[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW

So again, I contend that these are really silly debates. To truly have a productive discussion on the issue one must first be cognizant of the historical background surrounding the origins of such ethnic institutions and the reality that exists on the ground today ... and not get caught up in simplistic, straw-man arguments based upon the perceptions generated by having "Black" in the title.

So, given that there's no such historical background to the MOBO awards, why do we have them?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

Although your post is beautifully written, I have to totally disagree with one of your assumptions. The fact is, what we're discussing (unless you're talking about slavery and not racism/Jim Crow/segregation) isn't that long ago. The perpetrators aren't long dead, and neither are their direct victims - they are very much alive.

Consider this. I am 36, and my parents are still very active and in their mid-60s. They directly experienced the worst kinds of racism, pretty much everything you heard about in the 50s and 60s they actually went through. That's just in my immediate family - people who directly experienced horrible racism the likes of which I have never seen and thankfully will not experience.

I must concur with this right here. While it is true that slavery ended 100+ years ago, segregation/Jim Crow/apartheid/racism is very much within recent history if not the present. I am 38 and my parents directly experienced Jim Crow and segregation. I have grandparents who were sharecroppers in the South (when they were alive) and experienced such things firsthand as well. My great-grandfather was a pullman porter on the railroad system and personally experienced the degradation of being a grown man and referred to as "boy" by white people (including children) ... along with other insults to his dignity on a daily basis (e.g. 10,000 Black Men Named George). Such practices had real and tangible impact on the educational and financial opportunities of people and families that are still around today. This is certainly not "ancient history" by any means.

OAW

[christ]

Originally Posted by OAW

...arguments based upon the perceptions generated by having "Black" in the title.

I really have no argument with most of what you, and for that matter Gee, have to say, but sometimes it is hard to know what you are going on about.

The perceptions generated by having 'black' in the title, are exactly the reason that the black was put in the title. To generate those perceptions.

Otherwise it could have (and absolutely should have) been called Open Miss America, or Miss Free America, or Miss Anyone Eligible America.

Can you honestly see anyone of colour entering Miss America if it was renamed "Miss White America" (while keeping its eligibility rules as they are now)?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, given that there's no such historical background to the MOBO awards, why do we have them?

Well this is a British thing and I'm admittedly not as familiar with the situation "across the pond" as I am with the one in the US of A. Having said that, according to the MOBO website ...

MOBO HISTORY


Music of black origin is everywhere.


It's global. It's multi-cultural. It's dynamic. It's history. It's the past, present and future.

In 1996, the MOBO Awards stormed onto our national television screens captivating the world's music industry and the public alike. This unique award ceremony dedicated to music of black origin showcased the world of urban music as a potent force in the cultural worldwide music community: the MOBO era had arrived!

Since its launch the MOBO Awards has seen a phenomenal growth and spectacular success in the championing of music of black origin to mainstream status. Following a MOBO appearance many artists have seen an increase in record sales and heightened media interest.

http://www.mobo.com/history.html

So it appears that this is a genre-based marketing program. Those genres being R&B, Hip Hop, Reggae, and Jazz specifically. And it is certainly true that such genres are of "black origin". Having said that, this does not appear to be exclusionary because people of other ethnicities make such music all the time ... and at times even excel at it. A young white girl named Joss Stone who sings incredible soul music comes to mind. She's nominated for the "UK Act of the Year" award .... and deservedly so. Why? Because she's good. And yes ... I have both of her CDs!

So again, why all the fuss because it has "black" in the title? This is an award show that showcases particular music genres ... and it's not like white people can't come to the party.

OAW

[christ]

Originally Posted by OAW

...why all the fuss because it has "black" in the title? This is an award show that showcases particular music genres ... and it's not like white people can't come to the party.

So you would be happy to see a Music of White Origin award?

White Businesswoman of the Year?

White Entertainment Television?

White Politics Today?

Why do we need a colour in the title? Why do we need to mention colour, if it is not relevant?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by christ

(and yes, Gee, I read what you wrote, and if you think that you answered the question, you obviously hadn't read what you'd written)

I dunno - I'm pretty sure I had answered your questions. You wondered why it's still around, I answered that it has less of a purpose than it did 30+ years ago, and I don't think in general there should be 2 pageants, essentially agreeing with you on that point. You asked whether it was "the boot on the other foot" regarding racism, and I answered that I don't think it's racism even though the necessity is no longer fully relevant, mainly because the intent was inclusion, not exclusion.

OAW answered the follow-up question about excluding whites by researching the history a bit more.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by christ

I really have no argument with most of what you, and for that matter Gee, have to say, but sometimes it is hard to know what you are going on about.

The perceptions generated by having 'black' in the title, are exactly the reason that the black was put in the title. To generate those perceptions.

Otherwise it could have (and absolutely should have) been called Open Miss America, or Miss Free America, or Miss Anyone Eligible America.

Can you honestly see anyone of colour entering Miss America if it was renamed "Miss White America" (while keeping its eligibility rules as they are now)?

Probably not. But you have to, or at least ought to realize that historical realities make the perception different. The crux of your argument is based in the notion that "Miss Black America" and "Miss White America" are, or should be, morally equivalent. "Black" and "White" simply are not interchangeable in situations like this. Why? Well, uh NEWSFLASH .... black people don't have a 400+ year history of screwing over white people because of their color in this country! White people, on the other hand, do. It's as simple as that. Are we talking about every single individual white person? Of course not! But as a group, that is the reality. A "Miss Black America" pageant will be perceived as black people providing pageant/scholarship opportunities for young black women. Doing for self. Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and all that jazz. A "Miss White America" pageant will be perceived as white people being exclusionary and racist. Why? Because history shows that every other time white people have done the "white this" or "white that" thing in this country it was rooted in those very motivations. It will call to mind "white only water fountains", "white only lunch counters", "white only schools", etc. And to be perfectly frank, white people (as a group) have no one to blame but themselves for this seemingly "unfair" situation. After all, no one forced them to do the whole slavery and Jim Crow thing. That was their decision and theirs alone.

Let me put this another way. While "Miss Black America" and "Miss White America" may have an essentially equivalent denotation, they have a very different connotation because of the historical context. Now having said all that, a "Miss Irish America" or "Miss British America" or "Miss Italian America" contest would not have the same kind of negative connotations as a "Miss White America" would. Such a contest would be perceived as just another ethnic pageant. And I personally would have no problem with that. That way, "Miss America" could represent what the name implies. And the ethnic pageants could do the same.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by christ

So you would be happy to see a Music of White Origin award?

White Businesswoman of the Year?

White Entertainment Television?

White Politics Today?

Why do we need a colour in the title? Why do we need to mention colour, if it is not relevant?

Because white folks still have to pay for their injustices, simply put.

[Y3a]

<< Because white folks still have to pay for their injustices, simply put >>

I DIDN'T DO ANY INJUSTICE!!! WHY SHOULD I PAY? Sterotypical BS.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Because white folks still have to pay for their injustices, simply put.

Or rather, for the injustices of their ancestors. Or dare I say, for the sins of their fathers?

[ghporter]

I agree with Millenium. What injustices have I done that I have to pay for?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I agree with Millenium. What injustices have I done that I have to pay for?

Bein' born.