I was scrolling down the headlines at Yahoo News the other day, when I came across this article about the new season of survivor.
Essentially, next season, the "survivors" will be separated into 4 teams by race: Black, White, Latinos and Asians (thanks for the correction, Morphy). "Segregated" according to the article.
My initial reaction was one of disbelief. The concept just struck me as utterly and completely wrong. In a day and age, where people tend to be overly sensitive about EVERYTHING -- how could the network think this was an acceptable concept?
Neil, on the other hand, didn't seem to understand why there were people protesting (other than the aforementioned -- people are overly sensitive to EVERYTHING) and posed the question -- how is it any different than the Olympics, where you pit country against country, nationality against nationality?
I counter-argued that they were pitting Americans against Americans (people living within the same country) -- but then mid-sentence I thought, why should that matter? The world is a competitive place and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. Don't we all compete daily for jobs,in sports, in life at large??? Are people of different ethnicity's not competing against one another everyday in well -- everything?? Why should this matter?
Why can't there be a positive competitive spirit from this? Why do people always fear the worst? Are we so pre-conditioned to believe the worst that we honestly believe that race relations in 2006 are so bad they can't withstand a reality TV show?
Neil also wanted me to add -- that the creators of Survivor stole this idea from South Park.
Are you serious!!!! holy crap, a new low.....I chop this up to yet another crappy reality TV ploy to use people's emotions to harness the ever so elusive Neilson ratings. I find this quite ridiculous...how is it different than the Olymipics, well, that's a matter of debate.Krista, race relations are still pretty bad in America. Don't you remember Katrina, and that retarded singer guy ....I don't know his name...but he said: "George Bush doesn't care about black people" ...was he right to say that....I don't know but if you honestly believe that racial tensions are all but gone in America...and in other parts of the world for that matter, shake your headAlso, have you not seen "Crash".....a lot of those attitudes that the characters in that fictional movie had are still kept by many people today.....the Olympic debate, well....sure people are competitive by nature but race is still a very-VERY big concern in today's day and age...and you know what, Canadians have many ethnic groups who compete in the Olympics as Canadians, be it whites, blacks, asians, etc....all under one Canadian flag!!! So, why exploit the fact that these tensions still exist and promote it in such a ridiculous way....ridiculous, word of the day!!!!...this is strictly a ploy to get ratings, enraging "both sides of the coin" no matter how you look at it...simply f$%^en ridiculous already.I think it's better to see how well people of different ethnicity work together for the greater good....could be just me and my pacifist ways....~T
Are you serious!!!! holy crap, a new low.....I chop this up to yet another crappy reality TV ploy to use people's emotions to harness the ever so elusive Neilson ratings. I find this quite ridiculous...how is it different than the Olymipics, well, that's a matter of debate.Krista, race relations are still pretty bad in America. Don't you remember Katrina, and that retarded singer guy ....I don't know his name...but he said: "George Bush doesn't care about black people" ...was he right to say that....I don't know but if you honestly believe that racial tensions are all but gone in America...and in other parts of the world for that matter, shake your headAlso, have you not seen "Crash".....a lot of those attitudes that the characters in that fictional movie had are still kept by many people today.....the Olympic debate, well....sure people are competitive by nature but race is still a very-VERY big concern in today's day and age...and you know what, Canadians have many ethnic groups who compete in the Olympics as Canadians, be it whites, blacks, asians, etc....all under one Canadian flag!!! So, why exploit the fact that these tensions still exist and promote it in such a ridiculous way....ridiculous, word of the day!!!!...this is strictly a ploy to get ratings, enraging "both sides of the coin" no matter how you look at it...simply f$%^en ridiculous already.I think it's better to see how well people of different ethnicity work together for the greater good....could be just me and my pacifist ways....~T
Did you read the article I linked to?? I am not in any means saying that racial tension does not exist -- did you read Rush Limbaugh's comments -- talk about derogatory! Did Survivor make him a racist?? I think he probably had those stereotypical views prior to the show being announced -- it just gave him a reason to air his opinions. Thus why I agree with you when you say that this season will exploit those tensions. The arguement I am trying to make is that I don't believe a reality show is going to push racial tension to a breaking point. One of the people making arguements in the article commented that the show, "has the potential to set back our nation's race relations by 50 years." I'm just saying I don't think that's true. Hurricane Katrina was something very real. Survivor is a TV show. I don't know if you can/ or should compare them. Will Survivor affect and destroy lives??? I don't think so. Could it increase tension? Yes. Does it have to?? I don't think so -- but, then again -- I live in a bubble.I don't want to say this season's premise was a great idea (it's not) -- I just don't think that the people slamming it are realistic in their fears.
Did you read the article I linked to?? I am not in any means saying that racial tension does not exist -- did you read Rush Limbaugh's comments -- talk about derogatory! Did Survivor make him a racist?? I think he probably had those stereotypical views prior to the show being announced -- it just gave him a reason to air his opinions. Thus why I agree with you when you say that this season will exploit those tensions. The arguement I am trying to make is that I don't believe a reality show is going to push racial tension to a breaking point. One of the people making arguements in the article commented that the show, "has the potential to set back our nation's race relations by 50 years." I'm just saying I don't think that's true. Hurricane Katrina was something very real. Survivor is a TV show. I don't know if you can/ or should compare them. Will Survivor affect and destroy lives??? I don't think so. Could it increase tension? Yes. Does it have to?? I don't think so -- but, then again -- I live in a bubble.I don't want to say this season's premise was a great idea (it's not) -- I just don't think that the people slamming it are realistic in their fears.
Why poor salt in open sores though.....I knew what you were trying to say but this concept for a show is f$%^en stupid.....but you know what, it has already won because I will be one of the million+ saps who tune in to see what it's all about ...BTW: South Park rocks!Waaaaaaay off topic here: Bubble...ya you do live in one...get off your ass and go see LOTR already. You're living in the cultural capitol of Canada....take advantage of it!
Why poor salt in open sores though.....I knew what you were trying to say but this concept for a show is f$%^en stupid.....but you know what, it has already won because I will be one of the million+ saps who tune in to see what it's all about ...BTW: South Park rocks!Waaaaaaay off topic here: Bubble...ya you do live in one...get off your ass and go see LOTR already. You're living in the cultural capitol of Canada....take advantage of it!
I actually heard that it will be divided into FOUR groups - black, white, Asian and Latino. And frankly - I love it. Makes great TV. Would never work in Canada - all of our bleeding heart liberals would never go for it. Is it racist? I don't think so. Was it sexist when they divided the teams into men versus women? Was it agist when they divided the teams into olds and youngs?
I actually heard that it will be divided into FOUR groups - black, white, Asian and Latino. And frankly - I love it. Makes great TV. Would never work in Canada - all of our bleeding heart liberals would never go for it. Is it racist? I don't think so. Was it sexist when they divided the teams into men versus women? Was it agist when they divided the teams into olds and youngs?
Sorry Andrea...but to call reality TV great TV....well, that says enough in and of itself........but yes, I probably will watch to see what the beef is all about (because I've watched Survivor since the beginning...not cause I really-really like it...but becasue it's become a bonding time with my pa)....so, yes, I'm part of the problem that is ruining good TV for present and future generations.....The Running Man folks is not all that far off is it! It's depressing....~T
Sorry Andrea...but to call reality TV great TV....well, that says enough in and of itself........but yes, I probably will watch to see what the beef is all about (because I've watched Survivor since the beginning...not cause I really-really like it...but becasue it's become a bonding time with my pa)....so, yes, I'm part of the problem that is ruining good TV for present and future generations.....The Running Man folks is not all that far off is it! It's depressing....~T
Racial relations, particulary in the US have long been a taboo subject. About this new Survivor, liberal intellectuals (and Burnett & co.) might argue that by sparking debate and challenging the taboo, the show will encourage an examination of what's wrong in race relations and debate on how to improve things. The real question that needs to be asked is: Are the people who actually watch Survivor (as opposed to those who get outraged after reading about in the newspaper) intellectually qualified to recognize that there is a debate (and participate in it).Most of the debate I have seen so far revolves around "How are [dem hicks] going to react to the show?" This would seem to indicate a consensus that the audience is not capable of taking part in the debate.FFP.S. maciagt notes that "The Running Man... is not all that far off" as if it's a bad thing. The whole tossing Christians to the lions in the Colosseum thing has been done but I'm sure they have lots of other candidates. But, I digress ...
Racial relations, particulary in the US have long been a taboo subject. About this new Survivor, liberal intellectuals (and Burnett & co.) might argue that by sparking debate and challenging the taboo, the show will encourage an examination of what's wrong in race relations and debate on how to improve things. The real question that needs to be asked is: Are the people who actually watch Survivor (as opposed to those who get outraged after reading about in the newspaper) intellectually qualified to recognize that there is a debate (and participate in it).Most of the debate I have seen so far revolves around "How are [dem hicks] going to react to the show?" This would seem to indicate a consensus that the audience is not capable of taking part in the debate.FFP.S. maciagt notes that "The Running Man... is not all that far off" as if it's a bad thing. The whole tossing Christians to the lions in the Colosseum thing has been done but I'm sure they have lots of other candidates. But, I digress ...
--P.S. maciagt notes that "The Running Man... is not all that far off" as if it's a bad thing. The whole tossing Christians to the lions in the Colosseum thing has been done but I'm sure they have lots of other candidates. But, I digress ...I know you're just kidding around but seriously, Why reinvent the wheel?? ...I'd like to think that we have progressed somewhat since then.....perhaps no....In terms of sparking the debate....well, as Samantha pointed out in my blog (see comments), many kids (not well equipped enough to partake in an intelligent, thought provoking debate as the show creator Bunette & co. may hope for) are going to be watching this show, and not to mention stupid older people (lump myself in here too), and if you can honestly believe that there will be no derogatory comments made by their parents, co-workers, etc. while watching the show or while discussing it the next day around the coffee pot, thus, promoting the kind of ridiculousness I am talking about, well.....Will it take back racial relations 50 years, likely no.....but it will continue to promote racial disconectedness. Perhaps we will all just have to wait to see how the show goes.....I've said my piece...I am done!~T
--P.S. maciagt notes that "The Running Man... is not all that far off" as if it's a bad thing. The whole tossing Christians to the lions in the Colosseum thing has been done but I'm sure they have lots of other candidates. But, I digress ...I know you're just kidding around but seriously, Why reinvent the wheel?? ...I'd like to think that we have progressed somewhat since then.....perhaps no....In terms of sparking the debate....well, as Samantha pointed out in my blog (see comments), many kids (not well equipped enough to partake in an intelligent, thought provoking debate as the show creator Bunette & co. may hope for) are going to be watching this show, and not to mention stupid older people (lump myself in here too), and if you can honestly believe that there will be no derogatory comments made by their parents, co-workers, etc. while watching the show or while discussing it the next day around the coffee pot, thus, promoting the kind of ridiculousness I am talking about, well.....Will it take back racial relations 50 years, likely no.....but it will continue to promote racial disconectedness. Perhaps we will all just have to wait to see how the show goes.....I've said my piece...I am done!~T
..I'd like to think that we have progressed somewhat since then... History runs in cycles because people don't learn. Christians thrown to the lions was very early on the downward part of the cycle bottomed out in the Dark Ages.Parents inability to provide appropriate guidance to their children is no reason not to air the show. In that case, just rate it "Restricted" and show it on cable. The "stupid older people" are a much bigger concern that casts uncertainty over the basic assumptions of democracy. If these people are really so unsophisticated that society must worry about them being inflamed by the games of the Circus, how can society trust them as electors of the government? Herein lies the diabolical genius of Reality TV. It is a master stroke in which the masses are given the chance to vote for the American Idol, the lead singer for miscellaneous pop bands, and an increasing number their ilk as they are gradually weaned from voting in real elections.FF
..I'd like to think that we have progressed somewhat since then... History runs in cycles because people don't learn. Christians thrown to the lions was very early on the downward part of the cycle bottomed out in the Dark Ages.Parents inability to provide appropriate guidance to their children is no reason not to air the show. In that case, just rate it "Restricted" and show it on cable. The "stupid older people" are a much bigger concern that casts uncertainty over the basic assumptions of democracy. If these people are really so unsophisticated that society must worry about them being inflamed by the games of the Circus, how can society trust them as electors of the government? Herein lies the diabolical genius of Reality TV. It is a master stroke in which the masses are given the chance to vote for the American Idol, the lead singer for miscellaneous pop bands, and an increasing number their ilk as they are gradually weaned from voting in real elections.FF
CC's from my blog:oh ya.....that explains how Bush won...not to mention Harper...only the "intelligent" people voted as the uneducated morons were only busy voting for Ruben....hey..wait a minute.... ;-)ANDI'm not sayng, "don't air the show"....I'm just saying I personally find the concept ridiculous~T
CC's from my blog:oh ya.....that explains how Bush won...not to mention Harper...only the "intelligent" people voted as the uneducated morons were only busy voting for Ruben....hey..wait a minute.... ;-)ANDI'm not sayng, "don't air the show"....I'm just saying I personally find the concept ridiculous~T
No one has said the plan has yet come to fruition. Everyone is still entitled to vote in every election and (unfortunately) many still do. This leads to the sort of lowest common denominator populism that's rampant these days. So to reiterate Kent Brockman views on the current system: It may not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have. For now. FF
No one has said the plan has yet come to fruition. Everyone is still entitled to vote in every election and (unfortunately) many still do. This leads to the sort of lowest common denominator populism that's rampant these days. So to reiterate Kent Brockman views on the current system: It may not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have. For now. FF
Post new comment