Sunday Shutout: The Lack of Gender & Ethnic Diversity on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows
Not only are the Sunday morning talk shows on the broadcast networks dominated by conservative opinion and commentary, the four programs -- NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.
And the top-rated Sunday show -- Meet the Press -- shows the least diversity of all. The NBC program is the most male and nearly the most white (Face the Nation beats it out by 1 percentage point), and it has the highest proportion of white males to all other guests.
A breakdown of the guests who appeared on the Sunday shows in 2005 and 2006 shows that men dominate these shows. In fact, men outnumber women by a 4-to-1 ratio on average.
The divide is even starker when it comes to race/ethnicity: On average, there were nearly seven white guests for every guest of any other race/ethnicity. On Meet the Press and Face the Nation, there were nearly nine white guests for every guest of another race/ethnicity.
Fox News Sunday and This Week have a slightly higher degree of diversity than the other two programs, which are virtually identical. This Week's higher proportion of Asian-Americans can be attributed to the frequent appearances of Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria in the program's roundtable discussion. Fox News Sunday's higher proportion of African-Americans can be attributed to the weekly appearance of National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams. (Williams accounted for 99 of the 126 appearances by an African-American on the program during these two years.) Aside from those notable exceptions, approximately nine out of every 10 guests on the Sunday shows are white.
African-Americans are badly underrepresented on the Sunday shows, but Latinos fare even worse. In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that Hispanics made up 14 percent of the American population; given recent rates of growth, the number is undoubtedly higher now. Yet only 1 percent of the guests on the Sunday shows in the past two years were Latino.
In sum, two out of every three guests on the Sunday shows (and three out of every four on Meet the Press) were white men:
In August 2005,* the National Urban League Policy Institute released a study of the Sunday morning talk shows that produced similar results. The institute analyzed the same four programs' guests between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005. The study found that "more than 60% of the programs broadcast during the 18-month period studied had no black guests." Additionally, "78% of the broadcasts contained no interviews with black guests," and "fewer than 8% of the guests on these programs have been black." Furthermore, "more than 69% of the appearances by black guests on these programs have been by three people -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Juan Williams." The study concluded that "appearances by [black] guests other than Rice, Powell and Williams account for less than 3% of all guest appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows."
For this report, Media Matters went through the entire guest list compiled for the "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative" Sunday show report, which updated the original "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative" Sunday show report to include 2005 and 2006. More than 2,150 guests were coded for their gender and race/ethnicity. The race/ethnicity categories were: White, African-American, Latino, Asian-American, and Other. The Other category included Arab-Americans, Iranian-Americans, and all foreign nationals. The White category consists only of white Americans, not white foreign nationals, which therefore means that the results for the White category are slightly less than the actual representation of all whites on the four Sunday programs.
RSS Feeds
Well done MMFA
Studies and analysis like these are outstanding. MMFA deserves major thanks and job well done. The lack of diversity on the entire MSM is a major concern. Why no African American anchors on Sunday morning? Why no women ? It is becoming so obvious that in an era where token women like Condi Rice are placed in powerful positions in government, our media is going backwords to the days before the 1990s.
The networks are oblivious to this, they put the dudes on that they want and if the ratings bear them out, then no change will occur.
Doris did you apply for a job with any of the networks?
"Apply"? The article above was about "guests" on these programs. You don't "apply" for the show, you are "invited" to go on.
These shows are obviously not making the effort necessary to get a diversity of viewpoints on their programs.
I ignore Duncan, he is not serious and just someone who likes to take us off topic with flame throwing rhetoric.
I ignore Duncan, he is not serious and just someone who likes to take us off topic with flame throwing rhetoric.
If you read your own post, it was YOU who attempted to take everyone "off topic". Don't blame someone who just responds to your off topic rant.
The problem with a study like this is...'who cares'? Are you interested in what the shows offer? Or, do you just want to have diversified guests, no matter how boring or uninformed they are? If you just want uninformed guests and boring shows then this topic is very important to you. If you want to watch what you want and you change the channel when you are bored by something, then this topic means absolutely nothing to you.
Is this another facet the left is going to use to force their ideals into our homes? If the left could draw viewers and listeners like the right does, then they would stop complaining about how unfair the airwaves are. However, everyone finds the shows by the left boring and uninformed, so no one watches or listens to those shows. Now, the left is trying to force their opinion onto airwaves because NO ONE voluntarily WANTS or CARES to listen to or watch them. Is this 'step one' in the lefts plan to take over the television?
Accepting that the left has no interesting people or shows is the first step to healing. Get over the fact that the people in charge of radio and tv stations know what sells and it ISN'T diversity! If diversity was important to the nation it would have a financial base that producers would draw on, but it doesn't....so they don't.
This study deals solely with the under representation of anyone non-white and non-male on these opinion shows, not left or right opinions themselves.
Having said that you make some ridiculous assumptions. You assume what shows offer now is interesting and that a different offering would be boring. As if you have any idea of what interesting even means.
You also assume that somehow liberal opinions are being forced on you if white guys no longer enjoy a huge margin of representation. I guess from that we can figure out, at least according to your mental constructs of what is interesting, what type of constituents should populate the GOP.
But the biggest flaw in your whole tirade is that the market facilitates competition. It does not. The market is manipulated by political interests, politcally motivated fringe groups and even collusion among companies to impose a self interested status quo. There are examples of advertising blacklists of lib radio and religious groups buying local affiliates to shut down lib radio broadcasts.
But that doesn't really get me down. I listen to lefty radio on iTunes as do many people I know. As far as I know there aren't any reliable methods of measuring internet ratings. In short, lefty radio is alive and healthy and making inroads because people want the truth. You just can't get the truth from rightwing radio.
But the biggest flaw in your whole tirade is that the market facilitates competition. It does not. The market is manipulated by political interests, politcally motivated fringe groups
You are saying I am wrong by saying that no one is interested in seeing diverse guests, yet say 'fringe groups' manipulate what is happening. Which is it? You say I am wrong then make a statement that indicates I am right.
Is that an example of your brilliant left wing mind in action?
Your statement only makes sense if you equate diversity to manipulative fringe groups. That's absurd and ignores the context of what is meant by fringe groups.
It's not suprising that you ignored the point of my post given the fact that you cropped my sentence midstream to redirect its drift. It's understandable though, that to some opening up participation on these shows to representatives of diverse groups could be seen as manipulation. But understand this, that to others, especially those locked out, it's a matter of fairness.
It does not. The market is manipulated by political interests, politcally motivated fringe groups and even collusion among companies to impose a self interested status quo. There are examples of advertising blacklists of lib radio and religious groups buying local affiliates to shut down lib radio broadcasts.
That's absurd! I'll complete your quote for you, but you still claim special interests and fringe groups control a large portion of the media market while mentioning collusion and blacklisting as an afterbreath. You cannot be real when you say that liberal view points are not being broadcast because conservatives won't let it happen. That is borderline paranoia. NOBODY believes that liberals can't get their opinion broadcast, you just want to force your beliefs into conservative shows because you're jealous that conservative shows are successful and yours are not.
But understand this, that to others, especially those locked out, it's a matter of fairness.
Fairness is NOT what liberals are after. They never have been and never will be. They seek solely to benefit their own selves and no one else. The ONLY reason you use that as an excuse to attack free speach is because of jealousy. Face it, you hate that America does NOT want to listen to the liberal mantra 24/7. If it did then air america would not be going bankrupt, and now you do what you can to FORCE America to listen to your views.
Michael Savage asked a caller a question about this the other day (the caller was scared to answer this question), he asked; if the fairness bill gets enacted, does that mean networks like CBS, ABC would be forced to allow Savage onto their shows to promote the conservative viewpoint after they spew their liberal viewpoint? Needless to say the caller changed subjects. That shows what the liberal is after....and it ISN'T fairness!! You want to force your way onto the airwaves because no one voluntarily will listen to you.
"If you read your own post, it was YOU who attempted to take everyone "off topic". Don't blame someone who just responds to your off topic rant." --autopsych
I think you have some reading comprehension issues. The post that Doris wrote wasn't off-topic at all and Duncan's response didn't make any sense as I (and others) pointed out.
The post that Doris wrote wasn't off-topic at all and Duncan's response didn't make any sense
Doris talked about "anchors", that IS NOT the topic. Doris complained why there is discrimination within anchors on Sunday morning shows..not guests (which is the topic). Duncan's response makes perfect sense concerning Doris's off topic statement.
Well Done MMFA!
I appreciate the enormous service you are doing for America. The above story is another undeniable illustration of the ongoing role of perception management being performed by the corporate mainstream media. An additional illustration that your work is effective are the growing number of dedicated operatives sent here to post complete nonsense as a lame rebuttal.
Is it easier to believe that those who disagree with you (sometimes) are "operatives", rather than people who disagree with you on a given topic? Just curious.
If the "operatives" actually made sense, had valid points, addressed and responded to the points made by others, addressed the topics covered by Media Matters, then they wouldn't be "operatives" who seem hellbent on distracting us, minimizing the issues covered, and making derogatory comments.
So, if someone doesn't make sense to you they are an 'operative'. Sounds a little paranoid to me. If they bring up a tangent off the main subject, they are derailing on purpose? Last I checked that was part of the natural ebb and flow of any conversation.
It is not only paranoid but how the culture is on this site. If you have a different opinion than most of these people you are an "Operative". 1984 , thoughts other than what MMFA tells us wanted only.
Thank you for balancing the leftwing paranoia with an equally excellent example from the right.
: )
It's not that it doesn't make "sense" to me.
It's that they don't make sense.
And it's not that they derail the conversation. It's that they don't address the subject, and when they get called on their derailment, they deny it.
And it's not that I have anything against you, but I have not seen you add anything valuable to any discussion you have participated in. You have continued to derail the conversations and have failed to make sense. So, I'm not surprised that you would object to someone calling out that very behavior, since you only seem to be able to behave like that!
And it's not that they derail the conversation. It's that they don't address the subject, and when they get called on their derailment, they deny it. ..... I have not seen you add anything valuable to any discussion you have participated in. You have continued to derail the conversations and have failed to make sense.
Ummm, what have YOU added that is "on topic"?? Aren't you just doing what you complain the "operatives" do?? You started out off topic then denied it when called on it. Then to top it off you finish with a derogatory comment (another complaint about operatives). If you reply to this post, perhaps you should consider saying something ON TOPIC!!
Well when you have guys like Bill O'Reilly openly discussing ways to counter the massive impact of MMFA, it seems likely that there are, in fact, people being paid to post nonsense as rebuttal on this site. IN addition, if one takes a look at the time stamps of some of the more prolific wing nut posters, it seems that they are working "shifts".
I will grant you that most of the wingers here are just your garden variety morons.
--yawn--
Who cares? Really. It's about supply and demand. It's about interest. What is the number of minorities that have applied for positions on these shows? TV is all about ratings... if the black opinion is really wanted, viewers can go to BET and watch there. If the homosexual agenda is wanted, they can go to, well, any major network.
If you want quotas, just say so. Then I'll start asking for proper racial segmentation of the entertainment and sports industries. There are far too few whites playing basketball, far too few blacks and hispanics playing hockety, far too few asians in football, far too few whites on R&B radio. Where are all of the blacks in tennis and golf? Where are all of the eskimos in the surfing industry?
C'mon people.. quotas are stupid.
If the homosexual agenda is wanted, they can go to, well, any major network. - cann0nba11
OK, I wasn't that intrigued by this item , and I did make a comment about HGTV, but I do have to ask;
What is the Homosexual Agenda, and how is it manifested on the major networks?
My brother is gay, maybe the Homosexual Agenda is his Day-Timer.
...if the black opinion is really wanted, viewers can go to BET and watch there.
Sadly, black folks can't go to BET for "black opinion" either since the majority of programing is music videos. Ever since Viacom bought BET it has been the sister (or is it "sistha"?) network to MTV. It's hard to tell the difference between MTV and BET nowadays since their shows are pretty much the same.
Despite the fact I think the program is horrible, Paula Zahn Now is the only place that you can get a minority perspective, even though the host is white. Zahn was smart and recognized that there's an audience of people that are being looked over, and she capitalized on that by focusing her program about racial intolerance and discrimination against minorities, women and religion.
So, why don't minorities and diversified people start their own shows? It doesn't cost that much, there seems to be a ton of infomercials on. Why are the complaints against the shows that have already succeeded? If you have such a large audience that NEEDS diversification to the extent that mmfa creates this article, then you should have NO problem succeeding where others are afraid to venture.
Perhaps the main point of mmfa's article is 'do you actually want to work for your own success, or would you rather leach off of others success'?
Yeah, and while they're at it they should start their own oil companies too. I mean, how expensive could it be? Why should we let minorities leech off the hard work that white people put into all the big successful oil companies?
You use a strawman arguement by comparing to ownership of oil companies. Are you insinuating that there are no minorities with enough money to start a radio station? I seem to see a lot of minorities start lots of different business's. You seem to say they cannot start a radio station because they don't have the finances available that others do. Why would you say that?
That's not a "strawman argument." You're simply misusing that term. I was pointing out the absurdity of your idea that starting a television network or a radio station is somehow within everyone's financial. And need I even point out that you were saying this in response to someone who brought up BET, a black owned network? Basically, you have no point. On the one hand, we have you saying that minorities should start their own networks as if it's like starting a lemonade stand, and on the other hand we have multiple people in this thread crying reverse racism because BET and Telemundo don't have enough white people.
Nowhere did I say 'everyone' can afford to start their own radio/tv show. I said there are some who can. But, apparantly, liberals don't feel a need for that, they will just force consvatives to let liberals on thier "personally" owned business's. The airwaves may be free, but it costs money to pay the people who send the signal out. And owners don't usually follow money-losing practices when they venture into a business. Just because liberals don't know how to make money on tv/radio don't whine to the government to force conservatives to lose money the same way you do!
and on the other hand we have multiple people in this thread crying reverse racism because BET and Telemundo don't have enough white people.
Oh? Who cried 'reverse racism'? Perhaps I missed those(but I haven't read all 300 posts yet). Bring proof to the table!
Unbelievable. You admit that you didn't bother to read the thread, and then you turn around and demand that I give you proof of something that other people have written in the thread?! READ THE THREAD! I'm not going to do your work for you. Is this how you get through life?
ok, went through all 308 messages. didn't see any crying about reverse discrimination. you must be making it up...again. quit your whining and get back to the topic, or have you 'lost' and changed subject matter, which is common for liberals.
"How many whites are on Telemundo truthseeker?" - Sebastion Shaw
Keep going...you claimed "multiple". I know it's difficult for you to back up your claims, but go ahead and do it.
"So, why don't minorities and diversified people start their own shows?"
-----
Yes, because "Separate but Equal" has such a shining history od success...
I agree Cannon
I am not sure if this study REALLY proves anything. Lets talk stats. There are obviously more caucasian people in the U.S. then minority groups(well duh). The chances of finding a person of color(or a minority) who is involved in politics and is willing to provide commentary on these programs is much less then a caucasian contributor. I do see legitimacy to the extreme difference of women-to-men on these programs however, and believe these programs should work harder to show more diversity to the extreme gender difference...
That's not a good argument. You say let's talk stats yet provide none.
Aside from that, white males do not even out number white females in our country let alone every other race combined. So why do white males dominate the broadcast shows at a rate of 3 or 4 to 1?
The answer must be in that Pat Buchanon school of thought that says diversity is killing our culture.
Aside from that, white males do not even out number white females in our country let alone every other race combined. So why do white males dominate the broadcast shows at a rate of 3 or 4 to 1?
The answer must be in that Pat Buchanon school of thought that says diversity is killing our culture.
That is not a good arguement. How can you blame Pat Buchanon without proof of what he teaches? The fact remains, no matter how often you deny it, the diverse guests are not there because they have no credible audience. If they brought something interesting to the show they would be on. To blame Buchanon is simply a cop-out because you live in a world of delusion. Instead, "popular" lefty shows seem to offer nothing for the masses and the new plan is to "force" right wing radio to allow equal time to lefties. Great way to get an audience mr zedong! Wonder if lefty shows will be forced to allow equal time to righties? Forcing us to watch what we don't want to watch and listen to what we don't want to listen to is a great culture builder, mr zedong! I'm looking forward to the freedoms you want to force on me.
That's cool. Strike the Buchanon part, it was a dig at folks like you anyway. Consider instead the fact that white males are actually in the minority of the total population of our country yet they dominate the talk shows at about 4 to 1.
But once again you are conflating liberal opinion with diverse guest represention on these shows. If you want to play it that way which you won't because you know your argument is lame and you are only trying to score some kind of win here. But if you want to play it like that, think about it this way; if diversity on these shows equals liberal opinion on a on to one basis, as you most definitely believe it to be, then white male representation equals conservative opinion. In which case conservative opinion is in the minority in this country, as white males are a minority, and as such, you and your types are forcing your freedoms on the rest of us.
And you are equating one dominance over another without taking into account the financial interests of the ownership of the company at question. If special interest groups are in such demand why can't they start their own programing and invite who will financially improve their own conditions/concerns? You seem to forget that you are NOT being forced to listen to or watch any program you don't want to. You are free to listen to whatever turns you on. It seems to me that financial success for those in that type of business require certain people to draw in the majority of the listeners/watchers that benefit their business. Is there a problem with that? This is America and we are free to do whatever we want (within legal limits). If I choose to listen/watch diverse programing then I will. If I choose not to then I will not. If I start a business that promotes usage of helium balloons and my customer base prefers helium, you cannot demand that I promote usage of hydrogen balloons just because that's what you want to use. Is that a viable comparison?
"Is that a viable comparison?"
No, obviously not. Because hydrogen has not been enslaved and/or oppressed by helium for the past half a century.
Aha ha ha ha ha ah ha haah ha snort ha ah hahha ha! Classic! You must be kidding, hydrogen has been "oppressed" ever since the Hindenburg exploded! In fact the zeppelin exploded BECAUSE of oppression of helium by the US government!
:)
I am free to watch what I want, so long as it's actually on.
You keep talking about force this and force that while I'm simply talking about inclusion. If someone is on a show that you don't want to hear you too are welcome to turn it off for the short time they are on. Nobody is forcing you to watch either, get it?
See, this is an example of the tyranny of the majority, as it were. And a damn good indication of why the market should not be relied upon in instances where the public interests are at stake. The rights of the minority must be respected while not infringing upon the rights of the majority.
There is a compromise to be made. I'm willing why aren't you? I suspect because you know the truth. You know that the market is severly slanted to favor the powerful at the expense of the weak. But it just so happens that you side with the powerful because they adhere to a conservative worldview of wealth equals discipline equals morality. So you hide behind the fallacy of market competition knowing all the while that markets are manipulated by dishonest players who have no intention of allowing a progressive peep.
There is a compromise to be made. I'm willing why aren't you? I suspect because you know the truth.
I'm willing to compromise. I'm not willing to force radio/tv stations to broadcast money-losing opinions if they are in the business to make money. Example: station A airs a conservative show (say Michael Savage for 3 hours). Is that station then required to air opposing opinions? How many? How long? The owner of station A makes a lot of money by airing Michael Savage and loses a lot of money airing the liberal point of view (in accordance to the future law). Is that the "truth" you think I know?
You know that the market is severly slanted to favor the powerful at the expense of the weak. But it just so happens that you side with the powerful because they adhere to a conservative worldview of wealth equals discipline equals morality. So you hide behind the fallacy of market competition knowing all the while that markets are manipulated by dishonest players who have no intention of allowing a progressive peep.
You are definately paranoid. Do you believe the illuminati controls all world events, too?
Yes. Quotas are stupid. How amazingly inciteful. Thank you, Mr. Strawman.
inciteful
Intentional or not, that was an awesome typo...
Good catch. It was originally a typo. I thought of making a correction, but decided the Freudian Slip (or is it a Spoonerism) was more apt.
: )
Besides the stupidity and bigotry of your post the entire thing is based on a strawman argument since the article is about GUESTS. Not positions APPLIED FOR. Adult education, look into it.
Instead of trolling and calling other poster's names, how about talking about the problem with no diverse anchors on Sunday morning tv shows. We ALL realize your specialty is derogatory remarks and blazingly complicated name calling, however the topic is not that. AND, no one called you a name or called liberalism a name, so why are you getting all bent out of shape this time??? You do have a job, don't you? God, I pray you don't have control of anyones life in your hands.
So, the subject is forcing Sunday tv shows to bring on guests that are not wanted by the populance. Similar to the left's desire to force right wing radio to play lefty rants, now we have a desire to force diverse guests onto shows that do well without them. If diverse guests want to be on a show, get your own show! You have no right to force your way onto shows that don't want you and that they'll lose money when they bring you on.
"So, the subject is forcing Sunday tv shows to bring on guests that are not wanted by the populance[sic]." --autopsych
Who said anything about the use of "force" in the thread you are replying to? Why do you engage in strawman arguments?
the whole problem with your "rant" is that it ignores who actually owns the public airwaves. that would be the public. companies apply for the exclusive right to those airways by agreeing to serve the public good. sure, we know they want to make money, but that is not what they say when they apply for the license. and i have pointed out before that some conservative radio shows like o'reilly and hannity get fractional shares in some radio markets, while a guy like ed schultz, who has shown some decent ratings, can't get on the air in a lot of markets. why can't a radio station playing 24 hrs a day of conservative talk, and is the only talk station in a certain area, be required to give a little balance?
companies apply for the exclusive right to those airways by agreeing to serve the public good. sure, we know they want to make money, but that is not what they say when they apply for the license
"Serve the public good"?. And what "public good" did air america serve?? Airwaves are free, it costs money to broadcast on them and owners are not to be forced to lose money just because of some fringe groups and a bunch of whiners. If you want the government to force equal airtime, force the government to pay for your radio/tv station! In fact force the government to do that for EVERY opinionated idiot who comes along...including the conservative idiots!
some conservative radio shows like o'reilly and hannity get fractional shares in some radio markets, while a guy like ed schultz, who has shown some decent ratings, can't get on the air in a lot of markets.
Oh, so some markets DO broadcast your views? But, you want ALL markets to broadcast your views? Talk to air america about why Schultz isn't on the air in places. Perhaps if they had hired some conservative hosts to balance the broadcast they wouldn't have gone bankrupt! But, since liberal points of view do not pay the bills, you are seeking to force your way into markets that do make money and you want to force them into bankruptcy to give air america some company at the unemployment line. BTW, I don't listen to BOR, Hannity or Schultz.
The real diversity, the important diversity, would be in allowing free thinkers on as analysts. Or if that's just too much to hope for, just having all new people every week would be refreshing {no more George Will, for example} --- no cocktail hour pals or dog-walking buddies.
That would be a good idea. Recycling the same old pundits and politicians is boring to say the least.
I can agree with that. It sounds like a better idea than to listen to the same old boring pundits on the left and the right each week. I would also propose that the guests have a moderate amount of expertise about the subject as well.
"Token women"? You apply this to Condi Rice? She is brilliant and gutsy. What does ethnicity have to do with her position as SOC. For that matter, what did Colin Powell's ethnicity have to do with his holding the same position. Or, for that matter, what did ethnicity have to do with the nomination of Clarence Thomas or Gonzalez?
Don't you liberals get tired of pushing the race issue. How about: they were nominated and/or selected on MERIT!
The fact is you don't know on what basis those people were appointed. Race actually could have been a factor. We simply don't know. For instance, race most likely played no part in Gonzalez's appointment, but he certainly didn't get there on merit alone. But he's sure doin' a heckuva job now, isn't he?
Wrong. The shows could care less about gender or ethicity. Anyone that can offer an interesting viewpoint is selected as a guest. Who did you have in mind? I bet if you come up with someone, they have either already been on a show or they are uninteresting. Geez, everything is a racial or gender thing with liberals. Stop using the excuse of racism or sexism as a replacement for talent and interest.
This is sort of depressing to me. As a White male, I've yet to be called to appear on any of these shows, though it seems statistically likely that I would have.
It would make me wonder if I'm Gay, except that HGTV hasn't called me either.
And, as out of proportion as the guest lists of these shows are, I think this is even more important;
"more than 69% of the appearances by black guests on these programs have been by three people -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Juan Williams."
I think that's a good representative group.
Who else is there? Sinbad? Gimme a break.
To get on HGTV you'll need a beard. There are more beards on that channel than at a Civil War Reeanactor Convention.
Oh wait a minute! Now I get it!
The "homosexual agenda" is to make our homes and gardens look nice!
That's what makes it so...uh....evil?
In a country controlled primarily by rich old white guys, I guess this is to be expected.
We're also fat.
You forgot bald.
A quick look at the mmfa staff shows that men outnumber women by about 2-1...44 males to 15 females.
Diversity of race and ethnicity on the mmfa staff...don't know.
How about it mmfa...care to show us the results of your own staff?
Are you just intellectually lazy? Look at the top of the page, there's a tab called "about us"...
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors even gave you the direct link.
Why don't you share your analytical ability to determine race/ethnicity from someones name.
mmfa is overwhelmingly male...that much is clear.
I'd prefer you stop throwing out strawmen all the time and demanding MMFA "come clean". No one's buying your "your just as biased" approach to argument dismissal.
This is Wesley's M.O. Most of this thread will now be spent debating MMFA's alleged "hypocrisy". Why do you think the conservative posters are so fond of the "Why is this here" argument?
- How about it mmfa...care to show us the results of your own staff? -wesley
First of all, asking the question is hardly a demand. Second of all, asking to see the same study applied to mma is not a strawman...it's perfectly legitimate.
You, though, have thrown in the strawman that tries to shift the question to "you're just as biased". I haven't made any such claim...but I would like to see if mmfa is "walking the walk" when is comes to diversity.
If MMFA is wrong, then they should attempt to hire on a more balanced level. Of course, that in no way invalidates their argument here. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- If MMFA is wrong - openmind
By their own standards? Then of course they are wrong.
Preaching about gender diversity and then failing to adhere to those same standards makes their argument nothing more than pandering.
C'mon mmfa...hold up the mirror and let us see the results.
I think you are making some assumptions that may not be true and may also be a bit hasty.
MMFA's study in the article above is in regards to guest appearances on these shows and not necessarily the personnel (multiple guest appearances were by the same people). Conversely, your argument is apparently entirely based on employee personnel ratios at MMFA (which may be incomplete and/or inaccurate in other ways).
I don't know the ratio male to female/ white to non-white of authors of MMFA articles. That might be a more germaine comparison. Please get back to me with your study.
MMFA could indeed be wrong here. I simply haven't seen an entirely germaine and convincing argument made to that effect at this point. Moreover, it does not appear to make MMFA's point invalid either as it seems you and others are trying to suggest.
I'm not suggesting anything...I have simply pointed out that mmfa's staff is hugely male.
Taking a quick look at the last 18 threads...11 1/2 were written by males...3 1/2 were written by females...3 I could not identify.
Good ole boys at mmfa...preaching at others about gender diversity.
18 threads is pretty skimpy sample size, but that is a more germaine argument than the previous personnel based one, IMO.
MMFA definitely should have more gender (don't know about ethnic) diversity from their last 18 articles.
I would like to see what MMFA has to say about your point.
What many people forget about the "pot calling the kettle black" argument is that the kettle is still black.
That being said, the parallel between who a small website hires for their back office people and who a major network puts on the air is a hard one to make.
But a parallel just the same. Are you saying that discrimination/diversity only counts when the employee count reaches a certain level?? So, if radio/tv stations kept the employee count low enough then they can continue their conservative viewpoints without being forced to allow opposing opinions?
MMFA's gender equity is a joke.
Also, let's count how many liberals or African-Americans MMFA calls a racist.
I do think you could have a point; when people wag the finger they open themselves up for charges of hypocrisy, so it's certainly worthy of investigation. It is possible that MMFA is being too passive in recruitment and possibly discriminatory in hiring, but it is not fair to accuse them without more data.
But one key difference is that if I am a woman or a minority, I can apply for a job at MMFA but I can't invite myself onto any of the morning shows as a guest, no matter how qualified I am. Therefore a key contrast is that there can be NO DOUBT as to who is responsible for the gross underrepresentation of women on the morning shows--the inviters.
And, i don't know why MMFA didn't remind people that women are 51% of the population and relate that to the invitations to the Sunday morning shows, when they certainly understand that comparing %'s on the shows relative to %'s in the population is relevant with regard to minorities. It is all too easy for people to read the numbers and think that the record is OK for women since there are more of them on the air than minorities, but that ignores the large differences in the population. And while obviously every person in every group (including white males) is not qualified to appear on the shows, there are obviously many more qualified people regardless of race, gender, etc., out there to fill the tiny number of guest slots, and a lot of them would be far better than many of the yammerers they have tended to invite. Active efforts to find people in underrepresented groups would certainly succeed.
oops--in the 2nd paragraph, I meant to refer to "gross underrepresentation of women AND minorities." Wish there was an edit function.
"You, though, have thrown in the strawman that tries to shift the question to "you're just as biased". I haven't made any such claim..."
You just did. Again.
wesley,
When Liberals toss out their old & very predictable "strawman" accusation, here's what it really means:
You've pointed out something we don't want to hear because it holds us up to a standard we only set for others and do not apply to ourselves.
If MMFA is going to point out a lack of diversity elsewhere, they should be held accountable for explaining their own.
People who live in glass houses...
"When Liberals toss out their old & very predictable "strawman" accusation, here's what it really means:
You've pointed out something we don't want to hear because it holds us up to a standard we only set for others and do not apply to ourselves."
That's baloney, to put it politely. When someone accurately calls a distraction from the point a strawman argument, that's exactly what it means, that it's a distraction from the point.
Any one company (or non-profit) is irrelevant to the industry's record, and may have skewed results.
Media Matters is one non-profit. That's different than the MSM's overall industry.
Media Matters may need to do a better job of being a diversified non-profit, but that in no way affects their totally accurate portrayal of the MSM as lacking in diversity. And that was their point. Bringing up Media Matters employment history is a strawman.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks because they are apt to get their own house smashed to bits....
If MMFA is going to bean-count, then let them start with their own staff.
Don't preach diversity unless you practice it. Don't point out where PRIVATELY owned networks are failing in that area if your own organization hasn't done much better.
It goes to credibility.
MMFA can point out whatever they'd like. And we can point out they may need to address their own lack of diversity as well.
That is not a strawman. It's a legitimate point.
No, it's a strawman. You want to shift the arguement to say MMFA has no point because.
Al Gore has no right to preach about being green because he has a big house.
Barbara Streisand has no right to give advice about conserving energy by air drying laundry because she has a maid doing her laundry.
John Edwards has no right saying he speaks for the lower classes because he gets a $400 haircut.
If you think that's a valid argument, then I suggest the following: the right has no right accusing liberals of hypocracy because they are hypocrites.
Thanks for reminding us all of more liberal "Do as I say, not as I do" tantrums.
As opposed to the conservatives "do as I say...or else!"
What was I thinking? Of course the tantrum by the right isn't the tantrum, it's the left's response to the right's temper tantrum that is the tantrum. Thanks for clearing that up, Tommy.
"Thanks for reminding us all of more liberal "Do as I say, not as I do" tantrums." --tommy
Do you believe these sorts of "tantrums" are limited to liberals? Isn't this the kind of broad brush statement, you have often chided some liberal posters for saying about conservatives in the past?
Or are you trying to ironically demonstrate your own example of the conservative "Do as I say, not as I do" tantrum?
The hypocrisy I was responding to was from well known liberals. There was no broad brushstrokes condemning all liberals, and no irony involved.
If you're somehow defensive on the topic of liberal hypocrisy, perhaps that is where the irony lies.
Nice to see you can admit to making a mistake. Just try to be a bit more precise next time.
; )
Al Gore has no right to preach about being green because he has a big house.
Barbara Streisand has no right to give advice about conserving energy by air drying laundry because she has a maid doing her laundry.
John Edwards has no right saying he speaks for the lower classes because he gets a $400 haircut.
And a fat doctor with a pack of cigarettes in his pocket has no right to lecture a patient to quit smoking & go on a diet. Well actually he does have the right [just like those you named above do] BUT it's still a:
Do As I Say Not As I Do moment.
So you feel the same about FDR and SS? His life fits right into that description. What I am hearing is that you are saying it's not enough to be an expert, you have to change your whole lifestyle to be taken seriously. Or is this just for liberals because you are using a wide brush to paint all liberals with your "do as I say and not as I do" strawman?
what jitter, tommy-boy and the wesley-drone are trying to say is that anyone who says the truth they do not like must abide by their exaggerations and assupmtions of what they believe others should believe. Just more whining from the professional distractors with non-existant debate skills.
You are describing a logical fallacy. MMFA's point isn't necessarily invalidated by their real or imagined hypocrisy. Either what MMFA says about gender/ethnic diversity on Sunday talk-shows is true or it isn't.
The post is not about who the networks hire, but who they put on television. That seems so clear as to be laughable.
But if you can't see the difference, I certainly can't make you...
Val,
I don't know if you were addressing that post to mine. I am a bit puzzled by it.
I made a similar point to yours above to Wesley.
In my post above, I was merely pointing out to Jeter, that regardless as to whether MMFA is hypocritical or not, does not invalidate MMFA's argument.
Either MMFA's argument is true or it isn't. This side debate about MMFA is irrelevant to the point of the article itself.
Sorry, I wasn't addressing that to you.
So to be consistent, you would defend GW Bush if he were to give a speech, to say, a political science class, condemning starting unnecessary wars? And you would further defend him by saying his hypocrisy is irrelevant, even though his speech was perfectly appropriate.
As long as he stuck to facts, and did a post correction on what he said wrong, I'd not only have nothing bad to say, I'd support him - on that subject.
It is called argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. Wikipedia defines it as:
an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.
For instance, "Reverend Bob claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Bob himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"
Whether Bush, in your analogy or MMFA is adhering to their own practices is a seperate argument that does not necessarily invalidate their stated arguments.
In other words, talking about someone's credibility is a fine diversion, but it is not really addressing the merits of the main argument and none should be mistaken about that.
I should clarify a bit. If credibility is the main support for the argument, then attacking it, may be a part of attacking the argument itself. Such as an unverifiable claim by a person, etc.
That said, I don't see where credibility has anything to do with whether MMFA's argument that the Sunday talk shows lack gender and ethnic diversity is true or not. It would seem to be quite obvious from the argument presented regardless of anyone's credibility on the issue.
Why is it when the progressives on this board get proven wrong, they admit it and apologize, but when the rightwingers on this site get proven wrong, they never admit it, and never then continue the debate from that point?
Oh, never mind, I know why that happens. It's because their actions here are not sincere.
Before you go crying "hypocrisy", two points:
1) The presumable purpose of having guests on talk shows is to represent a broad range of views. (I certainly don't hear of any of these shows bragging about representing only the perspective of rich white Republican males). Lack of ethnic/gender diversity is quite a serious weakness if you're purporting to have a round-table discussion.
MMFA's purpose is to point out what they see as conservative misinformation (and general conservative tomfoolery) in the media. Ethnic/gender diversity, while it might help a bit, isn't nearly as important. Whether you're a man or a woman, or black or Hispanic, doesn't have much to do with your ability to check whether John Cavuto is lying about global warming for the thousandth time.
2) Having guests on for a five-minute interview on a talk show is much less of a commitment than hiring someone for a permanent job. If a guest turns out not to be so hot, the show's producers can easily cut their losses. It's much harder to ensure diversity when one also have to find someone who is qualified for the job, who can get along with other employees, etc. Employers don't want to have to look for a new person to fill the job every few months, so they're naturally much more cautious. Diversity becomes less important in this context, and rightly so. (Aren't conservatives the ones who insist that affirmative action results in jobs going to less-qualified people?)
Furthermore talk shows book six or seven guests each week. At that rate, assuming they're on thirty weeks a year, they book 180 guests. MMFA lists about 59 employees, about a third as much. A smaller sample size will often show much less diversity, percentagewise. (Here's where I wished MMFA had published the actual numbers of guests, rather than just percentages).
In short, to compare MMFA's purported lack of diversity to that of the talk shows is to compare apples and bowling balls. One has nothing to do with the other.
I'd applaud your passionate calls for diversity, were I for a minute convinced of your sincerity. But you're just a little too quick to shoot the messenger and accuse liberals of hypocrisy.
Jeter, I would take your comments seriously if it applied to ANYONE other than Wes. His only rant has and will always be MMFS=Hate.
I can understand why you wouldn't want MMFA's shortcomings in this area pointed out to you, but that doesn't make it irrelevent. If anything, it shows how difficult it can be to have "balance" even if you are consciously striving for it.
And if anything, it puts to bed this silly and baseless notion that floats around here that conservatism is inherently more racist and sexist than any other ideology, i.e. liberalism......for if one accepts this study, then it clearly shows that Fox News, the most right leaning network involved, is the most diverse on Sunday morning regarding race and sex.
::claps::
Tommy, you are forgetting, however, that if you're a conservative (or at least not a lib), you're not really a minority.
It would be a little easier to take the 3 of you seriously on this issue if you stated what your feelings are on this issue are in the first place. Are you saying this is a problem in the MSM or not? Your posts make it seem like your more interested in pointing the finger at MMFA and not the substance of the actual issue.
I agree that MMFA should be as diverse as possible and it would be interesting to see the break down in their organization. I also agree that it can be difficult to have a "perfect" break down on race and gender in the work place.
I think the real issue is when an organization has an blatant lack of diversity with little to no effort to represent other groups. The MSM appears as if it is barley trying to show equal representation. Do you really think it's that difficult to find quality minority guests, hosts, experts for these types of shows and if so what does that say about our society at large?
I think the shows highlited should be as diverse as possible and will wait to see if they respond with a reason why they are lacking. I try not to jump to conclusions other than diversity is a process that is happening more slowly than it would in a perfect world.
Thanks for the answer Bruce!
I agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions on this topic or immediately get defensive when discussing diversity. I think its important to have an open dialog about this issue and part of having that dialog is for the all of the participants to actually state what their opinions are.
Tommy? Wesley? Do you think the lack of diversity in the MSM is a problem?
Striving for diversity and various points of view in all venues, media or otherwise, is a laudable and commendable goal.
Of course.
Thank you sir.
Why do you think the amount of diversity in the MSM is limited? I'm just curious on what the conservative view point is on this issue?
Considering the mainstream media leans left, for the most part, that is an intriguing question. Of which there are probably several theories, I will repeat what I just said - striving for diversity on as many levels as possible is a worthwhile goal, for any enterprise.
Diversity strenghtens our society, so it's always a positive achievement.
Tommy innocently slips the "liberal media" card onto the top of the deck and continues dealing the hand.....nice. :-)
Shhhh, Bruce. It was supposed to be subliminable.
"Considering the mainstream media leans left, for the most part"
In what fashion does the MSM lean left?
Considering the MSM has been pimping republican/conservative talking points for at least the last 10 years, I would think that the "liberal media" lie has fallen by the wayside.
Individual workers may have liberal or conservative viewpoints but the corporations and management of the media outlets are more conservative than liberal. They're the ones who ultimately control what's on the air. I imagine the rhetoric got "jacked up" during the Clinton era when it was decided that they (Conservatives) needed to actively take control of society. I'm guessing the groundwork started during the Reagan era.
I see often in threads on this topic that "it's all about money and the marketplace". I guess no one cares that a reasonably equitable and diverse society should not be dependent on how profitable it is to be such.
"Considering the mainstream media leans left, for the most part, that is an intriguing question."
This is purley a matter of opinion. This issue isn't about political ideogolgy Tommy, but if you want to go there you might want to ask yourself who owns the MSM and is in charge of the hiring of hosts, producers, etc.
I find it inresting that instead of answering my question about solutions you try to shift the conversation yet again and are making another attempt to place blame. Do you have any ideas on a solution?
Patronize networks and shows and their advertisers who promote and broadcast diverse opinions from a diverse cast of guests and hosts. If you choose to boycott shows that do the opposite, that is certainly your choice as well.
hmm isn't that our current system? No working very well on the diversity front. Are you a one trick pony or do you have any additional suggestions?
What are you saying?
Tommy failed to address the points that you made, ignored that fact that he was wrong and went on to another baseless argument?
Say it ain't so!
"And if anything, it puts to bed this silly and baseless notion that floats around here that conservatism is inherently more racist and sexist than any other ideology" --tommy
Actually, no it doesn't. I don't know for sure if it is absolutely true or untrue. Anecdotal arguments only provide arguable evidence to some sort of view, it isn't "put to bed", as you seem to (a little too desperately) want to believe.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, social psychologists are doing actual academic studies to contradict that. We all know how you feel about academic studies after that last O'Reilly thread, but if you're going to proclaim that an issue is "put to bed" it might be best to first read what people who actually know what they're talking about are saying.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com] even delved into the right-wing blogosphere to read the predictable attacks on the study. It seems that the best that anyone could muster was Michelle Malkin, who (quoting a poster) claimed that the study only proved that conservatives were more honest about their racial prejudices than liberals.
Let's try that link again:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
This should work.
MMFA is a non-profit media watchdog. It doesn't report news on a national platform. It holds those who do, accountable. MMFA is does not represent the national debate.
Let me get this straight...if you're a media watchdog...you don't have to care about gender diversity?
mmfa is clearly a member of the "good ole boys" club...hiring twice as many men as women...oh my aching side.
do you know how many women have applied and what their qualifications are? you're not suggesting hiring based solely on gender? should firms have equal numbers of engineers, when women are only about 20% of engineering students? on the other hand, it's not hard to find people to go on a news show and represent a particular point of view or eithnicity. there's a huge pool available.
You don't even have your math correct. The male/female ratio is 59% to 41%, if you understood rounding you would say it is a 3 to 2 ratio, not 2 to 1. Please reset your talking points to start with that fact that you misrepresented from the beginning.
The staff listed at mmfa is 75% male...25% female.
Clear evidence of a lack of gender diversity at "males matter for america"...despite the "do as I say...not as I do" preaching.
Wes, I have to apologize. It's my counting that's off today.
No problem...
If I may though, I would like to claim the Fred Thompson defense. My hearing aide was malfunctioning and I had to go to the bathroom. ;)
Tommy Thompson NOT Fred Thompson.
Again, it's not about who the networks hire, but who they put on television.
Good job Wesley. A clear example of hyprocisy.
Snoopy, Wes hates MMFA and can't wait for any chance to say so. Kind of like Duncan who can't wait to post something and add Doris's name to.
Watch your blood pressure...if you care to take a swing at the fact that mmfa is predominately male...while preaching about the lack of gender diversity in others?
I will take a swing: the post is not about who the networks hire, but who they put on television.
You are making a false equivalence. If you can't make an honest argument fairly, that's OK, but don't break an arm patting yourself on the back at your incisive debating skills.
I'm pretty sure he understands that. I think the conversation kind of evolved into what it is now.
the fact that mmfa is predominately male...while preaching about the lack of gender diversity in others
That is the false equivalence I am directly responding to.
- If you can't make an honest argument fairly - val
This is not about an argument...this is about a fact.
mmfa rails about the lack of gender diversity in the media...while practicing little gender diversity themselves...with a 75% male staff...and I find that laughable.
Looking at the staff advertised by mmfa...they are just as guilty of the crime that they charge others...while not even scratching the surface of their race/ethnic makeup.
The three main columnists featured by mmfa...all white males...the beat goes on.
If you are just going to keep repeating yourself, then so will I:
The post is not about who the networks hire, but who they put on television.
Hey Val, sorry I missed the main conversation. MMFA also posts guest columns such as Boehlert where at the bottom they put this disclaimer:
The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Guess how many female columnists they feature? Must not be any liberal female columnists out there I guess, since Ivins passed away. Not that they picked her up either when they had the chance. Who knew?
"A quick look at the mmfa staff shows that men outnumber women by about 2-1...44 males to 15 females." --wesley
Without commenting as to whether that information is accurate/germaine or not, I would like to point out that such a ratio is much closer to 3-1 -- not "2-1".
Actually 44 to 15 is a lot closer to 3 to 1 than 2 to 1
This is such a non-issue.
that...?
That doesn't deserve an audience. This is almost as absurd as Affirmative Action.
As long as PBS is fairly representing US demographics, I have no problem TV companies being allowed to decide who will get them the best ratings.
Katie Couric sure is doing well.
I expect that if there were more rich non-white men we would see them on the tube (I date myself). Rich white men run the show and they show what the want. That's the capitalist way.
The fairness doctrine would lessen this problem but that's democratic and not capitalist.
Not gonna happen with the MBA President.
Clearly, they want money, so they show what makes them that. They got rich giving people what they wanted, not giving people what they wanted to give them.
Which is why the detroit auto companies suck.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It used to be that news providers felt like they were providing a public service. It has now evolved into "infotainment". This sad state can be as much blamed on the consumer as well as the industry itself.
Bad analogy! FCC bandwidth is a zero sum game (without technological breakthroughs). Controlling who get the licenses is the issue.
Yeah, the nerve of these "rich old white men" to work hard throughout their life and become successful.
Who said they worked hard or that hard work puts you on the boobee tube.
Well, how does one usually become rich? You normally don't get rich by not working hard.
Chris, I certainly hope that you don't accept the inverse of your argument: that people of colour are not rich and successful because they don't work hard all their lives.
I'm curious if you think George W. Bush "worked hard all [his] life," and that is why he is so successful - or if you think the "born on third base thinking he hit a triple" dynamic is only limited to that one rich white man.
I have no clue what made you think that was the meaning of my statment. Are you just looking for an argument? Anyway, it seemed to me that MIKE D's statement had a little animosity in it towards rich white men. I guess you don't see the inverse racism in that statment. I was merely pointing out that there is a good chance that those rich white folks worked pretty damned hard to get rich. How you interpret that to mean that I was saying that people of color don't work hard is beyond me.
I did not interpret your comment as anything. I asked a question.
Because of the way this commenting system is laid out, it is often very hard to see what a given post is replying to.
That is fine. It is just unnerving to have to defend yourself against baseless assertions. I realize the postng system lends to confusion. But for the record, I have never beleived that people of color don't work hard. Come on man.
All you have to do is look at the commercials that get run on shows like Beck and O'Reilly. Golf clubs, Cadillacs, Lexus. It all comes down to the money.
I find this study to be so perplexing.....who could've thought that a profession (on screen talking head) would be so tilted towards one gender or ethnicity.
Well, I'll think about it at lunch today when I'm sitting in the teacher's lounge surrounded by women.
By the way, I'd be interested in these numbers as they apply to a news organization from top to bottom. Not just the on-screen talent, but everyone involved with putting together a sunday show.
It's not the profession that's the issue.
It's who they invited for guests.
So the fact that teachers in grade schools are overwhelmingly female has nothing to do with this issue.
Too bad you still don't have a point.
Sometimes specific details (such as names and faces) are more informative than general descriptions (such as race)... and sometimes pictures tell the truth better than do charts and tables.
I'd like to see the information presented above more in the form of 'postage stamp-sized' little portraits, arranged in groups, and with the name and number of appearences on whichever show, as a caption beneath them...
I'd have the data (the portaits) oriented first by specific television show (seeing as there are only four it seems)... so under 'Meet the Press', you'd then have the next category, of race... 'African-American'* under 'Meet the Press', then a little pic of whoever led that show in appearences, and the number of appearences... also, that way, you'd immediately see how the data, when tabulated, appears skewed in favor of 'Fox News Sunday', when you'd see jaun williams's face first, and his 99 appearences noted, under that show's heading.
Anyway, the data and the charts are interesting, but the devil is in the details and the specfics, and a picture is worth some number of words, I forget how many.
*If we must identify our Fellow Americans by race (must we do that?), then we make tricky work of naming those races: 'African-American', that's a good description? I guess, especially if you'd just seen that TV show 'Roots"... How about 'Latino'? I mean, what's a dead language, derived from Rome and spread by it's empire, got to do with it? It sounds like a sub-atomic particle, a 'Latino' does. Maybe 'Hispanic' isn't any better.
By way of the reasoning that gives us 'African-American', were I to have been born and raised and presently live in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (what our president incorrectly refers to as the 'Democrat Republican' of the Congo), were I to live there as a native, but descended from white slaves brought over from America generations ago, would they classify my race as 'American-African'? ...even though I'd never been to America?
And perhaps worst of all, the name of the place of my birth, Africa, would have been hyphenated and tacked onto the rear, of the name of a place I'd never even been to, America?
These are hard questions to answer... I much prefer easier, 'yes or no' questions, myself... like the question of: Must we really identify our Fellow Americans by race?
Good post. I think these days that race is a scapegoat for socioeconomics, personally.
Wow, that is a great comment DEM2020. I agree, it seems that when we label ourselves we essentially segregate ourselves at the same time. Ideally we should look at each other as Americans, not African-Americans, or Native Americans, etc. Although you may not agree with this I tend ot think that studies such as this provide nothing positive because of the way they are presented or because of the way they are interpreted. The question is what does MMFA hope to accomplish by doing this study? Do they want only to bring this issue to the public debate or do they want to use this study to foster some kind of movement for change? I wonder if MMFA wants the networks to take notice of this study and as a result make an effort to include more women and minorities on Sunday shows? What would the point be in doing that? Anyway, your comments were excellent.
"I agree, it seems that when we label ourselves we essentially segregate ourselves at the same time. Ideally we should look at each other as Americans, not African-Americans, or Native Americans, etc."
This is the old "colorblind" argument. What you're doing is denying someone's cultural heritage, along with their right to identify themselves as they see fit. It's another way of saying, "Why can't we all just be white?"
I thought the "colorblind" argument originated on the left?
It may have. I don't know. My feelings about it remain the same.
Oh, those darn "old" arguments that don't seem to go away because they're right. Gosh.
Clams, the problem isn't that people have cultural heritages, the problem is defining each other by them. Besides, your "cultural heritage" and behavior are social in nature, not physical, like skin color is.
This is the old "colorblind" argument. What you're doing is denying someone's cultural heritage, along with their right to identify themselves as they see fit. It's another way of saying, "Why can't we all just be white?"
I was just about to post that, CC, but you beat me to it. ;) Plus, I'm in class right now so I'm trying to post while listen to my professor at the same time. Here's an article that basically touches on "racelessness" and "colorlessness".
http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2001&x=raceless
I dont' know I guess my argument says alot abut the idea of judging someone by the content of their character not the color of their skin. If you are opposed to the "colorblind" argument then you obviously feel it is appropriate to continue to segregate ourselves through our skin color. If there is no racism then would we not be in a color blind society?
"If there is no racism then would we not be in a color blind society?"
Absolutely not. I'm just going to repeat myself--and it would be much easier for you to read Preston's link--so I'll just say that in order for there to be no racism we must live an openly diverse society, not a color blind society. Cultural and racial differences must be celebrated, not snuffed out.
The Link Preston posted really does nothing to change my mind on this. I see it for what it is, which is that it is merely someone's point of view backed up by some research. It certaintly is not the gospel truth, although I wish it were that easy to point to an article as the answer to a question that has been debated for centuries. We are obviously not going to agree on this. I have never indicated that people should forfeit their right to celebrate their heritage or culture, nor have I ever indicated that my argument was a vieled way of saying that "why can't we all be white". Quite the opposite really. Why can't we all be Americans first? That is my point. It seems to me that if one insists on being viewed as different then they certaintly can be expected to be treated as different. I firmly believe that the attempt to form a colorblind society is "the good fight". It is quite unrealistic to believe that we should have to accept people for what they are rather than who they are.
"It seems to me that if one insists on being viewed as different then they certaintly can be expected to be treated as different."
You just put the cart before the horse there. Minorities are viewed as being different, and historically this has been a negative view. Reclaiming and celebrating those differences is a way for those minorities to combat those negative viewpoints. And just so I'm clear on this, you seem to be saying that if someone calls themselves an "African-American" then they can expect to be treated like one? I don't see any other way to read the sentence that I quoted above.
"I firmly believe that the attempt to form a colorblind society is "the good fight". It is quite unrealistic to believe that we should have to accept people for what they are rather than who they are."
Race and culture is very much a part of "who they are." Colorblindness denies that. Is is not at all the good fight that you think it is.
No, race and culture is what they are. Who they are, is the million dollar question. Is someone a good person because they are a good person or are they a good person because their race and culture dicatate it to be so? Furthermore, you read my comments correctly, although I get the feeling that you intepret them as sinister in nature. Nothng could be further from the truth. I'll try this again. Why is it important for one to label themselves as African-American, Native American, or Asian-American? If one insists on such label are they expecting something from others, if so what? If not what does it accomplish to demand that people accept that you are not just an American but and African-American, for example? This leads to my point, Why can't we just be Americans?
I think every American, hyphenated or not, has to make that call for her or himself. My own take on it from my experience is that people of many races - including my own Southern Italian ancestors who were "of colour" upon their arrival over a century ago - have been made to feel "less than" by the minority. They fought that prejudice by reclaiming their heritage as a positive thing, worthy of pride.
You seem to be confusing the effect and the cause in a way that is unhelpful. But maybe I'm reading you wrong.
Nationality and Citizenship, they're important things, even the most important thing, as you pass through Customs, Passport in hand... it's all about your Legal Rights, and Jurisdiction, that's what Nationality and Citizenship are about.
And when you're Nationality and Citizenship is U.S.A., then that's where you're at home, in America... that's where you have Legal Rights, that's your Jurisdiction.
Then you're called the American People, if not simply an American Person.
Now, when you're home, somebody might ask you, for one reason or another, "were you born here?"
And if you were, then you say "heck yea I'm born here", but if you're not (but you're still a Citizen), then you say "no, I wasn't born here, but so what... I'm still a Citizen, just like every other Citizen"
...and then maybe the other guy says "take it easy, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers... I'm just asking is all, I'm just trying to be friendly"...
...and then he resumes his 'friendly questions': "what about your parents, and your grandparents, and what it is I guess you call your ancestry... somewheres back there, one of them had to be a foreigner, that's what I'm after friend... where'd the boat come from, that brought them here... China? Africa? Italy? Ireland? Mexico, by way of a dusty trail?"
To which maybe you'd say:
"My race, or ethnic heritage or ancestry or whatever you'd call it, is a matter of great pride to me... and my parents and grandparents and all of them as far back as far goes, they're my blood, and as such are my own personal business 'friend'...
And while we're at it 'friend', this kind of 'categorizing' by race, beyond Nationality and Citizenship and even Residency, this is the seed of racism you know... the words 'categorizing' and 'stereo-typing' are near the same words you know, and even a sharp tack like you oughta know that 'stereo-typing' a person is more than just the seed of racism, it's just about the weed of that thing...
I'm an American friend, just like any other American, native born or Naturalized, just as good either way...
And while I'm mighty proud of my ethnic heritage and my ancestry and my blood, the blood of my fathers going back for all time, I just don't understand why I have to be 'categorized' by my race or ethnic origins...
I don't know what business it is of your's, 'friend', nosing around and wanting to know what boat my kin came to this country from... what kind of 'foriegner' it is I'm descended from, when I just told you...
"I'm an American, plain and simple... I'm the American People."
"Relax, relax guy... I'm just doing my job is all... I'm just taking the Census."
I don't know why I couldn't just put it the way you just did DEM0220. Well said er... written again.
"I have never indicated that people should forfeit their right to celebrate their heritage or culture, nor have I ever indicated that my argument was a vieled way of saying that "why can't we all be white". Quite the opposite really. Why can't we all be Americans first? That is my point." --achrispage6992
You want people to drop any ethnic prefix in their hyphenated american label and yet you still refuse to believe you are asking them to forfeit their celebration of heritage or culture? How exactly is that, because it appears that is precisely what you are doing?
OPEN-MIND,
It is quite simple really. I don't think it is necessary to hyphenate anything to celebrate you heritage or culture. My point is that those who insist on doing so only serve to further alienate themselves from the idea tht we are Americans first. To me that is detrimental to the goal of judging one by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
Have you considered that your own personal history and the color of our own skin influences your view on this?
Do you see how people from different personal histories and backgrounds might have a valid basis for disagreement?
Can you see how others might view your argument as patronizing?
Do you think some minorities could possibly fear that they are losing their uniqueness by conforming to your idea of what constitutes an "American"?
What do think my idea of an American is?
I only know what you have posted thus far and are using that as the entire basis for my questions. If I have caused some confusion, please be specific.
"Do you think some minorities could possibley fear that they are losing their uniqueness by conforming to your idea of what constitutes and "American"?"
That is what you wrote. So, I refuse to play the "be specific" game today because you specifically asked me a pointed question based upon YOUR assumption that I have demonstrated my idea of what constitutes an American. Your question is a fair, but again, I must know what your perception of my idea of what and American is before I can answer it. Come on now.
Sorry, I see your point. I could have worded the question better:
Whereas you seem to consider hyphenated Americans alienating (in your above post), can you see how minorities may consider dropping the hyphenated prefix as a way losing their uniqueness or even the suggestion of such as patronizing?
Do you believe their opinion to be just as valid as your own?
Absolutely, OPEN-MIND. That is a fair assessment. I just plain disagree with such a notion. I seems to me that by engaging in labeling, a person is doing nothing more than emphasizing that they are something else before they are Americans. I just don't think that is productive. For instance, when people insist on being called an African-American what are they saying? Are they suggesting that they are Africans first and Americans second?
I think it is a subtle, but important distinction that people are not really labeled, so much as they label themselves. It is a personal preference. I think that is what makes the argument against hyphenated American labeling seem patronizing. It is telling other people how they should feel about the issue.
Personally, I do not really choose to label myself (I am a quarter Irish and the rest is heinz-57), but I can respect if someone else does it out of respect for their own uniqueness and heritage.
You bring up a good point OPEN_MIND. But I don't think that is how it is in today's society. We are expected to be politically correct and refer to someone of color as African-American, or Native-American. why can't we just refer to them by their name, hence my color blind argument.
"We are expected to be politically correct and refer to someone of color as African-American, or Native-American. why can't we just refer to them by their name, hence my color blind argument." --chris
I disagree. Most people indeed refer to people by name when they know it. I don't see this "politically correct" issue as anything substantial.
What is the politically correct terminology for a person who happens to be black?
Black.
And I know this will confuse you, so let me elaborate. "Black" is what you call someone who is black, unless they choose to be identified as African-American. How will you know this in advance, you think to yourself? You won't, but despite what too many ignorant yet well-meaning white people think, no black person is going to be offended if you call them black. In fact, this bit of information will probably save you a lot of grief, as you won't mistakenly refer to black Americans from the Dominican Republic or Brazil (to cite just two examples) as African-Americans.
That is very interesting. I assume that you have talked to people from Brazil and they have overwhelmingly told you that they prefer to be called "black" I bet that would come as a huge surprise to someone like Royce Gracie,( just happens to be the only famous person I can think of right now ) who is from Brazil. Nevertheless, I must educate you as I am tired of you infering that I must be white due to my opinions. That seems so funny because I did not think you could acutally tell a persons race from their opinions, excluding white supremacists and Louis Farahkan(sp?) of course. But obviously again I submit to your great intellect. Anyway, I am well over 1/2 Lakota from the Upper Brule tribe of the burnt thigh people. I was born on the Rosebud Sioux reservation in South Dakota. Although this does not make me an expert on race relations I have a sense of what it is like to be a minority and surrounded by white people. Just so you know.
I'm quite tired of this debate. I guess I will see you in another post and we can hash it around again. Best of luck to you sir or madam.
Now you're just being completely ridiculous, and frankly, ignorant. Royce Gracie? I never said all Brazilians were black. In fact, they're the minority there too. It looks like you need to educate yourself on the racial makeup of Brazil.
I'm sorry, I just can't let you get away with you assinine argments any longer. You wrote "As you won't mistakenly refer to BLACK Americans from the Dominican Republic and BRAZIL (to cite just two examples) as African Americanns". Now, moron, if you would please explain just what you meant. You specifically indicated that people from Brazil are black Americans. If that isn't saying that people from Brazil are black then just what were you saying. You need to gently put the bong down and get some serious professional help.
Brazil is made up of a number of different ethnicities, not just black. Same with the Dominican Republic. That doesn't contradict my point, which was that black Americans from Brazil and the Dominican Republic don't like to be called African-American. Got it?
Yeah I got it smart ass, now if you don't mind, tell me when I said that you said that all people from Brazil are black. Now doesn't that just show your ignorance. But you always seem to conveniently forget the parts of your posting that show your ignorance. Got it!!!
You just said it two posts ago! Do you think we can't go back and read what you just wrote? Right after calling me a moron, you wrote, "You specifically indicated that people from Brazil are black Americans."
In fact, I did no such thing, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you're resorting to more name-calling. It's fairly obvious that the more you find yourself on the wrong end of the argument, the angrier you get. Maybe when you calm down, you'll find that you actually learned something.
Again, I challenge you to point out where is said that you said that all people from Brazil are black. ALL being the operative word here. That is a direct challenge. Two posts ago? Where did I say that you said ALL people from Brazil are blacks? Where? Where? Where?
Wow, this is getting scary stupid now. Let me quote you again: "You specifically indicated that people from Brazil are black Americans. If that isn't saying that people from Brazil are black then just what were you saying?"
If you can't understand what I was saying at this point, then nothing I can write will clarify it for you. Obviously I wasn't saying that all people from Brazil are black, and obviously that is what you were accusing me of saying. I don't know how you can go on denying it when it's plainly written just a few posts above. Maybe you'd like to explain what you meant by mentioning Royce Gracie? Helpful fact to avoid drawing out this nonsense any further: He isn't black.
Why must we be “color-blind,” Chris? Is it better if we’re color-tolerant instead? Color-blind just means that you’re only tolerant with the opposite race because you can’t see their true nature. You can still judge a person by their character and actions and also recognize that they carry different attitudes and perspectives of the world because of their race and culture. I’m black and I dress in Hip Hop gear all the time, but that doesn’t mean I’m a “thug” or a bad person. In fact, I know I’m a good person. So I think this whole “color-blind” talk is a way to homogenize those who do not met the standards of whiteness since whites are the dominate race in America and its minorities who must assimilate into a dominate white status quo to seek certain privileges that would be otherwise denied to them.
I disagree. I think that "colorblind" means exactly what it says. If people could realize a way of living in which a person is judged by who they are instead of what they are, how does someones color make a difference in that scenario? For example, how do you explain to someone that has been blind their whole life that a particluar person is not equal to another because of the color of their skin? Wouldn't it be rationale to believe, excluding mitagating factors, that a blind person would be a better judge of character in today's society since we all know that most of us form a judgment about another person based upon how they look within the first 15 seconds of meeting them. I guess my point is that by labeling oneself as different, one should not expect ot be treated the same as those who don't label themselves. I think that as a nation we will be better off when we can see you as Preston the student rather than Preston the African American student. That to me is a colorblind society.
You simply can't remove color from the equation. As I said above, race and cultural are very much a part of who someone is. Why attempt to deny someone their right to acknowledge that?
I don't want to deny them anything. If someone is proud to be black or aisan then great. They can be proud of that and celebrate such a thing every waking hour if they so chose. The problem is that by taking it a little further and labeling oneself as inherently different than others because of your race breeds racism. I mean, how ridiculous do we see these morons who run around saying "white power" and saying that they are "white and proud of it". By engaging in such labeling are they not differentiating themselves from others. Are they not insisiting on not only being seen as different but also wanting to be treated differently? Now I am not equating people who want the label "African-American" or "Native American" with the racist bigots who believe in white power. Let me be abundantly clear on that. I am merely pointing out that; the insistence that we recognize someones color as who they are is detrimental to society in general. In my humble opinion, to insist that we not become colorblind is a reinforcement of an ideology of forced acceptance.
labeling oneself as inherently different than others because of your race breeds racism
I could not disagree more. Racism predates ethnic pride - it was the majority that caused people of colour to feel their ancestry made them less American than whites born in this country.
Stupidity breeds racism. And so does excusing stupidity in the name of a "colourblind" society.
I don't beleive that your assertion that " racism predates ethnic pride" has any particular bearing on my point. By insisting that you are different and by doing so insisting that others see you as different certaintly breeds racism along with resentment and a variety of other unproductive terms.
It has everything to do with it. You have to ignore hundreds of years of history to make your point stick. There's no starting back at square one. After oppressing minorites throughout history, white people can't just say, "Whoops, my bad, let's all be 'people' now."
Did it ever occur to you that some people wish to identify themselves as "African-American" or "Native American" because they didn't really care for the labels that white people had already given them?
What does the injustices of two gnerations and more ago have to do with how a white person interacts with a person of color in the present. What do the current generation of white Americans owe to Blacks, for example? How is it non productive for anyone, much less a white person to advocate seeing everyone as just Americans.
Just because there may be some who want to hyphenate their citizenry does not change the fact that they are labeling themselves. I thought noone liked to be labeled. It also does not change my opinion that it only serves as a devisive component in our society. As I aked Preston, Is it better to see him as Preston the African-American or Preston the American?
How about just Preston, or Dtrain for that matter cause I am "non-white" (jamaican-american) too achrispage....
That would be fair enough D-TRAIN, but you are missing the context of my response to which you responded.
Not really, just making you aware. And I mean just what I said. You can chose not to identify anyone with a label, that is noble goal. But we can't ignore the RACE issue in american society because it is still very much alive and well. To think race is no longer an issue is purely naive and ignorant.
I just flat out disagree. As long as we continue to make race an issue it will be an issue.
Like I said,
Naive and ignorant. Hey its a free country your entitled to be as such.
"What does the injustices of two generations and more ago have to do with how a white person interacts with a person of color in the present?"
I'm afraid you're only revealing your own lack of perspective on the issue by even asking that question. As dtrain said below, to think race is no longer an issue is purely naive and ignorant.
"I thought noone liked to be labeled."
Can't you see that you're the one putting a negative connotation on "labels" like African-American? People who choose that label choose it with pride. But then you come along and claim that it's divisive and that they're only asking to be discriminated against. That's a bit like a self-fullfilling prophecy. It's only divisive because you've made it so. You should accept how someone chooses to identify themselves.
Clams,
Again, I have never said that race is no longer an issue. As I responded to D-Train I will respond to you. Race is an issue in this country because we can't move past making it an issue. If everybody woke up tomorrow and no longer cared what color another persons skin was and judged them by their deeds alone then I don't see how race could be an issue any longer. That supposition leads to my point. How can we ever, as a society, get to the point where race is not an issue when everyone insists on identifying themselves by their race rather than as just people or just Americans? By the way, don't just assume I lack perspective on this issue. What makes you think I am white? If I have to accept the idea that people want to label themselves then shouldn't have to accept the fact that I don't.
The race issue is not JUST about labels and political correctness. Its about inter and INTRA racial attitudes, pre-judices and cultural acceptance and tolerance. Without pressure from organized black groups in this country and the will and help of some very influential white people, we wouldn't have made the progress that we have already, AND WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS. It will take a couple of more GENERATIONS to correct itself, but they are plenty of positives going on right now. Drastic increase in interacial couples for one. Myself Included: I LOVE me some white/hispanic/asian/Indian/" anything other than black" women! :)
However, all the progress will be lost if alot of white males OF ALL AGES (a heck a lot of conservative ones) get their way from what they are advocating for now. Thats the truth. If you can't see the backwards trend, then again.. you are naive and ignorant, I'm sorry. Are you aware that they want to eliminate "race based" organizations. That's chinese for organized black groups and organizations. You know like the ones that fought so hard to get us to where we are today. Just get rid of them... you know why, they say? BECAUSE RACE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE. I have a feeling you are one of them based on the comments you have posted so far.
I'm sorry. If you want to think that I am naive and ignorant for wanting people to be judged by who they are and not what they are then we are obviously never going to see eye to eye on this subject. I have never indicated that race is no longer an issue in this country. If that is the feeling you get, that is your problem, I won't apologize for that.
I agree that the race issue is not just about labeling. My argument takes it root in the premise that by insisting that others see you as a label or that others have to accept the label one give themselves, it only adds to the ideology that someone's heritage and culture is more important thatn who they are as a person. I just don't think that is right. If that is how you feel then I would have to respectfully say that you are naive and ignorant. But hey, this is America like you said an if YOU choose to be naive and ignorant, then more power to you. If you apply for a job would you rather be hired because you are an African-American with the best qualifications or because you just the American with the best qualifications?
"If you apply for a job would you rather be hired because you are an African-American with the best qualifications or because you just the American with the best qualifications?"
I wish it could be just about my qualifications and frankly, in the engineering, tech and science industries more and more FOREIGN graduates are being hired. As a young black male, I not only have to compete with that, but I have to work alot harder to be considered equivalent to my white peers. This is more an institutionalized phenomena more then anything now. I know this because I work in the nuclear industry and I am one of only 2 black system engineers out of 70 or so. Companies like mine are trying to diversify, but they need qualified people. The whole qualified/quota dichotomy is ridiculous. Its usually a mixture of the two, the level of qualification is usually the main consideration.
That is my point D-TRAIN. I want you, me, and everyone else to be judged by qualifications or character. It seems that we agree on what we want but disagree on the best way to arrive at that point. I'm only saying that if people insist on highlighting how and why they are different and expect everyone else to see that before they judge the qualifications we will get nowhere.
"I'm only saying that if people insist on highlighting how and why they are different and expect everyone else to see that before they judge the qualifications we will get nowhere."
But who are these "people" that you say are insisting on highlighting how different they are? Who are they? Are they YOUR friends or classmates/coworkers? I'm certainly not one of them. We all have cultural differences and America is full of people of different races (well duh right??). Its kinda like your preaching to the choir about what the end game is in terms of race relations in America. This whole notion about we are all americans well thats a moot point. Especially after 9-11 and immigration problems, I think there is a new wave of ethnic conflict mainly people in america against immigrants and muslims. The KuKluxKlan has been reinvigorated and black people are no longer the MAIN targets. My point is that it should not be swept under the rug like everything is honky dory and we can all hold hands and walk down the yellow brick road.
I guess it's the folks who insist on having a hyphenated label as to their heritage before they call themselves Americans. Don't you know people like that?
Yeah, actually I do. Its usually white people trying to be politically correct when interacting with black individuals or groups. I have never seen any of my black friends refer to themselves as "African-Americans", or demand that other people call them anything like that in any given situation. You kidding me? If anything, they would prefer to be called by their first name, last name or a nickname (that everyone else gave him/her)... like anyone else. Whats so hard about that? Dude, seriously? Where did you get this notion from?
Where have you been the last twenty years? It is minorities who have led the way in using hyphenated labels of their citizenship. do you think a group of wite people got together and decided that it would be in everyones best interest to call blacks African-Americans and asians Asian-Americans, etc.? Look at the roots of mulitculturalism in our society. If white conservatives are the ones behind the colorblind society ideology then why would they insist on hyphenating labels for minorities? Anyway, you go a long way in making my point for me. If your friends that are black do not want to be called African-Americans then aren't they in fact supporting the ideo of a colorblind society? If that is the way they approach this then I don't see where we could be in disagreement. furthermore places like college campuses are rife with political correctness terminology and multiculturalism. If you want to meet minorities who insist on using hyphenated labels make a visit to a major university with a diverse student body. There are a couple of people who have posted here who have indicated a desire to label themselves as well. In any event, I also have black friends. Some of them insist on being labeled as African-Americans when we discuss race. When I ask them wouldn't it be more productive if you classified yourselfs as just Americans I get the same arguments that are posted here. the only difference is that my friends don't try to paint me as a racist for my views. I appreciate you not doing so as well D-TRAIN although I got a kick out of your assertion that I was naive and ignorant. In any event, it seems that we agree that people should be judged by their character and not their heritage or culture. I have enjoyed our discussion. Best of luck.
Not to speak for achris--and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong--but I'm guessing it comes from not being around black people enough. I've noticed that this is where the "colorblind" argument often comes from as well. He's narrowed his focus so closely on the term "African-American" that he's unable to see that there's no issue there. But I have a feeling that it's not just the term that bothers him. I'm guessing that we could have the same argument about Kwanzaa or Black History Month, or any other cultural signifier that many white people try to call "divisive."
yep your right. I have never really been around black people. Of course that is true if you don't count the two years I spent in Vietnam and not to mention the two men who happened to be black who gave their lives to save mine. Then of course there was college but I really only had African-American friends there not black ones. Now you obvioulsy can't count the numerous minorities that I have worked with over the past thirty years doing community work for those less fortunate. And how could you ever count the countless black patients that I have done dental work on. But hey, your right I have never REALLY been around black folk. I bet you think I haven't had supper at a balck persons house as well right? Jeez when will it end?
Where have you been the last twenty years?
On planet earth. On the continent called America in the north end. Florida if you wanna nitpick.
It is minorities who have led the way in using hyphenated labels of their citizenship.
Clearly, you are as ignorant as I stated earlier. The hyphenated labels were created by whites to group black people under 1 generalized politically correct identifier that will not (they hope) offend them. Just like NATIVE-AMERICANS after they use to call them savages.. remember that? So the Indians came up with that? You kidding me? Your expect me to take you seriously?
do you think a group of wite people got together and decided that it would be in everyones best interest to call blacks African-Americans and asians Asian-Americans
Uhhhh, Yeah. Except for the fact that they do it for their own interests. You don't REALLY believe I or any black man created this and slipped Ol' Whitey a brochure containing a guide on what to call us (although we have to constantly remind them what NOT to call us)? Do you? Seriously?
Please oh great one tell me what group of white people coined the phrase African-American. Be specific now.
I think you might be right. I'm sorry I called you ignorant. Malcolm X used the phrase back in the 60s. However, the insistence AT THAT TIME was because whites were calling blacks NEGROS, COLOREDS and the like. I think you know why they insisted NOT to be called that. But I don't think that takes away from what I have experienced. I have never used the term African American to refer to me or any other black person I associate with. Nobody but white people use that term around me. Your narrow view on this topic is quite disturbing to me. I don't know of ANY black individuals that INSIST or DEMAND to be called "African American" and apparently you don't either since I asked you about it earlier and you made a generalization but did not specify anyone you know.
D-TRAIN,
I most certaintly did indicate to you that I know blacks who insist on that term. I told you I have friends who happen to be black who do that when we discuss race issues. Generalized? Come on, do you want their names and addresses? I'll ask them if it is o.k. to give them to you.
"I guess it's the folks who insist on having a hyphenated label as to their heritage before they call themselves Americans. Don't you know people like that?"
Looks like a generalization to me... I see no mention of anyone here. And thats after I asked you if you knew anyone specifically.
D-TRAIN,
Did you not read the posting that I wrote that began with "where have you been the last twenty years"? I ask you again, Do you want names of my black friends who insist on being labeled as African-Americans? If so, I guess you won't mind giving me the names of your friends who don't insist on such a thing. I don't know where you are going with this argument , but my guess is nowhere.
"If you want to meet minorities who insist on using hyphenated labels make a visit to a major university with a diverse student body."
I went to FSU. A very diverse campus. I only heard white students, teachers or admin, faculty use that term in interactions with black students, faculty etc... And even that was rare for the most part. I addressed everyone by their name and vice versa.
Again, pure generalizations on your part. Now I've asked if YOU knew anyone minority, african-american, american whatever you wanna call them... You could not and still have not given me an answer. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one leveled this narrow-minded sweeping accusation against my race. That we all INSIST (even NOW in 2007) that we be called "african americans" and we INSIST that we always be "looked at differently". Dare I ask, what's your point or what are you trying to insinuate with that? Whites ALWAYS looked at us and TREATED us differently from the beginning (as in, LESS THAN HUMAN), we surely didn't have to insist on it. Back in the 60's and 70's black leaders INSISTED that their people be called at least something of an american. Names like COLOREDS, NEGROS, N***ER, that were so prevelant in those times included NO REFERENCE TO AMERICA whatsoever. So through the efforts of people like Malcom X in the 60s and Jesse Jackson in the 80s, the term "Afo-american" and "African-American" were coined to encourage respect and pride for our heritage and history. In that narrow aspect you are correct. We created it. BUT THE REASONS AT THE TIME were noble and honorable. And they still are. But that doesn't mean it has to last forever. Terms get old and tiresome over time. Trends change... "bling, bling!".
The term MINORITY is mainly used NOW, by white people (I don't blame them) and on demographic surveys, by media, radio commentators, schools and institutions. Blacks, the original coiners, for the most part don't use that term to address each other at all. We surely don't tell other people to call us that, unless they are calling us a negro or colored person or telling us to take the bone out of our nose. You need to get a grip, and take your head out of you a** and foot out of your mouth. You know nothing of we "minorities" interact with each other besides what you see on TV. Were no different from any other human. We like to be called by our names.... even its Loquiesha :). Personally I feel sorry for you. I surely hope you don't talk about this with minorities, as they would surely think you are on something.
I knew it would come out sooner or later. The old white devil argument. Man if it wasn't for all of them white folks just think of what you could have accomplished by now. Damn whitey!!!
Well, then I'm shocked that you've spent your adult life with "black folk" (helpful hint: don't say that anymore) and you still seem to have all these hang-ups about race and personal/national identity.
You freakin' moron. I used that phrase to be facetious because people who obviously don't know better use phrasing like that. You know, like you thought me to be. I guess the jokes on you. Now please, I beg you put the bong down. That crap kills brain cells. It's already done a real number on your pathetic pea brain.
No. Stupidity breeds racism. Hate breeds racism. There is no excuse for racism. None.
I don't care if Farrakhan gets up in your face and calls you every dirty anti-white name in the book (plus a few anti-Native ones for you, Chris). Racism is wrong, and it doesn't matter what justification someone thinks they have for it.
I'm confused
When if look in my mirror I see an African American woman. What would you have me call myself?
An "American," apparently. The words "African" and "woman" are too divisive, and they make real Americans uncomfortable. You should just be a white man like everybody else.
See Clams. I have come to the conclusion that you don't have a damn clue of what you are talking about. Your cute little snide remarks have added nothing to the conversation in which agreeable people may disagree. All you want is to make smart ass comments when someone don't see things the way you see them. You assume I am white which is why I hold the position that I do. That is rather a racist position since you obvioulsy believe that only white people could ever think like I do. If pearline wants to see herself as an 'African-American Woman" that is fine. IF she inisists on identifying herself with hyphens then how could she possibly take issue with someone else who does the same? Race will always be an issue to her based upon her own self labeling.
I'm only surprised that it took you this long to call me a racist. First of all, I never said you were white, but it's pretty obvious that you are. If not, then you're the first minority in history to take such a strong pro stand on colorblindness. And this illustrates why you are on the wrong side of this issue regardless of your race. Colorblindness simply doesn't serve the best interests of minorities. It only serves white society.
Clams,
Your assertion that I am the only minority to take a pro stand on the idea of a color blind society may come as a surprise to Coretta Scott King who indicates that this was the dream of her husband. But who am I to say that Mrs. King doesn't know what she is talking about. We'll leave that to such profound intellectuals as yourself. In any event I imagine you wouldn't mind expanding on your premise that a color blind society would only benefit white people. I am open to new ideas and you just may change my mind on this issue if you could somehow explain this. Furthermore, you seem to be very sensitive if you think my comments were designed to call you a racist. But, I guess if that is the case it took me a little longer than it took you to call me one.
Sensitive? Don't look now, but two posts ago you called me a racist. Sorry, but you can't go back and erase your accusations and insults.
As for color-blindness benefitting white society to the detriment of other cultures, I believe I've already explained that. At this point in history, saying "Why can't we all just be American," is the same as saying, "Why can't we all just be white?" I don't how to make that any clearer to you. You can't tell people how they can and can't identify themselves. If someone wants to be called an African-American, the they deserve the respect to be called that. It's not up to you. And if you say, "Fine, but there will be consequences," then it is YOU are creating those consequences. It's you who is rejecting that person's choice to identify themselves as African-American, and therefore it is you who is creating the division.
So by that token I guess anyone who wishes to call themselves African-American should be given the respect to do so? O.K. fine, I am an African-American. I guess that is true even if I am not black since all life originated in Africa. You really can't be serious, I get the feeling that you are jerking my chain just to have an argument. By the way, what kind of explanation of a color blind society benefitting white people is that? I asked you to expand on that premise, not just tell me that it is like saying everybody should be white!!!! Oh, when have I indicated that people can't label themselves. What, do you think I am espousing some kind of government policy which would make it a crime to do so. You are very clever. You ignore the broader point I am trying to make and continually search for something you can take out of context and try to beat me over the head with it. I swear if I didn't know better I would think I am arguing with Sean Hannity when I respond to you.
"So by that token I guess anyone who wishes to call themselves African-American should be given the respect to do so? O.K. fine, I am an African-American. I guess that is true even if I am not black since all life originated in Africa."
Uh, no, that would just make you look silly. It's call cultural misappropriation.
And I don't know what further elaboration you need from me. You seem to have some basic misconceptions that make it difficult to debate this topic with any clarity. That and the fact that your position keeps shifting. You rail against the alleged divisiveness of labels and then you say, "When have I indicated that people can't label themselves?" How am I supposed to respond to that?
In a nutshell, the idea of "colorblindness" only works in a vacuum--a vacuum with no history. As Dtrain already pointed out, true colorblindness only comes when the races are mixed. Until then, asking minorities to sublimate their cultural/ethnic heritage in favor of a non-ethnic national identity only benefits the white establishment, which is naturally fearful of any expressions of cultural identification that fall outside the scope of their ideal America.
To put it another way, if someone moves to America from Kenya, you can't ask him to leave Kenya behind, no matter how much it threatens your personal idea of America and Americans. He's bringing with him his Kenyan heritage and his race and everything that goes along with that. And he's still an American, thank you very much. And he moved here voluntarily. Thousands and thousands of black men did not, and their ancestors are left questioning what it means to be American or African-American. To call that divisive is to miss the point entirely.
I have to say, that could be the most creative line of bullsh*^t that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. One question though. since you seem to know everything about this issue and somehow have all the answers why aren't you using your unbounded talent to make a difference with this issue? Maybe you should write a book so everyone can just refer to it for all the answers to the questions of racial inequality and how it can be fixed. You could even get a nobel peace prize for your revelations that will ultimately change the world. Oh, I forgot you are dong your part by hiring minorities in retail. And to think of the wasted savior who is withering away in retail when you could be solving the worlds race problems. What a cruel world.
Funny how you started this thread with a mask of civility, yet you've ended it by proving yourself to be a sarcastic, name-calling jerk with a racial axe to grind. Good luck with that.
And I guess you had nothing to do with this discussion leading down the road to being uncivil? Yeah, sure I'll take my share of the blame for where this discussion has ended up but if you don't see how your comments have also led us to that point then good luck with you. so now I'll have to assume you are white. Ain't it funny how most white people think their the only white person who doesn't engage in racism of some form? Good luck with that, Clams. I'll keep lending my time to help minorities and those less fortunate and you keep on arguing mundane points on a blog. Good luck with that. Now, when you are ready to assume some semblance of civility with your own comments I will be happy to oblige. there is no reason we can't have an adult discussion. Next time, we'll see who casts the first stone. Quite frankly it was you this time.
<i>"so now I'll have to assume you are white."</i>
Wow, you've got some crazy debating skills. You were just attacking me for making assumptions about your race, and now you turn around and make baseless assumptions about mine? The fact is, you have no idea what my ethnicity is. And it's very interesting that you would attempt to attack me with your assumptions about my race, seeing as how you're the one making the argument for colorblindness. It seems you've revealed your true colors after all.
That is a pathetic argument and you know it. It is you who twice in this discussion made broad assumptions about me. Of course you fell for my bait when you took me to task for making the exact same assumptions that you made. It was designed to show you your hypocrisy. I hope you have learned something. Of course later in our discussion you had the gall to say that if I wasn't white I had to be the only minority who took a pro-stance on the colorblind society ideology. Of course, I took you to task on that but you didn't have the courage to respond there. That just reinforces my earlier argument that you systematically search from posting to posting to find something you can take out of context and make an assumptive argument out of. You know it is true, that is why you are selective to which postings you respond to. The problem with that, other than it defines you as troll, is you clearly lose track of the real discussion and somehow succeed in taking the debate into areas that noone intended to go. I have to admit that I am obviously stupid enough to keep falling for your clever little tricks, but have you no shame Clams? What is our purpose here? Is it to engage in real discussions in which others may disagree or do you get some kind of sick satisfaction out of yanking peoples chains? I have disagreed with several people at this site and most recently D-TRAIN but our discussions have not sunk to the level that you seem to enjoy. Preston, is a prime example of someone who can engage in a civil debate without the condescending tone that you just love to set. Get over yourself. Your not that smart or important.
But the point I’m making, Chris, is that blackness has always been judged negatively in America. Negative stereotypes have coincided with blackness, making the concept (and that’s exactly what race is a “concept”) undesirable compared to whiteness. So if a blind person was able to see my race and me wearing Hip Hop gear, automatically I'll be viewed as a "thug" since urban black thuggery runs amok in the media. Sensationalistic aspects of black livelihood in America has shaped public opinion; it’s easier to look at blacks as perniciously corrupt than human beings that are struggling to survive in a white dominated country. America (and the world) is plagued with hidden racism. It's buried deep inside many of us, but many Americans (and people all over the world) tend to NOT openly show it (whether they do so consciously or unconsciously). Being "White" in America is the implied "standard". That false social standard is a hidden racist mentality that has been gradually installed in the sub consciousness of people everywhere. Many people are not directly aware of it, because it is hidden and subconscious. In fact, the roots of the Whiteness paradigm can be traced back to colonialism. This has been well documented by scholars like Matthew Jacobson, David R. Roediger, Ira Katznelson and Scott L. Malcomson.
Even in Japan and other Asian countries, Whiteness is subconsciously preferred over Darkness. It's no longer a surprise to see increasingly Japanese people with Blonde or Red hair. Some even have blue eyes that go along with their blondish hair. Ever wonder why? It's because many are trying to assimilate into Whiteness.
The dominant media (the American Media) is undeniably responsible for standardizing Whiteness in the sub consciousness of people from all over the globe. People begin to suck up to it, to worship it without knowing they are doing just that. Michael Jackson, sad to say, is a direct manifestation of Internalized Racism (which is the unconscious hatred towards one's ethnicity): http://www.rc.org/uer/InternalizedRacism.html. This in turn makes him want to change his ethnicity to Whiteness. Looking at him now, a black man so ashamed of his race, so desperate for white approval, he does a complete metamorphose of his entire genetic makeup.
W.E.B. Dubois said it best, “After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,--a world which yields him no self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,--an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife,--this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He does not wish to Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa; he does not wish to bleach his Negro blood in a flood of white Americanism, for he believes--foolishly, perhaps, but fervently-- that Negro blood has yet a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without losing the opportunity of self-development."
Look Preston, I can really appreciate your desire to educate yourself about racism. You obviously are well read and have formed some strong opinions based upon your reading. You go along way in using examples to back your assertions. I think what it lacks sometimes is an element of reality. All of these sociologists and scholars that you quote arise at their conclusions from a preconceived notion. I think we all do that. When we want to know the answer to something we start our search in areas in which we know we will discover agreement. I guess that is o.k., but my point is that all the writings and studies in the world does us no good if we can't infuse some common sense into our thinking. We just disagree on this. I simply believe that as a society we would be better off if we left the labels at home ans stop insisting that becasue we are different we should be treated the same.
Naw, Chris, it's all good. I guess at times I come off a bit preachy, but I respect the fact you don't agree with me. It's cool to have debates about such touchy issues as race without throwing out insults and screaming at each other (as we both did with each other in the past). So I respect your opinion. :)
That is great Preston. I will admit that you are the most well read person concerning this topic that I have encountered. Despite my disagreement I have learned quite a bit from you over the last couple of months. You are insightful and a damned hard argument. I thought that in an earlier posting that you said tht you were in class. If so good luck with school. I'm sure that with your zeal for exposing and understanding racisim you will undoubtedly make a difference with this issue in the future.
Thanks for the compliments, Chris. Yeah, I'm in college right now, actually studying Film Theory and History. Sociology and American History is just something I enjoy learning on the side. College life isn’t easy, but I’m hangin’ in there. :)
I apologize for posting here so late into the thread. You guys may be done with this topic and my little old post will never get read. Nevertheless, I defend the term African American because it is so distinctive and discriptive of Black Americans who are the descendants of African slaves. We are not Africans we are a creole people if you will. AA culture is a blending of European and African cultures and practices, it's an American created hybrid. There were remanants of African practices that persisted in the Black community despite attempts to suppress there practice among the Black slave population. There are practices and foods that I grew up with that are unique to the AA community and I feel no shame about that and those practices do not make me any less American. You can honor the ancestral heirtage and still be loyal Americans. I think the blending of cultures is one of the things that makes America great and I don't want to get rid of that, the food , the music, my goodness.
D-TRAIN
It's obvious you can't read that well. DId it or did I not say that I have black friends that do insist on being called African-American? Yes, I did write that in the post you so conveniently took a snippet of my posting out of to a make an assumptive argument. You seem to be chasing your tail on this one. My point all along is that it is better to identify each other by our names considering that we are all Americans anyway. So now you make another braod assumption that becasue I am not black like you I have no idea of what it is like to be a minority. Quite frankly your arguments are incoherent and lack insight. At least you did some research on the origin of the term African-American, but then you seem to add your own spin to it, I guess to lessen the realization that your were dead wrong earlier. but, of course that didn't stop you from refering to my opinion in a condenscending manner. If you dont' see the divisiveness that comes with self labeling I can't help you. But, wait. It seems that you do see that divisiveness when you catagorically announce that your friends and yourself don't insist on using labels for yourselves. Why is that? When you answer that question you only succeed in making my point for me. Quit trying so hard to make an argument out of this. What do you want from me, besides getitng some wierd satisfaction out of calling me names and continuing to try so hard to rationalize your previous instance when you were just flat our wrong. By the way, when you discovered tht I was right about the origins of the term, didn't that just blow your previous argument out of the water? so as it seems now, the burden of proof in on you sir. I gave the answer, the problem is that you don't like it.
I think the POINT of this post is that the media in a free society are assumed to offer forums for ideas from all sectors of our democracy. This post offers further proof, however, that there are no such forums. The only ideas being discussed, the only options being debated, the only opinions being given are those of a very small minority, white men (I would add "old and rich" to that, but those figures aren't shown). Sure, this folks in this minority of white men rule the country, but OTHER PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS TOO. Our "free" media should let us hear them!
You're missing the point that the media does not operate within the boundaries of some populist utopia, but a capitalist republic.
Though it has been argued that you can torture a statistic to say anything. In this case the stats don't lie.
Sometimes it is not the presence of something or someone that gets noticed. In this case it is its absence receiving the attention. It is the absence of a different, and possibly, fresh take on issues that is not being allowed to be raised. This absence of a differing opinion is systematically being denied its right to be heard. On the other hand, these programs are not democratic. They are made for a very special target audience and it is not the general public. The real public is too busy watching NASCAR, WWF, Sunday sports, Tivoing American idol, or scared out of their minds thinking how they will pay for their recently defaulted home loan. If anyone thinks that these programs have the general public in mind, please think again. The people on these programs are not speaking to us and they never will, so why allow them in your homes in the first place? Honestly, would anyone really like to have any of these characters in our homes when we could be watching a car engulfed in flames at turn 2 at Daytona live from inside the car? The real public should exercise its freedom of choice by simply switching channels, or better by turning these programs off.
Berkeley Brown
This is an absolutely stupid and asinine report. News is what it is and doesn't have "diversity" I don't need you to tell me what is news and what isn't.
If you think you need to, then change your name to Stalin.
I think its a fine report , informative and useful for some. What I can't figure is your coment. Why would I want to control your access to the media. Iwould like to see any telenews look at its subject a bit like Air America. The majority can continue to sell conservative points as long as they like.
The majority of MSM do not do a good job of presenting any political or ethnic issues that do not originate from rich white conservative males. They often do not do a good job for these folks either.
While i do not have any adversion to race and gender of host or on air personalities and appreciate your study of same. Could anyone also tell me what the demos of the viewers are for the named Sunday shows?
Rooster
By and large your report seems accurate; but since I'm limited to basic TV cable, I am able to view Tony Brown's Journal on Sudnays here in the Sacramento area on PBS. His interviewees seldom are other than African-American. Also Democracy Now -- although not on Sundays -- shows more diversity than the casual reader of the report would garniish. Maybe the Exceptions to the Rulers?
I'll make a deal with you. Let's get the biggest Sunday talk shows in line and then we can discuss fixing "Tony Brown's Journal".
I personally find the criticism of MMFA with regards to this topic telling unto itself.
I was an overwelming male then I stopped drinkin
As a Latino I am very disappointed at the gross underrepresentation of us in Sunday shows. We represent 13% of the population in the United States, and yet merely a 1% of us are being invited to speak at a time when one of the hottest issues is Immigration.
How many whites are on Telemundo truthseeker?
Well, ts, it's been almost one hour so I'll asume you're answer is "not many".
And we'll assume that you don't have a point.
Why not? Because you can't grasp the double standard?
How many hispantics are on the other 987 channels on cable?
Very true. One of the fastest growing populations in our country. Your input on immigration issues would be very important. Another point of veiw which MSM is blind to.
Two things, first, why is anyone shocked that whites (the majority of the country) and males (the majority of the workplace) are in the most prominent place in the media? Secondly, isn't it weird that Foxnews had the most African-americans? Kinda not living up to their "evil conservative" billing hm? OK, one more thing, to truthseeker, about latinos in the news, is it the white man's fault latinos (at least in texas) are dropping out at alrming rates? I'm sure it's also our fault 70% of African American babies are born out of wedlock which makes it that much harder to afford school. Here's a little story about apoor white boy who couldn't afford college, aka ME. Because my folks couldn't afford school I did something almost ANYONE can do, I went into the military. Now I'm almost done with school and have accrued exactly $1,000 of debt. It's not the white man's fault other people can't make it. Once people get past their victim's mentality and do what you have to do to make it, ie, keep your nose clean, don't have illegitimate children, and earn what you want to acheive you'll never do it.
So as a white male, you don't have any problem with white males being substantially over-represented on Sunday talk shows. I can't say that I am at all surprised by that self-serving attitude.
Should I be? What of the misrepresentation of Afircan Americans in Basketball? Or, as I've already stated the lack of whites on spanish tv? Look at the age of the individuals we're talking about. Civil liberties have only been equal since the mid '70's and all these individuals are OLDER white men. Is it not completely impossible that in say, 15 years when there are more minority people (and the majority will be men) are of the same age and experience and education level that there will be an increase in minority representation? Who takes the blame here?
I must admit I am trying desperately to find your point. Can you help me out here?
My point is multifaceted, first that there are other occupations that are dominated by minorities and no one ever brings it up as a problem. Secondly, that the fundamental difference is the AGE of the people involved. I would sumise that because minorities were held back until the civil rights movement that eventually they will catch up but as of right now there is a vast surplus in more experienced and educated whites, the main reason for this could be attributed to the fact that these whites are from a generation whose minorites were less advantaged. The reason women are not well represented in the media is twofold. It's due to men outnumbering women in the workplace AND because, as we've seen with the Katie Couric experiment, it's simply better for the bottom line that men anchor the news.
"first that there are other occupations that are dominated by minorities and no one ever brings it up as a problem"
List all of them, once your done (I bet you can't get past both hands) the count up the number that are dominated by white men. Once your done you can start you campaign to make those campaigns more white.
"Secondly, that the fundamental difference is the AGE of the people involved. I would sumise that because minorities were held back until the civil rights movement that eventually they will catch up but as of right now there is a vast surplus in more experienced and educated whites, the main reason for this could be attributed to the fact that these whites are from a generation whose minorites were less advantaged. "
I agree with parts of this, however the issue didn't just magically change when the CRA was passed in the 1960s as minority populations in the UW are still dealing with access to equal opportunites.
"The reason women are not well represented in the media is twofold. It's due to men outnumbering women in the workplace"
I think your overstating your first argument -
http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm
"AND because, as we've seen with the Katie Couric experiment, it's simply better for the bottom line that men anchor the news."
You have one example, Katie Couric. Are you suggesting that all future endevors will be determined as a success or faliure based off one example? Did you think that maybe Katie was a bad choice because of who she is and no what sex she is?
I have one example because she is the ONLY example. As it stands women are 0 and 1 at being sucessful world news anchors.
Looks like someone's been reading stormfront.org again.
First thing we need to do is get rid of all this "minority" talk and extra protection for different races. Affirmative Action and hate crime legislation are just another from of racism. All me are created equal and are entitled to equal representation under the law. Until that happens it does not matter who anchors the news the inequality will still exist.
All men
Do you have a problem with Jews being substantially overrepresented in Hollywood, TV, and the print media? If not, then why the double-standard?
I think you are unsuccessfully trying to argue by anecdote. The fact that some group may control a portion of the economy doesn't at all validate white male control of a vast and disproportionate share of air time on influential Sunday talk shows (and most other parts of the economy as well).
it was a pretty simple question open_mind, lets try again:
Do you have a problem with Jews being substantially overrepresented in Hollywood, TV, and the print media? If not, then why the double-standard?
FACT: Caucasians (White People) outnumber every other ethnic group in the United States by a substantial margin.
I would argue this in and of itself shows that media outlets are balanced as far as diversity goes.Black people only make up about 12% of the total US population so what is the issue?
Seb, I'm sure an educated, miltary white man like your self has the back up to those stats, right?
I am a woman, and I also have a degree in Women's Studies, so hopefully I can give some insight into the issue of women in the media.
The problem, as I see it is not simply an issue of women, or minorities being represented equally in the media. It is a social issue that permeates all areas of society. This is just an example of a visible symptom.
This is not a conservative Vs. liberal issue, a male Vs. female issue, or a white Vs. non-white issue. For example, I have heard many of my liberal male friends say things like "a woman president would be scary when she has PMS" or "women get paid less in the same occupation because they can't do as much physically, like lifting heavy things" etc. I have also heard women echo these sorts of sentiments. While there are some reasons these stereotypes exist, there are many examples of why they are wrong and damaging.
Misogyny and racism are problems of society as a whole, and they do need to be addressed. But only when we have a greater awareness of how we are conditioned and what effects external and internal prejudices have on us as individuals and as a society will we ever be able to see massive change in every arena of our society. Things have definitely gotten better, but we need to continue to raise awareness. Unfortunately, change can be very slow.
Then would you support that if woman wanted to be in direct combat situations they would have to meet the same exact physical requirements as their male counterparts? If woman can indeed do anything a man can and the stereotypes are false then this should be an easy answer.
Woman are different from men both physiologically and mentally. Whether that justifies the differences in status is the question.
"Then would you support that if woman wanted to be in direct combat situations they would have to meet the same exact physical requirements as their male counterparts?"
Yes, I would. Some men are smaller and less strong then some women and vice versa. Biologically speaking, there is more diversity within the sexes than between them. If a woman can pass all the same physical tests as a man and prove she is just as strong, then why not let her do the same duty? If a man cannot pass the physical tests, he will not be allowed on the front line. It should be no different for women, and I can say pretty confidently that there would be plenty of women who could pass the physical tests necessary to fight alongside men in direct combat, and if they want to do so, I say let them. Think of , for example, Woody Allen. There are many women bigger and stronger and more qualified to do heavy labor than him. It is a matter of individual ability, not gender roles.
"If woman can indeed do anything a man can and the stereotypes are false then this should be an easy answer."
As I stated, there are reasons for stereotypes, but there are just as many who will fit the stereotype as there are who do not. Some women can do the same thing any man can do, and some men cannot do what stronger women can do- it is an individual issue. Stereotypes will always be proven wrong or right depending on who you are addressing, not what sex they may be.
"Woman are different from men both physiologically and mentally. Whether that justifies the differences in status is the question."
Women and men are more similar than they are different, physiologically and mentally speaking. Again, we can see reasons for stereotypes, but many, if not most, gender differences are superficial. Really, I have noticed that the differences between the sexes has received much more emphasis than the similarities, both mental and physical. Generally speaking, there are differences between the sexes, but as I said earlier, and it is quite true, there is more mental and physical diversity between women and women, men and men, than there is between women and men.
Oh, and when did I ever say a woman can do everything a man can do? Some women can, some women can't. Some men can do heavy labor, some men cannot. Same with women. I have a female friend who works construction, and she never has to ask any of the men she works with for help. They don't give her a break either just because she is a woman. She can hold her own. Not every woman is like her, but I think you would be surprised at how many women can compete with or even beat men at their own game. And I never said that men and women are not different, but they are not always as different as one may think. I think you misunderstood or misrepresented what I wrote and you are being defensive and think I am trying to make an argument that I, in fact, am not trying to make. My overall sentiment was that sexism is pervasive in this world, and many ideas about gender roles are false, and stereotypes can be damaging and untrue. And we need to be aware of how we internalize sexism, and racism, (and bigotry in general) no matter what sex or ethnicity we are, and how this shows up in society.
There are a few woman who can do the same as men. But for the most part they can't and that is where the differences in the way they are treated in society.
While I do believe that often men and women offer different things, I do not agree that they should be treated differently in general. Obviously there are certain instances that highlight the differences, like pregnancy. But I personally do not want to be denied the chance to do anything just because I am a woman. And I do not want to be treated weak or inferior. My opinion and point of view is just as important as a mans, and I should be given just as much opportunity to express it.
I am saying you should be treated a s a woman. That is neither weak nor inferior.
Well, I don't know what being treated like a woman means. Every woman is different and wants to be treated differently. I am sure you do not have bad intentions but I just think that there are a lot of men who do not know how frustrating it can be to be a woman sometimes. If I get angry, I have had men accuse me of having PMS. Never mind that I do not get PMS, but it is as if I cannot legitimately be angry without some hormonal explanation for it. I have been underestimated numerous times in the workplace because I am a woman. I have seen sexism from many men that are otherwise good and intelligent people. I do not by any means think that all men are sexist or bad. Quite the opposite. I just think that there is still many ideas about gender roles that are unfair and untrue, and both men and women are conditioned to believe that many of these stereotypes are just gems of conventional wisdom, no matter how untrue they may be in reality. It used to be conventional wisdom that mental problems, or hysteria, in women was caused by their uterus. Hence the term hysterectomy (the removal of hysteria) for the surgical removal of the uterus. Unbelievable, but true. I think there are many examples of this sort of thing that still exist in society.
Sorry, Hysterectomy actually literally means removal of the womb, or histera (Greek).
"A hysterectomy (from the Greek word histera, meaning "womb") is surgical the removal of the uterus "
but
"The term "hysterectomy" is derived from the Greek word for "womb", histera (sometimes spelled "hystera"), and shares the same root word with the term "hysteria". Ancient medical texts from the Greek describe "hysteria" as being a condition peculiar to women and caused by disturbance of the uterus, a belief possibly attributable to the hormonal imbalances many uterine conditions either create or are amplified by. Though the term "hysteria" has fallen out of favor within the psychiatric community due to its origins incorrectly placing blame for a mental condition on a woman's reproductive system, the term "hysterectomy" has remained to describe any surgery that involves removal of the uterus and its associated structures."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterectomy
And I do not want to be treated weak or inferior.
I don't blame you for not wanting to be 'treated' that way, but the fact is women are weaker and inferior to men (on an equal basis). The best woman's golfer is weaker and inferior to the best men's golfer. The best woman's marathoner is weaker and inferior to the best men's marathoner...and so on. Sure the best woman's golfer will beat 99.9% of the other men, but not when you compare equals: best-best, worst-worst.
On a humanity level, there is no distinction. Women are every bit as equal to men. But, when you talk physical there IS a difference.
"More than 2,150 guests were coded for their gender and race/ethnicity. The race/ethnicity categories were: White, African-American, Latino, Asian-American, and Other. The Other category included Arab-Americans, Iranian-Americans, and all foreign nationals."
How did you determine the race/ethnicity of the guests?
Why are race and ethnicity interchangeable, as indicated by the way you wrote "race/ethnicity"?
Yes, it does matter.
Lo Sebastian,good to see your hanging in there.
How does a majority of black players in basketball equate to a majority of white male guests on Sunday morning TV shows. Sure they're visible, but I don't see them discusing our mutual futures in any meaningful forum. There's a few black coaches. As you move up the food chain in the N.B.A. it just gets whiter and whiter, and this is where the power is
Don't know about spanish tv. I assume you are talking about a Mexican source versis a Spainish source. If so I wouldn't be to sure. There were 4 or 5 population movements from Asia to the New World. One of them was a Eurasian population. Quite possibly there's some of this blood on spanish tv.
Civil liberties are not an on and off switch. Granted there was some real movement in the 60s, I'm not sure of any landmark actions in the 70's, perhaps a maturation. There's lots of inequality still arround, and more work is needed here. I appreciate you will not aggree here.
I wish I could say I think you are right about the future. Changes will come. Latino's will be an increasing portion of our national population. They're voices and opinions are of increasing importance, and will be ignored at a high price.
Here is good question to ask.....how many "minorities" apply for these jobs in the media? It might be that a majority of Black poepl that apply for media jobs get them, that is not to say that a ;large amount applied for the job to begin with.
I appreciate this study. The beltway bubble boys are pretty much a white boys club.
It was interesting to see on Face the Nation that the panel consisted of two women (!) with Bob Shieffer this week. Perhaps they got wind of this report and if there are some changes, I'll be real happy.
Funny, if I brought up the point that Jews are MASSIVELY overrepresented in Hollywood, TV, and the print media, there would be claims of anti-semitism. You guys claim white males are massively overrepresented, so could you equally be called "anti-white"? Jews represent less than 4% of the US population, but watch the credits of any movie or TV show in the US, and you will see a plethora of Jewish directors, producers, writers, etc. In the print media, columnists and writers are again Jewish to a higher degree than their numbers would make sense. So if there is "bias" or "racism" in having so many whites on TV shows, then is it also "bias", or "cronyism" when we see so many Jews in TV, hollywood and the print media? Are Jews favoring their "own" when they hire others to write, direct, produce, etc in the media? If so, why are they not subjected to the same criticism and ridicule?
In addition, why doesn't "media matters" care about hispanic radio shows and media in the US? Why aren't their more blacks, or indians in the hispanic media? As we all know, in most latin american countries, american indians are treated like rubbish...same with blacks. So why doesn't media matters condemn the hispanic media for their lack of diversity?
And I'm sure media matters has no problem with BET or any other "minority"-dominated shows. Why is that? Inconsistencies bother me. So please explain......
still waiting....
As I posted above, you are arguing by anecdote. The examples you cite do not compare to the present or historic vast domination of white males in our society.
If you agree with it, then you are of course, entitled to your opinion.
open_mind says "...vast domination of white males in our society". Well, boo hoo friggin hoo. Japanese males dominate japanese society. Black males dominate Nigerian society. Latino males dominate Mexican society. Jewish males dominate Israeli society. So why don't you leftists ever whine about lack of "diversity" in those countries? Why don't you leftists whine about those males dominating those societies?
I don't give two hoots about what happened in the past. Guess what, I didn't do it. And guess what, my children didn't do it. So if you think that "minorities" should get some special handouts because of things that happened past.... tough crap. Every group has bias and prejudice. All races/ethnic groups care more about their "own" than others not seen as part of their "group". Blacks do it. Latinos do it. Asians do it. Jews do it.....
The problem I have is that you leftists never complain about any racial/ethnic group doing this EXCEPT whites. It's pure hypocrisy.
What's especially evident is that a background in journalism isn't necessary to host one of these bull sessions. Russert and Stefanopolis' (sp) jumped from the political side to TV. Can you see them having a person of color do that and it not be referred to as Affirmative Action?
Yes most are white and amel, but all are rich!
Yes most are white and male, but all are rich!
As of the 2005 Census you will that White people are the majority in the country so demographics are accurately depicted in the media:
White
215,333,394
Black or African American
34,962,569
American Indian and Alaska Native
2,357,544
Asian
12,471,815
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
397,030
Some other race
17,298,601
12% vs basically 1% or 2% representation in the media, if you really wanna take the quotas route. The article is simply asking: Why not more? Whats wrong with that?
If you combine the guest with the amount of host it surpasses the national average of numbers of that ethnicity.
Remember when Bush signed a so called partial birth abortion bill? He was surrounded by elderly white males...didn't hear any news reporter note the irony of that.
We need not only diversity of race and gender but of thought. We need outside the beltway opinion. One reason C-Span is popular is that regular people can call in and have a voice. (not that all those voices are particularly informed, but still...)
What does the partial birth abortion ban have to do with anything?
THE ONLY TIME YOU SEE ETHNIC DIVERSITY IS WHEN YOU HAVE A STORY ON RACE OR CRIME. THEN THE ALL WHITE CABLE AND SUNDAY SHOWS CAN FIND DIVERSITY. CAN YOU SAY IMUS, KOBE, MICHAEL, OJ, DUKE, AND MANY MANY MORE. MY GOD I NEVER SAW SO MANY BLACK PEOPLE ON THE CABLE AND SUNDAY SHOW, BUT WHERE ARE THEY NOW??
There you have it, folks. The problem is figured out! Since a majority of crimes are committed by white people there are white people being invited as guests. No diversity needed until more diverse people start committing more diverse crimes.
These kinds of shows are basically intellectual circle jerks. Nobody thinks his opinion matters more or needs to be broadcast louder than the white guy.