TWoP Forums > It's Because I'm ____, Isn't It? Minority Relations

Full Version: It's Because I'm ____, Isn't It? Minority Relations

TWoP Forums > Current TWoP Shows > The Apprentice > The Apprentice General Gabbery

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

ghettofabman

Dec 10, 2005 @ 3:38 pm

I also agree that Randal is not displaying laziness.

I think that the problem with Randal seems to be that he is not very good at micromanaging. It seems as if he assesses responsibilities with his workers and entrusts them to hold their own. I think that in this case, that is too much of a flight risk with there being so many small details. The little details REQUIRE that you micromanage your entire staff at some point.

donalsduck

Dec 10, 2005 @ 5:12 pm

C) Randal pulls a Tana and messes up his final task so severely[/quote]
Come on. I thought one of Randal's degrees was rocket scientist?

kisca

Dec 10, 2005 @ 10:14 pm

I was already skeptical when it looked like a black man had to be universally loved by all the apprentices, overcome recent tragedy, and be a Rhodes Scholar to boot to even have a chance at being The Apprentice.[/quote]

Why? Do you really believe that past black candidates were stronger than the winners based on the performance during the season as well as the final task? Any competitor - black or white - has to be stronger than the competition to win. If, for example, Kwame had been white would he deserve to win more than Bill? Based on what? Had he had a better win record as PM? Had he shown better leadership skills? Had he won the final task? Could it be due to editing? I don't know, but I don't remember seeing anything that would make me believe that Kwame was intentionally made to appear worse than Bill.

I think one way to decide whether race had anything to do with the decision is to try to pretend that both candidates are of the same color and try to see if you still believe that the candidate is better solely based on the performance you've seen on the show and especially the performance on the last task. Would you still think the candidate was fired injustly if he had been white? Were there other reasons to fire this cadidate? Were Kwame, Kevin and Craig stronger than Bill, Kelly or Kendra? Had they had a better performance record? More wins as PMs? Based on what we heard of their answers during the interviews, had these answers been convincing?

In case of Bill vs Kwame, Bill had a better record coming into the final task - both as a project manager and as someone who takes a leadership role when he is not one. Kwame's final task had many problems -- "lost" star, star missing when his majesty Donald Trump arrived - a really "huge" problem from the Hair's perception, I don't remember much of the rest. What had Kwame shown throughout the season to make him better than Bill? Unless you can answer this question, you cannot claim discrimination.

I believe the only candidate for whom this case can be made is Kevin. He had a good record as far as I remember. Was it 2-0? In this case race could've been an issue. But there could have been other reasons as well. I found many firing decisions during season 2 questionable. Performance-wise I thought Kevin was better than Jen M, but worse then Kelly (I couldn't stand Kelly but he did have a 3-0 as a project manager and no obvious negatives - although one of his victories was due to Sandy). I also think Trump wanted a man vs a woman final, so one Kelly was chosen, the only "male" spot was taken. There could've also been legitimate problems during the interviews. I thought "too much education" was a ridiculous reason, but if he had indeed failed to explain what his goals are, this could have been a problem. Personally, I strongly believe in man vs woman reason: it really looked during the episode that Trump was choosing between Kelly and Kevin and between Jen M and Sandy. I really wish they had shown us more of the interviews so we could've judged by ourselves if he indeed satisfactory explained what his goals had been and if he had really appeared aggressive or merely ambitious and assertive.

Craig couldn't speak English - English is my second language and even I can speak it better. He had no education. Candidates with better command of English (Troy, Sandy) but no education were fired after the interviews. Would Craig have passed the interviews had he been white given his lack of education and his communication problems? I don't think so. And no amount of editing could've made us hear the sentences that Craig put together unless he actually said them.

I really liked Randal and going into final task he looked as the strongest candidate by far. But as of now it appears Randal made a lot of mistakes on the final task. Asking Mark(?) to postpone a meeting so that all four of them could go and buy party supplies looks bad; the scene with him and Marshawn talking about how hard Mark works looks even worse - I don't know how much of it is due to edit. I wish Randal had taken his jacket when setting the stairs - being overdressed while doing manual work creates an appearance of slacking off no matter what the real case it. I still believe Randal should be chosen over Rebecca simply based on the past performance. But Trump appears to really like Rebecca. Throughout the season he has shown it time and time again. Will not hiring Randal be caused by his race or his poor last task performance and Trump's personal preference for Rebecca? I don't know. I do remember that past record is not always enough - Amy's record had been great and she had also been chosen multiple times during team reshaffling. Didn't help her during the interviews.

I think "lazy" comment is outrageous, especially coming after the task where Randal pulled an all-nighter.

I think Trump could very well be racist, but I don't believe he would not want to show it on TV. Especially not for a one-year position without real authority.

Azrael

Dec 11, 2005 @ 12:09 am

Why was I skeptical? Probably for the same reasons other people thought he was a ringer.

I've visited Randal's web page, think he's a great guy, and would love to have lunch with him and Zahara. I've been rooting for him since the first episode. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well he got along with his teammates, and how much they seem to be rooting for him. But, I am reminded of Chris Rock's Migger the Magical N*****

Did I think the previous black candidates were stronger than previous winners? Not really. But, Bill, Kelly, and Kendra didn't have to be universally loved, overcome the loss of a loved one, or be Rhodes Scholars to have a viable opportunity to become The Apprentice. Craig, Kevin, and Kwame never had a chance. Of course plently of the white competitors (Troy, Tana) never had a chance either. But some of the white candidates did. Without having to almost be someone who on paper is almost a mythical superhero.

I think it's the myth of the American meritocracy that the best person always, unless there is reverse discrimination, wins. And with D. Trump judging? I suppose the strongest candidate (out of the final 2) won in the previous seasons. But, this season, Rebecca hasn't appeared to be any stronger than any of the final 10, white candidates included.

I'm sure she'll make a fine Apprentice. She impressed me with the Toral defense and even at dinner on the last episode. As a confident, white product of a private school education, she'd probably be a better fit in the Trump organization. Kind of how Kwame with his Ivy League Education and polish would have been a better fit than Troy. Randal seemed out of his element at that dinner, especially in the extended footage. But, he'd still probably be a better fit than Alla or Clay. I'd just rather see Randal lose to Alla, Clay, or almost anyone other than Rebecca. Randal did seem better than all of those fired except for Alla. Rebecca, not so much. At least when Kwame, Craig, and Kevin lost, the ultimate winner was actually a better performer.

odietamo

Dec 11, 2005 @ 12:53 am

I do not think of Randal as black or white. To me he is dr. Randal, a scholar with good manners and great leadrship skills. I probably expected more of him in terms of performance because he is so educated - in my mind, since he has 5 degrees, he should be at least 5 times smarter and more impressive than the rest of the contestants. O'kay, call me naive. But, my expectations aside, I believe that Randal is one of the most deserving contestants to be in the final 2. I also believe that his current opponent is one of the most undeserving contestants to be in the final 2. If the speculation that they both get hired next week turns true, I'd feel offended for Randal, and I think then, I'd be more open to think of racism as an explanation.
Also, I agree that calling Randal lazy in a national publication is absolutely unacceptable, and I think could be grounds for some legal action.

Kabelvision

Dec 11, 2005 @ 1:31 am

Also, I agree that calling Randal lazy in a national publication is absolutely unacceptable, and I think could be grounds for some legal action. [/quote]

Legal action which he probably can't take since it must have been specified in the contract with the production that candidates waive their rights to do so.

blocked writer

Dec 11, 2005 @ 1:37 am

Unless you can answer this question, you cannot claim discrimination.
[/quote]

I think this is kind of a deterrent to conversation. I believe that it's an oversimplification to say it is as simple as whether or not Kwame, Kevin and Craig were stronger than Bill, Kelly or Kendra.

There are a lot of other questions about race on this show, and some don't have a definitive answer. But that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be discussed and debated.

Would the members of Apex have overreacted as much as they did with Stacie J. and the 8-ball incident had she been white? Would Donald Trump have as readily accepted their word that Stacie was mentally disturbed if she had been white?

Why did Trump say that at some point after TA1 that Bill was his clear choice, even before the finale? Was was his motivation is saying such a thing after the fact?

Why were several TA1 alumni asked their opinions at the TA2 finale, yet Kwame was ignored, despite being the TA1 runner-up?

Why would they even cast someone like Craig, with his obvious lack of communication skills? Do they really expect people to believe that this was the best "Street Smart" black man they could find, or that Trump would ever seriously consider him?

What purpose does it serve to call Randal lazy in the press, especially before the finale? Why is Trump even discussing the players at this point, and specifically insulting one of them?

Different people will have different answers to these and many other questions, and come to different conclusions. To me, they paint a very questionable picture of Trump, Burnett and the show itself as far as their dealings with race.

gastrolyor

Dec 11, 2005 @ 3:08 am

Whenever Kelly wasn't PM, he slacked off big time--especially on tasks where he had immunity. Randal, on the other hand, has always shown himself to be efficient, cooperative, take charge (when it was necessary), and competent. [/quote]

I have to disagree regarding Kelly. Kelly designed a jacket during the fashion task and rounded up the men while they were at the fabric store -- leading Carolyn to remark that Kelly had taken charge, per usual. He wasn't PM then. He also wasn't PM during the QVC task: he set the price point for the grill. Kelly was often shown to be a strong player in tasks, and was clearly valued by his teammates. Wes said he switched Kelly over during the Levis task because Kelly was very good at leading and logistics, and Kevin said he appreciated having Kelly on his side for those reasons. That doesn't equal "slacking off" to me.

Kevin's firing was done on poor grounds, but it seemed clear in the boardroom that Trump was going to fire one man and one woman to lead to a male-female final two. Given that the previous season's final two consisted of a highly educated black businessman and a white man, I can imagine that there was some backstage pressure to avoid repeating that combination, particularly as firing both women would have opened Trump up to charges of sexism. It was lose-lose, as there was no legitimate reason to fire Kelly -- he was 3 and 0 as a PM and clearly a strong leader. If Trump had fired him, then the response would have been, "Well, he only fired Kelly because he couldn't let a black man/a woman take on Kelly; whoever wins doesn't have any real competition."

So, then, which final two combination is better? Which is worse? Do you fire Kelly to keep two minorities with lesser PM records in the interest of appearing to have no issues with racism and then risk tarnishing the winner's victory? Or do you fire one minority and risk cries of either racism or sexism? I don't know. There's no way to really win.

Why would they even cast someone like Craig, with his obvious lack of communication skills? Do they really expect people to believe that this was the best "Sreet Smart" black man they could find, or that Trump would ever seriously consider him?[/quote]

No to your last two questions. But do you think he would really seriously consider Chris, who was shown to be potentially violent -- at the very least, he was prone to excessive anger -- and possibly homophobic? And was Danny really the strongest MIT graduate they could find -- and could he ever have been seriously considered? My impression from the get-go was that he was the loon of the bunch. I'm not saying that there wasn't an element of discrimination in the choice of Craig, but that there were elements of casting for drama with all of the contestants that season, and very few actually competent people. The choice of Craig is easier to finger as racism because he was one of two black contestants and thus responsible for representing all blacks in business; however, looking at the cast as a whole, I don't think his selection was out of place. Nearly everyone on season three was casted for drama and very few had actual business skills; very few could speak English coherently (Audrey, for example). Compared to the choices of black men casted on the show over all four seasons, however, he is the statistical outlier. I don't think that makes his casting a deliberate attempt to humilate black businessmen in particular, just an attempt to cast for drama rather than ability that season.

blocked writer

Dec 11, 2005 @ 8:47 am

I have to disagree regarding Kelly. Kelly designed a jacket during the fashion task and rounded up the men while they were at the fabric store -- leading Carolyn to remark that Kelly had taken charge, per usual. He wasn't PM then. He also wasn't PM during the QVC task: he set the price point for the grill. Kelly was often shown to be a strong player in tasks, and was clearly valued by his teammates. Wes said he switched Kelly over during the Levis task because Kelly was very good at leading and logistics, and Kevin said he appreciated having Kelly on his side for those reasons. That doesn't equal "slacking off" to me.[/quote]

Kelly indeed had strong moments and abilities, as you mentioned, but also had some undeniably weak ones. I believe that there were a couple of occasions when he had immunity and he did slack off. When he was PM on the Bridal task, Sandy had to take him aside and chastise him for letting her do everything. I believe that he viewed her expertise in that area as a winning card, and he seemed content to coast on that. There is a lot more evidence that Kelly could be lazy at times, yet to my knowledge, Trump never even mentioned - on the show or in the press.

Kevin's firing was done on poor grounds, but it seemed clear in the boardroom that Trump was going to fire one man and one woman to lead to a male-female final two. Given that the previous season's final two consisted of a highly educated black businessman and a white man, I can imagine that there was some backstage pressure to avoid repeating that combination, particularly as firing both women would have opened Trump up to charges of sexism.[/quote]

There are several ways that they could have avoided charges of racism and sexism in the first place. They could have given the two finalists the same type of task - a charity ball, for instance, and judge them on a clearly definable criterion - who raised the most money, for example. That could be maybe 75% of the score, and then they could use the other 25% to judge them on more subjective criteria like who had the prettier room, who had the best entertainment, etc.

Also when they consider the finalists' PM and win/loss records, they could go deeper. How much did they contribute to any win, and how much were they responsible for any loss. Were any of the losses close, and could havve gone either way?

I sincerely think that if they could show very clearly why one person was chosen over the other, and the criteria was fair, no one could reasonably say that anyone was discriminated against in any way.

But do you think he would really seriously consider Chris, who was shown to be potentially violent -- at the very least, he was prone to excessive anger -- and possibly homophobic? And was Danny really the strongest MIT graduate they could find -- and could he ever have been seriously considered? My impression from the get-go was that he was the loon of the bunch. [/quote]

No I certainly don't think that Danny was ever a serious contender from the start, and I don't really think it is fair to any of the players or the viewers to cast people who are no-hopers from the beginning. But Chris was a different story. He could very well have kept his temper during the casting process, but Craig could not have come off as articulate.

I agree that many of TA3's contenders were cast for controversy or drama alone, always a bad idea in my opinion. The difference is that when most people look at Danny, they just see a wacky eccentric guy who is a poor choice for the job. Whereas, when they see how Craig performed, a lot of people see a BLACK man who is a poor choice for the job. Neither had a chance to win, but Craig's casting reinforced certain stereotypes that are damaging to people in real life, while it didn't in the case of Danny or most of the rest of the TA3 cast.

donalsduck

Dec 11, 2005 @ 10:58 am

But strangely, that all seems to come down to some undetectable dynamics of xenophobia (in the workplace in general?). Everyone whose behavior is culturally even a little bit different (Alla?) doesn't have a chance. Melissa and Stacie J. were among the first to go (for being "too loud," "too intense," "just strange"). Danny, who looked like a very creative person and certainly successful in his professional life, was shown as "different" and only playing his guitar, although even the Yahoo extended footage showed that he made some significant contributions to the tasks. Anyway, I personally think that Randal's nose is too long for the job (although it looks good).

Wallyhorse

Dec 11, 2005 @ 11:40 am

Kevin's firing was done on poor grounds, but it seemed clear in the boardroom that Trump was going to fire one man and one woman to lead to a male-female final two. Given that the previous season's final two consisted of a highly educated black businessman and a white man, I can imagine that there was some backstage pressure to avoid repeating that combination, particularly as firing both women would have opened Trump up to charges of sexism. It was lose-lose, as there was no legitimate reason to fire Kelly -- he was 3 and 0 as a PM and clearly a strong leader.[/quote]

Actually, Kevin was probably "fired" because of something Ivana said in the extended version of her cab ride when she was "fired" following her infamous moment: She accused Kevin of having bullied Elizabeth during the NYPD task, and by the time the interviews came around, perhaps it was proven that was the case.

Kevin was good, but he got about as far as he deserved to. Craig got very lucky he got to the final three last year, wheras Randal has been my pick to win it all from day one because he is the best, not because he's black and he "has" to win on those grounds. He would not want to win because he "has" to, he would want to win because he earned the win, fair and square.

As for Kwame: He only is likely to become the biggest winner of all of the former candidates by the time all is said and done. Losing to Bill likely will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Kwame.

tnabna

Dec 11, 2005 @ 12:37 pm

Did I think the previous black candidates were stronger than previous winners? Not really. But, Bill, Kelly, and Kendra didn't have to be universally loved, overcome the loss of a loved one, or be Rhodes Scholars to have a viable opportunity to become The Apprentice. Craig, Kevin, and Kwame never had a chance. Of course plently of the white competitors (Troy, Tana) never had a chance either. But some of the white candidates did. Without having to almost be someone who on paper is almost a mythical superhero.[/quote]

So true. It's as if Randal (or any other Black candidate, for that matter) has to "walk on water" in order to even have a shot at being "The Apprentice". We aren't permitted to make mistakes. But every mistake he makes is magnified, and I'm sorry, if he were White, that wouldn't be the case. Now people are seriously implying that he's a slacker, and actually lending credence to Trump's ridiculous notion that he's lazy? His wins as PM don't count because the margin of victory was close? He has five degrees, so what? He's the token Black guy and would just be an "affirmative action" hire if he wins, 'cause a Black man couldn't possibly win on his own merits, it has to be handed to him (as if he's some schmuck they dragged in off the street). I just don't get it. I think it's possible to think Rebecca would make a better "Apprentice" without crapping on Randal (and vice versa). Quite frankly, I think some are grasping at straws trying to discredit Randal and what he's done this season. It's almost as if they were waiting with baited breath for him to slip up, and those mistakes negate everything he's done up to this point.

At any rate, I thought I was done with this show after the debacle that was the Season 2 finale, but after Thursday night, that's it for me. This latest nonsense of Trump describing Randal as "lazy" plays a part in that decision, but it's not the only one. The show has become nothing more than an hour-long informercial for the "sponsor of the week", and has strayed so far from the original version that I loved.

blocked writer

Dec 11, 2005 @ 3:39 pm

At any rate, I thought I was done with this show after the debacle that was the Season 2 finale, but after Thursday night, that's it for me. This latest nonsense of Trump describing Randal as "lazy" plays a part in that decision, but it's not the only one. The show has become nothing more than an hour-long informercial for the "sponsor of the week", and has strayed so far from the original version that I loved.[/quote]

I completely agree, tnabna. The show has strayed far from the original version that I also loved. Trump's lack of class and his crass comments have bothered me for a while, but these latest comments are really the last straw for me. Burnett and Trump are both shady, and I'm tired of trying to figure out what is really going on, what editing tricks are being played, etc. No matter what happens with Randal, Trump's comments are inexcusable, IMO. I actually am hoping that Trump doesn't pick Randal, because he's not fit to shine Randal's shoes. Randal is too good for Trump, and will continue to be successful. He doesn't need Trump to do it.

I just started watching Project Runway, and I like their judging. I caught a few episodes of last season on a Bravo marathon last week, and I just saw the first or second episode of the second season. From what I can gather, their judging is pretty clear-cut; they give a lot of explanations about what they like and dislike about the different designs. Also, it appears that race, gender, or sexual orientation don't come into play at all. This is probably because fashion design is a more open and creative field than most businesses. But it looks like everyone who gets cast has a fair shot, and they sink or swim on how well they do.

I'd much rather watch a reality show like Project Runway, than to continue to have my intelligence insulted and my sensibilities offended by Donald Trump and Mark Burnett.

Now that I think of it, it's pretty "lazy" when a Wharton graduate couldn't come up with a more appropriate and less obnoxious way to describe Randal, or better yet, keep his nasty-looking, pursed lips shut for a change.

GrinAndBearIt

Dec 11, 2005 @ 6:15 pm

It seems to me that no matter what happens in the finale, Randal loses. If Rebecca rocks the final task and ends up winning the Apprenticeship as a result, Randal loses—even though he outperformed everyone all season. If Randal wins and is given the job, it’ll be chalked up to an affirmative action hire (despite his qualifications and achievements), and he’ll have to work as a cheerleader for someone who has publicly disrespected him and discounted his abilities. This is the real issue with racism, I think--no matter what the circumstances, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I think this BS perfectly illustrates what it means to be Black in corporate America, and I feel so cheap and dirty for having taken part and given credence to this whole shebang.

Hopefully, the surprise twist is that Randal finds out about the US Magazine article and flips Trump the bird, and goes on with his own life. To me, this would be the best thing that could happen.

Knots Landing

Dec 11, 2005 @ 8:03 pm

I really don't think EITHER contestant is doing great with this final task. It's no secret that Randal's is more difficult, but still with an easier task Rebecca isn't blowing me away. Randal's problem isn't being lazy, I just don't think he's looking at all possible aspects of the task. He should've known if it were going to rain and prepared for it.

But I do think women have it worse than black people. Maybe that's just because there are many more women, but I seriously think Trump has given some really messed up explainations to get rid of various strong women. Pamela and Jen M. were treated like cat shit during Season Two and this season Alla should've been in the final two with Randal. THEN it would be a challenge, then it would be an exciting final boardroom.

It's obvious Trump is not going to hire an ex-stripper so Alla never had a shot. When Rebecca became Trump's sweetheart he did everything in his power to lead her to the win. I don't think it's personal to Randal or because he's black, it's just obvious that Trump is in love with Rebecca. That killed everybody elses chances right there.

Azrael

Dec 11, 2005 @ 9:10 pm

My comments specifically applied to a quoted opinion that in order to win the Apprentice a black man has to have 5 degrees and be unquestionably far superior to any normal apprentice. I haven't seen the evidence of that yet, but I am open to be convinced otherwise. I feel that in order to make this particular judgement there needs to be a case in which a black men/woman who has the same record on the show as Bill, Kelly or Kendra looses to an inferior candidate.[/quote]

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

kisca

Dec 11, 2005 @ 10:09 pm

think this is kind of a deterrent to conversation. I believe that it's an oversimplification to say it is as simple as whether or not Kwame, Kevin and Craig were stronger than Bill, Kelly or Kendra.

There are a lot of other questions about race on this show, and some don't have a definitive answer. But that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be discussed and debated.[/quote]
I haven't intended my comments to be a deterrent to the conversation. I absolutely agree that race issues deserve to be discussed and debated - which was what I was doing.
My comments specifically applied to a quoted opinion that in order to win the Apprentice a black man has to have 5 degrees and be unquestionably far superior to any normal apprentice. I haven't seen the evidence of that yet, but I am open to be convinced otherwise. I feel that in order to make this particular judgement there needs to be a case in which a black men/woman who has the same record on the show as Bill, Kelly or Kendra looses to an inferior candidate. We may see it with Randal and Rebecca - provided that Randal's task is not a disaster and Rebecca's is not a smashing success. I do agree that Trump's comment about Randal's laziness is obnoxious and could very well be a sign of Trump's racism.

I don't know if Stacie J. was caused by racism, her being different in other respects, a model, different personality, or simple scapegoating that was so much a rule in season 2 which had an unusual high collection of bitchy women than any other season. Stacey J. herself didn't think it was racism - she said in the follow-up interview that she thought it was facial more than racial or something along these lines. Other firings - Omarosa, Marshawn, Tara didn't appear to be racism-motivated.

As far as why Trump preferred Bill to Kwame even before the final task - from what I remember Bill's performance was superior during the whole season. He had a good record as a project manager, he was consistently taking the leadership role - even in one case, I believe, when Kwame was PM. If I remember correctly, before the interviews, Bill and Amy were the choices of most viewers; the choice of Kwamy over Amy and Troy during the interviews was a surprise. So I don't see how any conclusions can be drown from the season one. In season 2 I thought Trump simply wanted men-woman final and Kelly was superior, while in season 3 Tara and Kendra simply did better on the interviews. I think Craig was chosen for the same reason Audrey, Melissa, Danny, Sam were chosen; I also believe they really didn't have enough street-smart candidates.
I think all mistakes are magnified in the final task. Before the final task, I didn't see Randal's mistakes as being magnified, but final task is more important. Also, I think Trump genuinely likes Rebecca. Otherwise, how can you explain her staying that long in place of so many more qualified candidates. I think if Trump seriously thought of reducing Randal's chances to win, he would have pitted him against someone like Alla.

But yes, I am also outraged by Trump's comment about Randal being lazy.

Edited because I got html wrong - must be too late.

Azrael

Dec 12, 2005 @ 2:41 am

But I do think women have it worse than black people. Maybe that's just because there are many more women, but I seriously think Trump has given some really messed up explainations to get rid of various strong women. [/quote]

Where do the black women (in Trumpland) fall then?

radish042

Dec 12, 2005 @ 10:49 am

Where do the black women (in Trumpland) fall then?[/quote]

According to the way Trumpy pronounced Marshawn's name, I'd say Mars. ;)

Chicagoland

Dec 12, 2005 @ 11:40 am

Trump should have used a different word than 'lazy', obviously.

CheekyCricket

Dec 12, 2005 @ 3:35 pm

I think that the problem with Randal seems to be that he is not very good at micromanaging. It seems as if he assesses responsibilities with his workers and entrusts them to hold their own. I think that in this case, that is too much of a flight risk with there being so many small details.[/quote]
If you watch the preview on the NBC site, Randal makes a comment to this effect, that he can't do everything and has to trust his staff to get many things done. Part of the reason is that he feels that, in this instance, he has an excellent staff who are busting tail to get things done. However, Rebecca is not really a micromanager either, but has handed over a good deal of responsibility to Chris and James, and is trusting them to get major things done--yet this is not being portrayed as a potential flaw, in her case, as it is in Randal's case. Which kind of bugs me. The disparity might not bother me as much if I hadn't read about Trump's now-infamous labelling of Randal as "lazy."

ghettofabman

Dec 12, 2005 @ 4:10 pm

One of my favorite quotes about the show came from my friend, who said something like ".. are there no fat chicks in business?"[/quote]

I personally would like to see a plus-sized Apprentice as well. The anatomical specimens are wearing thin with me. Give me a real person from the real world.

kisca

Dec 12, 2005 @ 5:54 pm

One of my favorite quotes about the show came from my friend, who said something like ".. are there no fat chicks in business?"[/quote]

personally would like to see a plus-sized Apprentice as well[/quote]
Plus sizes? I don't remember any woman who is size 10. Maybe Angie from season 3.
Other than that it seems that no woman who wears size 8 or above should bother applying.

Knots Landing

Dec 13, 2005 @ 10:03 pm

Where do the black women (in Trumpland) fall then?[/quote]

I usually don't break things up into race (except for threads like this), so I'd generally put the black females on the same level as the white ones. I never watch the show thinking that any of them has a chance.

Even when Kendra won last year, you can tell there is a very specific type of Apprentice that he wants. I don't think anyone slightly out of that generic robot mold will ever win regardless of race or sex. And if you havent finished college? Forget it!

donalsduck

Dec 13, 2005 @ 10:08 pm

I don't think anyone slightly out of that generic robot mold will ever win regardless of race or sex. [/quote]
Priceless words.

adrem

Dec 14, 2005 @ 12:14 am

But how does stubborn and opinionated Rebecca fit into that generic robot mold?

kisca

Dec 14, 2005 @ 12:13 pm

I usually don't break things up into race (except for threads like this), so I'd generally put the black females on the same level as the white ones. I never watch the show thinking that any of them has a chance. [/quote]
I always judge people as individuals - my parents taught me to do it since I was a child - ever since I was 6 and the kids on the street (I grew up Jewish in the old Soviet Union) called me a derogatory word and explained that they were "Russians" but that I was not and I was upset "is it my fault?" and my grandfather told me "it doesn't matter who you are only what kind of person you are". I also think we've seen just as much variety among black women as we did among white women.
I guess I am naive because I believed in the beginning of this season that Marshawn would be in the final two. I thought Alla more competent but I didn't think she had a chance with her stripper background and no education. I started to believe in Kendra early on, but initially I thought Tara would win - she seemed very competent and level-headed: "when you are arguing you are not working". I also didn't think that much about Verna's quitting - when they said "somebody would quit", I predicted it would be Verna because I couldn't fathom why would a product manager from Microsoft want to work for Trump. I guess I could also identify with someone getting into something and realizing that it was not for her, so I defended her choice - besides it was great to see somebody "firing" Trump.
Sure, Omarosa was a bitch, but so were Stacy R, Ivana and a bunch of other women. At least Omarosa had personality whereas most of the coven of season 2 were too common. As I mentioned before, I don't know if Stacie J would've been scapegoated had she been white, but I think it is a possibility that anybody who was behaving in an unconventional manner would present a convenient target for the coven of season two. This was the season in which the main theme of every task was "who are we going to blame this time if we fail".

Even when Kendra won last year, you can tell there is a very specific type of Apprentice that he wants. I don't think anyone slightly out of that generic robot mold will ever win regardless of race or sex. And if you havent finished college? Forget it![/quote]
I do believe he has a specific type Trump has in mind and that those that haven't finished college don't have a chance. As far as Rebecca is concerned - she has finished college and a good one at that. I think she mostly impressed Trump with her defense of Toral - Trump does value loyalty.

Azrael

Dec 14, 2005 @ 9:55 pm

I usually don't break things up into race (except for threads like this), so I'd generally put the black females on the same level as the white ones.[/quote]

My original question was about how you perceived the treatment of black women generally, or to keep this on topic, by Trump, or on The Apprentice. I asked because you said women had it worse than black people. I'd argue that for people who are more gender biased than racially biased this might be true if you comared black men to white women. But it wouldn't be true for the subset of black people that are women. My hunch is that the average black woman, or even the atypical black woman, would argue that she treated differently than both black men and white women.

It's too bad we can't take some survey of Apprentice candidates past and present, get their opinion (re: Trump) and then analyze the results by demographic.

Psyche78

Dec 16, 2005 @ 11:54 am

I'm not someone who generally looks as race as being a deciding factor in things. I pretty much like to avoid throwing out the race card as much as possible. But after watching last night's finale, I just feel so strongly that race played a role, and I am disgusted.

Randal, was by far, the better candidate. On paper, more impressive. His record, more impressive. Yes, both he and Rebecca fucked up their final tasks, but he at least raised some money for his charity through the actual event (not several months later because the corporate sponsor had to CYA).

And yet, when it was his moment to shine, to get his victory, it was taken away from him. For a second, there was the faint sign that the first black apprentice would be (for all intents and purposes) a co-apprentice to a much less-qualified pretty white woman.

And it made me sick.

Randall is being lambasted for choosing not to share the prize. There is talk that his stock has dropped, he will not have much of a future in speaking because he was "ungracious." But let me ask, what would his future be like if he was perceived to have diluted a big win (the first minority win). Would that be acceptable? Honestly, I believe that members of the minority cmmunity would be horrified, and he would lose respect there.

Given the talk about minorities on reality shows - especially Burnett's reality shows - it's really shitty that they did not allow Randall to enjoy his win for even a couple of minutes. Regardless of race, he was the most qualified, and they couldn't even let him feel that way, because Trump immediately wanted to hire someone else. A photogenic, white, pretty, female someone else.

I feel sick.

J T

Dec 16, 2005 @ 12:01 pm

One of my favorite quotes about the show came from my friend, who said something like ".. are there no fat chicks in business?"

I personally would like to see a plus-sized Apprentice as well. The anatomical specimens are wearing thin with me. Give me a real person from the real world.[/quote]

Word. But to be honest, in my experience there are few women in the corporate world who advance when they are less than perfectly presentable - both looks- and weight-wise.

To be fair, it seems a large percentage of the men are also in the upper half with looks and height and weight, but some of the standards seem to be a bit less stringent for males. You do see a number of men in upper management that you know only have their trophy wife based on power and finances, not due to looks.

Oh well, as they say, life's not fair.

legaleagle44

Dec 16, 2005 @ 12:35 pm

Randall is being lambasted for choosing not to share the prize. There is talk that his stock has dropped, he will not have much of a future in speaking because he was "ungracious." But let me ask, what would his future be like if he was perceived to have diluted a big win (the first minority win). Would that be acceptable? Honestly, I believe that members of the minority community would be horrified, and he would lose respect there.[/quote]

I respectfully disagree. Randal was not the first "minority" win--Kendra was. Race isn't the only minority in existence. If you don't believe me, ask Kendra, Carolyn, Rebecca, or Sandra Day O'Connor whether they have ever felt like the "majority" in their chosen, male-dominated professions, or ask Clay if he feels like a "majority" in a world where he can--and 90% of the time, would--still be fired just for being openly gay.

Moreover, Randal set the image of his "minority" WAY back with his unprofessional, selfish, and downright rude treatment of Rebecca during the last few minutes of the finale, especially once he had already been hired. In my opinion, he has clearly demonstrated that poor sportsmanship, boorish behavior, and a revolting sense of entitlement are most definitely not the exclusive province of straight white males.

welcomematt

Dec 16, 2005 @ 12:45 pm

But based on public perception and Trump's own words, he likes the female minority. Based on some anecdotal evidence (backed up by this new decision to hire two people), he doesn't seem to like Randal's minority.

CheekyCricket

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:03 pm

Moreover, Randal set the image of his "minority" WAY back with his unprofessional, selfish, and downright rude treatment of Rebecca during the last few minutes of the finale, especially once he had already been hired. In my opinion, he has clearly demonstrated that poor sportsmanship, boorish behavior, and a revolting sense of entitlement are most definitely not the exclusive province of straight white males[/quote]
I didn't think Randal was unprofessional, selfish or rude. Trump put him on the spot, and Randal wasn't playing along. What struck me as selfish was Rebecca's arrogance and sense of personal entitlement: even though her record doesn't begin to match Randal's, she just smugly expected that she was as deserving of the win as he was. I never saw so much of the "Daddy's little girl" in her as I did last night.

when it was Randal's moment to shine, to get his victory, it was taken away from him. For a second, there was the faint sign that the first black apprentice would be (for all intents and purposes) a co-apprentice to a much less-qualified pretty white woman.[/quote]

And that he should WELCOME this situation, and be grateful for it.

And it made me sick.[/quote]

It made me sick too. Of all the crappy things Trump has done, this is perhaps the crappiest. Apparently, it really is the case that Trump doesn't want to hire an African-American apprentice unless he can hire a white one too. Preferably a young, pretty white female Apprentice who will flirt with him while pretending that she's "too serious" to flirt. Disgusting . . .

Latsmile

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:20 pm

It was a great season, with some great candidates. And Randall was a star. If the "interview" had proceded as always, it would have had a perfect ending. We kept hearing that the was the "obvious winner". And Burnett and Trump would have benefited by a well-deserved win by a black man. Just sit back and let it happen, right?

Nope. They had to mess with it. A Randall win, that no one could argue with, was something they could have held up in the future when they might be percieved as racist. But they had to make the good guy the heavy for accepting THE job and refusing to let it be watered down. What were these people thinking?!

The last minute of that show made me sick. I looked forward to getting on the episode thread this morning to join in on some serious Trump/Burnett bashing. The idea that I may be in the minority in thinking that Randall did the right thing...sucks. I'm still loving me some Randall and I'm soooooo sorry that his "win" was needlessly tainted. It just ain't right.

Newcreation

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:23 pm

What I have to say it this.

I am an African-American male who has lived into mid adulthood.

Race is not always a factor in life, but sometimes it is.

My experience is that sometimes people who are not African-American do not see the same overt/covert racial things as African-American's. Hell even many African-American's don't see them.

To me. That thing Donald Trump did last night was one of the most vile racist acts I have witnessed ever on a reality television show.

He devalued Randal and put him in a no-win situation that was putrid, heinous and unfair.

I'm not saying that Trump has lived his life in a racist manner. However, what he did last night was in my own opinion, a very racist act.

welcomematt

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:31 pm

NewCreation, I completely agree with you. And I have to point out that I am generally the kind of person who criticizes others for complaining about racist acts, where I don't see any evidence of racism. But this finale, coupled with Trump's comments in the media about Randal, seems too clear-cut an example of racism to me.

And I think it highlights why Trump allowed Stacie J. in season 2 to be sandbagged. If her colleagues had truly been afraid of her, they would have called 911, the police, etc. And Trump is not stupid; he knew that to be the case. He must have.

I know others may disagree, but for me personally, Trump is a racist. A vulgar, tacky racist at that.

atlantis81

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

It's amazing to me how differently people view last night's finale. I wish they had handled it differently, and I don't really know what to say about whether Trump giving Randal the choice was in itself racist. I honestly do believe that Randal could have come out of that situation awesomely.

I do wish that the whole thing never would have happened. That Trump could have just said "Rebecca, you're wonderful, but you're still not Randal. Randal, you're hired." And that would have been it. Or, better yet "Congratulations, Rebecca, you are The Apprentice. [Boooooos] Wait, wait. Randal, I've never done this before, but I've got an even better offer for you. In my hand, I have a $500,000 three-year contract. Congratulations, Randal, you are The Executive."

IA with people who say that Randal wasn't unprofessional, or rude. But -- it was clearly selfish. I guess everyone has a right to be selfish, especially when they've just won a major competition. And I do think that Rebecca sported some things that made her a good pick from the Trump organization, and recommending that Trump hire Rebecca as well would have been a good business decision. I think Rebecca was out of Randal's league, but the problem is, is that Randal was way above the league of everyone else on the show. Rebecca could have given Kendra, Kelly and Bill a good run for their money.

But let me ask, what would his future be like if he was perceived to have diluted a big win (the first minority win). Would that be acceptable? Honestly, I believe that members of the minority community would be horrified, and he would lose respect there.[/quote]

I think this is well-stated, and is the only thing that's been said so far that has allowed me to see things from a pro-Randal perspective. Maybe if Randal had stated something along those lines on the show ["Thanks for asking Mr. Trump, but for my family and my community, and for all those minorities out there who have worked hard to get ahead, I think it's important that there is only one Apprentice this season. I believe Rebecca would be a good person to hire in another position."] I would have had his back. But he didn't say that. Instead? "It's the Apprentice, not the Apprenti." Lame. I just don't think he was thinking about the minority community's reaction to telling Trump to hire Rebecca, too, at least, not during the two seconds that that whole debacle took place.

I agree with legaleagle44, who said that race isn't the only way to classify minority. Indeed, if you ask the question why Randal was in the final two, someone would probably say that it's because he's an effective leader. If you ask the same question about Rebecca, it's because Trump has a crush on her. We've seen, especially in the final task, that Rebecca is an effective leader[/quote]

WORD. Last season when Tana and Kendra made it to the final 2, it wasn't because they both had great ideas throughout the season and were the best of the candidates. It was because Trump had to hire a woman, and any man would have beaten them in the final task, had he been there. Or so it was said.

Calreusop

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:52 pm

I agree with legaleagle44, who said that race isn't the only way to classify minority. Indeed, if you ask the question why Randal was in the final two, someone would probably say that it's because he's an effective leader. If you ask the same question about Rebecca, it's because Trump has a crush on her. We've seen, especially in the final task, that Rebecca is an effective leader, yet people assumes that Trump has a special liking for her just because she did better than they think she should have done. If Randal and Rebecca had been two white men, who had done the exact same things that Randal and Rebecca did during this season, and when one was hired, he was asked if Trump should hire the other one, too, it would not have been seen as trying to water down the win of a black man by sharing it with a white woman. It would have been because both were seen as very qualifed for the job.

welcomematt

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:53 pm

That's why Trump should have avoided the appearance of racism.

Psyche78

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

NewCreation, I completely agree with you. And I have to point out that I am generally the kind of person who criticizes others for complaining about racist acts, where I don't see any evidence of racism. But this finale, coupled with Trump's comments in the media about Randal, seems too clear-cut an example of racism to me. [/quote]
And welcomematt I completely agree with you.

In some ways, this reminds me a little of my graduate school experience. I am Indian. When I applied to grad school, I had very good grades, very high GREs, lots of extra-currics, clinical experience, and research experience. The interview process at the school I ended up attending was a group interview - all 40 of the interviewees spent the day together, so we knew what everyone else's qualifications were. I was the only ethnic minority in the whole bunch. So when I got accepted, I really did question, in spite of my qualifications, whether I got in because of my merits or whether I got in because of the color of my skin.

I can see that with Randal. Here he is, a highly educated man with astonishing accomplishment and a strong business background. On paper and in action, he seems like the logical choice. But the question of whether he was hired by DT for his acheivements or for the color of his skin is certainly raised by DT attempting to hire AT THE SAME TIME a much less qualified white woman in CLEAR VIOLATION of the premise of the show. Yes, they have had multiple firings - but it was never the basis/premise of the show that only one person could be fired per epi. The premise of the show is for Donald Trump to hire ONE person. To make the attempt to change that premise with little actual warning (yes, the boards have been buzzing, but DT certainly never outright suggested the possibility) when the first ethnic minority candidate is hired --- I just can't find the words. It gives the impression that Donald needs someone else to actually complete the work or do the job. It gives the impression that perhaps Randall wasn't truly good enough and was only hired because he was black.

MightyThor

Dec 16, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

In my opinion, he has clearly demonstrated that poor sportsmanship, boorish behavior, and a revolting sense of entitlement are most definitely not the exclusive province of straight white males. [/quote]

Nor should they be. Why are non-white, or non-male, or non-white-male people expected to be Christlike?

Newcreation

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

Just "spitballin" here and not really suggesting it because it goes against the board faq, but I would be curious on the breakdown by race of those who support 1) support Randal's decision 2) feel that what Trump did was a racist act?

See I'm of the strong opinion that there is and will always be a huge chasm between how Black folk feel and how White, and and other non-Black folk feel.

I would bet you it would be a complete divide.

CheekyCricket

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:06 pm

I've seen it from Randal's side the whole time, so that's my bias, but I thought his statement that "It's The Apprentice, not The Apprenti," was perfect. Succinct, direct: he made his point and made it well. Since I don't agree that he was obligated to consider Rebecca as equally worthy of the winner's slot as himself, I don't understand why he would need to justify his decision by explaining that "he's doing this for the black community." Or for any reason. And any explanation would suggest that he feels compelled to justify his decision. When he applied for the show, it was with the understanding that one candidate would win, not "maybe" one candidate, and "maybe" two candidates, would win.

I thought the whole thing was incredibly offensive to Randal. "Hey, can't you play along? Can't you act as though this young white woman--who has never run a business, and who has lost more times than she has won--is just as worthy as you are? Can't you just play along and make everyone happy?" By not "playing along," Randal has opened himself up to ridicule and villification.

Turning to Trump, though, it's increasingly impossible for me to explain away his attitude toward the African-American candidates on the show. But I bet Trump doesn't have a clue about why some people would see this little boardroom trick of his as rooted in a racist attitude toward the Apprentice candidates. Or why it could be perceived that way.

I do wish that the whole thing never would have happened. [/quote]
So do I.

Lisetta

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:12 pm

I wish they had handled it differently, and I don't really know what to say about whether Trump giving Randal the choice was in itself racist. I honestly do believe that Randal could have come out of that situation awesomely.[/quote]
But there's not really a choice, if there's only one right answer.

Anna101

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

I see Trump many things, but not a racist. Not on national TV, anyway...

atlantis81

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:29 pm

I think we all come with our biases -- as a young (white) woman, I've been rooting for Rebecca since the beginning, even though Randal was clearly the most qualified. But I didn't look at Randal as the Most Qualified Black Candidate Ever; I saw him as the Most Qualified Candidate Ever (And Bonus, He's Black!). Rebecca was not The Most Qualified Woman Candidate Ever, but she was clearly the underdog, and I get attached to my underdogs (Marcela). Whereas Marcela was underqualified for the position, and didn't prove herself, I think Rebecca did.

There are a lot of people out here stating that Rebecca is "much less qualified", and I do think they are stating that only because she is a woman, and because somehow, people seem to believe that women only get ahead in this game when Trump has a crush on them.

Here are some points about Rebecca:
1) When she was 15 years old, she started a fundraising foundation and raised $750,000. When I was 15 years old (and I'm pretty smart, myself), I was a cashier at a grocery store.
2) Rebecca rocked the final task.
3) Rebecca may have a 2-1 loss record, but her two losses were for things that she had never actually done before, whereas Randal's first two wins were in areas where he has a lot of previous experience. Rebecca wasn't afraid to tackle new challenges.
4) Rebecca improved with every episode.
5) Rebecca never gave up, despite being a clear underdog.
6) Calling Rebecca a "financial journalist" is sort of like calling Danni "a sports radio talk show host" (when really, Danni was a beauty pageant queen who travelled internationally). In fact, Rebecca has a lot of business background experience, ranging from her nonprofit, to the foundation she started to help other nonprofits succeed, to whatever her investment banking job in Paris was.
7) Running a non-profit is a lot like running a business.
8) Rebecca is only 23. That she can handle herself with that much grace and poise at only 23 is impressive.

Rebecca did not make it to the final 2 because she was a much-less qualified white woman. Rebecca made it to the final 2 because she is a very impressive candidate, and a very impressive young woman.

PuffinJay

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:34 pm

I would be curious on the breakdown by race of those who support 1) support Randal's decision 2) feel that what Trump did was a racist act?[/quote]

Invictus in the Randal thread expressed a similar wish, but he/she was thinking of age/sex/occupation/race. As for me, I agree with your 1) and 2) above, and I am 28/f/investigator & attorney/white.

I also wonder whether geography and life experience come into play. Sometimes seeing perspectives outside those of our own respective races is hard because often we are segregated, because of the continuing impact of the history of this country (e.g., take a look at the real estate market and how different towns or neighborhoods are typically comprised of largely one racial or ethic group, rather than being proportionate to representation in the population as a whole, or unbroken stereotypes about or distrust of people of other races). On one of these threads, a poster pointed to the boardroom table at Randal's company and noted it was not diverse at all and made some comment as to how that was telling as to his reaction last night in not agreeing to a Rebecca co-Apprentice hire. I wonder where this poster lives and works because to me, that makes no sense, because how many all-white boardrooms or teams are there? I do not think that the racial composition of one's company necessarily indicates an extreme bias for that particular race.

I have always lived in the NY/NJ area. When I was in NJ for 7 years, I lived not far from Randal, attended Rutgers as an undergrad, and worked in Newark for 3 years, where his support party was held last night and where I think his company might be located, as it appeared he was on Warren Street in Newark in one of the video shots (though I could be wrong about that). I was an employee of one of the top companies in NJ, and would sometimes be the only white person in a given meeting. Does that make that company racist? I don't think so! Employees generally work near where they live. NJ is not 100% white. Nor is there some quota system in place mandating a certain level of representation of all ethnicities/races in the workplace. I think that Randal's decision last night was both correct as per the rules of the game and was to fight off Trump's racist action, rather than promote any racist attitude on his part.

IshKabibil

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:37 pm

Maybe if Randal had stated something along those lines on the show ["Thanks for asking Mr. Trump, but for my family and my community, and for all those minorities out there who have worked hard to get ahead, I think it's important that there is only one Apprentice this season. I believe Rebecca would be a good person to hire in another position."] I would have had his back. [/quote]
While this was well said, you have had some time to compose that, where Randal was put on the spot to decide whether Rebecca should also be hired, and if not, why. I have always put things more eloquently and rationally when I've had more than 2 seconds and a blindside to come up with it. If Trump had wanted to hire them both, then he should have without asking.
Also, it's being said that Randall was rude during the finale when being questioned who was the better canidate. If memory serves me right, Tana and Kendra's final arguements were uglier than anything Randall said about Rebecca. Trump puts them in an awkward position when he asks "Why should you be hired and/or why should so&so not be hire" What is Randall suppose to say "Rebecca has no flaws, she's wonderful, she's Trump's gift to the corporate world."? Hell no, he's going to point out her flaws and I think he did so in the nicest manner considering the circumstances. This is a contest, is it not?

kaplode

Dec 16, 2005 @ 2:52 pm

CheekyCricket

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:15 pm

Just "spitballin" here and not really suggesting it because it goes against the board faq, but I would be curious on the breakdown by race of those who support 1) support Randal's decision 2) feel that what Trump did was a racist act?[/quote]
White. I completely support Randal's decision. As for the second question, I'm wavering between seeing Trump's action as racist, and seeing it as something that can easily be perceived as racist. Difference of degree, I guess. This is because I'm starting to view the whole mess differently, and believe that it was primarily a stunt intended to spike ratings, and that Trump wasn't truly that keen on hiring Rebecca after all. This is based on an interview with Trump from this morning which someone summarized on the discussion thread for the episode. If Trump really wanted to hire Rebecca last night, he would still want to hire her today, and it sounds as if he's not planning on hiring her. In fact, that he's lost interest in the subject. Regardless, at minimum, I feel that Trump's action could be perceived as racist.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.