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

Galatea

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:20 pm

I didn't watch the season seeing Randal as "the black candidate". I had him in the "nice guy candidate" who seems like he really has his head on straight category.

Unfortunately, now, I think race did play a role in what we saw this season but in a way opposite of what most of you seem to think. After seeing his assholishness last night (not only his final decision but also his boardroom behavior of having the others stand up if they wanted him to win and attacking Rebecca instead of talking himself up), I now believe that he was favorably edited all season because he was the ordained black winner from the beginning.

All season, all we see is wonderful, amazing, magnanimous Randal. Then, when it goes live and they can't edit it, the selfish asshole shows up and takes over the previously nice Randal. All I see Randal as now is a low-class shmoozer and ass-kisser who can't think on his feet and, when push comes to shove, chooses to be selfish and mean.

Until last night, I felt great about him winning and didn't think about it being the black guy winning. But now, I think he was the set-up affirmative action winner from the beginning. How can that be good for any race? Like the Indian with the graduate school story from earlier in the thread who came to doubt his own acceptance as being on his own merits, an equal playing field would have been better for all because then there's no doubt on either side of why the person won the position.

I don't think Trump had any other choice than to hire Randal simply because, if he hadn't, he would have been ripped apart as racist even though Randal's last event was a mess. If anything, Rebecca was the pre-ordained loser last night, at least in part, because of racism. Trump obviously wanted to hire her but couldn't outright hire just her or make her share it with Randal simply because of the horrible PR and accusations of racism that would have followed. They came up with a way to hire them both, as Trump was already planning on doing (as evidenced by choosing of the projects, the "they're both stars" comments, etc.) without having the wrath of the 'everyone's a racist' crowd come down on his head.

Well, jokes on everyone I guess because now everyone is a racist and isn't a racist all at the same time no matter what they think. Only Trump could build a monstrosity this complex and unworkable.

MightyThor

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:23 pm

Trump obviously wanted to hire her but couldn't outright hire just her or make her share it with Randal simply because of the horrible PR and accusations of racism that would have followed.[/quote]

Trump is not afraid of "pc police." If he wanted to hire her (alone or with Randal), he would have hired her. Check out the episode thread where there are reports that Trump on the radio today expresses that he is "over" wanting to hire Rebecca.

Psyche78

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:29 pm

Unfortunately, now, I think race did play a role in what we saw this season but in a way opposite of what most of you seem to think. After seeing his assholishness last night (not only his final decision but also his boardroom behavior of having the others stand up if they wanted him to win and attacking Rebecca instead of talking himself up), I now believe that he was favorably edited all season because he was the ordained black winner from the beginning.

All season, all we see is wonderful, amazing, magnanimous Randal. Then, when it goes live and they can't edit it, the selfish asshole shows up and takes over the previously nice Randal. All I see Randal as now is a low-class shmoozer and ass-kisser who can't think on his feet and, when push comes to shove, chooses to be selfish and mean[/quote]
But the fact that the majority of the other wannabes supported Randall suggests otherwise.
In a lot of ways, (and I hate to say this, but I will anyway), I feel that there were those (and I am not pointing fingers at specific people) for whom as long as Randall was the kind, gentle, soft-spoken black man, he was okay. He kept his voice down, he opened doors, he was nonthreatening. Once he showed a backbone and stood up for himself against a white female adversary (who had previously attacked him in the boardroom), he became a mean, selfish, vindictive asshole because he was not fitting into the role of the unthreatening black man.
IMHO, that's as wrong as believing a woman is a bitch because she stands up for herself.

CRFTony

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:38 pm

If Randall was a white man and reacted the same way he did last night, I'd have thought he was a jerk. If Rebecca had been hired and said "I wouldn't hire him" I'd have thought she was a jerk.

I just thought it was a jerk-y thing to do.

CheekyCricket

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:39 pm

Check out the episode thread where there are reports that Trump on the radio today expresses that he is "over" wanting to hire Rebecca.[/quote]
Yeah, if he wanted to hire her SO much, he sure changed his mind in a hurry. Ha!! The whole thing was a ploy, that's what I believe, with each passing minute.

That's the report I was referring to in my last message.

I never thought of Randal as "the" black candidate, just "the" outstanding candidate. If Trump felt like he was compelled to hire Randal over Rebecca, it's because Randal is a superlative candidate, and not because he was African-American. However, I can't ignore the reality of how racial identity can affect perceptions. I reported on this on the Speculation thread earlier: on Donnie Deutsch's Apprentice-themed show on Wednesday night, Deutsch made the remark that Randal had a "leg up" because he was black, since hiring a black candidate would be a P.R. boost for Trump. The returning candidates disagreed: Marshawn put it best when she pointed out that Randal should win because he excells in every way: outstanding educational background, success in business, like and respected by all of his fellow candidates. Those were Randal's core advantages, so it bothered her when Deutsch cited Randal's race as his primary advantage. (Sorry if this is a bit jumbled up.)

Lisetta

Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:41 pm

Check out the episode thread where there are reports that Trump on the radio today expresses that he is "over" wanting to hire Rebecca.[/quote]
Maybe because if he hired her -yesterday- either NBC would pay or Randal would have had to -share- his prize?

Maybe Trump feels like putting his OWN money to a "better" use.

VegasMax

Dec 16, 2005 @ 4:50 pm

Randal's race was not a primary advantage because all along, Trump had to hire a black apprentice soon, like season-4-soon, after all the white men and woman winners. When you looked at Randal's resume and his experience, it was his job to lose! If he didn't win, what would Jesse Jackson say?

My Way

Dec 16, 2005 @ 5:25 pm

I feel that there were those (and I am not pointing fingers at specific people) for whom as long as Randall was the kind, gentle, soft-spoken black man, he was okay. He kept his voice down, he opened doors, he was nonthreatening.[/quote]
See, I saw his being kind and opening doors assymbols of having class, a quality that is often sadly lacking in reality tv, and thus appreciated. And then he blew that theory all to hell last night.

I thought Trump was trying to make it very obvious that Randall won "the apprentice" and gave him an opportunity to polish his halo a little more, and allow Trump to do what he wanted to do and hire Rebecca as well, and instead Randall got very territorial and weird about the whole thing. And displayed a lack of class.

I had no problems with him being confrontational during the boardroom, but after he had already won? That had shades of sore winner written all over it, IMO.

StickyKeys

Dec 16, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

If he didn't win, what would Jesse Jackson say?[/quote]

Ha! I don't know, but I hear the rhyming t-shirts were made just in case.

Randall was the black contestant on this show. I just can't see a way around that. I think people decided to not see that, and look at something else (education, experience, team play), but he's black. And not also, he just is. Again, seeing that doesn't make you a bad person, and not seeing it doesn't make you good, because it's a constant.

Am I happy that he won because I wanted a black apprentice? Yeah. Am I happy that he won because he's a hard worker, and has excellent qualifications? Heck yeah. Did he deserve it? Eye of the beholder I guess.

scarletsmith

Dec 16, 2005 @ 5:53 pm

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.[/quote]

This hits the nail square on the head. My ears may be deceiving me, but I could swear I heard Rebecca respond, "Well, that's unfortunate," when Randal said "no" to hiring her that night. Now that's ungrateful. Rebecca was damned lucky she hadn't been fired way before the finale, and she totally whiffed her last task, and she'd viciously torn into Randal repeatedly in the boardroom--and she has the nerve to be upset that she wasn't the co-winner? F- that.

FWIW, I'm 42/college-educated/ultra-conservative/female, if we're keeping demographic track.

J T

Dec 16, 2005 @ 5:54 pm

I am guessing he (Trump) does not consciously percieve his act as being racist. He probably considers that it was generous. But in many ways, it was selfish. He appears as the patron willing to be "convinced" to hire the 2nd place candidate, so it is all Randy's fault that he was not gracious enough to accept Rebecca as a co-winner.

At first, I thought it was too bad that Randy could not say "sure, hire her too, she would be a great fellow Trumpian". But the more I think about it, the more I feel badly for his situation and the fact that many will think he acted poorly. That is not the case. He won and he deserves to have his spotlight. He WAS and IS the better candidate, regardless of race or gender. There really is no comparison.

Not to take away from the excellent candidate that Rebecca is. She would blow away Kendra, and possibly Kelly. Her bad luck to compete against Randal. C'est la guerre....

risingsun

Dec 16, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

It's been pointed out before that there are many minorities. Why is the race card always pulled out from the bottom of the deck? No one from my minority has been the apprentice, although one of my "fellows" was insulted by another minority on the show. It generated a lot of talk on the boards, but resulted in a lot of folks saying "it's in the eye of the beholder." Regardless of Randall's race, religion, or country of natural origin, he could have behaved like a mensch. Instead he acted like a schmuck. His choice...his consequences.

CheekyCricket

Dec 16, 2005 @ 6:08 pm

I doubt Rebecca could have beat Kendra, because Kendra's marketing smarts would have kept her from making some of the big mistakes Rebecca made, such as misunderstanding the format in the XM Radio task and allowing the Yahoo! advertising to overpower the advertising for the Elizabeth Glaser Foundation. And thinking that a good way to raise money for the foundation would be to enclose donation envelopes, without securing any pledges beforehand. Kendra was much sharper in those areas. But, wrong thread for that.

I agree, though, that Trump probably does not perceive that his act could be viewed as racially biased, or that some find it offensive to expect an African American contestant to willingly share his victory with a white person. Whether it was, or wasn't, I can't say because I can't see inside Trump's head (and I don't wanna, believe me!). Although I don't think Randal's race was a factor in his victory, I can see how having an African-American Apprentice can be symbolically important to many people--and that sharing the first-place with Rebecca would dilute that symbolic value.

kisca

Dec 16, 2005 @ 7:10 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.
[/quote]
First answers:
1) I support Randal's decision. I read some posts and saw that people who said that a politically smarter decision would've been to agree and that it wouldn't have taken from his victory. Now I believe it is how you look at it. If you look at it as a job interview, then you don't mind if other candidate gets another job if it is for the good of the company. But if you look at it as a competition, then you feel like you are an Olympic champion being asked to share his title right at the height of your victory celebration, right after you were told you won. I believe Randal felt like a champion asked to give up his title and answered accordingly.
2) I don't think so - I admit that Trump may be a racist from the quotes that were posted here, but I am only basing my opinions on what we saw on the show. I believe Trump really liked Rebecca a lot ever since she stood up for Toral. He was also impressed with her handling her injury (and btw he is responsible for her getting injured in the first place, IMHO). She is also good looking, knows how to behave in the boardroom and dresses professionally. Her performance on the show was not nearly on the same level as Randal's - but she is only 23 and she has a lot of potential. Trump demonstrated his respect for her over and over. I believe that had Alla was there instead of Rebecca (or Jen M or Tana), Trump would've not have asked Randal as he did. I also believe that if Rebecca was running against Kelly in season 2, she would've won.
I am white, female, 46. I am Jewish and I grew up in the Soviet Union.
A few details about my background. I hope it is not judged off-topic since the question was what people of different backgrounds think about these questions. If it is off-topic I apologize, but I feel it is relevant to the question.
Jews were a persecuted minority in the Soviet Union - it came from the government, but you couldn't openly talk about it. The discrimination had nothing to do with religion - we were considered a different ethnic group so-called "non-native population" even if our families lived in Russia for generations. Russians were very skillful in figuring who-is-who from the looks and one couldn't change last name on a whim except for in mixed families when one could choose mother's or father's last name. It was also written in the internal passport as "ethnic origin: Jewish", birth certificate, all application forms. There was an unofficial max 2% Jews limit in many universities and in some universities during some years this limit was close to 0%. It was unofficially enforced during entrance examinations (some of them oral where you are one-on-one with your examiner) to the universities by examiners giving lower grades, telling "wrong answer" to answers that were correct or giving a very difficult, sometimes unsolvable problems to solve. I was taught by my parents that I have to study hard and work 10 times harder that those whose passport said "ethnic origin: Russian" to get higher education or to find a job. I left Russia shortly after starting the university (I did get into one that was one of those without limit, but not to the department I wanted - the dean admitted that my being Jewish was the reason in one-on-one discussion but that there was nothing he could do). I was lucky that I didn't have to get a job there.

So, yes, I do understand discrimination. I am also very careful to not blame everything on discrimination or prejudice. Even in Russia I was very careful not to blame everything bad that happened to me on my being Jewish. Of course, my judgement is not perfect.

bucola

Dec 16, 2005 @ 7:26 pm

This hits the nail square on the head. My ears may be deceiving me, but I could swear I heard Rebecca respond, "Well, that's unfortunate," when Randal said "no" to hiring her that night. Now that's ungrateful. Rebecca was damned lucky she hadn't been fired way before the finale, and she totally whiffed her last task, and she'd viciously torn into Randal repeatedly in the boardroom--and she has the nerve to be upset that she wasn't the co-winner? F- that.
[/quote]

You're absolutely correct in what you remember, scarletsmith, Rebecca did say "Well, that's unfortunate" after Randal said no. That certainly wasn't a classy statement from someone that everyone claims has so much class. A classy person would have said "Randal won this contest fair and square, Mr. Trump." And, I didn't see her interview today, but, from what I've heard about her negataive comments, and how SHE would have wanted Randal to be hired if the tables had been turned (a lie!) and she had gotten the job, she's certainly showing herself to be a sore loser. So much for taking the high ground! All that alleged class we saw must have been just good editing to make us see a Rebecca that didn't exist.

But, back to the topic, I still don't get why there wasn't as much furor over last year when a woman won. If we're talking affirmative action, that was clearly an affirmative action choice, too. Trump decided it was time to hire a woman so, men, step aside. After all, affirmative action programs were created for the benefit of women AND minorities who couldn't get jobs in corporations like the Trump organization, and couldn't get into places like Harvard (and let's not even get into the legacy programs at these schools that still exist which were designed to give an advantage to white students, many of whom are less qualified).

White women have benefited from affirmative action more than any other group! Maybe Randal owes some of his success to the fact that there were affirmative action programs, but if so, so does Rebecca, Kendra, Jennifer M. And, what about Rebecca's beloved Toral? Her minority status likely helped her get into college or get financial aid or was a factor in her getting a job. Yet, for some reason, we're supposed to believe that only African Americans benefit from affirmative action, and that Randals hiring was because of affirmative action, but Rebecca's was not?

midnightoil

Dec 16, 2005 @ 8:04 pm

Was Trump asking Randal if there should be another winner of The Apprentice or was he asking Randal as the new Apprentice if he should now also hire Rebecca? Why did Randal assume that she would also be "The Apprentice"?

I can understand the point of view that if Trump were asking Randal to share the so-called prize it's a slap in the face. But, 1) I'm not sure he was doing that. He was just asking if he should hire Rebecca. He hires people all the time. And, 2) I'm also not sure that asking Randal's opinion is racist. If anything it shows respect for Randal because here's a guy who's been working for Trump for, what, 20 seconds, and Trump's already asking Randal's opinion on a hiring decision. That's impressive.

GoodThings

Dec 16, 2005 @ 8:13 pm

My take on this is that it wasn't race, it was talent. I believe both, on their own, were worthy of a win (I know some disagree). Had it been Alla, the offer wouldn't have been made (I really, really believe this), so in my world, this offer wasn't because a black man won. It was because the final two were deserving for different reasons.

Azrael

Dec 16, 2005 @ 8:42 pm

My take on this is that it wasn't race, it was talent. [/quote]

Some on these boards seem to think Rebecca's greatest talent was being an attractive, young, white woman with a broken ankle.

Where does social class fit into this? Was Rebecca the most solidly upper middle class, WASPy, connected, non-southern candidate? As I look at the candidate photos and think about the cast I wonder why Rebecca rose so high when she really didn't seem any better than anyone other than Jenthura, Toral, Melissa, and Jen W.

Even with their crappy attitudes, Alla and Clay were able to produce more and win more often.

midnightoil

Dec 16, 2005 @ 9:27 pm

Well that's part of it. It's not all about winning, attitude counts and Alla and Clay had crappy ones. Jenthura was an airhead who couldn't even pronounce the sponsor's product correctly. Toral refused to participate in the group activities because she was better than all that and then claimed it was against her religion. Or something. I can't even remember who Melissa and Jen W. were. Honestly, they were all young and attractive so I don't think that really factors in either.

VegasMax

Dec 16, 2005 @ 9:36 pm

I think Trump needs to hire an Asian apprentice next time. It is their turn. But Asians don't have as much political clout as Blacks do. So...probably not.

Hoola

Dec 16, 2005 @ 9:43 pm

I think it's really sad that people think Randal won because it was his turn as a black person. He had the most impressive record, a stellar CV, and was extremely well-respected? But I guess he has to be the benificiary of favorable treatment? That's such a joke. Kendra was the most qualified of her season, too. Neither one got any sort of free pass to the finals.

legaleagle44

Dec 16, 2005 @ 9:47 pm

I think Trump needs to hire an Asian apprentice next time. It is their turn. But Asians don't have as much political clout as Blacks do. So...probably not.[/quote]

Which means that we can also forget about an openly gay Apprentice; we have even less political clout than Asians do (not to mention the fact that our representative candidate Clay was a walking tome of some of our worst stereotypes--I'm just grateful that he didn't spontaneously burst into show tunes or sashay around the suite in a feather boa and sequined evening gown!)

VegasMax

Dec 16, 2005 @ 10:02 pm

Kendra was the most qualified of her season, too. Neither one got any sort of free pass to the finals.[/quote]

My thinking might not be PC but people wanted to see a woman win after two men have won. Kendra being qualified didn't hurt either.

I am not sure about a gay apprentice but gay is quite hip and popular on tv nowadays so they may have a better chance than an Asian.

Invictus

Dec 16, 2005 @ 10:04 pm

Was Trump asking Randal if there should be another winner of The Apprentice or was he asking Randal as the new Apprentice if he should now also hire Rebecca? Why did Randal assume that she would also be "The Apprentice"?
[/quote]Then all Trump had to say, when Randal objected on the grounds that there was only one apprentice, was, "Oh, I don't mean she should be an "Apprentice", too. I just meant I thought there might be a place for her somewhere in my organization. Don't you agree?"

Thing, is, Trump *did* appear to want to make Rebecca the Co-Apprentice. So when Randal nixed it, he deferred to Randal's opinion and left it at that.

I am in 51, white, female, Jewish.

I frankly think Trump gave little thought to how Randal might feel about being expected to share his win when previous winners haven't had to.

And I don't think he spent much time wondering if asking an educated, successful black apprentice to share his win with the young white runner up would offend the black community. (I was appalled at this lack of sensitivity, myself. And I'm someone who generally thinks that the race card is played way too often in this country.)

Rather, I think Trump was mostly focused on how to give his show a twist, boosting the ratings and making himself look extra good in the process. Hence the most shocking rose ceremony ever...wait, I mean, the shocking Apprentice finale ever! Only, the shock, or twist, was that Randal *didn't* just roll over and play dead when asked to by Trump.

If both of the final 2 had both been good players and white, I think the situation would have gone down the same way, that is, I think Trump would have pulled the same crap. Unfortunately, Trump is so egotistical--the world revolves around him--it didn't really occur to him that (1) it was demeaning to Randal to put him in such an awkward situation, and (2) pulling this "how about sharing" stunt would be, whether intentionally or not, another example of black success being undermined. Like we need to see more of that on TV.

I think it's not just a race issue, by the way. I'm guessing that those of us who are older and have been in the corporate workplace a long time might have a bit more sympathy for Randal's position.

midnightoil

Dec 16, 2005 @ 10:32 pm

Then all Trump had to say, when Randal objected on the grounds that there was only one apprentice, was, "Oh, I don't mean she should be an "Apprentice", too. I just meant I thought there might be a place for her somewhere in my organization. Don't you agree?"
[/quote]
Well maybe, or maybe not, this being a TV show and all and time running out on the live broadcast, Trump realized that it would make good TV to lob the ball back in Randal's court with a simple, "OK." And let Randal see how the drama of his actions would play out for better or worse. When it comes down to it, I think Trump cares more about creating an entertaining televison show than he does about hiring the right "Apprentice" for whatever job or fauxjob he has lined up for them.

CheekyCricket

Dec 16, 2005 @ 10:56 pm

I just watched the rerun, and I'm convinced that within the context of the final boardroom, Randal knew exactly what Trump meant, that Trump was not asking him for general advice about whether to hire Rebecca for another job in the Trump organization, but whether he should also hire Rebecca as an Apprentice. Trump certainly gave up easily, too. Odd that he said that he was willing to be persuaded, but when Randal didn't try to persuade him, he just shrugged and gave up. He wasn't going to fight for Rebecca's sake. (I should add that I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me in this, just saying what I believe.)

My take on this is that it wasn't race, it was talent. I believe both, on their own, were worthy of a win (I know some disagree). [/quote]
I believe this is a major reason for the different perspectives on last night's turn of events, as much as race, or attitudes toward competition, or any other factor. I'm one of those who don't think Rebecca's performance was worthy of a win on her own, specifically that she had some fine qualities, and did well on some tasks, but that she lost too often because of bad decisions. And that her performance record was glossed over by Trump, whereas he's hammered other candidates with similar records. Why, I dunno: maybe for some of the reasons cited by Azrael.

So, from my perspective, Trump was asking Randal to acknowledge that Rebecca had done just as well as he had--but she hadn't, and Randal would have to pretend, in order to comply with Trump's wishes. And why, ultimately? How would that benefit Randal in the long term? I mean, it's easy to see how Rebecca would benefit, but what about Randal? To my mind, it would also reinforce the belief that African-American candidates have to be twice as good as white candidates in order to arrive at the same rating. Because, you see, I believe Randal was twice as good as Rebecca.

EncyclopediaB

Dec 16, 2005 @ 11:58 pm

I think Trump needs to hire an Asian apprentice next time. It is their turn. But Asians don't have as much political clout as Blacks do. So...probably not.[/quote]

Wow. THIS is offensive.

kisca

Dec 16, 2005 @ 11:59 pm

frankly think Trump gave little thought to how Randal might feel about being expected to share his win when previous winners haven't had to.

And I don't think he spent much time wondering if asking an educated, successful black apprentice to share his win with the young white runner up would offend the black community. (I was appalled at this lack of sensitivity, myself. And I'm someone who generally thinks that the race card is played way too often in this country.)

Rather, I think Trump was mostly focused on how to give his show a twist, boosting the ratings and making himself look extra good in the process. Hence the most shocking rose ceremony ever...wait, I mean, the shocking Apprentice finale ever! Only, the shock, or twist, was that Randal *didn't* just roll over and play dead when asked to by Trump. [/quote]
I think you have a point. Trump hasn't shown himself very considerate of how other people might feel - his discussion about sex clearly showed it. I also don't think Trump cares that much about this job - this is a one year position without little power with NBC footing the bill. It is not like any of them will really manage the constructions.
Trump does worry about the ratings, so if he had consciously thought about the race issues, he'd never done anything that might offend a big part of his audience. He'd be shooting himself in the foot.
This season was all about twists. Fire 2, fire 4, fire 2 again. Nobody knows what will happen at the boardroom. So, now hire 2.

StickyKeys

Dec 17, 2005 @ 1:09 am

Wow. THIS is offensive. [/quote]

I believe it was said tongue in cheek, especially with the quote after it about an openly gay Apprentice. I hope the intention was sarcasm at the very least, but I can see how it would be interpreted otherwise.

You might want to email that poster to get their true views on the matter.

I think it's time for the year of the black woman, but who knows?

I'm trying to piece everything together and seriously, Randall is just not applying for a job, he's applying for a name, and I don't think Trump would ever respect anyone willing to share a title. It's just not the Trump way.

It is definitely shady though that he asked the first black winner (which is huge to a lot of people) to share the crown, like they weren't enough.

I don't know if that's exactly what happen, but it's certainly suspect.

Demographics?

Y'all know me. Single, Black female, some college, Nebraskan and Christian so I'm conservative, but black and middle class so democrat. I like long walks on the beach, reading, shopping, entertainment, and discussing racial issues, hence the thread.

adrem

Dec 17, 2005 @ 3:05 am

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]

I am white, masters level of education, professional in a large corporation.

1. I support Randal's decision. 100%.
I would've done the same had I been in his shoes.

Trump is a big boy - if he wanted to hire Rebecca, he would have done so regardless of Randal's opinion.

2. I honestly don't know.

It may be racist. It may be not racist. It could be Trump's honest and not thought through attempt to surprise the public. He actually might have thought it was a very creative way to bring a totally unexpected element of drama.

I am really surprised with the negative reaction to Randal's decision. I was even more surprised to see a segment with Randal on Fox news today explaining his decision, which was followed by a segment about the Patriot act. Randal's opinion about being the only Apprentis hit the national news? What's wrong with us?

midnightoil

Dec 17, 2005 @ 7:11 am

StickyKeys

Dec 17, 2005 @ 7:31 am

I've noticed that too, and without going into overarching stereotypes (which I love, but for sake of peace will refrain from), I think it's very interesting that you pointed that out.

What are the thoughts on that? I don't necessarily mind when I see businesses catering to their own culture because I think the need exists. I believe it's important for blacks to see a large group of black engineers and consultants because traditionally that wasn't a career choice for us. The same goes in the Latino and various Asian communities where I see the same thing.

When I see the same thing exist in white communities it doesn't really phase me because it's such a standard. The only time I even pause is when I see the one face of color in the group and wonder how that happened.

midnightoil

Dec 17, 2005 @ 10:12 am

I think there is one white face amidst all the black faces on the BCT Partners web site. And, yes, I did wonder how that happened.

I agree that in some areas minorities like Latinos and Blacks have not had the same opportunities for certain careers but that's obviously due to mixture of economic, social and cultural issues. I don't know if I can say that I've thought Asians haven't been well represented among engineers and that goes back many years.

We're getting a bit off of the topic of TV.

highlander

Dec 17, 2005 @ 10:13 am

I am a white female who rooted for Randal to win since day one and I am thrilled he won and did a dance when Randal said no to Trump's suggestion that he share the title with Rebecca. Randal showed you can be nice and still tough and he stuck to his convictions that he earned this title fair and square. He knew that Rebecca's record did not compare to his at all. He also did not appreciate the falsehood that Rebecca put out there that Randal does not see the objective and can't reach the goal of the task when Randal won all of his tasks by seeing the objective and that Rebecca lost two of her tasks by her not seeing the objectives and total picture of her tasks. I am excluding the final task for both of them since possibly they both won that.

As far as did race play a part? I don't know but I tend to think that Trump took a shine to Rebecca big time and didn't have the heart to just leave her out. I am glad Trump made the right choice and hired Randal. I don't think it was ever a question that Trump wouldn't hire Randal but him and Bill did seem to have questions that Randal did not have fire in his belly (re: Bill) and Randal was too laid back (re: Trump) and Randal saw his edit and Rebecca's edit (comments and "game face") before the finale and Randal came back to rock the boardroom in the live portion which he did. Thank you Randal.

Newcreation

Dec 17, 2005 @ 10:21 am

It could also be argued that Randal plays the race card every day in his career. We saw the video showing the conference room at his consulting firm -- all black faces. Same goes for his his company's web site (http://www.bctpartners.com/company_profile.html). If I'm reading this and Randal's web site (http://www.randalpinkett.com/) accurately, it appears that part of his business mission is to support business development in minority (which to him seems defined strictly as African American) communities and the majority of his speaking engagements are at African-American related events or to African-American related communities.[/quote]

I really think this is a far reach to paint Randal as some sort of racist or segregationist. I don't think it is a realistic theory or fair.

I've seen this type of ploy before and find it very weak.

Specifically people have used the fact that there are predominately Black Colleges in the South. The misguided theory is that those schools do not allow other races in the enrollment. Those that argue this point also feel there should no longer be a need for their existence. That latter argument is just plain ignorant. One has to understand the reason those institutions were created in the first place, and that simply is that colleges and universities in the south prohibited Blacks from attending the existing colleges.

What is further into ridiculous is that some hint that since Blacks for the most part can attend all colleges and universities, then there is no reason for these established predominately Black institutions to exist. So that means they feel that these wonderful places that have provided education for millons of disenfranchised persons of color should close up their doors? Stupid thought.

Randal's choice is to give opportunities to people who will probably benefit a community and employ those in that community that would not have as much as an opportunity at white companies.

To hint that is a degree of racisim is nothing but being disengenuous.

midnightoil

Dec 17, 2005 @ 10:24 am

I really think this is a far reach to paint Randal as some sort of racist or segregationist. I don't think it is a realistic theory or fair.[/quote]
Not what I said. Please read my entire post before quoting out of context and claiming I'm calling Randal a racist or segregationist. Please!

I never for one second stated or implied that Randal was racist only that his activities are centered around his race. There is a huge difference.

And by the way, historically black colleges not only "allow" non-black students to enrolll and always have, most are now actively recruiting non-black students as a way of becoming more diverse and as a way for some of the smaller and less prosperous schools to draw from a larger pool of potential students. But I don't know how that came into the argument. I never mentioned them.

Newcreation

Dec 17, 2005 @ 11:08 am

It could also be argued that Randal plays the race card every day in his career. We saw the video showing the conference room at his consulting firm -- all black faces.[/quote]

Not what I said. Please read my entire post before quoting out of context and claiming I'm calling Randal a racist or segregationist. Please![/quote][/quote]

I'm reading this wrong then? I did read the entire post and I am sorry that I am not interpreting it as you may have attempted to convey the context, but I'm seeing this as saying he is only catering to Blacks.

And by the way, historically black colleges not only "allow" non-black students to enrolll and always have, most are now actively recruiting non-black students as a way of becoming more diverse.[/quote]

Yes I know, that is why I said:

Specifically people have used the fact that there are predominately Black Colleges in the South. The misguided theory is that those schools do not allow other races in the enrollment.[/quote]

I sincerely apologize for any ire that may have been raised in my response or if I have continued to misrepresent what you said.

midnightoil

Dec 17, 2005 @ 11:14 am

Yeah, you missed the part at the end where I said I didn't necessarily think that playing the race card was bad. (It's in the last line of the post).

Anyway, apology accepted. Let's get back to discussing television?

Psyche78

Dec 17, 2005 @ 12:14 pm

But, back to the topic, I still don't get why there wasn't as much furor over last year when a woman won. If we're talking affirmative action, that was clearly an affirmative action choice, too. Trump decided it was time to hire a woman so, men, step aside. After all, affirmative action programs were created for the benefit of women AND minorities who couldn't get jobs in corporations like the Trump organization, and couldn't get into places like Harvard (and let's not even get into the legacy programs at these schools that still exist which were designed to give an advantage to white students, many of whom are less qualified). [/quote]
But, arguably, Kendra was the best candidate from last season. Her marketing and management skills were impressive, her record was impressive, and she kicked ass on her the final task. The best person won the season - the fact that she was a woman was a bonus. Now, if Erin or Stephanie had won, yeah, there may have been more of a hubbub about it being affirmative action, because neither of them showed that they had the skills to win the job.

As for me, let's say that Craig had made it into the finals with Kendra somehow, and Kendra won, and Trump asked Kendra (seconds into her celebration), whether he should hire Craig. I would be pissed. Craig (like Rebecca from this season) did not even come close to the level of the season winner. I would wonder why Trump wanted to split the prize with someone who seemed to not have merited it. I would wonder if he wanted to hire Craig because Craig was a black man, or because Trump didn't want to hire only a white woman. So, even if Trump could have gotten two minority hires last season, I wouldn't agree with it because Craig did not merit it. Just like Rebecca did not merit being hired this season. Kendra won not because she was a woman, but because she was the best candidate. I feel that Randall won not because he was a black man, but because he was the best candidate. Because Randall was the best canddidate (far better than Rebecca, IMHO), it makes me wonder why Trump would feel the need to hire someone else on too - at the same time. And race could certainly be a factor, not the sole factor, but it could explain it.

For the record, I am 27, Asian Indian, married to a white man, was raised in the Deep South (read: they still have desegregation where I grew up), and I have a doctoral degree.

quaintirene

Dec 17, 2005 @ 12:27 pm

White Jewish female here. I support Randall 100% (and he was not the person I wanted to win, that was Alla). I don't think what Trump did was racist. I think that Trump is impulsive, and I also believe Trump thinks with his dick a lot of the time. He wanted to reward his cupcake for being so cute, and he thought of a way to do it on tv. Randall saw the further implications immediately and nixed the whole idea rather neatly.

There have been so many complaints about the treatment of African-American men on Burnett's shows, that I can't believe he would sanction something like this when an African-American man finally wins. I would bet he wasn't expecting that from Trump.

Chironian

Dec 17, 2005 @ 1:48 pm

Looking (again) at the finale through the prism of race, I think that Trump wanted to hire Rebecca, but wanted to avoid any criticism of a double-hire by having Randal sanction his decision for him. Really: if he thought the two candidates were equal, and wanted a double-hire, why didn't Trump ask both of them what they thought about a double-hire before revealing who he had chosen for the job(s)? Further, Trump's advisors in this whole process are Carolyn and George; why didn't he ask them what they thought of a double-hire, instead?

In other words, Trump wanted to be able to deflect the idea of co-Apprentices by saying, "Well, I only did it because Randal said it was okay. I'm not racist by asking the black winner to share the prize with the white loser. Really - it's not racist if the black person is okay with it!"

Trump just assumed that "nice" Randal would just roll over and do what Trump wanted in that situation. The weak-sounding, "Well, I could have been convinced..." at the end is proof to me that Trump was only interested in a double-hire as long as he could have had the Randal seal of approval to protect him from accusations of racism.

I also noticed during the finale that Marshawn was careful to say that Randal should be the only Apprentice, as well. I'm convinced that everyone there had heard the same speculation that we all had, and that Marshawn was subtly trying to underscore her opinion that the first black winner should be allowed to stand alone with the title of The Apprentice. I'm speculating here, but perhaps Randal's decision was motivated by not wanting to "dilute" not just his win (as an individual), but the first black win on this show.

bucola

Dec 17, 2005 @ 2:16 pm

But, arguably, Kendra was the best candidate from last season. Her marketing and management skills were impressive, her record was impressive, and she kicked ass on her the final task. The best person won the season - the fact that she was a woman was a bonus. Now, if Erin or Stephanie had won, yeah, there may have been more of a hubbub about it being affirmative action, because neither of them showed that they had the skills to win the job.[/quote]

So, then, what's the big fuss this year? Arguably, Randal was the best candidate from THIS season. And, the best person won THIS season. The fact that he was black was a bonus. Not everyone will agree he was the best (that's what arguably means, right?), but not everyone agreed Kendra was the best last year either. If Kendra were a black woman, many people would question whether it was because of race; that's just how many Americans are when it comes to blacks in the work force and in education. (I work in higher education and know many talented minority students in top white schools who constantly have to prove themselves to white students and professors who think they're only there because of affirmative action. )

And, incidentally, if this were a contest between Kendra and Randal, I would have been behind Kendra; in terms of talent and accomplishments on the tasks, I think she beats both Randal and Rebecca.

That still doesn't mean that Trump didn't decide last year that it was TIME to hire a woman Apprentice, and sought out to find the best woman to promote.

But, what I'm now curious about is - if Trump hires a white male next year, will people say that HE was hired because of his race, because it was TIME for a white male to win again?

midnightoil

Dec 17, 2005 @ 2:28 pm

I work in higher education and know many talented minority students in top white schools who constantly have to prove themselves to white students and professors who think they're only there because of affirmative action.[/quote]

A white school? What is a white school, top or otherwise?

StickyKeys

Dec 17, 2005 @ 3:22 pm

I think we know what "white school" means in this context, and I completely agree with that sentiment. There was something said about Randall only getting Rhoads because of Affirmative Action, but you know what? I'm black, and if I applied for Rhoads I would get laughed at. Randal is smarter than everyone here, and he got a chance that he maybe wouldn't have gotten had he not had the opportunity.

That's why I think the showcase of his accomplishments, mixed with the fact that he is a minority, is so important. So people can see that affirmative action has a purpose and works.

I finally watched the last part of the ep, and I don't think Trump was being racist, but I do think he was DEAD WRONG. I think he got pulled into Rebecca's game and the girl was truly convincing. She almost made me think she did a good job. Did you notice that nearly all the Apprenti agreed with his decision (most notably Allah and Felicia which, okay?)?

I do believe that Randal managed to pull off the nice sweetness, but he was HARD CORE mean during the whole last part, and no one noticed that he had his guns out ready to blaze. That kind of thing normally comes from having to deal with people like that all the time. Randal's got a dark side y'all, and I love it.

Working with people in your same ethnic group is playing the race card?[/quote]

It is in that, he's not doing this for anyone but Black people. Which can be seen as admirable or discriminatory. I think it's admirable, but I'm fairly militant so...

StickyKeys

Dec 17, 2005 @ 3:58 pm

You're exactly correct. Can we take a look at Midnight Oil's post because there's a lot of good stuff in there that I think is being misinterpreted.

ooking at www.randalpinkett.com, I don't see an engineer and businessman who happens to be black, I see an aspiring black activist, public speaker, and community leader, who happens to be an engineer and business person.

Whether he has actively pursued this angle or has just taken the opportunities that have come his way is something we don't know, but he certainly seems to be marketing himself and his business to a specific race-based audience.[/quote]

This is the important part I think. Because it showcases that Randal is not trying to make himself like everyone else. He's not trying to be the professional, the doctor, the apprentice, and oh look! He's Black!

He's trying to be the Black doctor, and the Black millionaire, and the Black professional and trying to make that a standard where in many places it's not. I think he makes a very conscious decision to support his community so that the surprise isn't their skin color.

You have no idea how many times I've heard, "Oh, yeah she into [insert hoity toity "white school" here], she must be on scholarship." or if she is on scholarship then the only way she was considered was affirmative action. I don't think that people realize how insulting that is. The assumption that being smart and being black are mutually exclusive.

And that's what it is, an assumption, but it's one that has oppressed a people for a very long time.

Klawzie

Dec 17, 2005 @ 4:49 pm

FWIW before I begin:
-25 yrs old/ female/ white (with a drop or three of Native American blood, if it matters).
-Public Relations major/English minor. (I have my internship left to graduate. Currently taking a break.)
-Christian-Agnostic (if that's such a thing). Fluctuating political views. (I'd err on the Liberal side of Conservative, I guess?)
-Second-generation military brat. Spent most of my life in the South, and most of the rest of it in Germany/Europe and have, combined, spent about four months in California over the last five years. Currently living in Northeast Alabama.

1) support Randal's decision
I support it entirely. Whatever his race was or the other canidate's was, it would have been a shitty thing for Trump to do. Whatever his response, it looks bad. If - regardless of race - he had said "yes", then he would be precieved as weak, 'too nice', etc. And having said "no", he is villified for being mean.

I admit - when it happened, I was shocked and vaguely disappointed he didn't give Rebecca some of his glory. However - the moment Rebecca went all bitter and sour-grapes (the instant after Randal said "no", mind you), I lost any real sympathy. Particularly after hearing an interview with Rebecca where she practically spat her bitter wine all over the camera.

Rebecca is a fox - both in the physical (I'm a straight woman, but she's hot) and in the mental. Rebecca wouldn't have been willing to share if it were offered to her. She gives no quarter.

Neither should have been expected to share their win. Whoever won should have been able to bask like the previous winners did.

I agree with Randal: It's the Apprentice. Not the Apprenti.

If Trump wanted to double-hire, he should make it clear-cut next season (assuming next season has two candidates that are as shiny in his eyes as this season) and just hire them both at the same time. Alternately, he could flop it down on the table like his dangerous "do you want to... or...?"s and let the two final candidates say, "I'd be willing to be an Apprenti" or not. And if it's a "Not", they can duke it out dirty like last season.

2) feel that what Trump did was a racist act?

Not conciously, anyway.

I really feel this was either a subconcious thing ("must be PC and keep viewers watching") or an unthinking thing. Either possibility is equally viable, IMHO.

Trump seems very spontanious in the boardroom. A guy is flippant about his exemption - so Trump fires him instead of probably more-fireable candiates. Someone won't shut up and stop talking over him (in particular) and everyone else (in general) - so he fires them. Someone can't shut UP about some other candiate's qualities - he usually says "so I should just fire you, then?" and - sometimes - he's done it (to my memory, anyhoo) for lack of a better reason to fire someone. And let's not even go into his inappropriate discussions.

I firmly believe this double-hiring was plotted at least while the last few episodes were filming, if not from the start. Unless he specifically singled out Randal and/or Rebecca as one of the two in the end, I doubt race or gender played a part in this double-hiring senario.

Everyone here knows how Trump is: his show has to be bigger, better; more Trumpalicious than any show on tv. What could be more exciting than a Double Hiring along with multiple firings?

Everyone saw it coming. Trump is rarely subtle, y'know. Marshawn made her "only Apprentice" comment. Randal made several references to him being the "only Apprentice". Alla was positively bloodthirsty in her support of Randal (with Felishia sheeping along with her). And at least as soon as the firing of four people, we at TWoP guessed a double-hiring.

So, in summary:
Trump just wanted good ratings. Race probably had no concious factor in the offer of a double-hiring. He offered the win to the most qualified (IMHO) canidate and gave Randal the opportunity to make him (Trump) look good.

Since Randal had only been part of the Trumpanies for five seconds before being asked to make the decision, he didn't have the brain-washing required to make Trump look great. (And I don't think Randal will make Trump look any better than he really thinks Trump is.)

StickyKeys

Dec 17, 2005 @ 5:05 pm

I wonder about the reaction to Randal's actions in terms of race. This is just speculation, but follow me please.

When the show started lots of people said, "Oh, the customary two black contestants, let's see how they do." We noticed that Randal was very professional from the start and then somewhere he started to get AWESOME! Like, blow our minds awesome and I think some people took their view of the stereotypical black man, and used Randal to challenge that.

Randal was a nice guy, fairly soft, but very well spoken. He was well liked and an assett on every team. Nothing like normal- I mean, stereotypical black people.

Then Randal showed his other side (or true side) and suddenly he became the angry black man and people became disappointed that he wasn't able to break the mold.

Does anyone understand where I'm going with that? Do you think to an extent that's what happened? And if so, is that disappointment (of falling into the stereotype) legit?

I think it's very interesting to think about, and definitely something that happened with Marshawn, and to an extent, Toral.

donalsduck

Dec 17, 2005 @ 5:09 pm

Then Randal showed his other side (or true side) and suddenly he became the angry black man[/quote]
Yes, you are right, and this is a really funny perception, as I am sure people would not have viewed Kelly as an "ungracious and undeserving winner," had he refused to share his prize with Jen M (who actually was a much more deserving candidate than Rebecca, judging by her winning record).

StickyKeys

Dec 17, 2005 @ 5:13 pm

Email me midnightoil.

Jen M was my season 2 kryptonite so I ain't touchin' that one!

Actually, I haven't thought about that much, hmmm...

alliebear

Dec 17, 2005 @ 5:18 pm

I'm guessing "white school" means historically white school, just as people call historically black schools simply "black schools."

I didn't watch this season of the Apprentice, but I'm really wishing I had. Rebecca does not look 23 to me. But she is very pretty.

I really doubt Trump was being racist on any conscious level. Racism is so ingrained in this country that even I as a 23-year-old black woman can be racist and not realize it until later. I think many people, including Trump, are not as sensitve to race issues as we need to be due to how pervasive racist attitudes are in America. Everyone is racist, but I agree that his decision was more about ratings and good television than anything sinister.

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