I, for one, have found that African-Americans are a friendly lot, and the best thing I like about them is that they have a lot of energy (hiphop)[/quote]
I know this comes from a good place, but... yeah, heh. Email me if you want to talk about it CurryMasala!
I agree with the part about Randal being on the defensive and being aggressive. I just hate that Trump did that to him RIGHT AFTER HE WON. If we take the theory that Randal was on a mission for THE PEOPLE then I think I would have jumped into defensive mode to protect this. He couldn't say, "Why no Mr. Trump, I want to be the first Black Apprentice and I don't want to share that. Thank you for asking though." So he did what he could.
He was hard core during the entire show, and I think he felt he had to be because he was defending more than just himself, I think.
I also agree with you Ms. Snippy Scholar, though I think I like the word disappointed because it shows that people were let down, it's the whole, "Come now, I expected so much more from you, tsk tsk" syndrome that a lot of people get when minorities are involved. I love your wording though.
If it helps his community, that is a bonus.[/quote]
I completely agree that Randal was well within his rights, but I think the thing is that he didn't want it to be a bonus that it helped the community. He wanted that to be the focus. I didn't think of money either, but a few people did.
Hey ghettofabman! Welcome, and I did the EXACT same thing you did. I didn't hear that he would be hiring a minority, but after all those names you listed, (who's left? Tara?) I too was filled with anxiety when the cast list was shown. Funny, I immediately knew I would like Rebecca too.
Chironian
Dec 18, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
Jacob wrote an interesting post in the Season Finale thread. I've been promising myself that I would leave that thread alone, but I just can't seem to do it.
Anyway, my thoughts about Jacob's post (his post is
here) are more appropriate to this thread. The parts of Jacob's post that I'm referring to are here (I've edited it down a bit - see the original post to see everything in context):
I think ultimately the tension between those two concepts [whether this is a job interview or a game show] is something every contestant wrestles with, and that trick has to be holding both of them in your mind simultaneously, that it's an interview and a game show at the same time. But also that your behavior is going to be edited down and presented, so you have to be on your best behavior, and that -- at the live show -- millions of people are watching you ... so that adds two more layers, the "reality show" layer and the "live performance" layer.
And I think part of the problem with Randal is that this resulted in too many layers, too many balls in the air, too many men he was supposed to be, and he cracked and resolved down to the Golden Child persona Sars talked about. But I guess the fair question there is, was it even possible for him to be all those guys at once, in the situation we saw?[/quote]
The reason I'm replying here is because Jacob has assumed that Randal "cracked on resolved down to the Golden Child persona." I'm not sure whether he cracked, or deliberately chose the persona we saw at the end. However, I believe that the persona he chose was not "Golden Child," but "Race Man" (if anyone was wondering, yes, that's a real term). To me, the Golden Child persona is all about "ME ME ME." The Race Man persona is all about "US US US," with "us" being everyone else in the race that are represented whenever a POC is involved in something like this.
As I've written before, I think Randal saw the value of the "Sole Winner" title as being a matter of pride/bragging rights not just for himself, but for the black race in America. There is a long tradition among blacks in North America of venerating each black "first"; having a shared title would dilute the "first" and reinforce a couple of disturbing ideas: First, that a black person can't stand alone as the hands-down winner of a business competition, even though the black person won and the white competitor lost; and second, that black winners have to share their win with their less-deserving white competition in order to viewed as having "grace" and "class." In other words, black winners can't just win - they also have suck it up, smile, and cede some of their victory to the person they just beat, fair and square in order to be respected.
So, with all the balls in the air Jacob mentions, I think Randal chose let the "nice guy" persona go in order to be a good Race Man and to reject the couple of ideas I mention in the paragraph above. He didn't choose the Golden Child persona to benefit himself, but chose to secure the Sole Winner title for the benefit of the race.
Thoughts?
Klawzie
Dec 18, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
This isn't an attack on anyone and isn't meant as ... anything than a question.
...Randal can't just be a nice guy? He has to be nice because it makes him and his race look good?
Newhope
Dec 18, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
New to to boards and I registered in order to comment on this very hot topic and I do note there are passionate feelings for and against Randal.
I am an African-American Male. I am an insurance professional. I have always been the only minority on my teams and department for whatever reason.
I don't represent an African-American at work. I am an employee who expects the same treatment as my contemporaries. Which means I don't expect to be treated harsher nor do I expect to get a break because of the you know - "he's the Black guy and he could sue us if we said anything bad about him" mentality.
I think my personality has assiimilated to the point that I don't have any different mannerisms or speech than my associates. In other words, where I am clearly Black, I don't use slang, dress bling/bling nor wear Afrocentric attire.
Like me, at my job, I don't think that Randal is reprsenting himself as the Black candidate, he was just a candidate.
It seems others after this incident have decided for reasons still unclear to me to be saying he is playing the race card or some such idea. I don't see it.
I also have noted many talk about his aggressiveness at the end. Again, I am mystified as to what constituted aggressiveness on the part of Randal. That he used a proactive tactic to ask the fired Apprentices to stand up and support him? That was brilliant and they did. Was it aggressive that he was very rightly so enthusiastic and went to high five friends and hug them? I don't see that as aggressive.
I just feel people are very angry with Randal. I'm not sure why, but they are.
I absolutely am of the ilk that Randal won, he should not have to share.
While I don't think Trump is a racist at all, this decision on his part in my opinion seemed to come across as a racist idea.
StickyKeys
Dec 18, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
...Randal can't just be a nice guy? He has to be nice because it makes him and his race look good?[/quote]
Heh, in a perfect world. I think that's becoming the justification.
Chironian, I thank you for posting that link, but I also wanted to respond to your post (and welcome y'all to the minority thread)
We've talked a lot in here about Randal doing this for his community, but I don't know if it's fair to imply that Randal was a different person all along and he was playing us.
I'm not saying you were solely implying it, but J's post, and the surrounding posts kind of allude to it and I think it's important to think about.
Everyone has different sides to them and sometimes those sides come out in different ways at different times. I think that Randal is an overall nice guy, I also think that when put under stressful (and arguably insulting) situations, that nice guys will lash out. This doesn't make Randal any less classy as a person, it doesn't make him evil, or undeserving, it makes him human and real. He got mad about something and showed it.
He's still nice. And when he goes home, he will be known as nice, and when he's working for Trump, he will still be nice, and his teammates will love him. I don't think one little moment should completely define his character when we've been watching him the whole season.
And this goes back to my original assertion that people thought he was starting to go back to the "angry black man role". The problem is, they left him there. They no longer tried to put him against the mold, they just threw him in there and turned on the heat and that's the problem with America.
Has anyone seen the Color Purple, where Ms. Millie LOVES the coloreds and she's worked hard for the coloreds and Oh No! The coloreds are walking towards her and look like they might do something. She's so disappointed in them because after all the work she did for them, they still had the nerve to be menacing, and... black.
That's what's killing me about this. Is that to some Randal messed up, but there is no leeway given, no forgiveness, no comprehension to even try to understand. Is that a race thing? I think sometimes to a degree, but I don't know that it will ever be discussed as so.
Chironian
Dec 18, 2005 @ 7:52 pm
Thanks for the welcome, StickyKeys!
Obviously I wasn't as clear as I thought I was being in my last post. Klawzie, I didn't mean to imply that I thought Randal was not a nice person or that he was only nice to get some advantage for himself. I think he just is nice, as StickyKeys has said. I agree with the rest of SK's post, as well - we've all got different sides to ourselves, and some we let come to the fore more so than others, depending on the situation. (Look at Trump - sometimes he's very sweet and kind, and other times he's a real hard-ass.)
When I used the word "persona" in my post, I was playing off of Jacob's wording. What I meant by it was that, IMO, Randal decided that it was time to get more tough in the finale and really go after Rebecca. That's not the "nice" Randal we've seen, but it certainly doesn't mean that he isn't nice - it's just that, to impress Trump, and to convince Trump that he really wanted the job, Randal had to show his tougher side. The argument that I'm advancing (re: Randal being a Race Man) is that Randal's motivation (at least in part) for being tougher than usual and insisting that there only be one Apprentice this year is due to his wanting to "win it for the race," and not just "do it for Randal."
adrem
Dec 19, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
That's what's killing me about this. Is that to some Randal messed up, but there is no leeway given, no forgiveness, no comprehension to even try to understand. Is that a race thing? [/quote]
Desclaimer: Although I don't believe it matters, but just in case it does - I am a white person, who is 100% behind Randal's opinion on a "one and only" Apprentice.
In my opinion (and the opinion of my friends and some co-workers), Randal did not mess up. He gave his honest opinion. There is no need for forgiveness - he did not do anything wrong. That wasn't a charity event where Randal denied Rebecca a bowl of soup. It wasn't some kind of a Christian show, where no matter what, the friendship and good will always win in the end (despite the fact that G-d saw the show and knew that Rebecca should've been fired long before the final task due to poor leadership skills and overall performance).
I firmly believe that in Randal's position being nice and fair is a bonus, but not a requirement (look at Trump or even Rebecca - can "nice" or "fair" be easily applied to them?). I don't understand Trump's (or anyone else's) fascination with Rebecca, but Trump kept giving her a free ride throughout the show. I think this is unfair and totally not nice. Randal is nice and fair - we saw that on the show. We saw how nice and fair he was to Rebecca... even after she'd stabbed him in the back on the XM task. Even during the last br she tried to stab him saying that education is important ... as long as you know what to do with it. Feh..., that was low. I took her 'education' response as a hint to Trump to look at Randal's five degrees and see that although she, Rebecca has only one degree and is ten years younger, she is competing head to head with this distinguished scholar and is as good as Randal if not better. I think that was the point at which Randal finally and fully realized that Rebecca was not his little sister or a friend - she was a snake sitting in the grass and waiting to strike, and that she will strike again and again until she 'kills' him.
I personally am proud of Randal for doing the right thing. I will be even more proud if he remains true to his belief that if Trump wants to hire Rebecca, he will regardless of Randal's permission.
My Way
Dec 19, 2005 @ 3:35 pm
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. [/quote]
I just think the hardcore meanness was totally unnecessary
at that point. He got the job. And it looked strange for him to be praising Rebecca to the hills one minute and the next saying, hell no you shouldn't hire her! Oh, FYI, I'm a WF, 28.
Do I think what Trump did was a racist act? No. I think he was trying to avoid the race issue by making Randal the clear winner. I think this was the first time that he legitimately wanted both of the final two to work for him, and it's as simple as that. And then Randal, instead of saying something gracious or leading Trump in the direction of hiring Rebecca but in a non-apprentice capacity, just said no. And then that line about the Apprenti was so dumb and rehearsed. It sounded like he wanted that to be a catchphrase, which, you know. Don't do that.
The first time Trump ever thought about hiring both the winner, and the runner up was also the first time he had a large say in who the contestants were[/quote]
Damn good point,
Susan StoHelit.
However, I have to ask, does anyone think that Randal's and Marshawn's overall performances (as well as Toral's and Melissa's overall performances) were held to higher and tougher standards from the beginning on the basis of race alone, or do you think that it was a combination of both race and achievements? Do you think the four were expected to be superhuman in their performances? [/quote]
I paid more attention to them, probably because of the speculation, but I don't think their actual performances were held to a higher standard. It took pretty much refusing a task to get marshawn fired (come to think of it, the same thing that got Toral fired.). Randall was great throughout but he did have at least one major screwup that could have resulted in firing (the wrong phone number). Luckily he had a good record and degrees to save him, and the fact that Trump had wanted to fire Clay for a while.
StickyKeys
Dec 19, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
Randall was great throughout but he did have at least one major screwup that could have resulted in firing (the wrong phone number)[/quote]
It was the wrong station number. Though that is the illest station on XM (which isn't saying much... unfortunately). And what was up with that task anyway? Randal and Rebecca would have pwned the task if it was for that station!
benrod1
Dec 19, 2005 @ 8:19 pm
Randall was great throughout but he did have at least one major screwup that could have resulted in firing (the wrong phone number).[/quote]
It was the station number, and while it was a bad mistake, it had nothing to do with the loss. It was more Rebecca's misreading of the demographic for the station and picking a totally inappropriate performer for the station, and Clay's general uselessness. Also in the boardroom when Rebecca tried to stab Randal in the back by making a bigger deal about the station number than necessary and spreading the idea that Randal may not be as perfect as Trump thought, she let Randal know that she wasnt the loyal "little sister" she promoted herself to be.
Warbunny
Dec 20, 2005 @ 5:30 am
New poster to this thread. I'm white, female, 48, attended a university in Detroit, now live in Minnesota.I didn't watch The Apprentice this season and missed out a lot. I noticed the following
article in the Mpls. Star Tribune and wondered what the hubbub was about-- what Randal said seemed perfectly appropriate.
Then I learned that race, which isn't mentioned in the article, was involved. "How dare he act uppity" was the feel I got from the article.
Does it seem like when a black person wins on a reality show, TPTB feel that something went wrong in the process? Like when Rosie O'Donnell awarded cars to everyone although Sean was far and away the clear winner on Survivor Marquesas. Maybe it was Rosie being Rosie. But IMO it devalued Sean's win.
There's a memorable line from "Brothers and Sisters" by Bebe Moore Campbell on the lack of advancement opportunities open to blacks: When white folks get to the top and look over and see one of us, they know the neighborhood isn't that great. I wonder if that factored into Trump's thinking.
Brothers and Sisters is a fiction novel, but a provocative glimpse of blacks and whites in corporate America.
ghettofabman
Dec 20, 2005 @ 6:45 am
Does it seem like when a black person wins on a reality show, TPTB feel that something went wrong in the process?[/quote]
I think that it somewhat depends on the person in question and on the reality tv show. I also feel that it boils down to the amount of controversy the person brought to the show.
With that question in mind, I also have to ask on the heels of Randalgate. Do you think that the African-American Apprentice candidate on every Apprentice season after this one (regardless of gender) is destined and doomed for firing? Also, do you feel that Randal has set the bar with the qualifications future African-American candidates need to bring to the table to even feel worthy of the title of the Apprentice?
My Way
Dec 20, 2005 @ 9:29 am
It was the station number[/quote]
Oh yeah.
and while it was a bad mistake, it had nothing to do with the loss. [/quote]I'm not saying it diminishes Randall, but in a close race that could have lost the task for them and could have been a firing worthy mistake.
Also in the boardroom when Rebecca tried to stab Randal in the back by making a bigger deal about the station number than necessary and spreading the idea that Randal may not be as perfect as Trump thought, she let Randal know that she wasnt the loyal "little sister" she promoted herself to be.[/quote]
First of all, I don't think it's disloyal or stabbing someone in the back to point out a serious mistake your competitor made while in the boardroom. That's kind of the point. The only other thing she said was that Randall wasn't "creative", which I think is true. He doesn't seem to be the creative type, but this isn't Project Runway this is business so I don't think that's the worst fault to have.
Second, she never "promoted herself" as his little sister, Randall is the one who said that.
Do you think that the African-American Apprentice candidate on every Apprentice season after this one (regardless of gender) is destined and doomed for firing? [/quote]
I don't. I think Trump felt pressure after two white male winners, to pick at least a woman and a minority. And now he's done that.
Jacob
Dec 20, 2005 @ 9:43 am
Please remember the topic.
angusgreen
Dec 20, 2005 @ 11:26 am
I had seen the final and then I had seen the very strong anti-Randal opinions on boards relative to his decision, so I knew what was happening.[/quote]
However, I've read boards that were exactly the opposite. I fall into the pro-Randal camp and while he wasn't the strongest candidate of all time on the Apprentice he was certainly stronger than last seasons winner or (which matters) Rebecca. I also think that while his decison could have been expressed more tactfully he saved S5 from a repeat of this farce. As the promos say "there can only be one Apprentice".
RainbowRat
Dec 20, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
There's a memorable line from "Brothers and Sisters" by Bebe Moore Campbell on the lack of advancement opportunities open to blacks: When white folks get to the top and look over and see one of us, they know the neighborhood isn't that great. I wonder if that factored into Trump's thinking.[/quote]
Beautiful, Warbunny! You nailed it. I do believe that is exactly what underlies Trump's thinking on hiring Randal.
CheekyCricket
Dec 20, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
With that question in mind, I also have to ask on the heels of Randalgate. Do you think that the African-American Apprentice candidate on every Apprentice season after this one (regardless of gender) is destined and doomed for firing? Also, do you feel that Randal has set the bar with the qualifications future African-American candidates need to bring to the table to even feel worthy of the title of the Apprentice?[/quote]
Good question. If I look at the question in terms of setting standards, Randal has raised the bar for future candidates in general. Perhaps this will mean that future African-American candidates will be have to be at least at his level, or better; however, this would greatly diminish the pool of African-American candidates, and candidates in general, since how many people (of any racial background) have degrees from MIT and Oxford, and have run businesses?
I'm trying to get my thoughts into coherent order, so I hope this makes sense. Much will depend on how Trump feels about Randal's decision, and less on how viewers and members of the general public feel. The vehemence of some of the anti-Randal sentiment (and whew, some of it has overwhelmed me!) may have temporarily overshadowed the amount of pro-Randal sentiment out there, and made it seem that Randal's decision is overwhelmingly viewed as a BAD THING, a bad P.R. move that will forever tarnish his image. Yet, the jury's out on that question, and there's signs to the contrary: many people (including myself) admire Randal for standing up for himself and his interests, and based on Trump's public remarks, I don't think that Trump he views Randal's decision negatively either.
I keep going back to Trump's comment on the Larry King show last night that Randal had made a tough business decision, and that other hardened, experienced business veterans had agreed with Randal's decision, whereas those who were disappointed with Randal were less business-oriented. I'm not mentioning this to start a discussion about whether I agree with Trump's comment, but because I feel it is a key comment that could signal Trump's feelings about the situation. If Trump ends up admiring Randal for making a tough, unpopular business decision, despite the awareness that the choice could damage his image with some segments of the public, then Randalgate might turn out to be an ultimately good thing for future African-American Apprentice candidates--because they may feel more confidence in standing up for their own vision of things. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic here, but I can hope.
Miss Alli
Dec 20, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
Posts in which you say you "know" that all disagreement with your point of view is the result of racism will be deleted.
Other people's motives are off-topic, again, still.
Tenille75
Dec 20, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
There is a long tradition among blacks in North America of venerating each black "first"; having a shared title would dilute the "first" and reinforce a couple of disturbing ideas: First, that a black person can't stand alone as the hands-down winner of a business competition, even though the black person won and the white competitor lost; and second, that black winners have to share their win with their less-deserving white competition in order to viewed as having "grace" and "class." In other words, black winners can't just win - they also have suck it up, smile, and cede some of their victory to the person they just beat, fair and square in order to be respected.[/quote]
I tried to say this in another thread, but you put it way better than I did. What you said here is exactly why I think Randall stuck to his being the only winner, and why I think people who aren't racial minorities don't get it. If you've never been viewd as the minority and worked past the stereotypes to prove yourself, only to have it slammed right back at you that you're just a "racial slur here", there's no way to understand how Randall felt in that moment. Somewhere out there, probably on law board that I frequently read, more than one person is claiming 'Randall only got his degrees because he's a URM and everyone knows they can only get ahead through affirmative action or if a white person helps them out because they aren't as smart as "we" are. ' And sexism towards white women is not the same thing, not even a little bit. I can't think of one white female suffragist who was lynched just because she walked down the wrong street one evening.
I think Trump totally pulled a "Oh shit, can we really pick a black person?!" move, and that the media and some of the public jumped right on the standard old-school American "how dare this black man be so uppity" bandwagon. This whole thing makes me ill.
natashapierre
Dec 20, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
Do I think what Trump did was a racist act? No. I think he was trying to avoid the race issue by making Randal the clear winner.[/quote]
If that's really what he wanted to do -- and I grant you that it's perfectly possible, maybe even likely -- didn't he pick a pretty ham-handed way to do it?
After all, he *has* hired losing apprenti after previous seasons. Granted, never the actual runner up. But if he wanted to make sure that Randal was the clear winner, why wouldn't he give Randal longer than 30 seconds to appear as the clear winner before the television audience ... and then call Rebecca and offer *her* a job the next day?
I wouldn't stake my life savings on this being influenced at least in part by unconscious racism, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.
Trump is an instinctual kind of guy, and I think a lot of stuff plays into his decisions that he doesn't know about. Let's talk about his sexism, for example. He doesn't seem to realize that he has *that*, either, but his constant smirks about the women on the show being "beautiful" and so on suggest to me that a lot of his "thinking" is actually driven by his sexual feelings, positive and negative.
The fact that what he did with Randal was so *strange* -- if he really wanted to signal that Randal was the one and only winner -- that it's hard for me to believe that it wasn't influenced by some subterranean impulses or other.
LadyBast
Dec 20, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
If you've never been viewd as the minority and worked past the stereotypes to prove yourself, only to have it slammed right back at you that you're just a "racial slur here", there's no way to understand how Randall felt in that moment.[/quote]
Randal wasn't the subject of a racial slur during the finale.
Jacob
Dec 20, 2005 @ 5:24 pm
Please remember the topic, which is the show.
adrem
Dec 20, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
Do you think that the African-American Apprentice candidate on every Apprentice season after this one (regardless of gender) is destined and doomed for firing? Also, do you feel that Randal has set the bar with the qualifications future African-American candidates need to bring to the table to even feel worthy of the title of the Apprentice?[/quote]
I hope not. Randal had indeed raised the bar for any future candidates regardless of their race. Where do you even find someone with 5 degrees from such distinguished schools, who in addition is successful in business, handsome and such a gentlemean? Randal is unique. If they can find someone like him, I'll be all for it. But there could be other deserving candidates. It is just a show...
Speaking of which, let's not forget that this is just a show. It has to have good ratings, lots of drama, and some quality to keep the viewers glued to their TVs. Trump will do whatever it takes to make the show successful. Race is a risky and touchy subject. My guess is that Trump, the NBC, and whoever else is in charge will try to avoid it at all costs.
I really don't care about Randal's race. I think he was the most deserving of the Apprentice title this season. He earned it. I must be a hard core business type, as Trump put it on the Larry King show yesterday, but I don't even understand the sentiment behind the "share it with Rebecca, who does not even deserve it, but how dare you did not want to prove to us again that you are even nicer than a nice guy" sentiment. Whatever. He won, and that's all that matters... to me.
Rina99
Dec 20, 2005 @ 7:36 pm
I must be a hard core business type, as Trump put it on the Larry King show yesterday, but I don't even understand the sentiment behind the "share it with Rebecca, who does not even deserve it, but how dare you did not want to prove to us again that you are even nicer than a nice guy" sentiment. [/quote]
Hey, I must be hardcore too because I still don't, and never will understand the idea that it's wrong to not want to share a victory that you rightfully earned, regardless of race. And even more, it's not even like he can be just a guy who might have made a decision that you disagreed with, but still be a nice guy. No, since he made that decision he HAS to be a phony, he CAN'T be nice, can't actually be a more complex human being than just supernice Randal.
Tenille75
Dec 21, 2005 @ 12:33 pm
If you've never been viewed as the minority and worked past the stereotypes to prove yourself, only to have it slammed right back at you that you're just a "racial slur here", there's no way to understand how Randall felt in that moment.[/quote]
Randal wasn't the subject of a racial slur during the finale.[/quote]
I wasn't saying that he was called a name. I was saying he had the "moment", that every minority out there experiences at some point, when despite all your best efforts someone (usually a white male) will manage to insinuate that you're still not good enough because you're just another "racial slur here." Trump's actions, I'm guessing, totally made Randall feel like that.
skye1974
Dec 21, 2005 @ 1:01 pm
I was saying he had the "moment", that every minority out there experiences at some point, when despite all your best efforts someone (usually a white male) will manage to insinuate that you're still not good enough because you're just another "racial slur here." [/quote]
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say "every minority". I've personally never been the target of such overt racism. Not saying it doesn't happen, but there are minorities who don't experience it.
Tenille75
Dec 21, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
I used to think that way too, but I've come to believe that at some point it does happen to all of us. At some point, you will be viewed as "the minority" in a negative way. It may take 30 years, but it will happen. You may not even realize it at the time because it probably won't be the white-hood wearing, slur-yelling type of scenario, but something much more subtle. Like what Trump did to Randall. I'm usually not one to raise the racism flag, truly, but in this case it just seems so clear to me.
We're totally going to get cyber-punished for going off topic.
Miss Alli
Dec 21, 2005 @ 1:47 pm
Not to mention for generalizing and refusing to acknowledge the validity of other people's opinions. TOPIC, please.
StickyKeys
Dec 21, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
I totally understood what you meant Tenille75, I thought I replied yesterday but I guess not. There's something insulting, for anybody, about being asked to share something you think you rightfully earned.
But I think to be a minority and in most cases have to work extra hard, bring more to the table than anyone else, and be asked to share is so tiring that it's a step past insulting, it's expected.
And having to deal the fact that you expected to get screwed over, and the ramifications that it has on future dealings, can be so extremely nerve wracking that all convention flies out the door. You get to the point where you literally don't care anymore and just want to act like it never happened and move on. That's why I don't think Randal tried to explain himself more, or be kinder about his delivery (which was a lot more kind than how I would have acted, but then again, I'm not on the Apprentice for a reason), because he knew something like that was going to happen. Even if there was no warning, he knew something was going to mess it up, and he'd have to fight for it. I don't believe those degrees came easily and without any racial tension, or the accolades, the business partnerships, etc.
There's more to that, and it's completely my opinion and completely not universal, but it's something.
tnabna
Dec 22, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
I wanted to link to
Editing Fool's post over in the episode thread
here, because I think it also fits into this discussion.
MsJoeCool-
Does that mean that Rebecca was representing the whole white race in front of millions of people?[/quote]
I think more often than not, Whites are viewed individually, whereas people of color tend to be viewed or judged as a collective. I think at times Black folks (myself included) also have a tendency of viewing ourselves as a collective, and feeling that one of us represents ALL of us. If one of us succeeds, that reflects well on all of us; if one fails, it reflects poorly on all of us. How many times have we heard/used the expression, "(So and So) set Black people back 400 years with..." Fair or unfair, I think it's something that is so engrained in our society that it's seems to be a hard habit to break. In a perfect world, we would all be judged as individuals, but that doesn't always happen.
Trader Joe
Dec 23, 2005 @ 9:44 am
URM Underrepresented minority, often used on college admissions websites.[/quote]
Just because I had to look it up.
holdfast
Dec 23, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
Fair or unfair, I think it's something that is so engrained in our society that it's seems to be a hard habit to break. In a perfect world, we would all be judged as individuals, but that doesn't always happen.[/quote]
Perhaps, but if people of good will (and I am assuming that all posters here fall into that category - a terrible generalization, I know) aren't we all just doomed to keep having these sorts of debates?
Anyway, IMHO Randal was the clear winner - Rebecca was a lot of fun to watch as she does EVERYTHING intensely, but even on her good days she was not in Randal's league. She was still pretty damn good - certainly not a Tana, and she grew a lot over the course of the show - which says good things about her future potential.
Part of the problem in analyzing Randal, which problem is magnified and distorted by the race issue, is that he is so well qualified - by far the most academically qualified candidate ever, and unlike [Kevin?], he is putting the education to good use in a business setting - basically everything Trumps claims to like and want. He was also shown to be a hell of a nice guy, an undefeated PM and Mr. Popular. Basically he's been put on a pedestal - and, unfortunately, there seems to be a common reaction where "we" (as in society, TV, culture etc) like to put people on pedestals just so they can be torn down later. In conjunction with this, Randal established a really high standard for himself early in the game - literally head and shoulders above the rest. When later he made a few mistakes (as anyone was bound to do sooner or later) he was measured againt that previously high standard, not against the lower standard set by the other contestants. So we have this supremely well qualified guy who has been a leader right out the gate - later when he is criticized, it really does look like a double standard - since he is being judged on his CV and past performance, instead of the group average.
Tenille75
Dec 23, 2005 @ 3:09 pm
since he is being judged on his CV and past performance, instead of the group average.[/quote]
You've made a good point here, and I think added a great element to the analysis. Also, I love when people use the term CV instead of resume. It's sounds sophisticated and...continental or something, and I always imagine it being spoken with a British accent.
mrsolive
Dec 23, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
For me, it is about my own identification with some groups and my sensitivity to certain stereotypes. I hated the women on season two because I thought that their behavior reinforced notions of cattiness, vacuousness, etc. Last season, I recall some folks from the MW wanting to distance themselves from Tana because of her behavior on the final two episodes and the live finale.
I agree that not all stereotypes are equal, or equally damaging when they are reinforced--especially on national television. I see those associated with race/ethnicity as qualitatively and substantively different. ( e.g. As a blonde, I am not too concerned about any negative attitudes reinforced by the behavior of the "bloven" this season.)
But I also don't know how many viewers of the Apprentice actually believe negative stereotypes based on race or sex. I just know what I fear people believe and its possible impact.
I don't know about the intentions of producers/editors and the stereotypes. I wonder what the "one million people" applicant pool looks like? I also wonder what those in the audition pool look like as well. It seems reasonable to me that they are going to select people who will make for good TV. It's also really hard for me to believe that Markus was able to outshine 999,985 other applicants, give or take, based on his credentials or his personality given his performance.
holdfast: I think the pedastal argument is interesting. I haven't thought of it that way until I read your post. I also wonder, along the same lines, if it could be that an audience likes a happy ending. I saw it this way since I like both Randal and Rebecca. I thought that Randal should win given his record and be named the apprentice. But I also thought that Rebecca, while she didn't have the same winning record, was a great team player over all and I liked her. Moreover, I liked them together. I saw Randal and Rebecca as a great team. So when there was an opportunity to give her something as well and she didn't get it, I was disappointed.
holdfast
Dec 23, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
Also, I love when people use the term CV instead of resume. It's sounds sophisticated and...continental or something, and I always imagine it being spoken with a British accent. [/quote]
Sorry, just a Canadian accent, eh! But I agree - it sounds (or reads I guess) better than resume.
Bowmanguy
Dec 23, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
Just a few thoughts, but since we're all doing it, I might as well give my background. FWIW, my biological parents were Vietnamese, I'm male, Jewish, in my early 30s and working in sales. I certainly know what discrimination is like. Untill I got to college I was almost always the only kid in class who was Asian. Usually, it wasn't a problem, but I did get beaten up once or twice and often had to listen to idiots ask me for "fliedd lice" and say "melly chlistmas." I've been called a "gook" by whites, a "chink" by blacks, and had Jews tell me I'm not a real Jew. Having said that, things haven't been all that bad. Someone earlier mentioned that minorities in higher education constantly had to prove that they didn't get where they were because of affirmative action, but that's never happened to me and no one has ever suspected I was dumb, though I do occassionally get compliments on how good my English is. Now, as to the question of when there will be an Asian winner, the answer is that an Asian candidate with the same qualifications as Randall certainly would have won this season and an Asian candidate on season one with the same qualifications as Bill would have won. As to the question as to why there aren't more Asian males on reality TV, the answer is simple; we're far too smart to go on such shows.:)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.