years, when Kate Moss was the hottest thing in Manhattan and "heroin chic" extolled the beauty of the emaciated form.
I could say more, but that's it for now.
Leave it to Pinz to try to sound cultured by referencing some old painters. To each his own. I am known by some (and now by all) to actually have a preference for the not-so-big-breasted women. Of course, I also have that whole fetish about women wearing shirts with numbers on them, so does that make me gay, Huha?
This discussion about what kind of women we prefer brings back fond memories of my sophomore year roommate who once confided in me as follows: "I'm a very sexual person. I love women." Me: "Yeah, [name withheld]?" Roommate: "No, I mean I love women, ALL women."
Last I heard he was a happily married dentist. What any of this has to do with the incredibly awful idea for a fake Partridge Family reality show, I have no idea. But it's not often I get to mention my numbered shirt fetish and my sophomore year roommate together on the internet.
One ping only, Vasily.
What a weird thread this turned into. I'm gonna go ahead and throw the flag on it.
Thanks to all commenters.