BET Racist Against Black People?

by: Dan Proft

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:48:58 PM CDT


If the Aryan Nation plotted to develop a media property designed to denigrate and destroy black culture, could they do a better job than Black Entertainment Television (BET)?

This question occurred to me after learning that BET executives invited two of the "Jena Six" to present the award for Best Hip-Hop Video last week at their annual hip-hop music awards.

The answer ossified into the indisputable after hearing one of BET's newsreaders actually compare the Jena Six to the "Little Rock Nine" from a half century earlier.

Let's explore this comparison.

In Little Rock in 1957, nine black students were systematically victimized by unprovoked attacks for seeking out an education.

In Jena in 2007, six black students committed an unprovoked assault against one of their white classmates ostensibly in response to three other, unrelated white students who had hung nooses from a tree on the grounds of the high school.

In Little Rock in 1957, nine black students endured state-sponsored racism and the torments of their white classmates while coming to symbolize the end of the disgraceful "separate but equal" era in this country in the process.

In Jena in 2007, the white students responsible for hanging the nooses were suspended by the school board and referred to the Office of U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, an African-American gentleman, for hate crimes prosecution.

In Little Rock in 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower intervened to protect the students, enforce desegregation, and uphold the principle that all are to be treated equally under the law.

In Jena in 2007, Al Sharpton intervened to do exactly the opposite, advocating essentially that the law may be disregarded if one has a racial grievance.

Nine students who held fast against institutional racism in the name of racial empowerment and individual enfranchisement versus six students for which the contended moral imperative is that they be charged with the lesser included offenses.

The courage of the students in Little Rock is blasphemed by BET's comparison.

BET and the hip-hop culture it propagates exalt being a thug. What a community exalts, it begets.

And so it begot two, remorseless members of the Jena Six strolling the red carpet at BET's award show like they had accomplished something.

What the BET brass did not tell the kids from Jena is that the thug lifestyle works out a lot better in a three minute music video than it does in the real world.

What BET's cultural mavens should have told the kids from Jena is that, "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."

An old school lyricist named Martin Luther King, Jr. penned those words. Or maybe it was Fat Joe? Ah, well, what's the difference, right, BET?

© All Rights Reserved

Dan Proft :: BET Racist Against Black People?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
they had accomplished something... (4.00 / 1)
they survived in the midst of a racist culture that condoned (and dismissed) racist imagery.  makes me wonder what you ever accomplished that you feel the need to belittle survivors of the jena horror...

"We have a lot of kids on the ground acting like adults and we have a lot of adults in this room acting like kids," President Obama told his advisors about all the infighting

??? (4.00 / 1)
Dan, why are you posting here? Is Tony Peraica busy?

Should we allow copyrights here? (0.00 / 0)
We are defacto a creative commons zone although  we haven't posted that anywhere. So the question becomes should we allow copyrighted material?

Jeff Wegerson

That's a good question (0.00 / 0)
If this is indeed Mr. Proft posting his own material, he's already copyrighted it to begin with and is free to republish his own copyrighted material as he wishes (it is not original to PSB, he's just copying and pasting).

The weirdnesss comes into play in that technically nothing posted to PSB is copyrighted because of the creative commons zone (as my non-lawyerly-self understands it).

If you ask me, for purely selfish reasons, if I ever feel a need to discuss Mr. Proft's vacuous inanity I'd rather link to PSB since it allows comments than to his Urqhart archive of the same material.

Congrats on PSB becoming another echo in the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer.

And, to be honest, I have to give Mr. Proft a microgram of credit for parroting his material here rather than with his friends at Illinois Review (other than the occasional Diersen link) and doing so with his own name rather than, say, an alias. ;)

Maybe he's looking for work from campaigns on the other side of the aisle and needs some wallpapered street cred...


[ Parent ]
Well, technically ALL written work (0.00 / 0)
is under copyright.  It is not the case that it is not copyrighted work, but whether the copyright holder has granted the license to reproduce it.

With a creative commons license, the copyright holder has granted the right to reproduce it freely.

Mr Profit, asserting his copyright, would seem to be acting on his right to withhold that license to reproduce his work.  But perhaps not; use of the copyright symbol per se does not necessarily imply that he withholds the right on a creative commons site.

Seems to me that a clear policy is needed here, so that posters will know this is a creative commons site, and so that they will know how to opt in or out.


[ Parent ]
Technically on the technicality..... (0.00 / 0)
Unless the copyright is asserted (usually with the circle-C copyright symbol or some other notation), a given work is only presumed to be copyrighted since it is not expressly copyrighted.

Confused? In other words, it's best to be safe rather than sorry and presume that somebody's work (written, photographic, etc.) is copyrighted even if there is no express notice of same.


[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
You're confusing copyright with registration of copyright.

Registration of your copyright gives you additional rights of redress against infringement, but the law is explicit:  the author has the copyright of all written work upon its creation, unless it is a work made for hire - in which case the hirer owns the copyright - and retains it unless it is explicitly given up, sold or licensed to another party.

Thus you are correct to say that one must presume anyone's written work is under copyright.



[ Parent ]
A-ha! Thanks - eom (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
There is a recent case (0.00 / 0)
that illustrates this problem.

One of the editors of BoingBoing wrongly copied a short essay by Ursula K LeGuin [famous writer] to BoingBoing, which is famously a Creative Commons site.  LeGuin demanded that it be taken down (a) because she had given no permission to have it posted, which was a violation of her copyright, and (b)that its appearance on BoingBoing, with its Creative Commons license, was an implicit license to anyone else to copy and distribute it freely.

If PSB is a Creative Commons site, then it needs to address this issue with a clear and unambiguous copyright policy.


[ Parent ]
Diving further OT... (0.00 / 0)
Point A is valid -- she own the copyright and the material should not have been republished in total without her permission.

Point B, however, I question. She owned the copyright, not the Boing Boing poster. So why would one presume the material would be free for the taking if it was not original to Boing Boing?

This gets back to Jeff's original question. Mr. Proft's material here is copyrighted by him. He is choosing to republish it here (for free) on the PSB blog.

PSB or anyone associated with running it shouldn't be presumed to own the copyright because Mr. Proft has clearly shown he owns it. But, because it is appearing on a Creative Commons site (PSB) one might argue that Mr. Proft is choosing to abide by the Creative Commons tenets -- and that gets directly to Jeff's original question.

(Long story short, I see it as apples and oranges. Ms. LeGuin did not republish her material at Boing Boing and has the right to make the case she is now making. OTOH, Mr. Proft himself chose to republish his material here at PSB of his own accord.)


[ Parent ]
One would presume (0.00 / 0)
LeGuin's material was free because people who are familiar with BoingBoing know it as a Creative Commons site with a strong anti-copyright stance - particularly if they did not know it was posted w/o permission.

I don't mean to say that the two cases are the same, only that it illustrates the situation when a site has a Creative Commons policy.

I would say that, to avoid problems, people signing up at the site ought to check an "I Accept" box that shows they are aware of the CC license when they post.  Or else PSB could adopt an "opt-out" policy whereby posters could assert that they don't want their material covered by the license.



[ Parent ]
real hip hop is progressive (0.00 / 0)
so you might not be aware, but there are a lot of voices in the hip-hop community who dont appreciate the glorification of the thug life.  folks like KRS-ONE and Chuck D make the point that it is corporate media, like BET and WGCI, that promotes the unreal gangster image in order to sell music primarily to white kids.  conscious hip-hop artists speak out against the artists who go beyond doing whats right in exposing the daily hell in ghettos to doing whats wrong in selling out themselves and their community by glorifying the gang lifestyle.  corporate media also shuts out positive voices who advocate a progressive vision of taking care of others and not wasting your money on image.

if you want corporations to start showing more positive images on the networks, im with you.  the entire real hip-hop community is with you.  but maybe you could take a risk yourself, and start a conversation on air at WLS about whether Desperate Housewives is setting a positive example about marriage?

Jena Six on wiki
http://en.wikipedia....

free album from a great new hip-hop Chicago artist
http://www.myspace.c...

William J Maggos


Actually, the real "risk" would be... (0.00 / 0)
...starting a conversation on air at WLS about whether channels like the Trinity Broadcasting Network contribute to the dumbing down of Americans by promoting religion as science with their airing of numerous "creationist" propagandist videos which quite literally make things up simply because the authors and producers of those programs don't understand the science they are discussing. Such programs have the potential to put our nation's children at a disadvantage on the world stage when it comes to education and scientific achievement.

[ Parent ]
wow (2.00 / 1)
I enjoy seeing my material on PSB and seeing the remarks it elicits from the over-the-top ("survivors" of the "jena horror"--I didn't realize they had been rescued from a concentration camp) to the typical name-calling ("vacuous inanity") in lieu of argument that is so characteristic of the temper tantrums on the Left.

No matter how obvious the point or clear the reality of a situation, certain people, like those posting here, refuse to concede anything.

Because you are not open to being persuaded, you're rhetorical excesses are not persuasive.  You are so committed to defending a position, rather than seeking answers, that when you find something you cannot defend (like BET's actions/words), you end up almost immediately going off onto various tangents about WLS and science versus religion.  Very telling.

I'm not interested in continually preaching to the converted, or preaching at all for that matter. 

So I rather challenge those pre-disposed to disagree (and that sometimes includes Republicans when it comes to issues like immigration reform) with the hope that some on the Left are similarly interested in sharpening their intellectual arguments as opposed to simply their retinue of grammar-school insults.

BTW, the point made by Mr. Maggos is a salient one.  I agree that not all hip-hop glorifies violence and the thug lifestyle.  Some rappers like Chuck D--even if I disagree with him politically--are at least independent thinkers efforting at social commentary for the purposes of pointing to a better way for young black kids.  I also agree that hip-hop's reach extends well beyond black kids.

You'll note I focused my commentary on BET and what BET had chosen to do and chosen to say, neither of which point their intended targets to a better way.

Regards,

Dan Proft



i was trying to engage, but you dodged (4.00 / 1)
regarding jena, for me, it boils down to this:

a history of racism, a violent beating (that should be condemned as should all violence) by african-americans of a caucasian that did not amount to attempted murder but which was charged as such, the lessening of that charge once the issue gained media coverage.  not till later was it made into the media frenzy, instigated by an attempt to show racism still exists in this country (an important point).

regarding BET which was your main point i thought, it is corporate media.  please stop insinuating that it is an entire community exalting that image.  how much of an effect do you seriously think mass media has on people?  how do conservatives then mesh freedom of expression with free enterprise then?  we progressives think pursuit of profit too often trumps meaningful quality programming, so we support public broadcasting.

we of the progressive persuasion think structural issues are largely to blame for the problems in the world.  we wish to address issues like racism and the political system that MLK spoke of later in his life.  while conservatives and progressives could debate endlessly whether addressing structural issues is the way to make life better for all people, my sense is it wouldnt be very constructive.  we have some core values here and are trying to figure out how best to advance them.  this site isnt what you want it to be, and i for one dont want it to be what you envision.

but it is so damn easy to start your own...

William J Maggos


[ Parent ]
Jena horror (0.00 / 0)
The horror is that any kid should feel threatened with bodily harm at his/her own school. Noose = death threat. If you don't get that, you don't get anything.

[ Parent ]
As Upton Sinclair said: (4.00 / 1)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone

[ Parent ]
"wow" right back at you (0.00 / 0)
Mr. Proft ironically writes, "No matter how obvious the point or clear the reality of a situation, certain people, like those posting here, refuse to concede anything."

Couldn't have said it better...

As Mr. Maggos points out, you've dodged the actual issue in question here. Funny that you would claim to be seeking to avoid "preaching to the converted" given that is precisely what you're doing.

Issuing false comparisons and hollow epithets about BET which are designed to imply the Jena 6 are somehow "less than" the Little Rock 9 is your own attempt at avoiding the obvious point about the reality of the situation in Jena (ie, it is vacuous inanity ... so many words about nothing).

The issue isn't BET. It is the racism which seems pervasive even to this day in Jena.

One form of racism isn't worse than another -- they are all equally despicable -- nor are the actions of a given person (say, a fistfight) some sort of rationale for accepting racism.

But nice try at changing the subject with your vacuous inanity.

(PS: It's not name-calling. It's telling the truth about your pointless spin designed to avoid the topic of the racism that exists in this country to this day. If you don't like it try thinking about your next essay's topic a bit more thoroughly.)


[ Parent ]
Prairie State Blue
Front Page - Back Page


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


0 User(s) logged on.
Search




Advanced Search


Misc
View
Powered by: SoapBlox