Yes, it’s very interesting that “X for Women” seems non-controversial to most people, but “X for [underserved group]” brings out the trolls en masse.
From what resources you are likely to have available to you in childhood; how you are treated by the justice system; what jobs are available to you; your ability to get a mortgage despite having good credit.
“Race” is, in origin, a mythology drawn around culture; it is either an actual ethnicity that is an in-group or an imaginary one ascribed on the basis of external appearance as an out-group. And the mere act of creating that distinction by an in-power group can create a shared experience reifying the ascribed ethnicity into a real one over time.
But, no, race is not apart from culture, but a product and aspect of it.
Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people". If that were happening I'd immediately be on the side of any effort to stop censoring it because I believe in freedom of expression.
Yes, I am. I’m not asking for content that caters to me. You don’t have to white wash your content in order to be inclusive. You don’t have to burn any narrative fuel on fragile whites. That would be awful.
I’m asking to be invited to participate. Not on my terms.. on theirs. For me it’s a subtle but significant and important difference.
Take a look at https://allblk.tv/. Inclusively, yet unapologetically, black. It’s not that hard and really we’re not just talking about appeasing message board nerds here. If that was the case they really shouldn't listen to anybody on this forum, now should they?
I don’t see a messaging problem. I see you positing a different unmet need than the one that firm here has identified and is addressing. Which is fine, but “Netflix for people who want Black-created content but get icky feeling about products marketed to Black audiences” is, I suspect, a much narrower niche, and certainly a different niche, than BlackOakTV seems interested in serving, whose existence (to the extent it exists) does nothing to invalidate the niche BlackOakTV is trying to address or their efforts to do so.
Why do you think that this messaging is what you associate most with black pop culture? Attenuated messaging does not have to be universal. Imagine if white pop culture was almost exclusively promoted as Britney Spears et al., Dumb and Dumber, and slasher flicks. Is that an accurate portrayal, or a curated subset that projects a certain image?
The fact that what he/she associates with "black" culture is so negative - and doesn't seem to stop to critically analyse that - but accepts it as "normal".
At the same time, he/she doesn't understand why people from that community might want to create something for themselves - where (for once), they are the gate keepers of their own content (aka "writing their own narratives").
Someone perceives an unmet need, and seeks to meet it.
> Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it?
They could. Someone with sufficient motivation and resources to launch a business thinks they aren't. That's...kind of true of most startups—an incumbent could meet the need they are marketing too, but they think the incumbents aren't.
> Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?
The proposed offering is neither exclusive nor segregated; no one is excluding people from subscribing or segregating them.
Well, sure, because that's not their target market, but also because there isn't really a single predominant 'White culture' in the U.S., distinct from mainstream culture in general, in the same way that 'Black culture' was united by centuries of slavery and cultural destruction.
But you can certainly find media out there specifically targeted at people of Irish descent, Spanish descent, British descent, etc. It's just less of a mass-market thing because those groups don't have as much in the way of a distinct culture from the 'mainstream'.
We don't even get all the English-language culture there is around the world. Easy example: most of us are totally unfamiliar with popular Christian media.
Really, the appeal being made by people objecting to this site is that Black people shouldn't have sites that nurture that kind of content, because it somehow squicks white people out. That is a weird argument to make, and not one these founders should take seriously.
At least some people are arguing that it should exist, but should not be marketed to the demographic it is designed to appeal to, because it squicks white people out not that black content exists, but that people marketing it acknowledge that it is designed to appeal to the unmet needs of black consumers, because white people want to buy it but not if the marketing says it was designed to meet black interests.
Well, no, because Netflix is the example that defines the segment; that dominant incumbents tend to be focussed on the preferences of the dominant socioeconomic cultural segment, which is predominantly White in the United States, is...not a novel observation.
For many people, IOW, the “for White people” is implied.
> My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology
Content “for women” is often not “motivated by biology”, but, more to the point...
> but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people"
Who cares? It’s not seeking government subsidy, or proposing the existence of a social (externalized) good, its proposing meeting an unmet private need.
Or to put it another way, with an example: I'm sure there are plenty of non-religiously-observant American Jews who would be happy to treat race as a non-entity, but that's not much of an option for them when anti-Jewish slander and violence is an ongoing part of society.
I fail to see the "segregated" and "only" parts. Marketing to a particular demographic and reflecting the life experiences of that demographic doesn't mean that other demographics aren't allowed, nor does it mean that nobody else is going to be interested.
> BlackOakTV - A streaming service promoting content by black creators focused on black culture
instead of:
> BlackOakTV - Netflix for Black people
OP asked for feedback. They can do what they want with it (including ignore it).
It is easy to overlook this unpleasant fact though.
You might want to reevaluate what you wrote. The last 500 years or so (of American especially, but also most Western European - Spain, France, UK etc.) history wouldn't exist if your statement was remotely true.
If you study the history of the world, "tribalism" in some sense is a common theme throughout all cultures, many wars and many injustices. It might have been "Protestant vs Catholic" or "Sunni vs Shiite" or "Serb vs Croat" or whichever tribal, ethnic, religious or language grouping was relevant to the area.
In every single case, if the groups remained separated and saw one another as "othered" the problems spanned years and generations and the societies remained fractured and insecure. Only in the societies where people dropped the labels that separated them and merged into one identity did they thrive and improve conditions for all people. In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.
And you think the source of this power and significance is...media streaming companies?
While I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I agree with you that "tribalism" is generally problematic. However, you'll also find that "tribalism" has also been essential throughout history for the persistence of marginalized people and their cultures. There is an inherent tension in many places and times throughout history between identity and assimilation.
> but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.
The issue is not the power of the identifier, but the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines.
Which brings me back to my original point, why do we not see the same ire when talking about resources directly aimed at specific underserved needs of women?
However, while tribalism is definitely a thing, women are generally seen as being included in the tribe. Perhaps that's why you see it as being less contentious.
I'll also point out that this "the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines" is exactly what results from the power of the identifier.
“X for Women” is seen as contentious. In fact, “X for Women" articles on HN often have all the same arguments, with gender in place of race, as this thread, with very slight changes, with focus on serving the unmet needs of women with regard to X painted as sexist and equivalent to external regulation based on gender role stereotypes just as this is compared to state-mandated segregated services.