but it must get its wear.
in fashion nothing is really new
but every season you have to
talk about it like it is.
so the next season of survivor, the teams will de divided by race/ethnicity: black vs. white vs. asian vs. latino. cbs says that they are well aware that it is controversial, but they are going forward with it.
i have ever been a member of what in the corporate world can be called affinity groups, that is, in college i was in the caribbean students' association, black students' organization, black theater ensemble, etc. and now, i am going to write about why the segregated survivor is not the same as racial/ethnic affinity groups.
but i think that its kind of obvious, given the terms i just used: segregated and affinity. an affinity group exists as organization to support the aims of a group of people with a common trait. it expresses the afinity of these individuals, not just to individuals who identify as they do, but in society in general. and, as these groups are affinity based, there is no one who can tell you that you do not belong, since the basis of belonging is that affinity, not of pre-assigned label. affinity groups are open to anyone who expresses affinty to the group. a segregated group imposes restrictions on who can join, and exists to prove and prove again the superiority of its membership over and above everyone else.
which sounds a bit like what this segregated survivor makes light of. segregated survivor is competition based, and competition between racial/ethnic groups is already fraught with CENTURIES of problems. if the white team wins, does it validate the existing unequal social structure? if the black team wins, its it somehow linked to their inherent athletic prowess? if the asian team wins, is it just cuz they are sooo smart? and if the latino team wins...well, i dunno even know if i can begin to address all of the questions there, given that latino is not a race in the same way that black, white, and asian are (according to the semi-official definitions that are used in the us)....if the latino team wins, i suppose all of the questions i just asked apply, and then some. i fear that segregated survivor is setting back america's collective subconscious by at least 45 years, possibly more. taking us back to the civil rights era, or something. are we next to retry brown vs. board of ed american idol style? call in if you think brown is right, call in if you think board of ed is right? i thought the supreme court already ruled that segregated is inherently unequal, and that segregation has no place in american society. and i have a really good question:
biracial/multiracial/ambigously ethnic people: were they assigned a team, based on appearance? the more i think about it, the sadder this makes me.
i guess i am disappointed that some corporate television suits would pander and make light of the problems of race and racism that persist in society today but throwing caricatures of them onto some deserted island/isolated wilderness and telling them to have at each other. unlike an affinity group, this ludicrous competition supports no one and nothing, promotes no dialogue on real issues. of course they are aware this is controversial, how could they not be? controversy is not a bad thing, but the worst part of this segregated survivor is that i can smell the dollar signs that motivated it. but since i can smell those dollar signs, i guess i shouldn't be surprised by it.
well, i have never watched survivor, i've never had a desire to, so i guess i don't need to mount a boycott of it.
Labels: so opinionated, tv, yeah i said it: race
