I'm less sure about the Stacie J. firing because that whole situation was such a crock and so badly mishandled. I do think she was ganged up on because she didn't fit into the little clique they had going, but I don't think it was because she's African-American. And that whole season, particularly with the women, it was all about finding someone to blame for the loss.[/quote]
This is a good point
Kris223, that the Apex women were always trying to find someone to blame. But why pick Stacie twice when she didn't cause the loss, when there were other people who would have been logical to blame? I can understand why Ivana picked Stacie - Ivana was one of the people whose head was justifiably on the chopping block both times. She wanted to deflect attention from her own piss-poor performance, both times. But why would the entire group go along with it, when there were clearly other people to logically blame?
Also, why would Trump not question the fact that it was two tasks later that they finally bring up the infamous 8-ball incident? If they were truly disturbed, and truly afraid, it doesn't make any sense that they'd wait around, and only bring it up in the boardroom. They could have taled to George, Carloyn, or a producer if they were honestly concerned.
Those faithless bitches even had the brass to hold an air-clearing meeting, where they said they'd be willing to put the 8-ball incident behind them, then they brought it up again during that same week's boardroom!!!! They was no evidence that there was any repetition of strange behavior on Stacie's part, but obviously the air-clearing meeting meant nothing.
Trump & TBTP were probably salivating at the chance to jump on something so controversial - a real, live crazy woman to fire!!! Oh the ratings, the ratings! Trump didn't stop to consider whether there was any credibility to the charges, he cut off Jennifer Massey when she tried to inject a voice of reason, and he conducted the boardroom like a witchhunt. He could have done a real, behind-the-scenes investigation and either decided that Stacie was indeed unstable and he needed to get rid of her, or that it was all some overblown bullshit, and that someone else needed to be fired.
I loved Jen the entire season and everyone else hated her. She was the only one (IIRC) that stood up for Staci J and she had a good head on her shoulders, but I definitely think she suffered from "dumb blonde" editing. She was made to look like a complete idiot by the end and we ended up with frickin Kellytron[/quote]
StickyKeys, Jennifer was indeed the only one to try to stand up in any way for Stacie, and I always retained some admiration for her because of that. Jennifer made some mistakes near the end, and I personally thought she lost the job when she participated in the screech fest with Sandy in the final four boardroom. But in that boardroom, Trump clearly professed his preference for Kelly. He said that Kelly was safe, and he more or less ordered the two women to go at each other. I'm just disappointed that both of them stooped to that level. Of course, I never forgot that Sandy had said that she wouldn't have hired Stacie to work in her bridal shop. Like a working model with her own business needed Sandy's crappy bridal shop job. So I wasn't rooting for Sandy anyway.
Then, after Trump showed how clearly he preferred Kelly, he wants people to believe that at the finale, he can't make up his mind??? I didn't buy that at all. Do TPTB think my brain fell out of my head? Jennifer had her flaws, but so did Kelly. I remember Kelly coasting on his immunity (twice, IIRC), and being condescending to Andy. Kelly didn't run his final task without mistakes, either. Trump just wanted Kelly for the job, so he tried to make it look like there was this big mandate to hire Kelly. I don't think it's any coincidence that Omarosa, one of the most hated contestants from the previous season, was one of the few people who spoke up for Jennifer.
ETAFor instance, in the past episode, it truly did not occur to me to link Marshawn's performance to the fact that she is black. It just seemed like a smart person making a series of bad decisions for reasons I found inexplicable. [/quote]
I agree with this assessment, CheekyCricket. I don't think Marshawn was portrayed in a bad way, or that her firing had anything to do with being black. I haven't seen anyone else assert that either. I don't believe that in the case of every minority or every woman, something funny is going on. But I do believe that shady manipulations have occured in enough of these cases that I feel uncomfortable with it. That's just my view of it.
StickyKeys
Nov 17, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Now I don't know about her firing being because she was black, I think there is evidence to support either side on that issue. I think what did her in was the lying and just not owning up to the situation.
The problem with Marshawn's situation is that way too many people have said, "Well, I was wondering when she was going to Omarosa herself."
That's what this thread is about I think.
We can all agree that there are people out there who don't hold the race of other's against them, we can agree that not every firing is due to race, but in order to really discuss race relations, I think we have to agree that they exist. Meaning that sometimes these things do happen, and when they do, what are the ramifications because of it?
I see race all the time. I call it out, I talk about it, and *gasp* sometimes I judge on it. I make a lot of presumptions about people based on the few circumstances I have. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm dead wrong, but the point is that I do it. Now, is doing that going to effect a decision I have to make negatively or positively?
If I'm in the position to hire someone, and I see one black applicant, I might say to myself, "I know if I hire her she will work harder than everyone else to prove herself." I might also say, "Ooh, I'm not going to hire her, she's either going to be a control freak, way too bossy, or just lazy."
This is what the Apprentice does in my opinion. It gives us a set of stereotypes and dares us to not notice them. It makes a spectacle out of being human that's just ridiculous. People at home watching don't care that these contestant's are out of their elements, stressed, and on national tv. The cameras tell us that this is a realistic situation, and if it's realistic then the contestants must be acting normally.
And you know what? That Indian woman acts just like my boss when she's stressed out, and my boss is Indian, a lot of Indians must act like that. Oh and you know Marshawn? She acted just like Omarosa, I haven't had too much experience with black women, but everyone I've met has a chip on their shoulder, all black women must act like that. It's a good thing the black men are in line though, usually they're so rough and mean. I'm glad Trump found some calm ones, I had no idea they even existed.
And so on, and so on, and so on, and in the middle are normal, hard working, proud people of color saying, "What the &%*$# just happened?!"
AUgirl
Nov 17, 2005 @ 3:09 pm
This is what the Apprentice does in my opinion. It gives us a set of stereotypes and dares us to not notice them. It makes a spectacle out of being human that's just ridiculous. People at home watching don't care that these contestant's are out of their elements, stressed, and on national tv.[/quote]
And half the time the task is some lame, product tie-in, marketing thing which has no relation to the corporate world or field of expertise. No wonder they crack.
blocked writer
Nov 17, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
Okay, get out of my head, StickyKeys! You beautifully worded so much of what I've been thinking.
I don't think about race all the time, but as a black woman, I'm acutely aware of it much of the time. Even when you find yourself forgetting that it is a factor in everyday life, you get frequent reminders, both subtle and obvious. I don't think everyone is ever going to agree about how much racism, sexism or homophobia, or any other prejudice plays out on TA. In some cases it does, in others it doesn't. But I do think that to have a real discussion on this thread, it must be acknowledged that "isms' do exist. To what degree, and in which cases, will alwys be up for debate.
It bothers me when people dismiss the fact that it's ever a factor. This isn't a slam on any particular poster. I just think that to say it doesn't matter often ignores something very real that happens on TA.
Take Clay, for instance. I have no idea how far he could go on this show if he didn't have such a pissy, vindictive attitude. There may be some homophobia on the part of Trump, but I haven't seen it. I think Clay works hard, and has some talents, but he's a mean, easily offended individual out for revenge, and that's what I predict will be his downfall, the same as if he was a straight man with the same behavior. But I'd never deny that there is the possibility of prejudice against him on the show. Were Allas "bitch woman times 1000" (or whatever she said) remarks homophobic? I don't know. Maybe they were, or maybe Alla was just being bitchy herself, and that's her idea of an insult.
The reason Marshawn's firing didn't bother me was two-fold. First, she earned her firing, and second there was never any question in my mind that she should have been there in the first place, the way it was with Craig. She's a lawyer with a number of talents, and she just screwed up in the task and her defense. That's typical of many people over the seasons. But I do think she had a fair shot, and I think she'll recover from this and do well in her legal career. Despite her bad showing last week, she managed to be the voice of calm reason for a while, in sharp contrast to Kristi's constant and annoying bitching, Markus's meandering, and Toral's smug, do-nothing superiority, so I appreciate that Marshawn was on the show. One bad week doesn't take away the good things she said and did.
CheekyCricket
Nov 17, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
And you know what? That Indian woman acts just like my boss when she's stressed out, and my boss is Indian, a lot of Indians must act like that. Oh and you know Marshawn? She acted just like Omarosa, I haven't had too much experience with black women, but everyone I've met has a chip on their shoulder, all black women must act like that. It's a good thing the black men are in line though, usually they're so rough and mean. I'm glad Trump found some calm ones, I had no idea they even existed.
And so on, and so on, and so on, and in the middle are normal, hard working, proud people of color saying, "What the &%*$# just happened?!" [/quote]
I can guarantee you that there's also "white" people saying the same thing. That would be my reaction if someone likened Marshawn's behavior to Omarosa's. I'm scratching my head a bit right now imagining the scenes above. I would be cautious about assuming that the people described above are in the majority, or represent how "most white people think."
People at home watching don't care that these contestant's are out of their elements, stressed, and on national tv. The cameras tell us that this is a realistic situation, and if it's realistic then the contestants must be acting normally.[/quote]There I have to disagree. The cameras don't tell me that the Apprentice presents a "realistic" situation. In fact, I get the opposite feeling, that this is an artificial situation designed to push the candidates to their physical and mental limits, and to see how they react and adapt to varied projects, and handle fast-paced situations; I interpret much of what happens along those lines. In a realistic situation, contending candidates for a job do not sit in a boardroom and discuss/bicker about what the other candidates did or did not do, in order to raise their own chances of being hired. They also get to sleep full nights, and they don't live in a suite, and share rooms, with the other competing candidates.
I think the situation presented by the Apprentice is quasi-realistic, in that the tasks are actual work-related projects, and they work within a team, and so on, but that's about where the realism stops. Perhaps that's why I don't give as much weight to some of the incidents that occur, because I don't think the candidates are acting "normally," in the sense that this is how they would act if I worked with them when they have decent nights of sleep, time with their friends and families, and regular days off, as well as a longer timeframe for projects, and a consistent group of co-workers.
thuganomics85
Nov 17, 2005 @ 3:38 pm
I also didn't get any "nobody wants to buy candy from a black man" vibes. I thought nobody wanted to buy from him because it was expensive. If it was a new product, they should have given them away for free. That'd be my thinking.[/quote]
Same here. I didn't remember Kelly and Ivana selling well ever. But I remember Entertainment Weekly actually writing about that incident, and how they thought Kevin was mistreated. I understood his firing, but I can see why some people might have thought that way. I was annoyed that Trump didn't really give him a chance to defend himself. Trump pretty much had Kelly picked out as the man to make the F2, so he tossed Kevin out pretty quickly.
One thing about the Stacie J. incident I always found interesting was when the women came back, the two men who defended her and seemed most upset were Kevin and Raj. I don't know if the women (excluding Jenn) isolated her for racial reasons, but the fact that the two minority men (Raj is half-Indian) were upset, does make me think something was going on.
fictionista
Nov 17, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
The reason Marshawn's firing didn't bother me was two-fold. First, she earned her firing, and second there was never any question in my mind that she should have been there in the first place, the way it was with Craig. She's a lawyer with a number of talents, and she just screwed up in the task and her defense. That's typical of many people over the seasons. But I do think she had a fair shot, and I think she'll recover from this and do well in her legal career.[/quote]
Same here. I felt the same way about Tara last season. Both women had a fair chance, and they screwed up, like all the other candidates on teh show who have been fired. Their screwups and firings (IMO) had nothing to do with race. But the kicker, as was already stated, was the "I knew she was an Omarosa" bullshit. I mean, WTF? And this has been said a few times with not a trace of irony. Why compare her with the most hated black female reality show contestant of all time? What did Marshawn do that was even remotely connected to the shit Omarosa did?
CheekyCricket
Nov 17, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
Why compare her with the most hated black female reality show contestant of all time? What did Marshawn do that was even remotely connected to the shit Omarosa did? [/quote]
And who is making the comparison? How frequently is this comparison being made? Those are my questions, although I know they're rhetorical questions. It seems clear in hindsight that Omarosa was playing the villainess for attention, and wow, did it work. Marshawn did nothing of the sort; if I saw her on Fear Factor, I'd fall over from the shock. Anyone who is making that comparison is really stretching the circumstances.
fictionista
Nov 17, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
And who is making the comparison? How frequently is this comparison being made? Those are my questions, although I know they're rhetorical questions. It seems clear in hindsight that Omarosa was playing the villainess for attention, and wow, did it work. Marshawn did nothing of the sort; if I saw her on Fear Factor, I'd fall over from the shock. Anyone who is making that comparison is really stretching the circumstances. [/quote]
I saw it a few times in the episode thread, and not too many people challenged it. So, to answer your question, some of the viewers. And I suspect that this kind of thinking is not limited to message boards, as evidenced by the number of us who have heard, "Man, I've worked with a lot of Omarosas. Thank God you're nothing like that!" or some other such nonsense.
It almost seems, IMO, that some people are just chomping at the bit, waiting on the black bitch to appear so they can compare her to past black bitches, even though she may not have done anything close to what the former did. OT, but there is another popular reality show thread where you can find this very thing at this very moment.
Jacob
Nov 17, 2005 @ 4:43 pm
Please try to confine the generalizations to viewers and the like, rather than other posters or groups of posters or entire threads. It's understandable but misleading and apt to get things off-track really quickly.
And while I'm in here ... it's not really necessary to leap in and defend the honor of successful blonde white girls just for the sake of argument. That's not the point of the thread.
And somehow I think they'll be okay.
CheekyCricket
Nov 17, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
I saw it a few times in the episode thread, and not too many people challenged it. So, to answer your question, some of the viewers. And I suspect that this kind of thinking is not limited to message boards, as evidenced by the number of us who have heard, "Man, I've worked with a lot of Omarosas. Thank God you're nothing like that!" or some other such nonsense.[/quote]
I remember it coming up maybe twice, with perhaps an equal number of posts disagreeing with it, so it seemed like the comparisons between Marshawn and Omarosa weren't a major theme. I agree that it would be better if they didn't come up at all, but I can't conclude that it was in the forefront of many viewers' minds.
It's difficult for me to imagine how someone would cast someone like Marshawn in hopes that she'd turn into a scene-stealer and drama-creator like Omarosa. As soon as Marshawn begins speaking, you know that you're in the presence of an intelligent, rational, self-respecting person, and not an attention-hound who's trying to dominate the limelight. I completely disagree with the decisions Marshawn made in the Star Wars episode, and I was very disappointed, too, but there was nothing extreme or irrational about her behavior. Given her excellent qualities, I don't see why anyone should be ashamed of being likened to her. I'd be happy, personally. I don't think she left the show creating a negative image for women in general, or black women in particular, just a smart person who for whatever reason made some big mistakes in that task.
StickyKeys
Nov 17, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
And somehow I think they'll be okay.[/quote]
Heh, I was thinking the same.
Of course most of the statements here are generalizations. We know that not every white person is the one that hit Harriet with the iron or cut poor Kunta's foot off, and not every black person is MLK, or Fantasia (heh, shut up, I had to put it in somewhere).
So the point of the thread is not to declare any extremes as absolute fact, but it's to talk about why these extremes exist, what their ramifications are on and off the show, and how we as viewers validate (or invalidate such as the case may be) their presence.
There are no judgement calls that need to be made, you're not a bad person if you notice race and you're not a good person if you don't and vice versa. We make talk in hyperbole (and Lord knows I'm huge with the ALL people say THIS:, but we understand that the other side exists I think.
AUgirl
Nov 17, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
As soon as Marshawn begins speaking, you know that you're in the presence of an intelligent, rational, self-respecting person, and not an attention-hound who's trying to dominate the limelight. I completely disagree with the decisions Marshawn made in the Star Wars episode, and I was very disappointed, too, but there was nothing extreme or irrational about her behavior. Given her excellent qualities, I don't see why anyone should be ashamed of being likened to her. I'd be happy, personally. I don't think she left the show creating a negative image for women in general, or black women in particular, just a smart person who for whatever reason made some big mistakes in that task
[/quote]
If I was reminded of any past Aprentice contestent when Marshawn pulled her Star Wars act it was Audrey. She was likeable and capable until one big WTF moment that cost her dearly. Just my opinion.
BatFantastic
Nov 17, 2005 @ 6:48 pm
She was likeable and capable until one big WTF moment that cost her dearly.[/quote]
Heh. I loved Audrey too, though I may have to disagree on the capable part, for most of the time. And she didn't have a WTF moment as much as an entire WTF episode.
Being and working with avid reality tv fans, an 'omarosa' was never the black bitch villianess fictionista referred to. When we talk about an 'omarosa' we're usually talking about more of a Bossy Boobs (Desperate Housewifes-Lynette's boss).
Which brings up another point. I'm sure I'm explaining this horribly but doesn't it seem that TA portrays women in business as the ones that start out so promising then always end up having the WTF moments that end up getting them fired? I mean, I guess most candidates that have been fired all had WTF moments, but think of the most notorious:
Omarosa, Tana (!), Audrey, Marshawn, 'wise-guy' Erin, Stacie J, Toral, Elizabeth, Jenthura...I'm sure there's more and I know there are a fair share a crazy guys (SAM) but watching the Bossy Boobs finally get her own is just too good tv I guess.
fictionista
Nov 17, 2005 @ 6:56 pm
It's difficult for me to imagine how someone would cast someone like Marshawn in hopes that she'd turn into a scene-stealer and drama-creator like Omarosa. As soon as Marshawn begins speaking, you know that you're in the presence of an intelligent, rational, self-respecting person, and not an attention-hound who's trying to dominate the limelight. I completely disagree with the decisions Marshawn made in the Star Wars episode, and I was very disappointed, too, but there was nothing extreme or irrational about her behavior. Given her excellent qualities, I don't see why anyone should be ashamed of being likened to her. I'd be happy, personally. I don't think she left the show creating a negative image for women in general, or black women in particular, just a smart person who for whatever reason made some big mistakes in that task.[/quote]
I know you didn't say it, but just to be clear, I wasn't saying that Marshawn was cast as an Omoraosa-type, nor was I saying that anyone should be ashamed to be likened to her. Just wanted to make that clear! But I do agree with the points you made above. I do wish the Omarosa comparisons had never been made, but we can't control what others think. But the point is that in real life, black women have had to deal with Omarosa comparisons on their jobs, which makes me give a major WORD! to this:
If I'm in the position to hire someone, and I see one black applicant, I might say to myself, "I know if I hire her she will work harder than everyone else to prove herself." I might also say, "Ooh, I'm not going to hire her, she's either going to be a control freak, way too bossy, or just lazy."
This is what the Apprentice does in my opinion. It gives us a set of stereotypes and dares us to not notice them. It makes a spectacle out of being human that's just ridiculous. People at home watching don't care that these contestant's are out of their elements, stressed, and on national tv. The cameras tell us that this is a realistic situation, and if it's realistic then the contestants must be acting normally.
[/quote]
Whether or not this is intentional on the part of the producers, none of us know. IMO, it's not. But it's a very real byproduct of this show and it's worth delving into.
tjmor
Nov 18, 2005 @ 12:38 am
I'm not trying to say that there are thousands of people across the country who aren't hiring minorities because of this show. But if a person already has a prejudice (either conscious or unconscious), and they see someone like Craig fumbling for words, and behaving as unprofessionally as he often did, it can really reinforce those prejudices. [/quote]
I see your point, Blocked Writer. While I agree with you, I also think that Craig should have taken at least some responsibility for being on the show and understanding that his bad performance had the ability to reiforce all kinds of prejudicies.
blocked writer
Nov 18, 2005 @ 4:10 am
While I agree with you, I also think that Craig should have taken at least some responsibility for being on the show and understanding that his bad performance had the ability to reiforce all kinds of prejudicies. [/quote]
While I agree that Craig probably hasn't got much self-awareness, I think that's true for many people who try out for these shows. To me it's one thing for a person who is deluded into thinking they are better than they are, but it's a whole other thing when the producers cast that person. Very few people are completely objective about their own abilities. The casting people are responsible in this case to me, not people like Craig (an many others) who IMO, were clearly no-hopers from the start.
For no other reason than being able to give a good argument in the boardroom, excellent communication skills should be one of the essentials. I hate the fact that the tough final four interviews come near the end of the process. They should be asking these kind of hard questions during the casting process, then we wouldn't have so many "characters" foisted on us who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, or even getting through the final four interviews. Mark Burnett & TPTB obviously think this is what people want to see, and to be fair, some people do want to see that. But it really brings down the level of play, IMO. And that's solely the responsibility of TPTB, not the applicants.
StickyKeys
Nov 18, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
I agree completely blocked writer. I think that contestant's lack of self awareness sets them up for failure, and that to an extent, the producers see thisand act on it.
Is it always negative? Probably not, does it always provide the desired results? Definitely not.
Chicagoland
Nov 18, 2005 @ 12:31 pm
Quite a few 'Type A white males' have had "WTF" moments in the past shows. John, Brian, and Todd from S3 and the 3 Frat boys fired with 'Jenthura' this season.
sesstr
Nov 18, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
the way Verna and Ivana were portrayed? Is it a race thing, or a women thing, and if it's a women thing, then why do you think that is?[/quote]
I think one of the most sexist things said on the show was Ivana's "fembot" comment to Jen M, which shows that it is not only men who objectify women. Ivana also called Jen M a "dumb blonde" which is most definitely a racist thing to say, not a bit better than a white person calling an Asian person something like "automaton accountant type".
The stereotype of a pretty white woman as shallow and brainless decoration was also present in the comments given by Trump's minions on Amy. They pretty much summed up her worth in terms of her appearance: her teeth, her giggle, her apparent Stepford Wife too-perfect quality.
So I think the gender thing is something that happens not only in terms of editing, but also between the participants of the show themselves.
Lily Bart
Nov 18, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
Ivana also called Jen M a "dumb blonde" which is most definitely a racist thing to say, not a bit better than a white person calling an Asian person something like "automaton accountant type". [/quote]
I respectfully disagree. The dumb blonde remark was bitchy and prejudiced -- in that Ivana pre-judged Jen M as being stupid based on her hair colour. But it's not racist. Racism is about hate and power; prejudice -- or making an assumption about someone based on their height, weight, hair colour, sex, age, ethnicity or religion -- is something we are all guilty of at some time or another.
I'm half West Indian and it irks me to no end when people think a Jamaican accent is a West Indian accent. Or that I have to explain that the Bahamas and Bermuda are literally not in the Caribbean Sea and therefore not part of the Caribbean. At all. It annoys me that restaurants throw pineapple, coconut or mango in with chicken and call it "Caribbean". Shut up. We don't eat pineapple, and we don't stuff every food we can find with mangoes or coconut. Those are things that are irritating and prejudiced, to me, but they're not racist.
StickyKeys
Nov 18, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
While I agree it's not entirely racist, I think we can definitely agree that it's racially insensitive, as are the examples that are given.
The definition of what is truly racism is HUGE and one that will kind of throw the thread off topic if debated, for the sake of argument, unless hiring practices are directly involved, can we agree that wording should be restricted to prejudice, or racial insensitivity? Just to promote clarity.
Does anyone else have any other suggestions?
Lily Bart
Nov 18, 2005 @ 8:37 pm
can we agree that wording should be restricted to prejudice, or racial insensitivity? Just to promote clarity.[/quote]
Sounds good to me, StickyKeys:) And sorry about the rant y'all.
tjmor
Nov 18, 2005 @ 11:32 pm
It annoys me that restaurants throw pineapple, coconut or mango in with chicken and call it "Caribbean". Shut up. We don't eat pineapple, and we don't stuff every food we can find with mangoes or coconut. Those are things that are irritating and prejudiced, to me, but they're not racist.[/quote]
LilyBart,
I can tell a hamburger and hot dog apart, and I really don't want to know what goes inside them. But I honestly wouldn't know how to tell Caribbean cousine apart from the cousine of the neighboring region. I assure you that this is not prejudice. I am simply uneducated in these matters. I am not proud of it, but there is so much going on around that I really have to prioritize and group all the things that I must, want or wouldn't mind to learn about in my free time. Reading these posts is very educational - I do thank you and other posters.
... Mango with chicken? And that mango is warm? Seriously?
Chironian
Nov 19, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
And you know what? That Indian woman acts just like my boss when she's stressed out, and my boss is Indian, a lot of Indians must act like that. Oh and you know Marshawn? She acted just like Omarosa, I haven't had too much experience with black women, but everyone I've met has a chip on their shoulder, all black women must act like that. It's a good thing the black men are in line though, usually they're so rough and mean. I'm glad Trump found some calm ones, I had no idea they even existed.
And so on, and so on, and so on, and in the middle are normal, hard working, proud people of color saying, "What the &%*$# just happened?!"[/quote]
I can guarantee you that there's also "white" people saying the same thing. That would be my reaction if someone likened Marshawn's behavior to Omarosa's. I'm scratching my head a bit right now imagining the scenes above. I would be cautious about assuming that the people described above are in the majority, or represent how "most white people think."[/quote]
CheekyCricket, I agree with your first response to
StickyKeys's post, but disagree with the last line. If I understand you correctly, your first point (where you said that there are also white people saying the same thing) is that clear-headed thinking about racial issues is not confined to people of color alone. ITA. However, your last sentence implies that
StickyKeys had said that only white people would be suckered in by the negative racial stereotypes presented (inadvertently or not) by the show. I don't think that's what SK said, nor would I agree with that proposition if it had been expressed.
These stereotypes can and do filter into all of our brains and color (heh) all of our perceptions, often regardless of our individual experiences. Being a member of a minority racial group doesn't stop us from harboring negative stereotypes about other minority racial groups. So, for instance, if I am Indian and work with a black woman, my being Indian does nothing to stop me from assuming she's an Omarosa, and her being black does nothing to stop her from assuming I'm a Toral.
I'm half West Indian and it irks me to no end when people think a Jamaican accent is a West Indian accent. Or that I have to explain that the Bahamas and Bermuda are literally not in the Caribbean Sea and therefore not part of the Caribbean. At all. It annoys me that restaurants throw pineapple, coconut or mango in with chicken and call it "Caribbean". Shut up. We don't eat pineapple, and we don't stuff every food we can find with mangoes or coconut. Those are things that are irritating and prejudiced, to me, but they're not racist.[/quote]
I hear you, Lily Bart, on the accent annoyance (but I think you meant to say that it irritates you that a West Indian accent is automatically assumed to be Jamaican, since the reverse is always true), but I give folks a pass on the Caribbean thing. Guyanese people are typically proud West Indians and are a huge part of the Caribbean community in my hometown, but Guyana's in South America, y'all. Issues of identity are often fluid, and dependent more on culture than geography.
And...back on topic: What does everyone here make of the fact that in the past four seasons, there's only been one black man on the cast, but he always makes it to the final four? (I'm presuming that Randal's going to make it through another week.)
blocked writer
Nov 19, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
And...back on topic: What does everyone here make of the fact that in the past four seasons, there's only been one black man on the cast, but he always makes it to the final four? (I'm presuming that Randal's going to make it through another week.)[/quote]
I think that's a good point to ponder. My gut feeling is that Trump doesn't really want to hire a black man, and in the end always finds a way to eliminate them. But I know that's an oversimplification, and I don't think it is really always that simple.
Sometimes, luck plays a big part of how people reach the final four. I think this helped Craig a lot. Kevin's elimination at the final four is a more problematic issue for me. People have mentioned that at 29 he should no longer be a student, but that's still young enough for a person to have a successful career. People in their mid-30s and older have changed careers and have done very well.
I thought that using something against Kevin that they knew about him from the beginning was wrong. There were a couple of missteps on his part, and I'd have been comfortable had they used any one of those to eliminate him. Actually, I hate the idea of them using anything to eliminate any candidate that they knew when they cast that person.
I'm not a fan of Alla, but since I'm sure they knew she had been a stripper, or had been involved in a murder case in the past, I really would hate to hear it come up during the final four interviews. I think those things are enough to keep someone from being cast in the first place. But unless they have concealed something crucial, once they are cast despite them, my feeling is that they shouldn't have to answer for those things.
Lily Bart
Nov 19, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
I hear you, Lily Bart, on the accent annoyance (but I think you meant to say that it irritates you that a West Indian accent is automatically assumed to be Jamaican, since the reverse is always true)[/quote]
Yes, sorry, that is what I meant.
but I give folks a pass on the Caribbean thing. Guyanese people are typically proud West Indians and are a huge part of the Caribbean community in my hometown, but Guyana's in South America, y'all. Issues of identity are often fluid, and dependent more on culture than geography. [/quote]
Yeah, that was my point, though. That those are things that are irksome to
me, but they don't necessarily mean that others are racist/prejudiced. I don't hold it against someone for not knowing that accents vary from island to island, etc.
Topic:
What does everyone here make of the fact that in the past four seasons, there's only been one black man on the cast, but he always makes it to the final four?[/quote]
Hmm. Well in Season 1, Kwame made it to final two, but IMO, Bill did deserve to win. I think it's possible Jen M made it past Kevin because she's a woman, and there were rumblings about whether or not a woman would make it to final two/win. So now you've got two male winners. Enter Kendra and Tana for final two. Kendra wins. Female winner? Check.
I'm betting on Randal for this season. He's quite capable, and so far, I think he and Alla are the strongest. If he wins, he deserves it based on his own performance and merits, but do you guys think he's possibly a shoo-in partly because MB & DT "need" a black Apprentice? (I suck at conspiracy theories, I know.)
blocked writer
Nov 19, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
If he wins, he deserves it based on his own performance and merits, but do you guys think he's possibly a shoo-in partly because MB & DT "need" a black Apprentice? (I suck at conspiracy theories, I know.) [/quote]
I really don't know, but IMO, Trump made a huge mistake when he recently admitted that he felt pressure to hire a woman last year. I thought that was such a disservice to Kendra, who I thought really earned her win. I also thought it was a slap in the face to viewers. It also gave credence to a lot of the consipracy theories that have been floating around.
I don't want to invest a season in a show I think is fixed. I've been trying not to believe it for quite a while, but after Trump's stupid admission, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is. Someone mentioned on one of the threads that Trump also said that he had already decided on Bill over Kwame before the big TA1 finale, that he tried to act like there was some actual question about the choice between Kendra and Tana. I've mentioned how appalling I thought the TA2 finale was, with the big Jennifer M. put-down party.
Trump himself has idiotically let things slip that casts real doubt on the credibility of the process. I don't know why he does this, except to think that he just can't keep his lies straight. But his loose lips, and the fact that he seems very thin-skinned about criticism, makes it a distinct possibility that he feels he needs a black appentice this year. I think this is such bullshit if true, and another insult to viewers, as well as to Randal. Randal is accomplished enough that he should be given an opportunity to triumph or fail without it being fixed. All the contestants deserve that.
I wouldn't care if the majority of the winners were white, or women or whatever, if I could be shown that they really earned the win, and that there was a level playing field from the beginning. TPTB have mistakenly shown some of their tricks, and that's a damn shame - not only that they showed their hands, but they felt that they needed to employ so many tricks in the first place. IMO, they took an exciting premise and ruined it. They made it so that people are constantly wondering what they've missed, and what has been misrepresented. That should have never happened.
CheekyCricket
Nov 19, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
Trump himself has idiotically let things slip that casts real doubt on the credibitlity of the process. I don't know why he does this, except to think that he just can't keep his lies straight. But his loose lips, and the fact that he seems very thin-skinned about criticism, makes it a distinct possibility that he feels he needs a black appentice this year. [/quote]
Yes, in his fervor to self-promote, he gets carried away and lets things out that he later has to backtrack on. Such as (and I'm sure I'm not imagining this) announcing last spring that one of this season's candidates is a former stripper; notice how there hasn't been a squeak about that. The good thing is that if he thinks he "needs" a black Apprentice this season, then he's got an excellent choice in Randal, and someone who could legitimately win on his own merits. Heck, if I had a suitable job for him, I'd hire him right now, even with some of his errors during the past few weeks. What I would hate to see is if Randal won, and the gossip-mongers started spewing out the bull-crap that "Oh, he only won because Trump needed to hire someone black this season," because I think that would be bull-crap. Sigh . . .
Chironian
Nov 19, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
Such as (and I'm sure I'm not imagining this) announcing last spring that one of this season's candidates is a former stripper; notice how there hasn't been a squeak about that.[/quote]
Ha! You're not imagining things at all - Trump did let that one slip. In his post-firing Fishbowl interview, Clay says that in the infamous boardroom where Trump asked Clay if he is homosexual and Adam if he's a virgin, he also asked Alla if she used to be a stripper (and that she denied it), but that the whole exchange got edited out.
Thank God this isn't a real job interview, or Trump would face a mountain of lawsuits based on that bit of insanity alone. To bring Clay's information into the context of this thread, I wonder whether the Alla edit-out (if Clay is to be believed) was a result of some sensitivity to her as a female candidate? If Alla had been Allan, a former Chippendales dancer, would he have gotten a similar edit?
And I agree with your post, CheekyCricket - the "pressure to hire a (fill-in-the-blank) Apprentice" idea is so backwards that it bleeds a deserved win of all of its dignity (well, as much as anything associated with Trump can be said to have dignity). It casts unfair aspersions on Kendra's win, and would most likely do the same to Randal. If Trump were so interested in hiring a (fill-in-the-blank) Apprentice, he would do better to choose an entire cast of capable candidates in the first place, rather than filling up the suite with some good folks and some random lunatics.
StickyKeys
Nov 20, 2005 @ 1:44 am
I wonder why the distinction of needing to hire a "blank" lawyer even exists?
Will we ever hear the words, "Ohh, Kelly won because they needed to hire a white man this season"? If we did, what kind of thoughts would that put in your head. What would the show be like if the first three winners were a Latino man, a Black man, and an Afro-Asian woman (wow, would that EVER happen?)?
blocked writer
Nov 20, 2005 @ 2:59 am
I wonder why the distinction of needing to hire a "blank" lawyer even exists?[/quote]
I think it exists because there have been several articles over the seasons that were critical of the way minorities, especially blacks, were portrayed on Mark Burnett shows. When you add in the fact that both Bill Rancic and Kelly Perdew are white males, the treatment of Stacie Jones, and many other things that have happened on the show, it wouldn't really surprise me if TPTB decided that things needed to be tweaked in a certain direction, in order to try to counteract those criticisms.
Trump's comments to the press haven't helped matters, nor has the fact that he seems to be hypersensitive to criticism. For all his ego, Trump seems to need constant reassuring and bolstering. Almost every week, Trump asks George and Carolyn to rubber stamp his decision. He constanly tells people about how great everything he owns and does is, so I can easily imagine that he would do anything to counteract the harsh and justified criticism he has received. What he overlooks is the fact that people can see through a lot of these machinations, which I think is one of the reasons the ratings have dropped. But I can well imagine Trump saying, "I'll hire a woman, then a black man, and that'll show people that I'm not prejudiced!"
No matter what the truth of the matter, I agree with this sentiment:
If Trump were so interested in hiring a (fill-in-the-blank) Apprentice, he would do better to choose an entire cast of capable candidates in the first place, rather than filling up the suite with some good folks and some random lunatics.[/quote]
There are outstanding people out there from all backgrounds, and if they cast them in every slot, instead of including a certain amount of "characters" it would raise the level of play, and I don't think the question of the race or sex of the winners would have been as big an issue.
StickyKeys
Nov 20, 2005 @ 3:35 am
And while that of course is fantastic logic for a real business, here you have a combination of business and entertainment. Reality tv has surmised that Americans don't want to see people naturally do well. They believe that the more drama possible the better the ratings and in ways they are right, but I think those ways are different that what they assume.
Anyhow, due to this we get capable players, and we also get freaks.
blocked writer
Nov 20, 2005 @ 4:42 am
Reality tv has surmised that American's don't want to see people naturally do well. They believe that the more drama possible the better the ratings and in ways they are right, but I think those ways are different that what they assume.[/quote]
But the popularity of long running game shows like Jeopardy prove that this isn't always the case. Ken Jennings' long winning streak proved that excellence can be appreciated by a lot of people. The ratings for the show increased substatially during his run.
I think that is especially true for people of color. Just speaking for myself, I long to see more people of different backgrounds portrayed in a positive, yet realistic light on TV. We've seen enough buffoons, criminals, and incompetents over the years, both in fictional characters, and in real people on the news. I've known so many accomplished, intelligent black people in my life, yet rarely do I see that type of person on TV.
I don't expect or want to see unrealistically "saintly" people. But I've seen quite enough of stereotypically bad behavior from people of color to last a lifetime. TA had a chance to do something better than to appeal to the lowest common denominator, or the desire for schadenfreude in people, but they didn't. More's the pity.
StickyKeys
Nov 20, 2005 @ 6:32 am
The thing about the Jeopard deal is, can you imagine a reality show with Ken Jennings? And how many people were tuning in to just see him fail (not saying this did or didn't happen, but it's like people who go to NASCAR races for the crashes)?
In The Apprentice we learn not only about their business style, but also their personality, and sometimes personal tidbits of their lives.
blocked writer
Nov 20, 2005 @ 9:43 am
The thing about the Jeopard deal is, can you imagine a reality show with Ken Jennings? And how many people were tuning in to just see him fail (not saying this did or didn't happen, but it's like people who go to NASCAR races for the crashes)?[/quote]
Yeah, StickyKeys, I really can imagine someone like Ken Jennings on the show. He happened to have quite a quriky and fun personality (to me, anyway). I do think a certain number of people were watching to see when Ken Jennings would fail, but so many more were watching in awe of his run, and his wide store of knowledge. I think that given a choice between seeing "personalities" making fools of themselves and some really excellent competition, I'd certainly choose the latter, and I think a lot of other people would too.
TA doesn't have enough diversity, not only ethnic diversity, but overall diversity. There have only been a couple of heavy men, and no women who were overweight to any significant degree. A lot of the guys have looked like clones of one another. AFAIK, there have been no American Indians, no Arab-Americans, and only one Asian man.
I don't want to see a checklist or a quota, I'd just like to see them make a concerted effort to cast a wider net. Trump makes it obvious that he values good looks in a woman, so we get a lot of women who were chosen for their looks more than anything else. Not to say some of those women aren't also good business women, and not that all of them have been beauties. But I think it would have been more interesting to show all kinds of people. But maybe that's just me. Although I like eye candy well enough, in a competition like this, I wouldn't care if half of them looked like trolls if they brought a good game. But maybe I'm really in the minority on this.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.