Friday, August 25, 2006

Things that aren't racist - Chapter 4

I think I may have to start a weekly segment about things that people are outraged about that aren't at all racist. PSP ads, beer ads, misunderstood comments by politicians, and now Survivor splitting the tribes up by race. A lot of people seem to be outraged by this, but I honestly can't figure out why.

No where else do we tolerate racial segregation and we certainly won't stand for it in this battle-of-the-races scheme to prop up sagging television ratings

This from Some New York City Coulcilman. and he's right that we don't tolerate racial segregation in everyday life. However, we also don't segregate by sex or age either, which are other ways they have split the tribes up in the past, which absolutely no one had any problem with.

I truly don't know what it is that people think is going to happen here. Do they think the tribes are going to kill each other rather than compete just like other tribes in the past shows have done? Do they think when the tribes merge, they'll suddenly not be able to get along with each other because they were separated by race instead of sex, age, or random draw? Do they think because they're divided by race, that there will be racial slurs at the competitions? I don't. And anyone who does isn't giving the contestants much credit. Why would any of these things happen, because different races are inherently unable to get along? I don't think they are, I think this will work out fine.
"This is not the type of premise that promotes unity," council member Robert Jackson said at the Friday press conference. "This show does not foster an environment that is conducive to diversity."

Is it supposed to? This is a game show where people compete against each other (against everyone, even on their own team), mostly by dishonesty and backstabbing, I don't think it's really the place to look for social lessons. The driving factor here is greed, race doesn't have much to do with anything.

I don't care how they divide the teams, Survivor is a show I like, and I'll watch anyway. But to anyone outraged by this and making a big fuss, all you've done is ensure that more people will watch. So, even if CBS did this maliciously, they still win. But I don't think there was anything malicious to it.

"The idea for this actually came from the criticism that Survivor was not ethnically diverse enough, because for whatever reason, we always have a low number of minority applicants apply for the show," [host Jeff] Probst said.

And good for them. So, they go out of their way to put more minorities on the show, and get criticized because they split the teams up by race. Well, great, that probably insures that next season they'll have an all white (or probably with a token black guy) cast to avoid all the fuss. I think some people just see the word race and automatically freak out without putting any thought into the actual situation, I just don't understand why. Other than it seems like some people just like to freak out.

Posted by


Robert Bayn said...

I think people just like to use the race card to much, eg: Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

I'm convinced, they have turned equality into Surpreamacy, they have lost sight of what Martin Luther King Jr. was about.

As a whole this country needs to relax when it comes to race, it's not 1960. It's the same way when people get all up tight about people using the world queer or fag and claim its gay bashing, no gay bashing is beating the crap out of someone for being gay.

Toast said...

I'm glad you're on this beat, John. And as usual here, I agree with your analysis.

Storm said...


Standing ovation (sp?) for JRH and Bayn. There are so many folks that want to twist things to create the perception of racist or bigotry.

Bayn hits it right on the head.

beakerkin said...

I want to see a show that pits vegeterians against meat eaters.