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

StickyKeys

Nov 14, 2005 @ 1:12 am

I know, I know, it's so late in the season, but after Thursday night, and Jacob's brilliant essay questions in the latest recap I thought a thread about how minorities (both racial, and sexual) are viewed on the Apprentice, and is this a product of editing, or just bad casting?

Are black women really cold, emotionless unfeeling executives with a chip on their shoulders, or was Omarosa that terrible (and yes, I'm finally admitting it)?

And what makes the difference between the ways that Kwaame, or Randal are portrayed, and 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?

Heh, lots to think about, I can't wait to get started.

Jacob

Nov 14, 2005 @ 2:34 am

Just one caveat -- and thanks for creating this thread, Sticky -- but please remember to keep your comments firmly centered on the show. No overarching theories, no holier-than-thou/who's most outraged crap. Just talk about the show, and stereotypes in the show.

If this thread proves too insane and I have to smack y'all down every couple of days, it might just go missing. Too much work for me, and I really hate it when I have to warn and ban and get snippy and mean. Especially in this thread, which could prove to be really fascinating. Please respect it.

blackwing

Nov 14, 2005 @ 11:01 am

I'm wondering why there have been no East Asian males on the show, in four seasons. I know we had Raj, but he's half-Indian and except for his name, I would have had no idea. We've had two East Asian females (S1 Tammy and S2 Ivana, both Chinese-American, I believe) and the unforgettable snob, Toral, on this season.

I don't buy the explanation that there are no East Asian males who apply to this show. There are lots of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. males in the business world, and I'm wondering why none have shown up.

I honestly think that Burnett has something against Asian males. He casts Asian females because of the "exotic" and "alluring" factor, but the only Asian male he cast on Survivor that I can remember is that tool that said he wanted to "represent" who was the first guy voted out several seasons ago, Daniel (?). Have there been any others?

Maybe it's for the best. If an Asian male were to make it onto TA that Burnett would probably portray him as the stereotypical pocket protector-wearing, good at math, geek.

marketdoctor

Nov 14, 2005 @ 11:32 am

It's an interesting question. My personal opinion is that MB knows that stereotypes make for good TV, and overcoming stereotypes makes for good TV. That's why you see so many shots of Clay talking about being gay, but none of (for example) Randall talking about his family. That or it's a small, non-random sample. It helps a lot to be successful enough to be a viable job candidate and weird enough to be good TV to be on this show. Consider Danny: white, male, no obvious religious or other groups classically discriminated against...and shown on the show as a together person (whether due to editing or other reasons is a subject for the Danny thread.)

I think the show tries to make everyone it can look either really bad or really good, and put people under enough stress that they don't look good all the time. So IMO, minority groups on the show look bad because they try to make everyone but the winner look bad.
I don't know if that means Randall is going to win, or if Randall was picked specifically so they could say "Look at Randall" when the discrimination issue comes up.

(It's also possible I'm mistaken, and someone involved in the process is in the National Alliance, but the truth is probably more moderate than that.)

hengist

Nov 14, 2005 @ 2:32 pm

Part of this perception has to do with the mathematics of small numbers. Compared to the actual racial demographics of the United States, blacks have actually been (slightly) overrepresented on this show. Asians have been (slightly) underrepresented. The male/female sub-slices of each race don't work out quite so well, but how much can you chop up 1/2 of a person, without drafting a disproportionate number of transsexuals? Half the candidates have been women.

Of the people who made the final six on each season, both blacks and asians have been overrepresented (but again, only slightly).

Of the two people fired first on each show, all have been white (one of them, I believe, Hispanic).

Only three people have won this show, all of them white. Statistically, that's hardly unusual, since 70% of the population (and over 80% if you include Hispanics) are white.

Most of the people who have lost prior to the final six, for reasons of dramatic consistency, have been shown to be incompetent in some form or another.

Some reasonably large percentage (33%?) of these contestants (black, white, asian and other) are chosen because of their innate looniness quotient. Markus? Danny? Sam? White men, all of them. So sure, some women are going to look loony, too. And some of them will be black, or asian, or other.

So taking a small population (say, black women): it's not statistically unlikely that none of them made the final six, and it's not unusual for each of them, individually, to be portrayed poorly as a consequence.

And I'm not feeling like the individual breakdown is all that bad:

Kwame: Good, but not quite good enough
Omarosa: Nuts
Stacyj: Not nuts, but not good at reading a room or articulating a defense
Verna: Sort of nuts, but probably not predictably so
Tara: Management screwup
Kevin: Good, but not quite good enough
Marshawn: Strategic screwup
Randal: Still going

Toral: Nuts
Ivana: Lightweight

So 40% nuts.

Last season alone, how many white people were portrayed as crazy? Audrey, Brian, Chris, Danny, John, Kristen, Michael, Tana? Maybe Erin? Eight or nine out of fourteen? So 55-60% nuts?

I don't think this show tries to disproportionately make minorities look bad, it just tries to make everyone look bad.

scarletsmith

Nov 14, 2005 @ 2:39 pm

Kwame: Good, but not quite good enough
Omarosa: Nuts
Stacyj: Not nuts, but not good at reading a room or articulating a defense
Verna: Sort of nuts, but probably not predictably so
Tara: Management screwup
Kevin: Good, but not quite good enough
Marshawn: Strategic screwup
Randal: Still going[/quote]

You left off:

Craig: Competent at first; later revealed to be megalomaniacal condescending contrarian

Craig is actually the most interesting case to me; he was relatively quiet early on, had a few moments when he butted heads with the admittedly difficult Audrey, but then he hit a home run on the Home Depot task with his "build the box" workshop, and looked like a surefire candidate to go far. But just a few tasks later, he went insubordinate on the Solstice task, ripped Kendra a new one on the Staples task, fought with her the whole way through the Hanes task, and made the egregious error of telling one of Trump's interviewers that he wanted Trump to go into the subsidized housing markets and thought he should be the one fronting that effort in the Trump organization. In other words, he went from FUTR to jockeying for position to frontrunner to overreacher to complete f'ing lunatic in half a season.

debng

Nov 14, 2005 @ 2:40 pm

I do believe candidates are selected (Omorosa, Marcus, Danny, Sam) because of how they will play out on television as opposed to whether or not they will be the best people to work for the Trump organization. Once they're on camera they're portrayed in a way that makes for the best television. For some people (the aforementioned Omorosa perhaps) this isn't too difficult and their negative qualities don't need to be exaggerated. Is it racist or sterotypical? I'm not sure. Is getting hit with a piece of plaster and sitting out the next couple of tasks as a result, really being portrayed in a bad light? Is sleeping on the floor when you're supposed to be working being portrayed in a bad light?

I submit there are nutjobs from all walks of life. The producers work with what they're given. If you don't want to be unfairly portrayed do your task to the best of your ability, don't talk shit about people on camera and stay away from Magic 8 Balls.

No one enters blindly into reality television. They can't be so naive they expect to be portrayed in a sunny light all the time, that's just boring. Drama, cat fights and negativity sell. If you're afraid of how you'll look to the world, it's best to stay away from these shows and stick with your day job.

el Robbo

Nov 14, 2005 @ 3:19 pm

The only way to understand what is going on here would be to witness the casting process. With that hidden, we can't really know who was chosen for what "role" on the show -- professional or problem. I think some people are chosen specifically because they're problems, and that they are there to test the competent players as well as make for dramatic TV.

But with only seeing these finalists and without seeing the initial pool of auditions, it's guesswork trying to draw conclusions on how MB and TD feel about specific groups.

Except for straight white men, of course. Er ... unless MB is gay?

CheekyCricket

Nov 14, 2005 @ 3:48 pm

No one enters blindly into reality television. They can't be so naive they expect to be portrayed in a sunny light all the time, that's just boring. Drama, cat fights and negativity sell. If you're afraid of how you'll look to the world, it's best to stay away from these shows and stick with your day job. [/quote]
Amen, sister or brother. I wouldn't dream of going on one of these shows, myself, because I doubt that I'd win, and in the process of losing, I wouldn't want to look like a bozo on national television. So I expect that anyone who makes the choice to go on a show like the Apprentice should have thought through the consequences. The trouble is that some ambitious people have a blind spot toward their own faults and foibles, and when a see themselves doing or saying something stupid, they blame others for creating the faults or foibles, they blame others for falsely maligning them

Back to the topic, and about this last episode. To me, Marshawn's screwup says absolutely nothing about race or gender. She made a mistake that other candidates have made, whether you want to call it overstrategizing which led to a bad decision, or concentrating on the short term and overlooking the long term, which led to a preoccupation on surviving through that particular task, and forgetting about how performance on that task will affect long-term success in the competition. It's not uncommon, it's not something particular to black women. It might be something more common to highly analytical types who tend to stand back, scrutinize and evaluate a situation before jumping in. Or not jumping in. That type of person can be at a disadvantage in a competition like the Apprentice, since there is a limited amount of time for analysis and decision-making, and candidates often have to go on their gut instincts, and hopefully their past experiences. So I see Marshawn's as fairly predictable for reasons that have nothing to do with being a woman or being African-American.

But with only seeing these finalists and without seeing the initial pool of auditions, it's guesswork trying to draw conclusions on how MB and TD feel about specific groups.

Except for straight white men, of course. Er ... unless MB is gay? [/quote] Considering that we'd have to factor in "straight white male" candidates such as Danny, Michael, little Brian (all from season 3), Sam, Markus, and [add your favorite bozo here], it's tricky to conclude how MB and TD feel about straight white men.

Brachiator

Nov 14, 2005 @ 6:36 pm

Are black women really cold, emotionless unfeeling executives with a chip on their shoulders, or was Omarosa that terrible (and yes, I'm finally admitting it)? [/quote]
Huh? Omarosa wasn’t emotionless and unfeeling (and how could anyone, such as Omarosa or Clay, with chips on their shoulders be unfeeling). She seemed to be a person who loved to stir shit up, and has trailed her slime to other shows and appearances, leaving a similarly negative impression wherever she goes, a female version of Survivor’s Johnny Fairplay. But what is sad is how white men and most white women are seen as individual successes or failures, but how black women and to a lesser extent other nonwhites are shoehorned into being “representative” of their people or worse, as variations of the most negative ethnic character seen on a particular show. So, for example, some have “seen” Marshawn as “another” Omarosa even though their backgrounds, accomplishments and actions were not remotely similar. Marshawn, for example, tried to help her team in the DQ task, while Omarosa appeared to have an instinctive knack for always choosing the one thing that would hinder or derail her team or another potential Apprentice.

As an aside, I could never quite decide whether there was any ethnic discriminatory component to the way that the Uniblonders marginalized Toral and Marshawn. I tend to think “no” because they welcomed Randal, but this still has a slightly sour vibe.

I honestly think that Burnett has something against Asian males. He casts Asian females because of the "exotic" and "alluring" factor, but the only Asian male he cast on Survivor that I can remember is that tool that said he wanted to "represent" who was the first guy voted out several seasons ago, Daniel (?). Have there been any others? [/quote]
But Ivana was geeky, skanky and and ultimately stupidly self-destructive. The other Asian women didn't consistently register as particularly sexy or exotic, but seemed more or less Americanized and assimilated. Toral was composed, regal and aristocratic (OK, well, snobbish), but hardly typically exotic and alluring. Also, The Donald gets a rap when he casts attractive people and a rap when he casts “regular looking people” (like most of the Street Smarts vs Book Smarts cast).

Bottom line: I think that it seems that for some (and not just white people) white folk are just on TV, while the presence of nonwhites has to be “explained,” but this has little to do with the shows producers. Some viewers pull out their own bag of narrow stereotypes with which to categorize people because it is more comforting. Fortunately, as the examples of Randal and Kwame (and his faithful sidekick Troy) show, it’s not all about stereotyping.

That's why you see so many shots of Clay talking about being gay, but none of (for example) Randall talking about his family.[/quote]
Huh? Randal’s feelings about his family, and his leaving a task to attend a family funeral were a small, but significant part of the show. Also, wouldn’t Randal talking about being black be a more appropriate parallel to Clay talking about being gay?

Last season alone, how many white people were portrayed as crazy? Audrey, Brian, Chris, Danny, John, Kristen, Michael, Tana? Maybe Erin? Eight or nine out of fourteen? So 55-60% nuts?[/quote]
Word, hengist. Also, I don’t think that anyone has seriously opined that Trump and Burnett are trying to make any statement about white people when their behavior is loopy.

Lily Bart

Nov 14, 2005 @ 7:08 pm

I'm wondering if there is a cultural issue that plays into casting. That is to say, certain cultures are much more private and insular, and less emotional than Western/Americanized ones, and perhaps this has something to do with how many (and which) ethnic/racial minorities appear on reality shows in general and TA in particular. I'm not arguing one way or the other; merely suggesting a possible factor.

Also, I don’t think that anyone has seriously opined that Trump and Burnett are trying to make any statement about white people when their behavior is loopy.[/quote]

Exactly. I think an argument could be made if every white contestant had been portrayed in a flattering light, but since that's not the case, I don't think it holds water. The edit/portrayal contestants get, I think, is largely based on what makes for "good" television.

holdfast

Nov 14, 2005 @ 8:08 pm

blocked writer

Nov 14, 2005 @ 9:08 pm

Also, I don’t think that anyone has seriously opined that Trump and Burnett are trying to make any statement about white people when their behavior is loopy.[/quote]

I don't think Trump and Burnett really could make any statement about white people. They have been the majority of people on TV for so long, that no matter what the behavior, good or bad, strange or wacky, most people never assign any of it to race. However, there are so many negative stereotypes out there about people of color, that when they behave or are portrayed to have behaved in a strange way, many people do attribute it to their race. There have been several articles over the years have talked about how crazy, strange, or eccentric TA1's Sam, TA2's Raj, and TA3's Danny were. But never once have I heard or read their race mentioned. I don't think it even occurred to most people to think of their race as a factor, one way or the other. They might be looked at as crazy guys, but not crazy white guys.

But it has real-life repercussions when a person of color is viewed as a crazy or imcompetent. It reinforces negative stereotypes that people are still struggling to overcome in their jobs, getting housing, etc.

I have to question whether someone like Craig in TA3 was ever a serious considered a serious contender, or if he was cast as cannon fodder. Given his problems expressing himself, I can't imagine that he was all that impressive at the interview. I think he was someone they cast in order to look egalitarian, without ever expecting him to go far in the game. I think they've done the same with some of the white contenders, like Danny. But there are usually at least four or five other white candidates who balance out people like Danny.

I have no problem with Marshawn's firing on the show. She messed up, and she had to go. But Stacie J's situation in TA2 was a lot more problematic for me. Not only did Trump handle the situation in a terrible way, I have serious questions as to why she was targeted with such ferocity. The Apex women were some nasty bitches, to be sure, but I think it went deeper than that. I wonder if Stacie's weird behavior would have been laughed off if she had been white? Would the 8-ball incident have been described as the scariest thing Stacy R had ever seen if it wasn't coming from a black woman? If Stacie had been white, I wonder if would they have been more willing to brush it off as an isolated incident, and given her the benefit of the doubt if she had acted pretty normally after that?

Consciously or unconsciously, would everyone on the team except Jennifer M. be so quick to declare her crazy if somewhere in their minds she hadn't been a "scary black woman?" Would Trump have been so willing to accept their word about Stacie if she was white, or would he have at least questioned if the team had an agenda other than genuine concern or fear? If the situation was reversed and Stacie was the only white woman on a team of women of color, would Trump have treated the whole thing in the same way? I don't know, I honestly don't. But these questions remain in my mind, and they bother me.

What made Stacie's situation even worse for me is the fact that the editors deliberately misrepresented a situation to make Stacie look bad, and they later let us know they did it. In the ice cream task, Stacie was sitting on the floor, calling to inquire about hiring temps to help out on the task. From Ivana's comments and reaction, it looked like Stacie had gone off without discussion or permission to do that. It wasn't until the extra boardroom footage show that Saturday that they show deleted footage which clearly demonstrated that Ivana had okayed Stacie's call, supposedly as busywork, even though Ivana originally tried to deny it. Unfortunately, only a fraction of the people who watched the Thursday shows also watched the EBF Saturday shows, and the damage was done.

I haven't trusted the editors since that show. My guess is that they still had the controversy of Omarosa fresh in their minds, and they saw a chance to edit Stacie as being as crazy or incompetent as possible; another crazy black woman to draw viewers, the truth be damned. Otherwise, why originally misrepresent the temp incident, and only clarify it on a lesser-watched show?

I know there is a great deal of editing done with all the candidates, mainly for practical purposes, since they can't show everything. But if they misrepresent incidents in some cases for drama, it is a much more serious matter when the person isn't white, since any pandering to stereotypes is dangerous IMO.

Brachiator

Nov 14, 2005 @ 9:38 pm

It might not be crazy to think that the producer's have at least some subliminal stereotypes in mind and recruit with that in mind. I am speculating that they may have decided that they want the African-American females that they recruit to be "brassy", hence Assorama and StaceyJ, whereas they brefer African-American males to be quiet and competent - hency Kwame and Randal. [/quote]
The brassy Alla must be Black Russian, then, holdfast. And if the producers have “subliminal” stereotypes in mind, wouldn’t these be the same stereotypes that some viewers might hold? But even so, Omarosa was almost sociopathic, not simply“brassy,” while StacieJ and Verna were more fragile than brassy, and StacieJ was the victim of a coven and didn’t fight back very strongly, while Omarosa treated everyone as plaster falling down from the ceiling of her little demented world. Marshawn failed for laying back, not for getting into anyone’s face. It’s like a variation of that old saying that while a man is bold, a woman is a bitch, and a black woman is “brassy,” when their behavior is exactly the same – merely human.

The producers obviously want vivid personalities, people who will stand out on TV and who will make for exciting TV. But why should black women or (in the case of Clay) gay men be labeled as stereotypes when they exhibit exactly the same behavior as the white male or white female contestants?

It also seems clear that Randal is waaaay over-qualified (at least on paper - ie his CV) compared to everyone else on this season. Whether this is by design or just happenstance is something that only Trump and MB know for sure. If he was recruited to win, then they did a good job - not only does he have the CV, but he is a really quality player, good at leading and following (though not as good a Star Wars fan as he might think). [/quote]
Kwame had impressive credentials as well, but didn’t win, in part because his credentials did not impress the Wall of Interviews; and Randal is going to have to … step up … (sorry, couldn’t help myself) in order to outperform the consistently creative Alla, or possibly even dark horse Rebecca. But hell, Marshawn seemed a lock until she choked, so I hope that Trump and MB are smart enough to realize that the you can’t guarantee results based on what looks good on paper.

That said, it would be fun not only to see Randal win, but also to see him in a future episode acting as NotGeorge, watching over some task being performed by a new generation of potential Jedi - uh, I mean Apprentices.

RainIsBeautiful

Nov 14, 2005 @ 9:39 pm

I commented on the race issue nearly a year ago, here, and my opinion is the same. Where are the Hispanics? And don't even get me started on how the country folk are portrayed on this show...

Lily Bart

Nov 14, 2005 @ 11:49 pm

I'm biracial, but I personally didn't see the Stacie J incident as having anything to do with being black. She was scapegoated because she was the most convenient target that week. There was a major pattern of that in season 2 and that was just one example. It was definitely the worst, but it wasn't the only one.

But what I found surprising this season are some of the comments about Alla--the Russian princess and red mafia/hitwoman jokes, her accent, (which, by the way, is vague and not at all what a heavy Russian accent sounds like). I know everyone who goes on the show leaves themselves open to ridicule and criticism, but if she were Asian or Latin or Black, that would not have been acceptable.

Peg Amy

Nov 15, 2005 @ 12:39 am

I think the problem with this question is that so much of it depends on how the candidates are perceived. For example, I loved Tammy and Ivana (seriously, I did) so to me, Burnett cast two good Asian female candidates. Obviously, if I hated Tammy and Ivana, I would feel pretty differently about it. Also, I find it difficult to judge people who go on reality TV shows like this, since IMO, there's got to be something wrong with all of them.

I have to question whether someone like Craig in TA3 was ever a serious considered a serious contender, or if he was cast as cannon fodder. Given his problems expressing himself, I can't imagine that he was all that impressive at the interview. I think he was someone they cast in order to look egalitarian, without ever expecting him to go far in the game.[/quote]
I disagree with this. Craig had one of the best task records in Apprentice history and the best task record of any minority candidate. Did he have personality and likeablity issues? Absolutely. But I think he proved himself to be an able businessman and I don't think he was cast to be egalitarian. In contrast, Kwame (and Troy) had terrible win/loss records, but I still loved them because they were so darn likeable. People can get cast on this show for all sorts of reasons and as others have said, it's really hard to know the rationale unless you're in the room with the casting people.

Lead Magnet

Nov 15, 2005 @ 1:06 am

Lily Bart:
I'm wondering if there is a cultural issue that plays into casting. That is to say, certain cultures are much more private and insular, and less emotional than Western/Americanized ones, and perhaps this has something to do with how many (and which) ethnic/racial minorities appear on reality shows in general and TA in particular. I'm not arguing one way or the other; merely suggesting a possible factor.
[/quote]
I sense a nod toward Eastern cultures here, to which I'd counter that most of the people on TA appear to have been raised in the US or have been here a while. Even if their families espoused the classic keep-to-yourself-and-do-your-work mindset, growing up in America probably influences enough people to produce a reasonable number of willing auditionees who are (and this is the important part) just crazy enough to try to get on a reality show. [1] A corollary to that would be that the collision of East and West known as Japan has produced some of the weirdest, toughest, and most self-abasing TV game shows that I've ever seen or heard of.

Certainly the producers are going to cast with an eye toward producing the most interesting results in order to get the best interest and ratings for the show. I can't conclusively say that the candidates are being stacked to exemplify stereotypes, though--and there are plenty of sociopathic white people to go around on the show anway. IMO what we end up with on TV is the result of innate personalities being baked with external and internal stress and then edited for maximum effect.

[1] A few of my relations probably wouldn't mind trying... but they aren't crazy :)

StickyKeys

Nov 15, 2005 @ 1:28 am

Craig is kind of the enigma here. He really cast a wrench into all the Apprentice gears when he showed up. I agree with scarletsmith who said that he started out very quiet and low key, then suddenly he was at the top of his game, then he just went nuts!

But it has real-life repercussions when a person of color is viewed as a crazy or imcompetent. It reinforces negative stereotypes that people are still struggling to overcome in their jobs, getting housing, etc. [/quote]

I defintiely agree with the posters who have said that one of the main issues is when you have a white contestant that does something crazy, all white people aren't judged by their actions, but when you have a black contestant it suddenly becomes personal.

I cannot begin to tell you how many people said, "Hey Sticky! Did you see the Apprentice? Omarosa is so bad, I'm so glad you would never do anything like that!"

And then they don't understand why I become flabbergasted. I live in the heartland so I can definitely see this having varying degrees of severity, but it's something that does happen.

I am speculating that they may have decided that they want the African-American females that they recruit to be "brassy", hence Assorama and StaceyJ, whereas they brefer African-American males to be quiet and competent - hency Kwame and Randal.[/quote]

Black women have been portrayed as either weepy and weak (Verna), cold and calculated (or rather devoid of personality, like they're guarded; Marshawn, Tara), or crazy mofos (though in different ways; Stacie J, Omarosa).

I think the men have fared better because they have all fit into the same mold. Very well educated, Ivy league bred men (except for Craig who again is kind of the wrench in all of this).

To me, Marshawn's screwup says absolutely nothing about race or gender.[/quote]

I agree to a point, I don't think Marshawn's firing was warranted because it wasn't the cause of her team's loss. There were several mistakes she made, and I think not fully owning up to them is what got her canned (reference Kwame's huge debacle and how he survived despite a huge loss by being honest). The problem is that there are a ton of people who said (and I was one of them), "Oops, there it is, I was wondering when they were going to fire the [crazy, disloyal, etc] black woman."

What I wonder is would the same thing have happened if she were a white woman. Oddly enough, I think the same thing would have happened if she were a white man. I can't exactly explain why, but it definitely has to do with the standards DT has for his white male contestants.

He tends to favor the ones who are slightly crazy and gives them chances to prove whether they're genius or just nuts. They're usually nuts (Danny, Sam, Markus).

I wonder if Stacie's weird behavior would have been laughed off if she had been white?[/quote]

I wonder about this too, but only because the women specifically said they felt they were in danger. Stacie has to weigh a buck o five at the very most, where was the danger? And why was that even a feeling, we weren't shown anything she'd done beforehand to make us believe she was violent in any manner.

I think that it seems that for some (and not just white people) white folk are just on TV, while the presence of nonwhites has to be “explained,” but this has little to do with the shows producers. Some viewers pull out their own bag of narrow stereotypes with which to categorize people because it is more comforting.[/quote]

I definitely agree with this, the problem comes when these people make hiring decisions and live their lives based solely on those stereotypes.

Someone also mentioned Alla's accent and I think it's very interesting that was said. For the contestant's of color here, most of them have been very Americanized. We have had Asians, and East Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks, but they have all sounded pretty mid-Am.

On the flip side you have the white contestants whose accents have ranged from deep south, to midwest country, Boston and NE accents, and now Alla. That will definitely be something to look out for next season.

gapkid

Nov 15, 2005 @ 1:39 am

I wouldn't have minded if Tara and Marshawn had been given a free pass just once. Kwame had so many free passes and if people like Jennifer M (Season 4), Rebecca etc. were allowed to stay on, why couldn't Tara and Marshawn? Why wasn't Tara told "Tara, you screwed up, but I believe you have great potential. Audrey, your entire team hated you. You're fired" like what happened between Rebecca and Jennifer W or Jennifer M and Kristi?

tjmor

Nov 15, 2005 @ 3:26 am

I defintiely agree with the posters who have said that one of the main issues is when you have a white contestant that does something crazy, all white people aren't judged by their actions, but when you have a black contestant it suddenly becomes personal.[/quote]

Folks, I don't know if I can participate in this discussion - I am white. But there is one thing I need to say here. I think every nation and every race has crazy and nasty people as well as good, brilliant, decent folks. I am absolutely sure that not all Indians are like Toral, and not all gays are like Clay, and not all African Americans are like Craig, and not all caucasians are like the tactless person in Sticky's post or like Tana from the last season, and not all Russians are like Alla. There are so many people around to be proud of.

StickyKeys

Nov 15, 2005 @ 3:37 am

Of course you can participate in this discussion, and I agree 100% with your post. The problem is is that there are people who haven't quite grasped the concept of "ALL" is simply not a valid statement.

All black people are not lazy, all Asians are not nerds, all Latinas are not feisty mamacitas. But those stereotypes continue to live on and thrive and when you see it played out exactly so on tv, it really messes with your perceptions of the world, especially if you haven't experienced it.

I am glad that gapkid brought up all of those examples. Marshawn was doing stellar until this one incident which I still think was an issue of management, and she was horribly canned. Tara made one mistake for a sound moral reason (though still not effective) and went down in flames. I had to stop watching season 3 after that, it just got gross.

blocked writer

Nov 15, 2005 @ 6:04 am

Craig had one of the best task records in Apprentice history and the best task record of any minority candidate. Did he have personality and likeablity issues? Absolutely. But I think he proved himself to be an able businessman and I don't think he was cast to be egalitarian.[/quote]

Task records have a lot to do with luck. I don't keep track of these things, but Omarosa had to have a pretty good task record for the simple fact that she was on a team that kept winning for a number of tasks. Craig did a very good job in the Home Depot task, despite his team. But after that, he was difficult to work with, condescending, and teamed up with Tana against Kendra, so I have serious questions about just how good a businessman he is overall. I don't think task record alone says that much about a person, unless they are in some way instrumental in a number of the wins. Other than Home Depot, I don't see that Craig was.

Of all the savvy black businessmen out there that they could have picked for the Street Smarts team, I know they could have easily found someone with great business skills as well as excellent communication skills. I just don't think the casting people ever looked at Craig and thought he could go all the way on the show. YMMV.

She was scapegoated because she was the most convenient target that week. There was a major pattern of that in season 2 and that was just one example. It was definitely the worst, but it wasn't the only one.[/quote]

But Stacie wasn't the most convenient target that week, nor the week before when they also tried to get rid of her. IIRC, there were others both weeks who screwed up diffferent things that directly caused the loss of the task - Maria and Ivana going over budget one week is one example. Stacie wasn't convenient either time. They had to go out of their way to find reasons to oust her. I remember Elizabeth saying that she really had no reason to take Stacie in the boardroom.

I agree that scapegoating was a major pattern in TA2, but it started with Stacie J. Once they saw how well it worked, they kept doing it with other people. Only the participants themselves know how much race played a part, if any, in the treatment of Stacie J. It's my opinion that it was indeed a factor.

StickyKeys

Nov 15, 2005 @ 6:43 am

The thing that people forget is that Omarosa was a hard worker and actually contributed to her team until the whole drywall thing. Even afterwards in the art show where she was the only one who sold an item she played the game. The point she lost me was when she sabatoged Kwame (though she blames exhaustion, which I accepted for a while until The Surreal Life), so her having a good track record was understandable, the teams definitely won for a reason.

Craig... well, I don't know what else to say about him, he was a red herring I guess.

I agree track records can't really tell you too much though. Clay has the best track record this season so far, what does that tell you?

BlakeSpeare

Nov 15, 2005 @ 9:39 am

I agree that race had something to do with the vicious smearing of Stacie J. I think that they saw the season's only black woman acting strange, and concluded, "They cast her to be the next Omarosa! She must be nuts, and she'll make our lives miserable! Let's get rid of her as soon as we can."

fictionista

Nov 15, 2005 @ 1:50 pm

Part of this perception has to do with the mathematics of small numbers. Compared to the actual racial demographics of the United States, blacks have actually been (slightly) overrepresented on this show. Asians have been (slightly) underrepresented. The male/female sub-slices of each race don't work out quite so well, but how much can you chop up 1/2 of a person, without drafting a disproportionate number of transsexuals? Half the candidates have been women.

Of the people who made the final six on each season, both blacks and asians have been overrepresented (but again, only slightly).

Of the two people fired first on each show, all have been white (one of them, I believe, Hispanic).

Only three people have won this show, all of them white. Statistically, that's hardly unusual, since 70% of the population (and over 80% if you include Hispanics) are white.[/quote]

This is a good point, but I hope TPTB don't use these numbers as a barometer. I'll try to find my post in the Race Card thread about it, but statistically, the cities/states with the largest white population also have the largest minority populations. So essentially, most whites in America encounter more than the 10% of minorities in this country in their every day lives. So when TPTB use numbers as an excuse, I call bs on it. Besides, aren't these numbers basically an excuse to keep shows as white as possible? (Not directed at the poster, but at the casting folks who use these numbers).

This is a great discussion. I absolutely agree that Craig was not the best black candidate they could have cast. He had a shoeshine business, and what did we often get? Shots of him shining his shoes. Ok, maybe that doesn't mean much to most people, but it was sort of an elbow to the rib of the people who think black men aren't qualified to do anything but shine their corporate wing-tips. At least, that's the way I saw it.

I also agree with the position that it's harder for minorities/gays to live down the stereotypes when there are only 1 or 2 of them on the show in a given season, and that contestant becomes the "black" or "gay" or "Asian" representative. Many people in this country haven't realized that the actions of one don't represent the whole. That's why black women are still having to live down the Omarosa jokes at work.

As far as Ivana goes, I was embarassed for her. It almost seemed like she was obsessed with the pretty, blonde Jen M. I know Burnett and Co. could not have predicted that, but it was really sad.

ETA: Here's my old post if you care to read it.

holdfast

Nov 15, 2005 @ 2:22 pm

The brassy Alla must be Black Russian, then, holdfast. And if the producers have “subliminal” stereotypes in mind, wouldn’t these be the same stereotypes that some viewers might hold? But even so, Omarosa was almost sociopathic, not simply“brassy,” while StacieJ and Verna were more fragile than brassy, and StacieJ was the victim of a coven and didn’t fight back very strongly, while Omarosa treated everyone as plaster falling down from the ceiling of her little demented world. Marshawn failed for laying back, not for getting into anyone’s face. It’s like a variation of that old saying that while a man is bold, a woman is a bitch, and a black woman is “brassy,” when their behavior is exactly the same – merely human.[/quote]

I didn't say that they necesarily got what they wanted - just that they might have been trying for that, which led them astray in the first two season. And yes, these absolutely could be the same stereotypes held by viewers. Also agree with your last sentence - but still think that the folks doing the casting for the first few seasons may have been guided by just that sort of thinking. I really don't think we diagree on the fundementals here.

All black people are not lazy, all Asians are not nerds, all Latinas are not feisty mamacitas. But those stereotypes continue to live on and thrive and when you see it played out exactly so on tv, it really messes with your perceptions of the world, especially if you haven't experienced it.[/quote]

Can we please add that all Jews are not Adam, all attorneys are not Jen and all Army guys are not the Kellytron 3000?

RainIsBeautiful

Nov 15, 2005 @ 2:58 pm

And everyone from the South isn't Kristi. (Says the proud Southern girl, not at all "boldly".)

Brachiator

Nov 15, 2005 @ 3:14 pm

And don't even get me started on how the country folk are portrayed on this show...[/quote]
You mean, like elves and hobbits?

I'm biracial, but I personally didn't see the Stacie J incident as having anything to do with being black. She was scapegoated because she was the most convenient target that week.[/quote]
ITA, Lily Bart . We’ve even seen the Uniblonder coven of Alla and others ganging up on Toral and others in this most recent round of the show. But the way StacieJ was treated was so underhanded that I can see how it still resonates and bothers people.

I agree to a point, I don't think Marshawn's firing was warranted because it wasn't the cause of her team's loss. There were several mistakes she made, and I think not fully owning up to them is what got her canned.… The problem is that there are a ton of people who said (and I was one of them), "Oops, there it is, I was wondering when they were going to fire the [crazy, disloyal, etc] black woman." [/quote]
But it’s odd to see how some of the contestants don’t realize that the Boardroom is also an individual task, related to but somewhat independent of the team loss, and candidates often shoot themselves in the foot here. Randal and even Rebecca, do well here because they offer clear and honest assessments of their own and their teams’ performance, which is clearly something that Trump values. Marshawn, on the other hand, could not possibly have offered any plausible reason for refusing to give the presentation. She had added to her team’s problems by making it necessary for someone (ultimately Rebecca) to pick up the ball that she dropped, and as Bill pointed out, Marshawn wasted an opportunity to showcase her skills. And then she magnified her gaffes by downgrading the importance of the display and by attempting to BS Trump, Bill and Carolyn. As others have pointed out, she was trying not to lose, not playing for the win, and showed that she was not much of a leader. But even so, she was no more or less crazy, disloyal or delusional than Melissa (“they’re all jealous of me”) or Markus (just weird on so many levels). In fact, you could make a case that the most reliable Apprentice stereotype is that of the crazily disruptive white male.

The thing that people forget is that Omarosa was a hard worker and actually contributed to her team until the whole drywall thing. Even afterwards in the art show where she was the only one who sold an item she played the game.[/quote]
I revisited some of the early Omarosa threads, and it is clear that she started to grate early and often. I think I tried to distill her technique down to three main things: she always sought to magnify her participation in any Apprentice task, no matter how little it added to the overall team effort; she tried to gain added glory by demeaning or undermining others; and she consistently interpreted any criticism as a personal attack, and then tried to use her supposed outrage to knock her opponent off balance.

Also, as I recall, Omarosa’s puny sale of a single painting was less than 7% of the total brought in by the other team. Selling a single item was immaterial given her and her team’s total failure. And earlier she had undermined Amy in the Trump Ice task so that she could take credit for piddling water sales even though this in effect put the team in a deficit, forcing Troy to sell more to try to make up for Omarosa's grandstanding.

Can we please add that all Jews are not Adam, all attorneys are not Jen and all Army guys are not the Kellytron 3000?[/quote]

And everyone from the South isn't Kristi. (Says the proud Southern girl, not at all "boldly".)[/quote]
Word!

Psyche78

Nov 15, 2005 @ 3:38 pm

We’ve even seen the Uniblonder coven of Alla and others ganging up on Toral and others in this most recent round of the show. But the way StacieJ was treated was so underhanded that I can see how it still resonates and bothers people[/quote]
But isn't there some stereotyping in calling Alla, Felisha, Kristi, et al a coven? While both Toral and Stacie J were brought down by a group in the end, their individuals situation are so much different. As were the situations of those who brought them down. Toral deserved to go - it could be argued that she went a week later than she should have because Rebecca saved her. Toral was irritating and rude and obnoxious in her interviews, during tasks, and in the boardroom - these are certainly characteristics that would make a group of individuals decide they don't like an individual. Toral's flaming sense of superiority probably didn't earn her any admiration from her teammates, either. So when it comes down to picking someone to go, what's more logical? Picking someone you like or someone you don't like? Everyone could be unified in their dislike of Toral and their wish to see her go - I don't see that as a coven. I see that as the psychology of humans in group and interpersonal situations.

Now Stacie J - that was blown way out of proportion by a seemingly obvious in-group. Was it race related? Possibly. But Stacie J also was a fashion model (which could have incited the ire of teeny-tiny Stacy R and massive ball of jealousy Ivana). As we know from Audrey, beauty is a curse on the world (or was that the Carver?). And Asian Ivana was a part of that coven, so does that add a factor to any part of the racism question?

I just think Toral was sent packing on her own (lack of) merits, not because of her race.

CheekyCricket

Nov 15, 2005 @ 5:10 pm

The problem is that there are a ton of people who said (and I was one of them), "Oops, there it is, I was wondering when they were going to fire the [crazy, disloyal, etc] black woman." [/quote]
But to my mind, being "crazy" is quite a different matter than being "disloyal." I don't see an obvious link between those two things, unless the assumption is that every time a black woman is fired, the stated reason doesn't matter because it's just a pretext for getting rid of her. That doesn't seem quite fair.

Chicagoland

Nov 15, 2005 @ 5:58 pm

Why is it OK to trash Blonde women, [edit "Bloven" an "Barbie" terms] but then no no no to anything else??

I showed the Jessica [edit Melissa S4, Ep. #1] firing episode to my Latino friend and asked if he felt any racism. He said "No she's a b**ch".

Also, some accuse MB of racism against black women, but didn't an African American woman win ''Survivor'' one season?

blocked writer

Nov 15, 2005 @ 8:53 pm

Why is it OK to trash Blonde women, but then no no no to anything else??
[/quote]

I don't think anyone here is saying that. Among the people over the seasons who were justifiably trashed for their performances (and who aren't blonde women) are: Ivana, Craig, and Omarosa, just to name three. The gist of what I'm getting from the conversation is that people have different opinions on whether people of color and gay people are edited and portrayed fairly, treated fairly by their teammates, and judged objectively by Trump & Co.

I certainly think it's fine to ciritcize anyone who messes up on the show, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. But what if someone is criticized for apparently screwing up, when in fact they were only made to look like they did, is that fair? I don't think so. If someone who never had much of a chance to win, should they have been cast? I don't think so.

I showed the Jessica firing episode to my Latino friend and asked if he felt any racism. He said "No she's a b**ch".[/quote]

I happen to agree with you friend, but do you mena Melissa? Anyway, this doesn't mean anything in the overall picture, IMO. If a person of color is fired for good reasons, does it mean that no one else of color is treated unjustly, or hired to be cannon fodder?

Also, some accuse MB of racism against black women, but didn't an African American woman win ''Survivor'' one season?[/quote]

I don't think this proves that there is no racism, conscious or unconscious, on the part of Mark Burnett. Don't the team members vote one another off on Survivor? If so, then I think Burnett and TPTB have a lot less ability to determine the winner on that show. I don't think a win by a black woman means they've always been fair to other minorities.

tiggeril

Nov 15, 2005 @ 10:05 pm

I don't think the onus is on the show to be fair to anyone. Everyone has a different definition of fair. I think they just have to provide the viewer with an entertaining cast of characters. No one comes out of a reality show looking good, whether they're black, white, brown, or green. That doesn't have anything to do with race, in my opinion. For the most part, people tune in to reality shows to watch people act nutty, not for a discussion on race, sexual orientation, or any other hot-button topic. If nothing else, trying to make a reality show a referendum on race propagates the "model minority" myth.

Knots Landing

Nov 15, 2005 @ 10:46 pm

I don't buy into the race argument at all. Trump's show is about finding the biggest and best characters for his reality show. It's not about finding highly qualified people or even those with some decent street smarts. It's also not about finding a good Apprentice.

EVERYBODY is made a fool of, not just minorities. I don't understand why everyone thinks that, I really have no clue. There are just as many white screw ups as there are blacks and that's exactly what they want--DRAMA. I don't think it matters what race the person is, everyone is fair game with this show.

I'm sure there were many gay men who applied for this show, but why pick a highly-qualified, normal gay man when you can get the crass, sex-crazed, "bitchy woman times one-thousand" named Clay? This is Donald Trump we're talking about. We know his objective is to shock people, not let a good show create itself. It's very similar to Dynasty in the 80s.

BTW, I don't think Stacie J falls into this theory. She was thrown under the bus because it was convinent. Maybe her hair had something to do with it, but I don't think her race played a factor. Trump is very big on believing those slags when they gang up on people, but I do like that he admitted he was wrong in firing Stacie J. I really hate we never got to see what she could do, such a missed opportunity.

blocked writer

Nov 16, 2005 @ 12:48 am

EVERYBODY is made a fool of, not just minorities. I don't understand why everyone thinks that, I really have no clue. [/quote]

I totally disagree with this. I don't see how any of the final four in TA1 were made to look foolish. In fact I don't think anyone in the first season was made a fool of - some of them made mistakes and missteps, and others made fools of themselves, but I believe it was an organic thing, not contrived by TPTB. Trump also treated the contestants with much more respect. It wasn't until the subsequent seasons that they started casting for characters. I think even Sam and Omarosa probably looked normal in the interview process. But once they saw how much press the two of them got, they started looking for clones, and changed the tenor of the show.

I don't think the onus is on the show to be fair to anyone. Everyone has a different definition of fair. [/quote]

I do think the show has a responsibility to be fair to everyone. That was the thing I loved about TA1. I thought everyone had a fair shot, regardless of race or sex, and the ones who blew it got fired along the way, and the cream rose to the top. I don't remember hearing a lot of complaints about who got fired each week. I believe if they had remained truer to the spirit and tone of TA1, we'd still be seeing much larger ratings now. I had a few quibbles about them asking Kwame why he didn't fire Omarosa in the final task, when that option had apparently never been discussed. But overall, I thought that Bill outplayed Kwame, so I think the outcome was pretty fair. Kwame lost the coin toss, and had the bad luck to get stuck with Omarosa, who had an agenda to sabotage Kwame. But that was her doing, not a set-up by the show.

Does everyone really have a different definition of fair? Maybe so, and I just never realized it. But for me, it's not too much to expect that they at least cast people who all have an equal chance to win at the start of the season. I don't believe that the casting people thought that both Alex and Craig had the same potential in TA3. Others may disagree, but that's how I see it. Trump obviously thought Alex was a star, and not only said so, but gave him a number of chances that he didn't deserve, based on his performance.

Trump is very big on believing those slags when they gang up on people, but I do like that he admitted he was wrong in firing Stacie J.[/quote]

I would have admired Trump had he wholeheartedly admitted that he was wrong, but IIRC, he gave her a very half-hearted, lame apology. I think he only did it as a face-saving move because there were several articles saying how terribly he handled Stacie's firing. Business writers, mental health professionals, and legal experts wrote commentary about how it was the worst possible way to deal with the situation, and how in the real world, Stacie would have many grounds for lawsuits against Trump.

ETA:

BTW, I don't think Stacie J falls into this theory. She was thrown under the bus because it was convinent. [/quote]

I still don't understand why Stacie's scapegaoting was considered convenient. They had a special meeting behind her back to target her. In both cases when they pointed fingers at her, she wasn't the reason for the loss, and there were other people who were more responsible. It doesn't sound convenient to me. It sounds like a good bit of effort. IMO, convenient would be to pick one or two of the people at whom specific blame for losing could be leveled. Both Bradford and Jennofer M. said Stacie worked dilgently in the toothpaste task. Apex went out of their way to get Stacie.

fictionista

Nov 16, 2005 @ 12:50 am

EVERYBODY is made a fool of, not just minorities. I don't understand why everyone thinks that, I really have no clue. There are just as many white screw ups as there are blacks and that's exactly what they want--DRAMA. I don't think it matters what race the person is, everyone is fair game with this show.[/quote]

Yes, but for every white screwup, there is a white regular person. The minorities/gays don't have that option. IMO, it's not so much that Burnett and co. specifically hire certain minorities to make fun of that race, it's that they don't hire ENOUGH minorities/gays to balance out the negative portrayals.

Also, many have said, one white person's screwup isn't attributed to the whole white race like a black/hispanic/asian/gay person's are. For example, Toral's firing and the subsequent discussion in her thread about working for an Indian woman.

StickyKeys

Nov 16, 2005 @ 1:25 am

I WORD fictionista's entire post, I was just going to say that.

And this:

He had a shoeshine business, and what did we often get? Shots of him shining his shoes. Ok, maybe that doesn't mean much to most people, but it was sort of an elbow to the rib of the people who think black men aren't qualified to do anything but shine their corporate wing-tips. At least, that's the way I saw it. [/quote]

I'm glad this was said. On the surface it doesn't look like a big deal that Craig was shining his shoes all the time, but it triggers something in some people's minds. My mom commented on it when we were watching one of the eps, I remember it clearly. It wasn't a bad thing, I mean, here was a black man with his own business, but I didn't ever want to talk about it with white people. I guess you'd have to know more about the background of that, but I remember it causing a lot of intense and stressful conversations.

That's why black women are still having to live down the Omarosa jokes at work[/quote].

Good Lord you have no idea how true this is. The only good thing about her is that she had become a brand. She is OMAROSA now and less, "black female executive". That helps people to individualize her. I still get sick of it.

Also, as I recall, Omarosa’s puny sale of a single painting was less than 7% of the total brought in by the other team. Selling a single item was immaterial given her and her team’s total failure.[/quote]

Her team failed, but it was not due in any part to her actions. She disagreed on the choosing of the artist from the beginning and was still the only one to sell an item. Pretty big for such a poor task. I admit she went a little loopy, and wasn't she fired for being lazy? I can't quite remember, but I remember it was the general consensus at work.

As we know from Audrey, beauty is a curse on the world (or was that the Carver?). And Asian Ivana was a part of that coven, so does that add a factor to any part of the racism question?

unless the assumption is that every time a black woman is fired, the stated reason doesn't matter because it's just a pretext for getting rid of her. That doesn't seem quite fair. [/quote]

It's definitely not fair, but that doesn't make it untrue in some circumstances.

I just think Toral was sent packing on her own (lack of) merits, not because of her race. [/quote]

I'd like to talk about Toral for a moment. Okay, I know little about the subject so please feel free to tell me if I'm talking out of my butt about this.

One thing I've noticed about the Indian culture is that they are very proud. When it comes to doing demeaning things (if wearing a milkshake costume is demeaning) it is heavily frowned upon and has some serious ramifications for future business. I was listening to an interview with Aishwarya Rai and she said that she would never do a nude scene or anything too promiscuous out of respect for her family. That's something that's almost unheard of here.

The problem that you run into is there are tons of people who would do that, and proudly. When you pronounce that you won't, a judgement call is made, and it's made to seem like you are better than that person on the moral front.

Could Toral have really said, "I'm not going to wear this milkshake because it's demeaning to my culture. Uhh, not saying that you women are demeaning yourselves, I just find it disgusting"? I'm not sure.

Not really defending Toral, because she was a tool, and that has nothing to do with her being Indian, but saying that I can see why she wouldn't wear the suit, and why she would have such a difficult time explaining it. If my assumptions are correct.

blocked writer

Nov 16, 2005 @ 1:50 am

Not really defending Toral, because she was a tool, and that has nothing to do with her being Indian, but saying that I can see why she wouldn't wear the suit, and why she would have such a difficult time explaining it. If my assumptions are correct.[/quote]

Toral might have gotten by with just saying something like, "I'm not comfortable doing it - it's a cultural thing," if she hadn't been standing around doing nothing, waiting for her teammates to fail. I still don't understand why she didn't fight to be PM on that task, and why she would give such nasty condescending interviews. Toral is one person of color who got a fair shot, IMO, and she blew it. She basically took herself out of the game. If she had contributed significantly in another way on the taks, Trump probably would have let the costume thing slide.

On the surface it doesn't look like a big deal that Craig was shining his shoes all the time, but it triggers something in some people's minds. [/quote]

I know. this is the kind of thing that people might think, "What's the big deal? We see the other contestants getting dressed, putting on makeup, even blow-drying their armpits!" The difference is that in the not-too-distant past, shoe shining was one of the very limited types of jobs that a black man could get, almost all of them menial. I cannot believe that at least one or two of the editors didn't know that. For me, it was a small, but telling moment.

StickyKeys

Nov 16, 2005 @ 3:42 am

I agree, it was uncomfortable at the very least. The thing that sucks though, is that the brotha does that for a living! Ha! So what do you do, who do you complain to, how do you cry foul intention out of something so subliminal?

And that my friends, is my life. Heh.

Odyssea

Nov 16, 2005 @ 5:21 am

I think there are three groups of people to consider when we're looking at racial prejudices on this show. First there are the producers, who get blamed for a lot, but might not be as evil as they seem. During the casting process I think they're much more interested in representing what they perceive to be key demographics than in saying "Okay, we need a crazy person. Did any black people audition who seemed to have psycho potential?". They are visibly trying to balance out the "sassy" black woman with the "quiet, capable" black man in every cast, which is what gets our ire up on this forum a lot of the time. It's a calculated formula. They want us to get our fix of those crazy divas like they show on the BET and still appeal to our politically correct hearts by showing that deep down every Ivy-League-educated black man wants to grovel at the feet of Donald Trump. That doesn't mean that Omarosa didn't suck or Randal isn't awesome, but it bugs when you can see TPTB planned for you to have exactly the reaction you're having.

I don't think the stereotypes they choose to cast people for are necessarially what the viewers want. For instance, I think red-state viewers would still tune in even if there wasn't a syrupy-sweet blonde beauty queen type or a guy with fifty head of cattle back home, but that's not what TPTB believe. Cowardice guides a lot of decisions in network TV.

Once the show is filming though I do think there's a possibility that they try to find footage that supports certain stereotypes, but again I think it's not so much about what they the producers personally believe as it is what they think we the viewers believe. That brings me to the second group, the audience at home. Just because people see prejudice in the casting or editing of the Apprentice doesn't mean it was intended. Conversely, even if the producers intended to reinforce a certain prejudice doesn't mean we have to take it that way, as the most of the episode discussion on TWOP demonstrates. Look at the reaction to the Stacie J. debacle. No one here came online and said "Those crazy black women and their magic eight balls! Good thing they kicked her off before it was too late!" There may be corners of the world where things like that were said, but I have to think that most viewers either saw that as a failed attempt to stereotype Stacie J. or didn't pause to consider the racial implications at all in light of the unfairness of her dismissal for every other reason. Of course, the more we see the "Black people crazy! Asians nerdy! Women catty!" storylines on shows like this the harder it is to shake those attitudes off in real life, no matter where you're coming from on the social spectrum.

The Apprentice contestants have their own sets of stereotypes to force on themselves and others. Most of the ugliness we've seen so far didn't seem to be racist, just cliquey and petty and rude. Clay isn't anti-semitic, he's just a jerk. Omarosa didn't think her fellow contestants were racists, she just knew how to push their buttons. Stacie J. wasn't shunned for being black, she was shunned for being gorgeous and independent-minded in a group of women who were neither. Whatsherface of the "old Jewish bags" comment might have been racist, but I think it's more likely she was just a nasty piece of work with no internal censor who would have used whatever labels applied to describe the objects of her scorn.

In summation:

Producers: Mostly cowards. Probably not racist, but appealing to imagined racist opinions of viewers.
Viewers: Mostly not racist, but impressionable to stereotypes reinforced by bad TV.
Contestants: Mostly jerks. Turning to accusations of prejudice when it's strategic to do so, finding plenty of colorblind reasons to hate people the rest of the time.
Trump: Probably not aware enough of the existence of other people to be racist in the traditional sense.

gapkid

Nov 16, 2005 @ 5:57 am

I personally think Omarosa was fired in Episode 9 because it was the first opportunity Trump had to fire her. Yes, she's been in the boardroom several times before, but no doubt NBC producers told Trump to keep her around for "good TV", perhaps to let her stay on until at least half the candidates are gone. And true enough, the moment she made the top half, she got fired. Trump's said before that he never wanted her on the show to begin with.

BlakeSpeare

Nov 16, 2005 @ 8:03 am

I don't know if it's fair to assume that the producers are specifically looking to portray black women as "crazy." If they are, they certainly failed when they cast Tara, Verna and Marshawn.

Yes, Verna quit, but I honestly don't think that any of the people in casting expected her to do that when they put her on the show. I actually would guess that Verna was cast as one of the "competent" apprentices, who might actually have a shot at winning (as opposed to someone like Danny or Melissa). And while she did quit, she didn't come across as unbalanced (at least not to me), and I think the editors could have done a real hatchet job on her if they wanted to.

While I think what happened to Stacie J. was shameful (and as I stated in my previous post, I think she was the victim of racism), I also don't think she was brought on to be a "crazy" black woman, and I doubt that her race had anything to do with how the editors decided to portray her.

As far as Omarosa goes, I've heard the powers that be claim that they had no idea she would be evil when they cast her. I have my doubts about this, considering that all of the contestants receive psych evaluations, but it is possible. After all, Omarosa is certainly capable of hiding her true colors, and coming across as a profesional, intelligent business woman.

Do I think that black woman have been portrayed positively on the Apprentice overall? No. But I have my doubts that the producers intend to portray all black woman as unbalanced, just because of Omarosa and Stacie J.

debng

Nov 16, 2005 @ 8:11 am

Her team failed, but it was not due in any part to her actions. She disagreed on the choosing of the artist from the beginning and was still the only one to sell an item. Pretty big for such a poor task. I admit she went a little loopy, and wasn't she fired for being lazy? I can't quite remember, but I remember it was the general consensus at work.[/quote]

Wasn't Omorosa fired because of the lunch incident? She wanted a sit-down lunch and Heidi didn't? Trump told her she had too many excuses. We also saw her caught in a lie of epic proportions - though that was post firing.

It's not just a black thing, either. Look at the Bloven, ook at John the Pimp, look at Sam or Danny or Marcus. The producers work with what they're given. Candidates are chosen for their ability to provide good television and no other reason. I'll even go as far as to say that many of these candidates act outrageously for more camera time. You can't be portrayed in a negative manner if you don't have anything negative to throw out.

blocked writer

Nov 16, 2005 @ 8:42 am

You can't be portrayed in a negative manner if you don't have anything negative to throw out. [/quote]

This isn't always true. I sited the incident where Stacie J. was portrayed as going off on a tangent and trying to hire temps without clearing it with Ivana, who was PM. Had they not shown in the Extra Boardroom Footage that this wasn't the case, it would still be seen as an unprofessional act on the part of Stacie. Many people still think it, since quite a few didn't ever see the EBF. So they can indeed portray an incident in a negative manner when they choose to, even when it the person didn't do anything wrong.

Just a few weeks ago, someone mentioned at an office party on my job that they had been in Florida, and had seen Mar-a-Lago. The subject of Donald Trump came up, and I mentioned how much I disliked him, and specifically how he treated Stacie, and how I think he has all but ruined the show. One of my coworkers, an intelligent young white woman, said to me, "Well if all her team members said she was crazy, Trump didn't have any choice."

It had to grind my teeth and take a deep breath before giving a response. I replied that even if Stacie had been crazy or dangerous, why would he allow everyone to accuse her and then fire her? I also mentioned that none of them were in any position to judge a real mental illness, that Trump could have really investigated the situation by looking at footage, and talking to the behind-the-scenes people.

But my coworker just accepted that if the Apex team said she was crazy due to one questionable incident, then she was crazy. That really bothered me.

katarzyna

Nov 16, 2005 @ 8:56 am

The difference is that in the not-too-distant past, shoe shining was one of the very limited types of jobs that a black man could get, almost all of them menial. I cannot believe that at least one or two of the editors didn't know that. For me, it was a small, but telling moment.[/quote]
I was a bit put off by that, thinking, "Out of all the qualified black candidates applying for the show, they chose someone who owns a shoe-shine business, and they showed him shining shoes?" And it wouldn't have been so... weird? not sure what word I want to use here... if they hadn't shown Craig to be inarticulate, having trouble getting his ideas across, etc. I mean, they either picked him, knowing he was inarticulate, or they decided to give him an "inarticulate" edit. Either way, it was disturbing.

For instance, I think red-state viewers would still tune in even if there wasn't a syrupy-sweet blonde beauty queen type or a guy with fifty head of cattle back home,[/quote]
Are people still talking about "red-state" and "blue-state" viewers? Honestly, that stereotype needs to die, the same way "flyover country" did a while back.

GoddessMelissa

Nov 16, 2005 @ 9:27 am

I've found this season interesting because the candidates are using their race, religion, in addition to sexual orientation in the game as strategy with, what I feel, are very bad results for them.

Personally, I don't see racism or any other kind of -ism on the part of the producers, it's the viewers stereotyping the apprentices and what we see on the show. I'm thinking of the presumptions that may have been made on the part of viewers when Kwame didn't get any fares during the pedicab ride.

BlakeSpeare

Nov 16, 2005 @ 10:41 am

What sort of presumptions, Goddess Melissa? I wasn't around in those days, and I'd be curious to know. Did people assume that customers didn't want to ride with Kwame because he was black?

thuganomics85

Nov 16, 2005 @ 11:24 am

I wasn't around in those days, and I'd be curious to know. Did people assume that customers didn't want to ride with Kwame because he was black?[/quote]

I remember there were a few assumptions about that. Especially after he switched with Troy, and then everyone seemed to want to ride with Troy.

Another thing that similiar to that incident was when Kevin had problems selling candy bars on the streets. It was brought up that some of the people (he was trying to sell to) might have been wary about him, since he was black. Not everyone felt that way, but I remember it being brought up.

GoddessMelissa

Nov 16, 2005 @ 11:27 am

BlakeSpeare
Here's theTask Recap.
You may want to look through that show's postings, it was a topic for discussion. Actually, it was more of a discussion on how it was a knee-jerk reaction to his getting no riders. IIRC, he was trying to pick up passengers in Times Square, so it had more to do with bad location.

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