- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23319
Originally posted by FMFyeah, scrubs ratings have really suffered because there a black guy in it.
Do you have an opinion or answer to my question apart from answering the question with a question or saying, bizarrely, "what if no black person wanted to be part of it in the first place?"
funny how all four shows you quoted have jewish people in them.....
only room for one minority per sitcom?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFlet's say that that is the case. the next question might be: did the shows' producers and networks have a moral/social obligation to make their shows more inclusive, even at the expense of profit?
So you reckon it was a deliberate calculation then? Not to have any black characters. Having them might have made the shows less successful?
1 edit
Originally posted by BlackampFair question, Blackamp.
let's say that that is the case. the next question might be: did the shows' producers and networks have a moral/social obligation to make their shows more inclusive, even at the expense of profit?
But this being the Culture Forum, I am more intrigued by these questions:
- why didn't the shows' producers and networks want to make their shows more inclusive despite the profit differential?
- why, in the cases of the 4 shows I cited, did advertisers - who surely want to reach as many people as they can - prefer the sitcoms as they were and did not pressure the producers to create and package the ideas as more inclusive sitcoms?
- did those advertisers make more money by associating their products with blackpeopleless sitcoms?
- what does it say about American society and culture if the seemingly reasonable answer to the question 'why does this material exclude black people?' is the question 'do the creators of the material have any other obligation apart from maximizing profit?'
Way more broadly: Is the desireability of an inclusive society always always always trumped by the profit motive, when and if that is the stark choice available?
Originally posted by FMFI would say you are looking in the past and things have changed, maybe slowly, but changing. And don't think it is indicative of American Culture I think it indicative of human nature, money is money, and whatever it takes to get it, humans will do it.
Fair question, Blackamp.
But this being the Culture Forum, I am more intrigued by these questions:
- why didn't the shows' producers and networks [b]want to make their shows more inclusive despite the profit differential?
- why, in the cases of the 4 shows I cited, did advertisers - who surely want to reach as many people as they can - prefer the s ...[text shortened]... lways always trumped by the profit motive, when and if that is the stark choice available?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFI seem to recall the Johnny Cochran character, Abu (Pakistani), various Asian girlfriends, Russians, Hispanics, etc. Bear in mind that some minorities picket the minute they get parodied. WE might have a more "inclusive" society when writers stop getting called racist for simple, humorous parody. No one called Seinfeld antisemitic for its parody of Jewish life. Why? Because Jews are quite comfortable in their skin. Or perhaps, like Seinfeld himself states, you can make fun of your iwn ethnic group without fearing retaliation like in the episode the dentist becomes Catholic in order to be able to tell jokes about the latter. Cannot comment about the other shows since I did not care for Friends, Cheers, etc.
Fair question, Blackamp.
But this being the Culture Forum, I am more intrigued by these questions:
- why didn't the shows' producers and networks [b]want to make their shows more inclusive despite the profit differential?
- why, in the cases of the 4 shows I cited, did advertisers - who surely want to reach as many people as they can - prefer the s ...[text shortened]... lways always trumped by the profit motive, when and if that is the stark choice available?[/b]
If we were not an inclusive society Obama would never have been elected, but that's a whole other topic.
Originally posted by FMFIf all of the writers are white, than it's easier for them to write about white characters, just as it's easier for women writers to understand and write about female characters, male writers are generally better at writing about male characters, etc. It's a dilemma. Can you write dialog for a character of another race without it sounding like a caricature, and can you have the thoughts and feelings of that character be authentic for someone of that race when you've never experienced being that race? Shows with multicultural casts have multicultural writers.
How is it that Cheers, Frasier, Friends and Seinfeld - four of the hugest TV sitcoms that American TV has ever produced - managed to churn out 40 or 50 full length series between them, at 24-26 episodes each, without - for all intents and purposes - having any significant black characters in any of them? Is it 'just one of those things' or was it a deliberate calculation?
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonYes, I've had a fair few over the years. We British use the term "black people". Sorry if it strikes you as odd.
FMF, I gotta ask, and with no disrespect intended, but do you have a lot of African American, or as you put it, black people friends?
Why do you ask?
Originally posted by FMFOK. Nothing about the black people part. it is just that you find it unusual that some shows neglected, or didn't include, African Americans so I thought that perhaps it might have been the case for you as well....meaning, it really might not mean anything at all.
Yes, I've had a fair few over the years. We British use the term "black people". Sorry if it strikes you as odd.
Why do you ask?
Peace
Originally posted by pawnhandlerThe very idea that only women can write about women, men about men, blacks about blacks, ect. is the essence of divisiveness rather than inclusiveness. Most minority groups only write what's positive about themselves, glossing over the warts. Such mendacity leads to deeper misunderstandings since try as you might the warts do not go away. If we only accepted writings by specific groups about themselves we would lay paralyzed waiting for scraps with no meat on them. Stultefying behavior is never good for society and because of this we get erroeneous information.
If all of the writers are white, than it's easier for them to write about white characters, just as it's easier for women writers to understand and write about female characters, male writers are generally better at writing about male characters, etc. It's a dilemma. Can you write dialog for a character of another race without it sounding like a carica ...[text shortened]... ver experienced being that race? Shows with multicultural casts have multicultural writers.
Seinfeld wrote more than credibly about groups other than his own and made hilarious social commentary on various groups without being demeaning or insulting. We all have our respective quirks and warts. We need to be able to point these out without resorting to the pitchfork mentality.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI used the word "easier." It is also easier to write about groups you know more about. Since white males are the dominant culture, they're not that hard to write about on a shallow level, although a deep, multi-faceted male character would be hard to write about if you're not around many deep, multi-faceted men. Growing up in a multicultural area with multicultural friends, neighbors, and classmates makes it easier to write about those groups, so of course someone raised in an urban area would have more insight. I'm not talking about crappy writing. Anyone can do crappy writing and include all ethnic groups. But not many men, for example, create authentic women characters, which is what makes Alexander McCall Smith (The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, etc.) and Jim Fergus (One Thousand White Women) so outstanding.
The very idea that only women can write about women, men about men, blacks about blacks, ect. is the essence of divisiveness rather than inclusiveness. Most minority groups only write what's positive about themselves, glossing over the warts. Such mendacity leads to deeper misunderstandings since try as you might the warts do not go away. If we only acc ...[text shortened]... and warts. We need to be able to point these out without resorting to the pitchfork mentality.
Originally posted by FMFI personally like King Of Queens better than those anyway.
How is it that Cheers, Frasier, Friends and Seinfeld - four of the hugest TV sitcoms that American TV has ever produced - managed to churn out 40 or 50 full length series between them, at 24-26 episodes each, without - for all intents and purposes - having any significant black characters in any of them? Is it 'just one of those things' or was it a deliberate calculation?