Seconding this.
And imagine the outrage if someone had made “X for white people”. There’d be riots in streets.
The bizarreness and racist double standard behind this is just astounding seen from the outside.
And imagine the outrage if someone had made “X for white people”. There’d be riots in streets.
The bizarreness and racist double standard behind this is just astounding seen from the outside.
White has been the default in America for a long time. Seems like that's slowly starting to change but until it does, there's going to be a need for things specifically targeted at minority groups.
I saw this interview recently: <<<David Bowie Criticizes MTV for Not Playing Videos by Black Artists | MTV News>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGiVzIr8Qg
It blew me away. He is so on point!
Not saying there were no Black artists: just saying that Black culture wrapped in what white people accept, like is not enough for the Black community.
Edit: you guys downvoting me are likely too young to remember day one on MTV when stuff Blacks actually listened to was not featured on MTV until hiphop culture forced the issue.
Black influence on mainstream music came at a huge cost to Black music stars. They were copied but mostly not included unless they paid homage. Horrible place for them truly.
You have minimal idea about what Black people are really about without another white person’s filter because that’s how it has always been even on BET.
If it would merely be a redundancy, why would it provoke outrage? "Conservative Talk Radio" seems pretty redundant to me, but doesn't provoke any emotion.
If it's "focuses on content for <minority group>", that's great. Minorities tend to underrepresented and trying to address that balance by creating more for them is all bonus.
If it's "excludes all but <minority group>", I am not a fan; I thin it causes resentment. The ability to have a group that allows <minority> but not <majority>, but not have a group that allows <majority> but not <minority>, is _wrong_ in my mind. Admittedly, having a group that allows both but focuses on <minority> so that <majority> is unlikely to be interested in joining is reasonable.
I guess the act of specifically excluding/disallowing a group, unless it's acceptable for _all_ groups to do the same, inherently conveys "you are the worse of the two groups". It's insulting and an attack.
My apologies; I must not have been clear. Nothing here is an example of something I have an issue with. I was merely pointing out that having "X for <minority>" can go two ways; promote the minority, or exclude the majority. The former is great, the later is not.
I wasn't, in any way, trying to indicate the post is doing the wrong thing. As others have noted, it sounds like a Netflix-ey version of BET which, as far as I know, hasbeen nothing but positive.
It's rude to troll on someone's Launch thread.
Personally, I'm divided on how I feel about this launch, but if there is a market for it anywhere, it's the US, with its deep-rooted racial divisions and disparities.
The comparisons you are making seem very different, as they are based on language and global geography, rather than skin colour.
The idea is that "X" is de facto "X for white people" in America. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the argument.
I still thinks it sounds like nonsense, but at least it explains the massive downvotes Im getting :D
It must be hard to live in a country where everyone is so obsessed with race, yet supposedly also how it “is not important”. To me that seems like a massive contradiction.
Bigotry, hatred, and violence, whether explicit or less obvious (voting rights, bias in many services etc) is the problem that some us unfortunately continue and the rest of us want to end.
In america there are black people alive who weren't allowed to vote because of their race.
Given the history of race in america it makes total sense that america is still grappling with race while also there is significant pushback against that grappling.
Perhaps you should put some effort into self-education and understand the context of race and racism in America before making qualitative statements about things you seem to not even grasp the basics of.
The difference between majority and minority is surely not that difficult to comprehend from outside the US?
IMO the solution to that problem is definitely not to reinforce that division.
Well, yes, and this was codified into US law until the last bits were finally suppressed in the 1960s, but that doesn't mean the underlying racism has been eliminated as well.
Will it be racist to continue using this terminology then, once the US reaches 50-50?
So close, and yet so far.
personally, i think it's great that the founders have chosen to sell this as "X for black people." it is much more honest and cuts right to the point. if they had not, if they had instead chosen words like "diversity," then inevitable drill-downs would be criticizing them for trying to hide their true intentions.