Mark Burnett: racism is just socioeconomics
RT (a new MMW guest contributor!)
Let’s say you have long-in-the-tooth tv program that no one has been watching for years. To boost the ratings, you decide to tweak the format, focusing solely on race in a divisive manner. Knowing everyone talk about it, but generally in a negative way, you want to silence critics, so you angle to put out a proactive message that all of this is done with a broader social purpose in mind to raise awareness and tolerance, maybe to explore our deeper motivations as people.
Not that anyone would really buy it, but who’s the last person you’d expect (or want) to deliver that message effectively? How about the producer of that show? In a leading industry insider newsletter?
That’s just what Mark Burnett, famed producer of “Survivor: Race Matters” er “Cook Islands” reportedly did in the September 6, 2006 online daily edition of Cynopsis.
Burnett’s reported screed follows on the heels of the Cynopsis editor Cynthia Turner’s (no relation) decision to begin including complete and unedited emails sent to her, prompted by a piece on… GM’s pullout of support for the next season of “Survivor”. Turner had noted in a brief aside: “It’s been my observation in the current brou-ha-ha over Survivor that the louder someone has hollered about racial issues in the upcoming season of this series; the less likely they have ever actually seen an episode of Survivor.”
So what does Burnett want the world to know? That his intentions are good and that he doesn’t want to be misunderstood. People need to be rational, not racist, and all he’s asking is for everyone to just and wait and see and give his show a chance. Rational people, after all, know that today’s racism is just a function of “socioeconomics” and plays into everyday judgments and associations. But if everyone were left to go native, in a tribal sense, on a desert island his show will help them focus on their primal strengths and relationship abilities, just like in the workplace they’re trying to get away from. But he can’t be sure. But he’ll hope you’ll watch. And he promises to make each race look as equally offensive as possible, because that’s his right. But he promises there will be no stereotyping. Because that’s impossible for a tv show to do, especially his. And anyway, he wouldn’t think of doing that in the first place.
Apart from increasing traffic to what previously had been one of the television industry’s best “secret” insider newsletters, it’s unclear if Burnett is planning to create a meta-reality show around the hype.
Don’t miss out on the unexpurgated semi-proofread fun while it’s still fresh. Cynopsis “Emails to the Editor” archive.
John wrote:
I don’t understand your point.
Why wouldn’t you expect or want Mark Burnett to defend his show? He obviously knows more than anyone else what the end result is, and how the issues of race are handled.
I didn’t see anything in his e-mail to the editor that was negative or inflammatory.
Mary Mitchell’s recent blog post in the Chicago Sun-Times was right on … people often root for “their own kind” in athletic competition. How many African-Americans cheer for the Williams sisters in tennis or Tiger Woods in golf because they are black? Look at what Bryant Gumbel said about the Winter Olympics … that he wouldn’t watch it because there were no people of color participating.
I don’t see any riots or office fist fights over tennis, golf or the Olympics. Survivor will be the same way. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that all this complaining in advance has done is boost the show’s ratings.
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 8:29 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
@ John
MB says:
“I agree with the overriding sentiment which is “wait and see”. This sentiment clearly comes from rational people who have at least seen a few episodes of Survivor. These people can therefore logically deduct that racism is far more likely to be found in our modern world where socioeconomics, and by extension, race plays a large part in how people are associated with and even worse judged.”
I think her point was to illustrate how MB is attempting to defend a racial premise, with a racist argument of rationality*, by using a de-racinated argument.
*before you even ask! “Rationality” is the card white men (sometimes women) play to trump any discussions on the plausibility of racism as a cause for an event/comment/experience… It implies that any such argument is irrational/emotional/visceral and has no basis in fact. It’s intent and effect is to invalidate someone’s reality and imply that any experience is non-existent or all-in-your-head. It is grounded on the long-standing belief that whites are superior in thought and intellect. They think logically and don’t engage in “riots” or “office fist fights”. It also implies that their experiences are THE reality and racism doesn’t exist/ended in 1863/or it’s not me.
F*** yeah I root for Venus & Serena. Why?
-2 black women
-who are sisters!!
-prodigies
-dedicated
-from a working class background
-endured taunts and ridicule for being on the tennis court day & night
-stood at net with their arms behind their back while their dad hit balls AT them
-have won several Grand Slams, gold medals
-Venus has the most lucrative endorsement deal for a female
-Venus has the fastest serve ever recorded in the women’s game
-Serena is best American woman on clay (maybe the best American period)
-have penetrated a sport that since its inception has been elitist, racist, classist Yeah, it’s definitely better. But we have a long way to go (Lleyton Hewitt asked for the replacement of a black linesman b/c the only reason he called out of bounds was because he was the same color as James Blake).
You can use the same line of thinking for Tiger (yes I know how he defines himself) who had to shrug off Fuzzy Zoeller’s fried chicken comment as he donned his 1st green jacket.
We don’t cheer b/c “we” are beating “them”. We cheer b/c “we” are beating exclusion and beating low expectations and beating insults. We cheer because we are being vicariously included and accepted as part of America. We (all of us-or perhaps the rest of us) cheer to drown out monkey noises at soccer games.
[FTR - I cheer for Americans in general, Amelie Mauresmo, & others I deem cheerworthy.]
Please add the following to your carefully selected examples: boxing (Sullivan, Schmelling, LaMotta, Golota, Klitschko), basketball (Larry Bird), 1936 Olympic Games (hint: Jesse Owens, Fuhrer).
In all seriousness John, I urge you to put Unforgiveable Blackness, documentary about Jack Johnson in your Netflix queue. It is on my all time list of documentaries on sports, race and the United States.
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 12:07 pm ¶
John wrote:
Those weren’t my carefully selected examples. They were Mary Mitchell’s. I simply repeated them to point out that people DO root for certain individuals because of their race, and it happens all the time among people of all backgrounds.
That’s not racism … it’s identification. You don’t have to explain to me why you root for the Williams sisters. I get it.
Mark Burnett’s defense of his show is understandable. If he is employing “rationality,” it’s no more an offense that the irrational reaction that the original announcement generated. People were up in arms over something they haven’t even seen.
One of Survivor’s “hooks” has always been pitting one group against another (age, gender, random teams), then bringing them together and making them get along. This season is no different.
In fact, I actually think the upcoming show’s premise is fascinating because it is realistic. People of all races tend to befriend and associate with others who “look like them,” yet we live and work in a multi-cultural, integrated society that requires us to understand one another.
Isn’t that what Burnett promises this season will focus on? First the teams will be divided by race and compete against one another; then they will integrate and learn to work together.
If you ask me, the biggest problem with this season of Survivor is how everyone — on both sides of the issue — used the notion of race to further their own agenda.
CBS and Burnett used it to boost publicity and ratings; the professional “racism is everywhere” pundits used it to promote themselves.
Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 2:53 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
Gatamala,
I’ve learned not to waste my time on John.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 12:07 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Lesson learned.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 8:19 am ¶
John wrote:
Why is it a waste of time to discuss these issues on this blog? I thought that was the purpose of it.
I visit here because I am interested in the topic and I learn every time I do. At the same time, your point of view is not the only one.
Is it a waste of time because I don’t immediately say “I’m wrong” and change my opnions or experiences to fit yours? How is that having a discussion? Believe me, I read your comments and I try to learn from them and understand your thinking. I just don’t immediately cave in because on the posts I’ve commented on, there often isn’t a right and wrong.
The topic here is Survivor. You don’t believe at all that there is a chance this year’s approach will be a non-issue? It can’t possibly happen? It’s immediately racist and will continue to be racist no matter what takes place? To me, that is short-sighted. It could be a disaster, yes … but more likely it is nothing more than another reality show with a silly pretense.
It’s fascinating to me that so many commenters here are so close-minded, yet they constantly promote open-mindedness and understanding. There can be no opinions or points of view except yours … otherwise they are a “waste of time!”
The issue of race is complex and multi-faceted. Marginalizing others is not the way to build bridges or increase awareness.
Posted 13 Sep 2006 at 11:41 am ¶
Antonette wrote:
John please keep posting you are entitled to your opinion just like anyone else. It would be a shame if people are discouraged from posting here because their opinions don’t go along with other peoples way of thinking.
Posted 14 Sep 2006 at 6:54 am ¶
John wrote:
Thanks, Antonette.
Posted 14 Sep 2006 at 8:22 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
John - nobody said discussing the issues was a waste of time. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion - I have no problem with that. However, it’s discouraging to see how someone could spend so much time looking at the words on this blog and understand absolutely nothing. I suspect you are trying to make a point that, “it isn’t racial” or “it’s all in your head” [see above comment]. Trust me, John, no one on this blog WANTS race to be an issue. The construction of race does not work to the advantage of most of the bloggers, visitors etc… I swore I would no longer spoon feed Race & Minorities 101: a Basic Study to anybody, but I have seen too many minority-hosted blogs hijacked by people who want to use these outlets to maintain privilege by invalidating the experiences of others.
1). No. There is no chance for race to be a non-issue. The competition is pitting race vs. race in a number of challenges. On its face, RACE …. IS…. THE …. ISSUE. Believe me, the editing will reflect the producers’ notions on race and what brings in ratings. By asserting that something so blatant does NOT exist, YOU are actually the one being close-minded and reflecting the sentiment I expressed concerning rationality.
2) This is not about you “caving in.” It’s interesting you chose to frame this discussion in zero sum terms, then say it’s not about “right or wrong”. First, you make an either/or win/lose statement. Then in the very same breath allude to nuances in the discussion!!!!!
3) Re: the topic. I don’t believe RT’s question was whether Survivor was “right or wrong” or whether people will riot in the streets. The point is to assess the validity of Mark Burnett’s justification for Survivor.
YOU dragged out the Scarecrow, put him on a pole, and are attempting to hide behind the cloak of “rationality”.
4) “The issue of race is complex & multi-faceted. Marginalizing others is not the way to build bridges or increase awareness.”
This condescending, presumptuous bullshit from a guy who talks of “racism is everywhere pundits” and refers to concerns about the show as “complaining”. I think it’s really cute that you’ve learned all of the community buzzwords and would like to lecture me on bridge-building and awareness!
I guess you really must feel like a victim of reverse racism
. If you understood the concept of marginalization (not just the Webster’s definition), you wouldn’t use it.
Let me make this clear. I have spent many years of my life living near, going to school with, working with and dealing with people like you and have built many bridges to nowhere. Because I live the complexity of race, I am fully aware that some people that are utterly hopeless. You want to soothe your conscious by posting on discussions about racism (how can I be racist, I post comments on a site run by 2 mixed chicks?!), while maintaining privilege and perpetuating racism (playing the “rational” role, denying the existence of blatant racial issues, euphemisms used by racists to stifle discussion…). John, you may think you are playing the “devil’s advocate” role or are bringing up a novel idea (gasp- what if it’s NOT racism?) - but in all sincerity I am sad to say that you are unfortunately very typical. If you want to learn something, you will have to take responsibility for your education. If you truly do read and digest the material on MMW, you will have noted that minorities don’t exist to explain themselves to you. I will no longer waste my time humoring lazy racists.
@@@readers who are sincerely trying to learn…
I realize that it can be painful to read what is posted on MMW. You will inevitably get defensive. We all go through it when confronted with something that has never occurred to us before (I’ve learned a lot from bloggers of other backgrounds!). I’m sure my post (& certainly others’ posts) seems emotional. Hopefully, you can see that emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that those who experience racism in all of its overt and subtle forms are hurt especially when we have to get defensive in friendly territory. That may sound like Oppression Olympics, but give it some thought before you decide. If you are sincerely committed to exploring, understanding or even eschewing your privilege, it is worth taking a few “knocks” to learn something. If you find yourself consistently posting about how “that’s not racist”, “I’m not racist”, or “my ___ friend says…”, stop. Just read the posts/comments and think about them. The point of MMW & Addicted to Race and the thousands of racially-themed blogs is to make people THINK, not to give you a chance to pat yourself on the back .
Posted 14 Sep 2006 at 9:53 am ¶
John wrote:
Wow.
You have a great deal of experience with “people like me.”
Isn’t that stereotyping?
If your feelings are typical, then I’ll skulk away and leave you to your site where you can complain in peace without any interruption from people like me.
Posted 17 Sep 2006 at 5:37 pm ¶