Searcher wrote:

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
Alberto already answered you quite eloquently. Something bothers you when blacks have stuff.

No, but thanks for playing the lowbrow responses, you only strengthen my argument.


Those networks are in other languages. They are also based on cultures. "Black" is not a culture, it is a race.

By your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to start an english-language Yellow Entertainment Television channel for all the asians. That doesn't sound right.

I'm saying it would be fine if it were called African-American Entertainment Television, but the word "black" makes it racist. If you think otherwise... why?

Black Americans have no culture ?
There are many Asian channels available.   if Asians call a channel YET that is their business.
AAET, who the hell will watch AAET ?  AAET sounds like something you get after drinking bad milk.

BET is recognized worldwide as the home of Hip-Hop TV. The people around the world want to see "Black" hip-hop etc. It IS a culture.

so say it with a beat;   BET  BET BET BET ! come on !

Searcher wrote:
I'm saying it would be fine if it were called African-American Entertainment Television, but the word "black" makes it racist. If you think otherwise... why?

Targetting dark skin people is not wrong... calling it African-American would leave left apart, European blacks (because there is not such a thing as African-European), Black Africans, Asian-blacks ... not to say South American and caribbean  (which are funnily considered latinos instead of black american).
LOL.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

You understood what I was suggesting the the first sentence, so why did you bother typing the rest of the irrelevent rant that was your post? 
Sheesh, some people just like to complain.

The guy chose his domain name poorly and it has offended people.  End of story.

On the other hand, perhaps it is what we choose to be offended by that has been ill considered.

Trevor Snyder wrote:
Racism is an innate belief in the superiority of one particular race, or in the inferiority of another. Please understand the words you bandy about.

So... why choose one over another? Why acknowledge it at all?

Nora_Neko wrote:
Honestly I don't think it's fair that you can have Black entertainment television but not white entertainment television.I mean not trying to say I'd even watch it if it did exsist but I just don't understand how it's ok to say black only but it's not ok to say white only.It's still racism.Back in the day African Americans didn't want to have seperate water fountains or bathrooms, yet now they rejoice to have BET.

I believe to single out any race for any reason is being racist.This doesn't really offend me but it is my opinion on the matter.Although after looking over the site I don't find it to be much of a race thing.It seems to be genuinely an art thing.

Well, when BET came into the scene there weren't many blacks on a dominant white controlled networks. So what do you do? You make something that blacks can relate to and see some of their own faces on t.v. So if BET offends, then you should be offended by the fact of the lack of blacks over the decades on t.v. programs which lead to BET. Many black cekebrities can tell you about the racism that exxist in Hollywood for over 100 years.

Btw, Viacon owns BET. And they bees whites.

Searcher wrote:

So... why choose one over another? Why acknowledge it at all?

Human nature?

CantikFotos wrote:

He's French and used English and it offended a few Americans.

French: black
English: noir

French: noir
English: black

Funny no???

Searcher wrote:
I'm saying it would be fine if it were called African-American Entertainment Television, but the word "black" makes it racist. If you think otherwise... why?

Targetting dark skin people is not wrong... calling it African-American would leave left apart, European blacks (because there is not such a thing as African-European), Black Africans, Asian-blacks ... not to say South American and caribbean  (which are funnily considered latinos instead of black american).
LOL.

Monica Jay wrote:
Photographers can shoot whatever they want. There are plenty of people who only shoot nudes or fetish or pin-up or children or WHATEVER. I was approached once by a photographer who asked if I was Hispanic. I said no, and he said "Bummer, I'd shoot you, but I only shoot Hispanic girls."

You look african to me (from Egypt or Morroco).

Trevor Snyder wrote:

On the other hand, perhaps it is what we choose to be offended by that has been ill considered.

That's true, but I don't think it's somethign each individual chooses to be offended by.  It's the way the US works; It's the history here; It's our families; It's the way we were raised.

It is unfair to say "whites need not apply," "blacks need not apply," "asians need not apply," etc.

My point was that he chose the domain name poorly, not that it offended people.  To get off the subject of racism [which I know is impossible here], it's an incorrect label for his work.  He photographs Africans, not "black" people.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

You look african to me (from Egypt or Morroco).

Iranian

Monica Jay wrote:

Iranian

I am just making fun of the whole thing here... no-one would say you look African... when you look North-African. They'd say... North-African.
African would be for someone that looks... OMG black ???? OMG that must be racist.
LMAO.

Dawn Winter wrote:
What next, going to go after every photographer that only has pics of only white, black, asian or hispanic women in their ports???

You guys sure love to reach.

and most of them aren't reaching for nothing but drama that they can save for their mama.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

That's true, but I don't think it's somethign each individual chooses to be offended by.  It's the way the US works; It's the history here; It's our families; It's the way we were raised.

Where does it work differently? What makes the US so special in this regard?

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
It is unfair to say "whites need not apply," "blacks need not apply," "asians need not apply," etc.

You think it's so different anywhere else? LOL

CUnique wrote:
The work is so beautiful.

You must be racist towards black people .... Muahahahahaha LOL LMAO.
;-)
Jeez I love that picture of you and the tap.

Searcher wrote:

So... why choose one over another? Why acknowledge it at all?

Personally, I don't believe one race is superior to any other. We're all human, and I might find more in common with someone of a different race than I do with someone of my same race. We should all examine our place in the world, and our world's places. Including the similarities and differences that make being human interesting.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

That's true, but I don't think it's somethign each individual chooses to be offended by.  It's the way the US works; It's the history here; It's our families; It's the way we were raised.

It is unfair to say "whites need not apply," "blacks need not apply," "asians need not apply," etc.

My point was that he chose the domain name poorly, not that it offended people.  To get off the subject of racism [which I know is impossible here], it's an incorrect label for his work.  He photographs Africans, not "black" people.

Perhaps he wasn't referring to people when he chose the word black as part of his domain name.

CantikFotos wrote:
You think it's so different anywhere else? LOL

This requires a whole new thread... HAHAHA

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
That's true, but I don't think it's somethign each individual chooses to be offended by.  It's the way the US works; It's the history here; It's our families; It's the way we were raised.

It is unfair to say "whites need not apply," "blacks need not apply," "asians need not apply," etc.

My point was that he chose the domain name poorly, not that it offended people.  To get off the subject of racism [which I know is impossible here], it's an incorrect label for his work.  He photographs Africans, not "black" people.

you have not the "only lesbians  need apply" job in the other thread

Searcher wrote:
Wouldn't it be great to go live in a place where race no longer mattered?


...


















Ok, I'm bored.

and Rocky Balboa is the heavyweight Champion.

Searcher wrote:
Wouldn't it be great to go live in a place where race no longer mattered?



...

I don't see any Vulcans in that photo.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:
What race is the guy in the middle of the top raw... sorry i have no knowledge of American history.... LOL.

I think he's Dutch Canadian with a hint of barley.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:


What race is the guy in the middle of the top raw... sorry i have no knowledge of American history.... LOL.

You can hardly fail to notice how the guy with the huge ridged head has been placed at the back while the white men have been placed front and center. Certainly a highly racially charged environment.

Trevor Snyder wrote:

You can hardly fail to notice how the guy with the huge ridged head has been placed at the back while the white men have been placed front and center. Certainly a highly racially charged environment.

And the girls behind.... maybe two gay guys???? LOL

Trevor Snyder wrote:
You can hardly fail to notice how the guy with the huge ridged head has been placed at the back while the white men have been placed front and center. Certainly a highly racially charged environment.

He's feeling up Troi.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

And the girls behind.... maybe two gay guys???? LOL

Possibly. Clearly there are overtones of sexism in the image as well, proving that even if we flit about in spaceships, God clearly made a huge mistake when She created the universe. Otherwise, people wouldn't be allowed to think in ways I disagree with.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:
What's up with the super white guy? Oh sorry the super Caucasian guy... that's the correct way to ask.

he is German Minnesotan.

CantikFotos wrote:

He's feeling up Troi.

That is hardly surprising considering the alluring asexual clothing they are all wearing. Leaves little to the imagination.

Jay Bowman wrote:
It's like saying the NFL is sexist because they don't let women play and they women who are connected to the teams are "forced" into exploitatively revealing clothing.


Please.  It's a football team.  They're cheerleaders.  Don't make an issue where there isn't one...

Searcher wrote:
Well, if you ignore the cheerleaders and note that they only accept male players... yeah, that's sexist.

This is clinically refered to as "nitpicking."


Next you'll be saying that the notion of a "Men's Restroom" is sexist because you need a penis to get in.  You'll say Miss America is sexist because with a penis you're disqualified.  Plus Miss America doesn't allow foreigners... I guess that makes it even worse, eh?


This is the kind of skewed perspect that waters down real issues...

Searcher wrote:
I think, because the existence of its name alone sustains racial divides. What makes African-Americans a people seperate from other people? The labels they apply to themselves.

Damn, what book did you study that out of? You do know that there was a time that blacks didn't have a 'lable'? There was a time that 'racist' slave owners named all of their male slave owners after them. 'George'. Then blacks were graduated from Nigger to Negros, a name or as you state, 'lable' that wasn't given on our own terms. It wasn't until Malcom X who came unto the scene that the word African America was first used. It was years later after his death that African American became the 'new' word that many black indentify with, to this present.

The last thing that I need is a modern day 'overseeor' on the plantation, like you, telling me what is approriate and what I should use simply because you don't like it. That's too damn bad. Hell there was a time that if a black man was caught looking at black women, he'd be hanged. Well while many things have changed, some things still remain the same. It's just that people are more subtle about they feel.

This post actually was for the African Entertainment statement that you had made. But it applies to this one too.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:

you have not the "only lesbians only need apply" job in the other thread

1. You left out a word.
2. I haven't seen the post you're talking about.
3. There's a difference between things like hereditary traits of outward appearance and things like the gender a person "like likes."  I don't like being left out of things because I'm white or thin, but I don't mind being left out of things because I have tattoos or don't shop at Wal Mart.