Yeah, yeah, I'm picking on Clinton again. Sorry.

On Tavis Smiley's radio show, the former president just said "I'm old enough to remember when Rosa Parks wouldn't give up her seat. I was 8 years old at the time, and when I heard about it I was thrilled".

Now come on.....

The whole thing was planned anyway... i forget who, but it was a pivotal member of the black's rights movement.. .and they said Rosa Parks was planted there and was premeditatedly supposed to not give up her seat....

kinda takes away from it all knowing that.

What did they say about Rosa Parks on the "Barbershop" movie? All she did was sit her tired butt down. It helps when you have powerful equal rights activists in your family and were trained in how to resist non-violently. Which was true of Rosa on both counts.


I really don't want to take away what Rosa did, she was still courageous. But it wasn't quite what legend would have it.

Another thing I don't like is that she is being laid out in the capital rotunda, the first civilian, non-government official to be so honored.

I think they're confusing action with result. The result of what she did was monumental, but the action wasn't all that earth-shattering. I would put any army nurse, Maria Rossi (first US woman in combat - later killed, or any number of other people who actually risked more)

Originally posted by Decka
The whole thing was planned anyway... ...

!!!!

Derned them sneaky assed n*ggers!!!!!!

(right , Decka???)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

ummm... no, are you in second grade?

Originally posted by Decka
ummm... no,

Ummmm.......that IS what you were saying, in so many words.

It's ok for you to be a racist, Decka. But you need to stop lying to yourself.

Originally posted by Brooks
Another thing I don't like is that she is being laid out in the capital rotunda, the first civilian, non-government official to be so honored.

Wrong.

Pierre L'Enfant was the first.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Wrong.

Pierre L'Enfant was the first.

Pierre L'Enfant was not a civilian. He was a Captain, and later a Brevet Major, in the Continental Army.

Brooks was correct. Rosa Parks is the first non-military, non-government employee, to be laid out in the Capitol Rotunda. She's also the first woman to be so honored.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/LyingState.pdf

Originally posted by Brooks
Yeah, yeah, I'm picking on Clinton again. Sorry.

On Tavis Smiley's radio show, the former president just said "I'm old enough to remember when Rosa Parks wouldn't give up her seat. I was 8 years old at the time, and when I heard about it I was thrilled".

Now come on.....

To be honest with you Brooks, I remember the day JFK was shot, and I was only 3 years-old at the time.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

Brooks was correct. Rosa Parks is the first non-military, non-government employee, to be laid out in the Capitol Rotunda.

No, he wasn't.

Nothing was mentioned about the person being *non-military*.

Brooks stated ------ **civilian, non-government official**.

L'Enfant was not an official of the government.

And L'Enfant had been out of the military for more than 84 years when his remains were honored in the rotunda. I think it's correct to say he was a *civilian* at the time.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
To be honest with you Brooks, I remember the day JFK was shot, and I was only 3 years-old at the time.

Oh, I believe he remembered it, I just don't believe an 8 year old would care. Much less one living a live in semi-poverty, fighting an alcoholic stepfather, seeing his mother beaten, raising his brother with a mother working full time. Smells like a tall tale.

Originally posted by Freethinker
No, he wasn't.

Nothing was mentioned about the person being *non-military*.

Brooks stated ------ **civilian, non-government official**.

I took "civilian" in this context to mean "non-military".

L'Enfant was not an official of the government.

Correct.


And L'Enfant had been out of the military for more than 84 years when his remains were honored in the rotunda. I think it's correct to say he was a *civilian* at the time.

It isn't necessarily correct in the context of his funeral. He wasn't laid out in the rotunda for his military service however, he was being honored as the architect of the city. It should be pointed out that there may have been some guilt on the part of Congress in arranging the honor for L'Enfant. It seems he was fired by Washington, and he spent the remainder of his days petitioning Congress to pay him for his work until he died penniless.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I took "civilian" in this context to mean "non-military".



If a person [or a person's remains] that has been out of the military for over 84 years cannot be said to be a "civilian" I don't know who the fuck could be.


Originally posted by Vilepagan
It isn't necessarily correct in the context of his funeral. He wasn't laid out in the rotunda for his military service however, he was being honored as the architect of the city.

Cut it any way you like....he (neither at the time he died, nor at the time his remains were lying in the Rotunda) was NOT a member of the military and he was NOT a government official.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It should be pointed out that there may have been some guilt on the part of Congress in arranging the honor for L'Enfant.

I have no opinion on whether it was "right"or not.

I just know that when he was laid out there he was not a member of the military and he was not a government official.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Ummmm.......that IS what you were saying, in so many words.

It's ok for you to be a racist, Decka. But you need to stop lying to yourself.

You know there IS a difference between what you WANT to be and what ACTUALLY IS freethinker...

geez that's an oxymoron if i ever heard one.... "freethinker"

Originally posted by Decka
You know there IS a difference between what you WANT to be and what ACTUALLY IS freethinker...

I do know one thing that *actually is*;

...your allegation that Parks was "planted" there is straight out of the KKK talking points.

How fucking proud you must be.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I do know one thing that *actually is*;

...your allegation that Parks was "planted" there is straight out of the KKK talking points.

How fucking proud you must be.

how is that KKK material?

I still think everything she fought for was valid and needed to be done... i'm just saying that it was told to me differently in history books than what really happened.....

I think you are taking way too much out of this than what there actually is... i'm not questioning the equal black rights movement at all, i'm just saying the story loses a little bit of its luster when i hear it was staged....

Not too "KKK" in my opinion... and how would you know if it's a KKK talking point?;)

Originally posted by Decka
i hear it was staged....


From what source?

Some redneck, down at the pool hall?

I don't think it changes anything if it was staged. The public's reaction to this middle aged woman getting arrested was a catalyst.

Having said that, there IS a photograph of her on the bus with a white man sitting a seat or two behind her. I think the presence of a photographer makes it seem prepped.

Originally posted by Brooks
Having said that, there IS a photograph of her on the bus with a white man sitting a seat or two behind her. I think the presence of a photographer makes it seem prepped.

I know the picture you're thinking of, but when I saw it the caption noted that it was after the protest that started the entire thing. Parks herself said that she didn't sit there because she was tired but rather because she was protesting. Of course one can never know for sure, but that's good enough for me.

Regardless, I don't think question the circumstances means you're a racist or an advocate of reversing rights for blacks.

If it was staged, so what? I mean, sure, IF there was a photographer there, it probably was prepped. But, a picture says a thousand words. Perhaps they (Rosa and alleged entourage) were just sick and gd tired of getting walked on due to their skin color. They (Rosa and alleged entourage) were obviously making a statement and proving a point. IF it took a photograph to convey the message then so be it. The end result is the same. It truly makes no difference.

From Rosa Parks Interview
"Back in Montgomery during my growing up there, it was completely legally enforced racial segregation, and of course, I struggled against it for a long time. I felt that it was not right to be deprived of freedom when we were living in the Home of the Brave and Land of the Free. Of course, when I refused to stand up, on the orders of the bus driver, for a white passenger to take the seat, and I was not sitting in the front of the bus, as many people have said, and neither was my feet hurting, as many people have said. But I made up my mind that I would not give in any longer to legally-imposed racial segregation and of course my arrest brought about the protests for more than a year....

I was arrested on December 1st, 1955 for refusing to stand up on the order of the bus driver, after the white seats had been occupied in the front. And of course, I was not in the front of the bus as many people have written and spoken that I was -- that I got on the bus and took the front seat, but I did not. I took a seat that was just back of where the white people were sitting, in fact, the last seat. A man was next to the window, and I took an aisle seat and there were two women across. We went on undisturbed until about the second or third stop when some white people boarded the bus and left one man standing. And when the driver noticed him standing, he told us to stand up and let him have those seats. He referred to them as front seats. And when the other three people -- after some hesitancy -- stood up, he wanted to know if I was going to stand up, and I was not. And he told me he would have me arrested. And I told him he may do that. And of course, he did."
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0int-1

Does anyone have any hard evidence that it was staged? Not just rumor or speculation, but evidence? The photo that we're talking about, are we certain it wasn't just a press photo taken after the fact? Does it really make any difference?

I'm happy that she was in the Capitol Rotunda. She deserved nothing less.

does it really matter if it as staged or not?

She made a conscious decision to defy rascism. That would have been the caseeither way. The only difference would be if she told someone else first.

Decka makes it sound like it makes this less significant.

Would her punishment have been any less? no. So she was risking just as much to kick racism in the ass just like hundreds of thousands of other oppressed blacks did.

Your "controversy" is stupid.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
does it really matter if it as staged or not?

Not at all.. that's entirely my point
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

She made a conscious decision to defy rascism. That would have been the caseeither way. The only difference would be if she told someone else first.

exactly... i absolutely agree
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

Decka makes it sound like it makes this less significant.

Not less significant... it just comes off differently to me. It wasn't this one woman standing up against an entire generation of racism like the picture is currently painted... My ONLY argument is that the story is told wrong...
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

Would her punishment have been any less? no. So she was risking just as much to kick racism in the ass just like hundreds of thousands of other oppressed blacks did.

Your "controversy" is stupid.


Im not calling it a "controversy"... i agree with pretty much everything you said. Why is it that just because i point out something, it is automatically assumed that i hold the opposite extreme view as my deepest beleif??? Suddenly i'm some big KKK follower claims FT... I support the black rights movement.

Why bother Decka? If you dont tow the PC party line, you're just going to be called a racist or worse. You cant question the motives of blacks in this country anymore. They are the liberals sacred cow(along with homosexuals). The truth no longer matters to liberals anymore. They just want their opinions honored as truth, and nothing less will do.

Originally posted by HaVoK
The truth no longer matters to liberals anymore. They just want their opinions honored as truth, and nothing less will do.

HaVok, where do you get this stuff? It sounds like something Rush would say.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
HaVok, where do you get this stuff? It sounds like something Rush would say. Just my opinion Vile. I cant stand Rush "Im Addicted To Painkillers" Limbaugh.

Originally posted by HaVok
Why bother Decka? If you dont tow the PC party line, you're just going to be called a racist or worse. You cant question the motives of blacks in this country anymore. They are the liberals sacred cow(along with homosexuals). The truth no longer matters to liberals anymore. They just want their opinions honored as truth, and nothing less will do.

Believe me, I agree with you on this, for the most part. In this case, though, I was just trying to make a statement that it really didn't matter either way if the whole thing was staged or not.

I do think FT pulled the KKK out of his ass though and went a little extreme in his reply.

The whole thing was planned anyway... i forget who, but it was a pivotal member of the black's rights movement.. .and they said Rosa Parks was planted there and was premeditatedly supposed to not give up her seat....

Why do you choose to believe this to be the truth? Just because you heard someone say it? I've never heard this before, so I'm just curious to know where this claim came from.

I still think everything she fought for was valid and needed to be done... i'm just saying that it was told to me differently in history books than what really happened.....


How do you know what the history books say wasn't what really happened and you were told differently by someone else?

I really don't want to take away what Rosa did, she was still courageous. But it wasn't quite what legend would have it.

I'm sure there were plenty of black people before Rosa Parks who said "no" to a white person, but she gets the credit. But that happens a lot...someone is gets labeled as the pioneer or poster child for something and get more credit than they deserve. Look at Christopher Columbus.

Sorry, decka it just seemed like you were denouncing it if it was staged. My fault.

Originally posted by saycricket
Believe me, I agree with you on this, for the most part. In this case, though, I was just trying to make a statement that it really didn't matter either way if the whole thing was staged or not.

I do think FT pulled the KKK out of his ass though and went a little extreme in his reply. Yeah i know what you meant by your statement. However, Decka was attacked for stating he thought Rosa Parks action shouldnt have been blown up the way it was, and he was attacked and called a racist for merely questioning her motives. Then I was compared to blowhard Limbaugh for stating my own opinions on the PC party and their motives. Go figure.

Yeah i know what you meant by your statement. However, Decka was attacked for stating he thought Rosa Parks action shouldnt have been blown up the way it was If this is what he was stating then I do have a problem with it because if people are so shallow that they nee an icon to hang on to to motivate them to change a system that is fucked then that is what it takes to fight oppression. It shouldn't matter if it was staged or not. The response of the oppressor is the exact same. The oppressed are just that much smarter for realizing what it takes to cause change.
However I assumed from Deckas later post this is not what he meant. Maybe he need to tell us what he meant again since it seems up in the air.

Read his posts. He said that the whole event loses its "luster" if it was indeed a staged event. That is what i meant when referring to "questioning motives". Like Decka, I agree that whatever the action, it had to be done to make everyone equal. However, dont ask me to laud someone for their actions when its a staged event. Any two bit actor could have played the role.

Any two bit actor could have played the role. Not a white one. Thats the point. And you didn't say "lost its luster" you said it shouldn't have blown up. I disagree it should have blown up long ago. If it takes a photographer to make it blow up then so be it.

No suprise here, but i guess we just see things differently. Imagine that. :)

I applaud Rosa for her courageous and noble stand, and I've always viewed her actions, whether staged or not, as the catalyst that brought about some desperately needed attention to racial injustice in the '50's. What I'm having trouble with is turning on the news a few days ago to find blacks standing, en masse, singing songs like "we shall overcome" in 2005. Who the hell are they kidding with that shit? Like there's still such an overriding societal separation between blacks and whites that it merits singing a song made popular during the lynchings in Alafuckingbama. I mean, c'mon, it's almost insulting...

I guess what I'm saying is the victim mentality pisses me off more than just about anything else in mainstream black culture. In short, I'm completely fed to the teeth with it.

Yea Prae.. im still waiting for a White Entertainment Network, a White man of the year,... hey why not a Hispanc Entertainment Network, if people want to be so stingy about things these days, why do we even HAVE b.e.t.?

Blacks are definitely taking all they can get .. they are riding the horse, then beating it, and then mutilating it....

hey why not a Hispanc Entertainment Network

I'm not sure what channels you get, but I get a few hispanic networks throught my satelite dish.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I'm not sure what channels you get, but I get a few hispanic networks throught my satelite dish.
Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people because everyone knows that we've had "exclusive access" to shows like "Seinfeld", "Friends", and "Bonanza" for years now. The way I see it: we get popular shows (of course, they're by demand, but hey, technicalities...), and they get whole fucking networks...

Hmmmm, after all, I guess that's only fair. :rolleyes:

Just once, I like to see an episode of Friends air on a network that actually had the stones to claim it was a sitcom written by white people, for white people. Then, and ONLY then, will I consider it a PARTIALLY level playing field. Doesn't anyone here see B.E.T. as an EXclusive network, whereas CBS is an INclusive network? Does anyone else here find that notion appalling, or is it just me? Do you people really think I'm wrong for feeling this way???

What I'm having trouble with is turning on the news a few days ago to find blacks standing, en masse, singing songs like "we shall overcome" in 2005. Who the hell are they kidding with that shit?

Because black people aren't allowed to say that racism still exists. They are just totally not qualified to address the problem. Because singing a song in solidarity is so 1950. Fools need to get with the times. Nobody hates black people anymore! The KKK? Totally doesn't exist!

yeah I mean its not like Nazis calling for race wars are marching down the streets with police protection or anything.....

Originally posted by Napsterbater
The KKK? Totally doesn't exist!
Well they don't exist in epic proportion, at least, not anymore they don't. Even in their heyday, they were relegated to only a few states, whereas now, they're under the constant watch of several institutions (some private, and some government). When was the last time you saw a burning cross, or witnessed a lynching? The assholes singing that song were in New York City and Chicago - not Mississippi. Hell, in NYC, blacks are the freaking MAJORITY. Considering that alone, I think it’s safe to say that they succeeded in "overcoming", don’t you?

When was the last time you saw a burning cross, or witnessed a lynching?

I know a man who once had a cross burned on his front lawn. I don't know the specifics, because I never asked, but I would trust him with my life. And he's white!

The assholes singing that song were in New York City and Chicago

Believe it or not, racism is a lot more prevalent in the north than in the south. I'm not surprised you don't know that, seeing as how you are isolated from real life with all that dough.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people because everyone knows that we've had "exclusive access" to shows like "Seinfeld", "Friends", and "Bonanza" for years now.
That's not exclusive. Freethinker wouldn't watch a show 'bout sum cowboys livin on a raynch. And you couldn't PAY Dop to watch a show starring someone whose name ends in "feld".

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Believe it or not, racism is a lot more prevalent in the north than in the south. I'm not surprised you don't know that, seeing as how you are isolated from real life with all that dough.
DUDE, I'M NOT RICH!!!!

Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people

Ever seen CMT?

The way I see it: we get popular shows (of course, they're by demand, but hey, technicalities...), and they get whole fucking networks...

BET is "by demad" too, otherwise it wouldn't still exist.

The reason they (blacks or hispanics) have a whole network geared with shows that match thier tastes 24 hrs a day (yes, different cultures have different tastes) is because they would otherwise have only a couple shows per week that matched thier interests. Just because they represent 12% of the population doesn't mean they only want to watch 12% of the TV shows...so they have a network that caters to their tastes.

Doesn't anyone here see B.E.T. as an EXclusive network, whereas CBS is an INclusive network?

They have white people on B.E.T. and I know you are not excluded from watching it? So how is it EXclusive? I think its the title of the network that you have a problem with, but its no more exclusive than the Women's Entertainment Network (WE) or Lifetime "TV for Women", or Spike TV "the first network for men". Is the Trinity Broadcast Network exclusive because its aimed at a certain religion?

Originally posted by Brooks
And you couldn't PAY Dop to watch a show starring someone whose name ends in "feld".
LOL.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Ever seen CMT?
That's not a fair comparison. If the network were titled WCMT then maybe you'd have a point. Just because the demographic is largely white doesn't mean that it excludes blacks, and nothing in the name implies an exclusion, whereas with BET, well.....

Just because the demographic is largely white doesn't mean that it excludes blacks, and nothing in the name implies an exclusion, whereas with BET, well.....

I still don't see the exclusion. Its TV aimed at black people's tastes just like WE is aimed at women's tastes. I don't feel exluded by WE just because I'm a man.

Okay, so you wouldn't have a problem if CMT were titled WCMT, would you? That's great, now let's see how the black community feels about the idea. The network officials could say something along these lines, "Hey, guys....it's our position at WCMT that we're not an exclusive network as much as we're geared for an all white audience." You know what, fellas, "In addition to the network name change, there will be some accompanying programming changes highlighting white comedians who relentlessly rip on stupid black people, but don't let that dissuade you from tuning in Tuesday to watch the all night Clint Black marathon replete with the comedic stylings of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace."

You must be joking...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What I'm having trouble with is turning on the news a few days ago to find blacks standing, en masse, singing songs like "we shall overcome" in 2005. Who the hell are they kidding with that shit? Like there's still such an overriding societal separation between blacks and whites that it merits singing a song made popular during the lynchings in Alafuckingbama.

There is not so much an **overriding societal separation** as there (still) is an overriding societal discrimination.

I see discrimination against blacks every day.

In my neck of the woods, if you are among a group of white males and use [as i do] the word "blacks" in reference to black people instead of the word "n*ggers", you are looked at askance, as if you are some sort of freak...........or gay, or extremely leftwing.............both of which are viewed with the same loathing and disgust.

I'd move north, FT, because in my neck of the woods, you'd be severely castigated for using such a disparaging term in public. Well, you are in the worst state in the contiguous 48, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Okay, so you wouldn't have a problem if CMT were titled WCMT, would you? That's great, now let's see how the black community feels about the idea. The network officials could say something along these lines, "Hey, guys....it's our position at WCMT that we're not an exclusive network as much as we're geared for an all white audience." You know what, fellas, "In addition to the network name change, there will be some accompanying programming changes highlighting white comedians who relentlessly rip on stupid black people, but don't let that dissuade you from tuning in Tuesday to watch the all night Clint Black marathon replete with the comedic stylings of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace."

If WCMT was just a white version of B.E.T. then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Although I wouldn't see the need to market it as "entertainment for whites" since that already exists in 90% or the shows on TV. I think the name B.E.T was great marketing...it let the people who might be interested know exactly what it was. If they gave it another generic network name, then black people would have said "oh, there is another network that probably won't have any shows I'm interested in". If Lifetime didn't call itself "TV for women", then many women might not have checked it out.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
bDo you people really think I'm wrong for feeling this way???

I think that you're making an absurd claim in stating that there's a scarcity of networks ""geared toward entertaining white people"".

......advertising pays for television.......what are there more of in this country?.......white people, or other races/nationalities/ethnic groups???

The white male in America is the goddamned **Crown of Creation**.

yes but FT you forget that the LABEL is all that matters... why is BET allowed to have "BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISON" when any channel having something like "WET" would be chastised, protested, and slandered????

Who the fuck cares? It isn't like white people have any real culture worth putting on a "White Entertainment Network", anyway. BET is a celebration of black culture that has been a distinctive thing ever since the slaves were brought over from Africa. It is a singular thing of American black television made for and by blacks. It represented a significant advance in civil rights for black people, for them to have their own television network. Or did you forget, that the entertainment industry is dominated by rich white folk? You can't point to a single thing that is White culture. The Europeans never stuck together long enough to create a singular culture. Have you ever thought that maybe that was the reason why?

Sure, people will howl, but only because a White network has no business existing in the first place. It would be stuck with things that are dominated by white people, but aren't really expressions of white culture, like NASCAR. Its sole reason for being would be as a racist counter to BET. THAT is why people would howl.

White Americans don't have the brotherhood and the cohesiveness to form a singular culture that is deserving of the name. We would rather consume other people's cultures. For "white culture" to have any meaning, it would have to be culture made by and for white people. White people are too busy selling to anyone that will buy! They can't make anything specifically for white people. We are too greedy! Nobody is interested in "White culture." We just want to make a buck!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Who the fuck cares? It isn't like white people have any real culture worth putting on a "White Entertainment Network", anyway. BET is a celebration of black culture that has been a distinctive thing ever since the slaves were brought over from Africa. It is a singular thing of American black television made for and by blacks. It represented a significant advance in civil rights for black people, for them to have their own television network. Or did you forget, that the entertainment industry is dominated by rich white folk? You can't point to a single thing that is White culture. The Europeans never stuck together long enough to create a singular culture. Have you ever thought that maybe that was the reason why?

Sure, people will howl, but only because a White network has no business existing in the first place. It would be stuck with things that are dominated by white people, but aren't really expressions of white culture, like NASCAR. Its sole reason for being would be as a racist counter to BET. THAT is why people would howl.

White Americans don't have the brotherhood and the cohesiveness to form a singular culture that is deserving of the name. We would rather consume other people's cultures. For "white culture" to have any meaning, it would have to be culture made by and for white people. White people are too busy selling to anyone that will buy! They can't make anything specifically for white people. We are too greedy! Nobody is interested in "White culture." We just want to make a buck!



I'm a bit confused here, Napsterbater--that is, yr statements about white culture.
I am going to use the example of "Moby Dick" as it's the first that comes to mind...what many call the greatest American novel ever written and a work over which there remains tremendous debate even now.
Melville told a great great story..the crazed Ahab---you know the tale.
I realize Melville wanted to earn money for his story..as most writers do....I don't understand how this work has contributed nothing to our "culture" and mythology, or how it was "borrowed" from something else.

Other examples:

The Magna Carta. Hamlet. The Great Gatsby. Edgar Allan Poe. Mozart. Paul Revere's ride. The Mayflower Compact (my 13-x grandpa was the 11th signer of this document.) Jefferson's Statutes on Religious Freedom.




Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Never read it. I'm not saying that significant works by white people do not exist. I am speaking of pop culture here. Pop culture is influenced by the classics, but is a different animal than literature. Not that there are any hard lines when it comes to this sort of thing; I'm sure Moby Dick was pop culture at one point in time.

The academy is a western invention, so white people have a better time at it. When it comes to popular works, though, blacks are pretty much the kings of that format, making the majority of the innovations, leaving the rest of the world to catch up to the American fascination of black people.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Who the fuck cares? It isn't like white people have any real culture worth putting on a "White Entertainment Network", anyway.
So you're saying that blacks have a culture here and whites don't. Brilliant.

Let's look at that, shall we...?
Originally posted by Napsterbater
BET is a celebration of black culture that has been a distinctive thing ever since the slaves were brought over from Africa.
It's not the fucking History Channel, Nappy - it's a collection of racist scumbags who relentlessly rip on white people, but I suppose that's just "part of their unique and distinctive" culture that's rich with social imperatives.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
The Europeans never stuck together long enough to create a singular culture. Have you ever thought that maybe that was the reason why?
The implication being that the blacks did. No, I see what you mean.......their heritage was well preserved from Africa. As a matter of fact, it's so clear nowadays, that the "culturally aware" feel no shame mixing Nigerian pants with Kenyan hats, but of course they know what they're doing. ;)

If, on the other hand, your point was to illustrate that they've created a cohesive bond here based on the color of their skin alone, then I can understand why you'd think whites haven't. I mean, after all, the old West was just a myth. You know, kind of like Rap music.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Sure, people will howl, but only because a White network has no business existing in the first place. It would be stuck with things that are dominated by white people, but aren't really expressions of white culture, like NASCAR.
Or country music, which everyone knows was inspired by the Chinese.

Oh, and BTW, auto racing started in Europe and America. You know...after the dirty capitalists created the fucking car. In short, I'd say that makes NASCAR pretty unique to "white culture".
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Its sole reason for being would be as a racist counter to BET.
Cluephone for ya: Psst - BET is racist. Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen any of their programming?
Originally posted by Napsterbater
We would rather consume other people's cultures. For "white culture" to have any meaning, it would have to be culture made by and for white people.
And the show Friends isn't a shining example of said "white" culture in America?

Oh, that's right....it doesn't exist.

So you're saying that blacks have a culture here and whites don't.

Whites do have a culture, and its represented on 90% of the programming on TV (which is fine) but that is the reason there would be no need for a "White Entertainment TV" station. White people are not lacking programming that fits thier culture when they turn on the TV, so there is no need to create a station just for that purpose.

Originally posted by dnamertz
there would be no need for a "White Entertainment TV" station.
And I'm not trying to say that I want one, but I don't think having a network that SPECIFICALLY calls for black viewers under an implied "only" sign is right. Hell, living in Chicago, we have a local TV station (UPN) that everyone knows is geared for a black audience, but in their defense, they don't say it. The way I see it, here's the issue: if "White Entertainment Television" went into creation, it would send those people into such a dimension of pissed-off, we'd probably witness another riot in Watts. Knowing this, why, then, is it fair in your mind to let that dynamic stand? I personally think it's fucked up.
Originally posted by dnamertz
White people are not lacking programming that fits thier culture when they turn on the TV, so there is no need to create a station just for that purpose.
No argument here, BUT...when I turn on the TV, I don't see any reason to have a station solely dedicated to them when, A) they're on mainstream TV all of the time, B) they have tons of popular shows, and C) they only represent 13% of the population. If you look at it as a percentage, then they have wayyyyyyy more screen time than whites, Asians, and Mexicans COMBINED. I mean, let's be logical here...

Originally posted by Freethinker
I think that you're making an absurd claim in stating that there's a scarcity of networks ""geared toward entertaining white people"".
I never made that claim. Read my posts again.

Freethinker------------
I think that you're making an absurd claim in stating that there's a scarcity of networks ""geared toward entertaining white people"".

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I never made that claim. Read my posts again. [/QUOTE]

?!?!?!

Here's what you said---

""Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people ....."" -------Prae

Okay fine, but that certainly WASN'T my point, FT. I made that comment in my second post. I now have twelve entries, and I think I've been pretty clear up to this point. My issue is with the network name. By it's very nature, it's exclusive, and I don't think that's right or fair. If the tables were turned, they'd scream bloody murder, and you know it. I don't want an all white network - I just don't think it's fair for them to have an all black one. They represent 13% of our populous, and yet, they're on TV all the time. It's not like they don't have a voice or screen presence in mainstream America...they do. If we, as a society, made it a point to avoid discrimination, then I think we owe it to ourselves to at least be consistent.

Whites do have a culture,

Sure they do. Just not a singular one.

What do the different cultures consist of besides misguided suburban youth emulating the black lifestyle? Can you think of one other example because I can’t?

Well, Hip-Hop culture has so inundated the music and movie landscape that it can be hard to see the strong Asian influences. Europeans have been fascinated with the Orient even before America's independence. The modern kung fu flick is an excellent example.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Okay fine, but that certainly WASN'T my point, FT.

Ok. But that has nothing to do with the fact that you said -- ""Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people .....""

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I made that comment in my second post. I now have twelve entries, and I think I've been pretty clear up to this point.

Ok. But that has nothing to do with the fact that you said -- ""Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people .....""

Originally posted by The Praetorian
My issue is with the network name.

Ok. But that has nothing to do with the fact that you said -- ""Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people .....""

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I just don't think it's fair for them to have an all black one. They represent 13% of our populous, and yet, they're on TV all the time.

Ok. But that STILL has nothing to do with the fact that you said ----------- ""Yeah, well good luck finding a network that's geared toward entertaining white people .....""

The way I see it, here's the issue: if "White Entertainment Television" went into creation, it would send those people into such a dimension of pissed-off, we'd probably witness another riot in Watts.

Since there is no need for an all white station (which you agreed with) then there is no need to call a station "White Entertainment Television". [So], if someone created "WET" when there is no need, it would give the appearance of being done just to be "exclusive". I never got that impression when "BET" came on the air because I understand thier desire to have shows they enjoy 24 hours a day and not just 13% of the day.

No argument here, BUT...when I turn on the TV, I don't see any reason to have a station solely dedicated to them when, A) they're on mainstream TV all of the time, B) they have tons of popular shows

They didn't when BET started in the 1980s (or maybe earlier).

If you look at it as a percentage, then they have wayyyyyyy more screen time than whites, Asians, and Mexicans COMBINED. I mean, let's be logical here...

Asians and Mexicans yes, but they do NOT have more screen time than whites. Anyway, are you suddenly looking for screen time quotas? Women have plenty of screen time...why aren't you complaining about "WE" or "Lifetime"?