"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
And even if I started it, it was up to dozens of others to not comment on my comment. Could have just downvoted it to oblivion.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Where I work (US-company, but I work outside of US) it is similarly weird to me.
We appear to have gone backwards in the past 5-10 years in my view - no longer can you just be "you", but now it feels like we have to be labelled, categorised, and segregated into different groups. We now have to make a big deal and a big song-and-dance to highlight our differences and define what our ethnic backgrounds are (apparently to "celebrate" it or whatever), despite there being various laws (at least in the UK) about this sort of thing being a protected characteristic that you simply cannot talk about during interviews - its weird.
What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet? What if I don't want to explain in detail my family tree and pointing out which ethnicity my ancestors were? This idea that people are 100% Ethnic-Category-A/Ethnic-Category-B/Ethnic-Category-C and fit neatly in those slots without any kind of overlap seems willfully ignorant at best, and subversive at worst.
Now I concede there is grossly unequal enforcement of laws. But the words on the page are just the words on the page. It's the people who enforce those laws in an inequitable fashion.
Likewise here in BC.
I believe it is illegal to discuss race, gender, pregnancy, family planning, and so on and so forth during the interview.
No, we haven't. “Don’t label me, I’m not a soup can” was a reaction by certain people against what they saw the current dominant culture to be at the time in exactly the same way that pointing to that as an ideal today is. Except that the latter adds in the construction of an idealized view of the recent past on top of it.
EDIT: But, it is true that the 90s—basically the last period of sustained, strong, broad economic expansion (subsequent expansions have been much worse distributionally)—was also a local high point in subjective perceived quality of race conditions, though not particularly in objective measures. People are a lot more prone to be concerned with fairness issues when their experience falls short of expectations than when they don't.
See Michael Harriot's "blackfamous" thread:
https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/120569584639172198...
I will admit, I did not know who Stacy Adams is. I wonder about the size of the portion of people who know who Stacy Adams is, or who Louis Vuitton is, that also know who Corrinne Yu is.
My perspective as a white man is that when black people create something for themselves like this, it's reclaiming the power. Like how they use the N word with each other, or how Gay people use that word, it's a reclaiming. Taking the hurtful racist division and turning it into something empowering is the point.
I have no idea if that works in the long term or not, but I always think about Morgan Freeman who said something like the only way we can solve racism is if we stop talking about it
Separate but equal was a dismal failure in the US. I don't understand why it deserves a second attempt.
It was not a failure, it was an lie that succeeded quite well at exactly what it was supposed to do, and was struck down for exactly that reason.
But there is a difference between de jure segregation of public services to assure that one community is underserved and crafting of commercial services to the serve a distinct set of preferences associated with a particular demographic.
https://www.epi.org/publication/schools-are-still-segregated...
That seems less like segregation and more of just statistics. If black students are a minority, then by definition they won't be a majority in a random subsample.
> As shown in Figure B, black students are also in economically segregated schools. Less than one in three white students (31.3%) attend a high-poverty school, compared with more than seven in 10 black students (72.4%).
That's probably the stronger argument in your link. That outcome isn't surprising given that most school funds come via property taxes - if most economically depressed areas are minority occupied due to lower costs, then those same schools would also be economically depressed.
The residents in their area are mostly black.
> Why is school funding tied to property taxes?
That's how most of your city is funded.
> Why isn't there a level of mobility that would allow students to go to a more well funded school?
There is? Like, you can move to a different school district but it's going to be more expensive. Nobody is preventing you.
> Who made these policies and why?
It's not clear what policies you are referring to. That we fund things via property taxes?
I disagree with your implicit assumption that all bubbles are inherently negative.
Regardless, who decides which category a site/app falls into? There are legal remedies that can fix literal "war between 2 camps", everything else is freedom of expression.
This implies that there is a "white experience" and a "black experience" which is simply false and subtly racist. This is kind of the point of the parent's post--we've gone from understanding that variance within a race far exceeds variance between races to a mistaken belief that different races have such different experiences that we basically can't understand each other, that we're practically different species. Consider the white translator who was forbidden to translate the work of a black poet, the eminently qualified white school board volunteer who was forbidden from working with students because he wouldn't "understand the experiences of nonwhite students", or the anti-standardized-testing folks who argue that blacks are innately unable to compete in standardized tests.
On that latter point, there's a popular analogy[0] circulating over the last decade that implies that different races are like different species of animal--chimps, goldfish, elephants, penguins, etc--and standardized testing is like a tree-climbing test. To put a fine point on it, these folks are implying that blacks are innately inferior at standardized testing while whites (and presumably Asians) naturally excel.
[0]: https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/137652006277390336...
I am white and was nearly killed by a black officer in South Florida. He piled drived me head first onto a concrete floor on video tape. Prior to that, he choked me and threatened to kill me.
I was in Miami to attend the VMAs with a billionaire, yet they claimed I tried to fight them. Eventually all charges were dropped. The cop was actually working private security when this happened.
It’s just men, testosterone, and power emboldened by a badge. The cop — Mr. Ritchie — later won Detective of the Year, while his Sheriff went to federal prison. Reality is different than what you read in the papers.
That is nonsense.
I love cops in general. I am a cop supporter. I have known excellent cops.
But cops enjoy a great license in the performance of their duties. Because of that it’s very important that we 1) hire cops of outstanding character, not just bullies who want a civil service pension, and 2) hold them to very high standards, a standard of behavior higher than you would an average citizen.
If dealing with aggressive criminals turns you into one you simply don’t have the strength of character to be a cop. And good cops who tolerate bad behavior in their peers are not good cops.
As someone that grew up extremely poor. I am not aware of the two education system other than the “historically black university”.
What do you call the “white education system”?
You seem to not be informed that black people were expressly banned from many American universities as recently as the 1960s. Even after racial bans were made illegal racial discrimination was heavy, things don't change instantly just because a law is passed.
The only reason black universities exist is because black people didn't have other options. Creating black univerisites couldn't possibly make the problem worse.
The media is dominated by white writers and actors and as a result the large majority of content is based on white culture with storylines that appeal to white people. Black actors audition and black stories are pitched, but most don't get hired or funded. BlackOakTV is making a space for those who are rejected and can't get funding for stories appealing more to a black audience.
It's really more about how much money you have in your pocket, what neighborhood you're in - but please continue driving a racial wedge to further divide the nation and distract from our broken system's root causes.
And the most important that you don't mention, the mobility. If there is no mobility and black people will be forever on the poor side, the elephant is still in the room.
I’ve been alive for almost half a century, and I notice no such change.
I have noticed lots of people feeling like there is a recent change when they realize the identities that arr important to many people outside their immediate bubble (or even inside, though those are often just silently assumed within in-group dialogue or by dominant groups), often in the late teens or 20s.
> We now have to make a big deal and a big song-and-dance to highlight our differences and define what our ethnic backgrounds ar
No, we don’t. Some aspects of identity are important to some people. Why some people who notice that then suddenly also feel the fact that certain dimensions of identity are important to other people implies a general obligation, I don't know.
People for whom Black is an important aspect of their identity don’t, as a rule, think it is important for being White to be central to White people's identity. (And the same is true, mutatis mutandis, with other dimensions of identity.)
> What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet?
Then...you are just like everyone else, in that regard.
> This idea that people are 100% Ethnic-Category-A/Ethnic-Category-B/Ethnic-Category-C and fit neatly in those slots without any kind of overlap seems willfully ignorant at best, and subversive at worst.
Sure. But many of the people to whom minority identities are most critically important and worthy of attention would be the first people to tell you that; in fact, they have a whole analytical framework around it (intersectionality.)
See story on that from Les Earnest: https://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/earth/mongrel.html
Personally, I don't really understand all this need for individual representation, but then neither do I really have to.
But I don't think the divide is anywhere near as insane as you're imagining. People don't just belong to one culture and ignore any external infulence. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. people all watch the NBA, NFL, watch Marvel superhero movies, so on and so forth. It's just that everyone also has additional niches.
What constitutes under-repressented? Is proportionally represented ok?
I mean, I'm one of those "subcultures" and honestly I don't feel the need to be represented in media. I'm ok with it, but I don't see what does it bring to me or to my "subculture". We need investment in infraestructure and political-institutional changes.
I understand it's your country, so your own to decide but I agree with the other user, I really can't understand why so much focus with media representation in the US.
It feels weird, and honestly the logic behind it comes as very superficial and light-minded.
Reminds me of an article a while back complaining that Muslim characters were underrepresented in film despite being 2X proportion, meanwhile Christian characters in film are rarely represented (and secular characters wildly over-represented). When identifiably Muslim and Christian characters are portrayed in film, they are frequently villains (Muslims being terrorists and Christians being bigots, typically) and when they aren't villains they are fundamentally secular but maybe they wear a cross necklace or feature prominently in a corny Christmas special (e.g., Turk from Scrubs). Anyway, this is all a tangent, sorry for the digression, etc.
But here’s the thing you’re missing - if your race is a dominant part of your identity, like it is for many black people in America, it’s certainly normal to look for stories that feature black people and black stories. Stories where the characters experience problems and issues similar to the ones they might face in their lives.
Yeah, maybe, I can perhaps agree with that, but I still fail to see the political proposition.
Maybe I should live in the US to understand it, but honestly when I read about black-americans It seems many of their pressing issues are material ones, and the ones that aren't are probably very related to material ones and I fail to see how a netflix for black people is going to change any of that, except reinforce an ingroup-outgroup dynamic.
There most certainly is an ingroup-outgroup dynamic, but I don't think a Black Netflix intensifies it, it merely caters to that audience, just like Netflix is doing with #blackAF or DisneyPlus is doing with blackish.
If I was in a more predominant subculture, maybe I'd be interested in accurate representation, but expecting a lot of that from entertainment doesn't seem wise.
Accepting entertainment for what it is, and not necessarily representation, feels like a more manageable remove.
Then someone pointed out to me that my favourite super-hero was Spider-Man because Peter Parker is a 20-something loser, just like me.
But there's something authentic about Miles when other characters feel like pandering.
----
Nick Fury Junior is technically a newer character. (The original Nick Fury Senior is white). They just handwaved the difference by sticking a junior in the name without elaboration though.
------
Black Panther from the 70s is definitely pandering lol. But the writers were good at it. (Blatant pandering isn't necessarily a bad thing in the right context)
Now as a parent with a tween and younger kids, my understanding of the current state of the science is that there still is no overwhelming consensus on increased violence related to media, however it seems to be agreed that aggression is linked. 30 years later Mortal Kombat is the number one fighting game franchise of all time, and murder rates are lower and violent crime are relatively unchanged.
Smash Bros and Street Fighter are probably more popular actually.
Mortal Kombat really, really sucked between 3 and 7. MK started to get good again around 8, but really it was "Injustice" (which used Mortal Kombat's engine) that made people start taking MK seriously again.
MK9 is a modern, competitive fighter. But its not as well respected as other games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Smash Bros even. Japan has a real arcade scene (or at least, it did before COVID19 struck), so the games that have proven themselves in the public arcades are more fundamentally competitive than American games like MK9 or Killer Instinct.
I dunno how Smash Bros became so popular though.
----------
Honestly, the extreme violence of Mortal Kombat is a big turnoff to the competitive crowd IMO (much like the extreme "sexiness" of Dead or Alive is also a turnoff). Its good for carving out a niche, but... I don't think people actually like seeing the characters they attach themselves to die.
-----------
There was a study I saw: its not that violent video games cause violence. Its that violent individuals choose violent video games.
In a mainstream setting, you'll just gross people out with a lot of the Mortal Kombat stuff. I think kids like it (because they like seeing their parents get grossed out). Otherwise, when adults get together to play fighting games... "Injustice" seems to be more popular than Mortal Kombat, despite Mortal Kombat being the mainline game and Injustice the DC-superhero "skin".
---------
Now that I'm an adult, here's my viewpoint on the whole thing. Children like breaking taboos. Adults don't like it when Children break taboos (children should listen to Adults). I feel like Adults sometimes make up stories for why children should listen to them, but this only encourages more taboo-breaking behavior from kids. That's why Mortal Kombat is such a draw for me when I was younger (I knew my parents didn't like it, but that was part of the charm).
Similarly, I see my sister freak out about her daughter playing Mortal Kombat (despite me and my sister playing MK back when we were her age) and turn off the game. My sister claims that the improved graphics make it different... but my eyes see the same thing. Her daughter likes breaking taboos and sometimes not listening to her mom, and playing MK is an avenue to do so.
Edit: Mortal Kombat’s major advantage over Smash is that it’s available on every platform. I think Street Fighter’s problem is that Capcom doesn’t bump the version, so it’s non obvious how Super Street Fighter V Arcade Edition is different from Street Fighter V (which also had a bungled release).
Of the three SF would be my preferred franchise, but sales suggest WB is doing something right.
Not that I doubt your stats. But Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken and so forth were largely arcade games.
MK2 was an arcade game for sure, but later MK games dropped out of the arcade scene.
Smash never was an arcade game.
I have to imagine that a lot of players paid one quarter at a time to get their Street Fighter skills. But MK players (especially recent ones) are console games. So I'm not sure if copies sold is the best metric.
It's accessible (no crazy button combos), fun (at a party or whatever), and not really "violent" in the same way that Mortal Kombat is bloody as hell. Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.
> It's accessible (no crazy button combos)
Melee is not. You need to consistently wavedash into double-shine combos while foxtrotting to remain competitive. Every landing must be L-canceled (especially during combos). Its a horribly inaccessible game, and was all we had for many years.
Following Melee was Brawl: where "tripping" was invented to randomize the game and piss off competitive players. The most popular "Brawl" was the version people __hacked__ to rebalance the game (taking advantage of the Epona glitch from Twilight Princess to install the Homebrew channel: you can remove tripping and arbitrarily rebalance the Brawl game entirely). It wasn't until Smash4 (WiiU, 2014) that players got an actually competitive game.
Smash Ultimate is finally a very, very good game. But it makes no sense to me why the Smash community stuck with it through the Melee and Brawl years.
> Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.
I think that's a good point. The Smash series (and Marvel vs Capcom series) was timid on violence and sexiness... focusing mostly at the "cartoon" level that was mainstream and acceptable.
The other fighting games leaned into violence (Mortal Kombat) and/or sexiness (Soul Calibur's Ivy, Street Fighter's Cammy, KOF Mai) to try to get some appeal, but I think that lowered the chances of the wide mainstream acceptance.
Smash was always a "Kids" game, and therefore safe for kids to play. No reasonable adult would turn off the game or otherwise be worried that their kids were playing that game. Marvel vs Capcom was at a similar level.
To the broader point, I think what Uzo is talking about is "representation."
Which doesn't just mean "some type of person on the screen." It means the full diversity of experiences and aspirations of that type of person... on the screen.
Living Single isn't Friends with African Americans.
It's African Americans put in the situation of Friends, and then living their own similar-but-unique story in that situation, informed by cultural differences. (IMHO, it's also a helluva lot better of a show)
The 90s had a lot of shows about middle class, successful African American families.
That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.
And the lack of aspirational and affirmational media that speaks to every person is absolutely a problem.
Living Single was a good show because, unlike Friends, it was actually funny.
> That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.
But let's be nuanced about this - I don't think that skin color is the real case. Everyone watched Cosby (and for the sake of discussion let's ignore the current situation with him). My (white) heavily bigoted/borderline racist grandmother watched Cosby. He was America's dad and loved by everyone. I think the real problem was that black characters weren't put into shows that represented widely popular, aspirational American ideals or lifestyles, which Cosby had (nuclear family with professional parents and kids dealing with kid stuff). If you want to say that really doesn't represent the majority of the black American experience you wouldn't be wrong, but it also doesn't represent the majority of the white/Hispanic/Asian American experience either. It was something to aspire to.
Those sorts of mass-appeal western values-type shows, IMHO, will be some of the best bridges to build in regards to race relations.
I'll watch a movie set in Scotland just because I think Scottish culture is super interesting, regardless of whether that movie aims to make Scotland seem charming or "well integrated" with my own culture.
But the thing is, nobody (at least in America) expects a show about Scottish people to shoulder the burden of holding up a bridge between Scotland and the world. But there is a sense (at least in America) that the cultural success of Black stories is to be benchmarked against the Cosby Show. Which is weird, when you think about it.
Implies that America thinks this way. Again, nuance is needed.
> the mission of making Black people seem cheerful and unthreatening to America
_seem cheerful and unthreatening_ is in particular what I take umbrage with. That implies that America finds black folks threatening which is why there better be some deep clarification in that statement. But on it's face who really thinks this way? Only ignorant people and true racists have this perception. As far as I can tell that percentage is low.
As far as the business goes I think there's more opportunity in casting that wider net like Cosby or more recently The Neighborhood and creating more appeal for a larger audience. The model of "Netflix for black people" immediately excludes about 86% of the population. Some non-black folks will subscribe, and giving a very liberal 16% of that share they are still excluding 70% of the potential population. This doesn't mean that they won't be successful though - Tyler Perry basically does the same thing (though not overtly so) and he does pretty well for himself. If I were an investor I'd have to examine this under a microscope before jumping into any investments. But who knows? Hopefully they will do well.
You are certainly welcome to subscribe no matter who you are, and you might well do that if you're interested in stories told in a Black context --- for the same reason you might have been super interested in watching Babylon Berlin even if you don't even speak German. Or you might not. That's one of the cool things about pluralism.
EDIT: short of a Tyler Perry or Oprah Winfrey jumping on board (someone that has significant momentum), the only other way this survives is with an acquisition. Netflix would be primed to pick this up as the start of a black-interest channel within Netflix itself. If this is a real market Netflix will either buy them or start their own.
And just a note here - I care nothing about the racial aspects of it but do like it when companies and people win and thrive. I want to see that here too but I think they're lopping off too many potential customers.
Implies that Living Single came after Friends, but it debuted the year before.
Eth bro dot co at gmail
Where do you draw the line in your definition of "subcultures"? Is it Black/White/Brown? I always feel weird that I'm pigeon-holed into "white", as if I have anything in common with those of Italian or Jewish ancestry.
>The country has a deep history of racism and black people being literal slaves
The USA is astoundingly multi-cultural. Why do you think so many people from around the globe try to get there?
Agree. I could imagine Netflix-for-Turks streaming in Europe for overseas Turks!
Most well educated gypsies are being frowned down by their own relatives as if they became "non-Gypsy traitors" and they often run away from their own ghettos to never, ever come back.
That never happened in the US with Black people, even in the worst racist laws in the 50's. They even tried to live with the same rights as the White people.
Gypsy people in Europe, at least the tribalistic ones want to secede from the society, as a reverse MLK and live by their own rules, having those priority over state laws.
I think it terrible what the US is heading too (equalizing culture with skin-color)
Oh man that's some small minded simpleton-vibes here :)
There are of course those who immigrated later.
Serving targeted programming to an identifiable minority audience seems like a perfectly reasonable business (and social) proposition.
I don’t know that “Netflix for Black People” will test well, but it seems perfectly fine to me. [white middle-aged male if context matters].
Edit to add: It seems like Fubu* is another extraordinarily successful story that used a similar Black solidarity message and targeting to positive effect.
* "For Us, By Us"
Maybe some black people like to see shows with diversity, too.
In some other post someone was commenting how their wife, who is a director of advertising, got complaints for using a white female hand for an advertisement. I proposed using profile information to show people advertisements of people that matched themselves, but that was met with disdain in HN. It was argued that we need more diversity, not pigeonholes for people to be isolated in their subcultures.
Honestly when I read the title, I immediately thought, "Drinking fountains for black people."
This isn't the same as "drinking fountains for black people" because it's targeted programming but it's not exclusionary.
"Drikning fountains for black people" existed because "Black people using white drinking fountains" was prohibited. It wasn't a preference.
Presumably black people who like to see shows with [non-black] diversity are already having their needs met. Addressing a market whose needs are not being met has business (and social) value.
Wow, that is egregious. We ban accounts that stoop to vile tropes like that. I doubt that you intended it that way but you did it anyhow—seriously not cool. If you want to keep commenting on HN, please don't do anything like that again.
The gratifying thing is that the commenters who replied to you were so entirely decent. That's the sort of thoughtfulness that you ought to be practicing, even when you encounter something that rubs you the wrong way on the internet. Or rather, especially then.
"X for white people" makes more sense in a population where caucasians are the minority, for instance in China.
Totally hypothetical example... "NBA for white people" - basically majority-white professional basketball teams playing each other. I'm sure that would ignite a firestorm if someone tried to do that.
Is this really true, today? I can definitely see that even 10 years ago, but just glancing through Netflix recommendations, I see characters from all over the place. I wonder if anyone has been able to quantify this progress.
>know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.
Wait, what?
Asking seriously, I'm European.
To echo what others have said, though, if you are not a member of a minority, it can be difficult to understand how affirming and wonderful it can feel to experience, just for a brief moment and even if by fantasy, to exist as if you were the majority. For example, I am gay, and here are some common thought processes that go through my head that are basically completely foreign to straight people:
1. When I walk down the street with my partner of 20 years, deciding to hold hands is not something I can just do spontaneously. It is essentially a political act when I do it, and so my first thoughts always go to (a) am I safe and (b) do I feel like making a political statement right now.
2. When I travel, the first thing I think about is whether I am going to a place that is accepting of gays. I'm just too old to want to deal with anti-gay attitudes when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself on vacation.
3. When I introduce myself to new people, I do a mental calculation as to whether I feel like mentioning my partner and thus outing myself in that situation. Again, it's always a conscious calculation, where it almost never is for straight people.
So the first time I visited the Castro (a well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco), it was kind of magical to me, to just walk down the street and have people assume I was gay before assuming I was straight, and it was really the first time I could completely relax and feel like what it was like to be a member of the majority.
So that's what things like BET, LogoTV, Telemundo, etc. are really about, it's about actually feeling like you are the focus of attention for a short time.
In the sense that shows and movies seem like the result of endless series of meetings, where anything that anyone might object to is censored and removed.
that means, this channel intends to highlight stories from or about black people, but it doesn't suggest who should watch it.
saying "it's for black people" is patronizing because it is claiming that it is not for me, whereas, if it is "about black people" then i feel welcome to watch it, because i happen to be interested in that.
No problem with e.g. "X for German-Americans" or the like, if the niche is there.
Whereas in the case of Black products culture and location are not the distinct.
Edit : what I am writing is really confusing and I should have stopped 2 seconds before commenting.
I think most of the world is just completely weirded out by how US culture tackles this issue.
Long story short: The average lifespan of the dollar is approximately 28 days in Asian communities, 19 days in Jewish communities, 17 days in white communities — and just six hours in Black communities. Meaning after that time, that dollar has to go into another community for a product or service.
These are entrepreneurs. Their job is not to teach everyone melting pot kumbayah culture. Their job is to make money for themselves and their investors. After about 35 years of travel and living I'm intimately familiar with Africa and Asia. There are changes in Africa right now. Changes that feel much different than any changes I've lived through previously, and this product strikes a brilliantly resonant chord with those changes. People, particularly the 18-35 demographic in Africa, will eat this up. They get some black american and african celebrities along with someone like Wode Maya on this thing, and having blackoak would become a status symbol in Africa. At least among the young.
Sure, not great for global society, but awesome for business. Only people who don't realize how quickly Africa is growing would think otherwise.
However, X for white people is often the default case and is left unsaid. As an American you should be well versed in this. No one is saying that non-black people cannot watch the content, the implication is that the content it is tailored for black people.
Indian Americans regularly consume music and foods that most other Americans don't.
Hispanic Americans mostly are bilingual with Spanish/English. There are more spanish only speaking hispanics than there are english only speaking.
America has a history of racists laws (goverment) and bylaws (corporations, institutions, universities) created directly to disenfranchise non-whites that shaped present day distribution of races in different states, neighborhoods, socioeconomic status, cultural values and more.
As recently as the 60s, blacks were expressly banned from many colleges so in order to fill the gap, HBCU (Historically Black Colleges & Universities) were created because black people had no good options.
Most media in America is created by whites and the stories are based largely on white American culture. The Indian and Chinese Americans are another group that have a very hard time finding tv shows and movies that resonate with their culture. BlackOakTV looks like an attempt to offer more content representing the real differences in black American culture written from the perspective of those who actually understand it.
Is more or less what I thought, (with the difference that I thought "Y for Z people").
So I can't judge if it's necessary or makes sense, but from the point of the author it seems to be the case.
Which is sad as black people are not a small minority in the US and so I would expect more representation of them.
I mean Netflix (or any thing similar) should be "for everyone" featuring a diverse mix at least similar to reality (or maybe slightly more diverse (1) ).
(1): For <small> minorities in a country representation with a mix "like reality" would mean they would not get much representation as just a <small> number of content thingies would represent them. So increasing the degree of diversity above it is I think a good idea.
That said, this is a great idea and I wish this company the best. I'd love to see something similar for the Hispanic community, as well.
We tried "rap music for white people" and we decided we preferred the rap music for black people :D
24/7 Caso Cerrado, let's goooo
In another timeline this has already happened. We merely have Governors Abbott and DeSantis and Delta Covid.
I could certainly be mistaken, but I'd bet my net worth that this is about making a product that will resonate with global black youth. From Canada to eswatini. From Addis to Trinidad and Tobago.
And that market is enormous.
It is weird how we just tend to generalize over all of this because of the color of one's skin.
Wouldn't BET+ be BET for the internet?
Black people are certainly entitled to watch whatever content they choose, but they are not unique in their "different lived experiences". "White people" are not some amorphous, homogeneous group.
That's entirely your own interpretation and you might want to consider why you think this way.
There is nothing stopping a white person from subscribing to "Netflix for black people" if they think the content may be of interest to them.
You are in America:
Vending machine for Americans sells Gatorade
You are in Mexico
Vending machine for Mexicans sells Agua Fresca
Vending machine for Americans sells Gatorade
This is no different then X for X people.
They aren't saying you aren't welcome, it's more so that you likely don't know if you'll even like Agua Fresca. Mexicans know they love Agua Fresca.
Maybe Mexicans don't really like Gatorade, but they know that the Americans in Mexico would like to have some Gatorade - boom it's a niche, it's a business, profit can be made.
This is NOT discrimination, it's catering to a market. Discrimination is treating unjustly. It has nothing to do with providing X for X. Y could totally have X, no one cares, it's just that Y just may not enjoy it, relate to it or even want it.
“Black” in America is, confusingly to lots of people, the name of an ethnic/cultural group formed by centuries shared experience of kidnapping, deliberate eradication of prior cultural identities, deliberate ongoing disruption of the family unit, slavery (and after slavery de jure discrimination, and after that substantial ongoing public and private discrimination in fact) to which the racial group also labelled “black” was subjected in America.
A. We're all equal! B. We need something special, because we're different!
We in the US have a long history of subjugating and violently suppressing the rights of black slaves (and every black person after outlawing slavery). The last few years have shown that the number of people who still believe that should happen is much larger than we suspected.
It's not a fetish - it's a straight up fight to end discrimination against a group of people.
If it wasn't for the rightwingers (American and otherwise) who want blacks to sit in the corner and shut up, or get attacked and discriminated on, there wouldn't be a problem.
All this ”we have long history is america black slavery blaablablah” is not any kind of a counter argument. By segregating people you are doing exactly the same thing what slave owners, south africans and those hillbilly right wing extremists do.
You should see the diversity threads on this board. It's the same dog whistling every time, but here its about some made-up 'we're reverting back to segregation' argument but no one had a problem with Minari winning awards about the Korean-American experience. It's the same idea, simply expanded to an entire platform of such content.
White has been the default in America for a long time. Seems like that's slowly starting to change but until it does, there's going to be a need for things specifically targeted at minority groups.
I saw this interview recently: <<<David Bowie Criticizes MTV for Not Playing Videos by Black Artists | MTV News>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGiVzIr8Qg
It blew me away. He is so on point!
Not saying there were no Black artists: just saying that Black culture wrapped in what white people accept, like is not enough for the Black community.
Edit: you guys downvoting me are likely too young to remember day one on MTV when stuff Blacks actually listened to was not featured on MTV until hiphop culture forced the issue.
Black influence on mainstream music came at a huge cost to Black music stars. They were copied but mostly not included unless they paid homage. Horrible place for them truly.
You have minimal idea about what Black people are really about without another white person’s filter because that’s how it has always been even on BET.
If it would merely be a redundancy, why would it provoke outrage? "Conservative Talk Radio" seems pretty redundant to me, but doesn't provoke any emotion.
If it's "focuses on content for <minority group>", that's great. Minorities tend to underrepresented and trying to address that balance by creating more for them is all bonus.
If it's "excludes all but <minority group>", I am not a fan; I thin it causes resentment. The ability to have a group that allows <minority> but not <majority>, but not have a group that allows <majority> but not <minority>, is _wrong_ in my mind. Admittedly, having a group that allows both but focuses on <minority> so that <majority> is unlikely to be interested in joining is reasonable.
I guess the act of specifically excluding/disallowing a group, unless it's acceptable for _all_ groups to do the same, inherently conveys "you are the worse of the two groups". It's insulting and an attack.
My apologies; I must not have been clear. Nothing here is an example of something I have an issue with. I was merely pointing out that having "X for <minority>" can go two ways; promote the minority, or exclude the majority. The former is great, the later is not.
I wasn't, in any way, trying to indicate the post is doing the wrong thing. As others have noted, it sounds like a Netflix-ey version of BET which, as far as I know, hasbeen nothing but positive.
It's rude to troll on someone's Launch thread.
Personally, I'm divided on how I feel about this launch, but if there is a market for it anywhere, it's the US, with its deep-rooted racial divisions and disparities.
The comparisons you are making seem very different, as they are based on language and global geography, rather than skin colour.
The idea of permission structures for white Americans being somehow erected because some ethnic groups and communities sold people from other ethnic groups and communities (because, and I apologize if this is obvious to some readers, the compaction of people of African descent into "African-American" is, for obvious reasons, something here and not there) is one of a set of apologetics in common use in the United States designed to erase the complicity of our forebears.
Good luck to BlackOakTV. I look forward to seeing what happens next for you all.
The idea is that "X" is de facto "X for white people" in America. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the argument.
I still thinks it sounds like nonsense, but at least it explains the massive downvotes Im getting :D
It must be hard to live in a country where everyone is so obsessed with race, yet supposedly also how it “is not important”. To me that seems like a massive contradiction.
Bigotry, hatred, and violence, whether explicit or less obvious (voting rights, bias in many services etc) is the problem that some us unfortunately continue and the rest of us want to end.
In america there are black people alive who weren't allowed to vote because of their race.
Given the history of race in america it makes total sense that america is still grappling with race while also there is significant pushback against that grappling.
Perhaps you should put some effort into self-education and understand the context of race and racism in America before making qualitative statements about things you seem to not even grasp the basics of.
The difference between majority and minority is surely not that difficult to comprehend from outside the US?
IMO the solution to that problem is definitely not to reinforce that division.
Well, yes, and this was codified into US law until the last bits were finally suppressed in the 1960s, but that doesn't mean the underlying racism has been eliminated as well.
Will it be racist to continue using this terminology then, once the US reaches 50-50?
So close, and yet so far.
personally, i think it's great that the founders have chosen to sell this as "X for black people." it is much more honest and cuts right to the point. if they had not, if they had instead chosen words like "diversity," then inevitable drill-downs would be criticizing them for trying to hide their true intentions.
It's really tiresome.
Many institutions in the Western sphere either don't match the demographic/ethnic composition of the target market any more or never have. Parliaments, cabinets, newsdesks, movies, highest level management in big companies, even access to voting - all of this has been dominated by white, straight and often old men, with women, non-White people and LGBT not being represented at all.
Over time, many of the discriminatory policies fell - but the reality was, until maybe a decade ago, representation still lacked - and now, change is coming in ever faster and faster. You now have female-centered superhero movies, Black superhero movies, transgender people in parliaments, a Black US President... and the speed of that change was for many conservatives simply too high, so they framed the quest for equal representation across all parts of society as a "culture war" instead.