Hey Freak!

OK, so the new season of Survivor is getting set to begin on September 14. Woo. But, there's a new twist this season.

Remember last season, when they divided into four groups based on age/sex? I thought that was bad enough. But, like all reality shows, whether it's good or bad, they've managed to top that.

Come September 14, we'll all get to see Segregated Survivor. Seriously. They're dividing the twenty contestants into four racially based teams - asians, latinos, blacks, and white folks. Watch Jeff Probst explain the reasoning.

Oh, forget it. I'll tell you what he said. "I found it to be one of the freshest ideas going back to the beginning of the show in season one."

Freshest?

Freshest?

Fuck you. Racial division isn't a "fresh" idea. Segregation isn't a "fresh" idea. Sadly, this is the CBS reaction to viewers writing in and saying that the show wasn't ethnically diverse enough. Nice solution, don't you think? Instead of just choosing more contestants from different backgrounds, we'll get them and reinforce the differences between them.

The show is "a social experiment. We're just adding another layer to that experiment." You want to add another layer? How about having one person of each ethnicity on each team? How about switching teams more frequently? How about separating the teams based on their favorite color? Or political party affiliation? Shoot, there are hundreds of different things they could have done to add to the "social experiment," but sadly, they went back in time for outdated social values. Let's separate 'em all by race! Wouldn't that be cute!

I wonder what the tribe names will be? The chinks, the spics, the coons, and the crackers? I mean, what the fuck?

Welcome to Reality TV today. It's not about entertainment. It's about creating conflict. It's about bringing the worst out in people.

But hey, as long as it gets ratings, then it's OK, right?

Freshest? Wasn't there talk of The Apprentice being segregated last season? I know it didn't go down that way but I figured that was because the producers realized how stupid the idea was. Or was it just a rumor? I never did bother to do any legwork to see how valid the gossip was. I've never really gotten into Survivor and for damn this gimmick isn't going to draw me in now.

I thought this was bullshit when I read it the other day...damn. Needless to say I'll not be watching this one.

that's just loathsome and foul. i'm almost sad that I don't watch. then i could make a big stink about it when i stopped watching. because that just assinine! i hope thier ratings tank and they get canceled.

I don't know what to say, man. Am I reading this right? Mikey acknowledges that grouping people by race is wrong, divisive, segregating, and based on outdated concepts? Somehow these arguments are familliar to me. Must be Deja vu.

Of course grouping people by race is wrong and divisive. I've never said that it wasn't, despite your insinuation.

But, I don't see identifying myself as "asian" as wrong as divisive. It's just an identifyer, just as "heavy" or "short" would be. When people start using simple identifyers like that in order to group people, that's what I take issue with.

Limbaugh had a field day with this one. If he had dreamed this up everyone would be screaming "RACIST!" but since it was someone on the other side of the political fence, it is kind of OK.

Of course, I won't watch it. I haven't watched any of the "reality TV" shows. I look at it this way: when you add cameras, it it TRULY reality TV? I don't know anyone who goes around with a film crew recording their life. (Except maybe Ed from EdTV )

The best part will be watching people go out of their way to cheer for races outside of their own so they don't sound like racists around the watercooler at work the next day.

Why not go all the way with it? Why not have watermelon eating contests and math competitions? I mean, if you're going to make a show out of antiquated racist notions, you may as well have fun with it.

If CBS had any shows that I liked in the first place, I'd be boycotting them.

I'm back. This is retarded. Did I mention that? It's retarded. I'm done.

Of course grouping people by race is wrong and divisive. I've never said that it wasn't, despite your insinuation.

Whatever, Mikey. If they're still around check the archives from your last blog for our discussion on California's Prop 54.

Your justifications for opposing the proposition were exactly that - grouping and separating (a.k.a. segregating) people by race.

I, for one, am glad you finally see the light on this matter. Welcome to the Right side!

Sorry, Chet, but you're absolutely wrong. You never really listened to what I said (just taking bits out of context and such), so it's no surprise that you're trying to start shit here again.

My justifications for opposing that proposition were exactly what I just said. Prop 54 would do away with these identifyers. In a perfect world, that would be ideal. But in the real world, Prop 54 would have just made it easier for people to discriminate. After all, you can't legally claim discrimination if you can't identify yourself as different. As I stated back then...

To me, it's clear - it (Prop 54) would make it easier to discriminate. Why? Because without any such classifications, it would make it virtually impossible to prove that discrimination exists. It ignores the problem instead of tackling it.

Apparently, in your world, if I identify myself as asian, I'm for segregation. Quite a jump, there. But hey, that's nothing for you. You make assumptions like that all the time. That's your calling card. And I'm sorry, but you don't win arguments - you just bore the shit out of me. And really, there's no point in arguing "the world is round" to the flat earth society. You're gonna believe what you want (and that's fine), and you'll never try to understand what I'm saying because "I'm a liberal" (I'm not, but that doesn't matter to you either, does it. But it doesn't make you right, and it doesn't mean you know what I'm thinking. And really, I don't have to listen to you. I've let you say your peace, now move along.

Now who's the one making assumptions?

I wouldn't comment here or even read your blog if I wasn't trying to understand where you're coming from.

I didn't call you a "liberal".

I didn't come here to argue prop 54 again but you've misrepresented your argument from 3 yrs ago. If I recall your claims of discrimination being outlawed was shot down due to the fact that the exceptions in that proposition specifically addressed that. You also argued that medical considerations currently as a result of grouping people by class of race would be affected. (This was also an exception, but that's neither here nor there). The proposition was also not saying you can't identify yourself as what you want, but that your state, county, and municipality could not categorize, separate, group or segregate based on race, ethnicity, color, and national origin.

By that same token, are you really Asian? (I digress).

My point, Mikey, is really, that once you get into the argument that it's wrong to group people by race for one thing but a-okay to segregate for another, you come to a slippery slope that leads to Segregational - even discriminatory - tendencies.

You can agree with that, no?

Plenty of people comment without trying to understand where I'm coming from. They're called "trolls."

Yes, you did. Shall I quote you?
"See, this is where you liberals always fail yourselves." Blah blah blah.

I've misrepresented my argument from 3 years ago by... quoting my argument? How do you figure?

Re-reading your "arguments" I still don't agree that the exceptions to address that fact actually will address that fact. I'm not for grouping or segregating, nor did I ever say that I was. I'm against ignoring specific identifiers (i.e. race) under the guise of being "color-blind," when the laws effect will do the opposite, and that is to empower those who would discriminate based on those identifiers.

And, regarding medical segregation? Grouping the people who are most likely to be affected by [whatever disesase] is smart medicine. If there happens to be a disease that affects asian folks more than anyone else, then sure, it'll look like segregation, but really, we're just trying to be proactive in treatment. Sure, I may not have expressed that clearly before, but that's what I meant. And I'm saying it now.

And, how typical. I love these subtle insults you like to throw about. Of course I'm asian.

And again, I never said that it was OK to segregate. But you never listen, do you. Of course not. You know what you're thinking better than I do, and you know what I'm thinking better than I do. Boy, you just know everything.

And again, I see your typical style of arguing. I've never said that I was for segregation, but you tirelessly insist that I have. You say that you didn't come here to discuss Prop 54, but you're the one who brought it up. You insult me, but if I return insults, I've "lost the argument."

Rather than re-hash this argument again, I'm done with you. I'm sick of you basically asking "But why male models?" (Zoolander fans will get that) I've asked you to move along, too, but again, you're not listening. Whatever. I'll help you along in that vain. Feel free to email me if you have anything else to say. Feel free to talk about this on your own blog. But I'm not letting you take up any more comment space here. Have a nice day.

Big difference between identifying and segregating.

soooo I was going to comment on survivor going to far but apparently this has become a forum for shit disturbing. So if I were to identify myself as aboriginal, that makes me pro-segregation? Maine took the words right out of my mouth, big difference!

On a survivor note, I'm really surprised I haven't heard any backlash in mainstream media yet.

Good grief... is he for real? He makes it sound like you should not be proud to admit who you are, that you should just forget who you are - cos hevean forbid you are happy and comfortable being Asian, that would be discriminatory. He makes me feel pro-segregation - but not for races, just for stupid people versus non-stupid people.

You have amazing patience Mikey!

By the way, mikey, this website is a blog, and it should only be listed on IcyShard, not on Google where good sites like CNN and ESPN are.

We are, after all, forced to interpret evident differences between things as reasons to separate them, right? I mean, we can't just see a blog and say, "that's a blog - it has blog things," can we?

I think it's interesting, actually. CBS has decided to do this on Survivor...Omaha Nebraska has decided to do it with it's largest public school district. (One large district is being divided into three smaller racially identifiable (White, Black, Latino) districts.

In regard to the Omaha situation, the thought was that, if you gave local control to the community in which the students lived (all things being equal in funding between the districts), the "Black" districts would address "Black" issues, the "Latino" district would address Latino issues, and the White district...well...they'd address the "White" issues. It's not segregation, per se, because no one is forced to go to any school based on their color - and the districts will work to gether on integration plans. But the idea is to give the control of the schools to the communities in which they reside.

(no, I'm not entirely off on a tangent here)

If you think about it in regard to survivor, it's possible that if you racially segregate the groups, they will form a stronger bond with "like individuals", thus making their teams stronger.

See, we get all tripped up in relating segregation to unfairness. It doesn't necessarily have to equal that. Realistically, separating them by skin color isn't any different than separating them by favorite color. The only reason we see it that way is because in the past we related color segragation to slavery, unfairness, and inequality.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think it's anything to get bent about.

What a disgusting idea. I don't watch Survivor often and this is the best reason to avoid it altogether.

It's not as much that segregation is being equated to unfair here as much as it is the notion that so many of the differences in people that cause issues on Survivor (or in school) are racial.

Race itself is a physical thing. A matter of appearance. If you want to find people who will "bond" in the sense that's being implied, then you'd have to do it by culture.

Doing it by race implies that having certain physical features also makes a statement about your personality, which is the notion that we've been trying to suppress in America for a while now. Everybody knows you get your personality from the music you choose to listen to.

"Realistically, separating them by skin color isn't any different than separating them by favorite color. The only reason we see it that way is because in the past we related color segragation to slavery, unfairness, and inequality."

Sorry, but that's not realistic at all. That's idealistic. Maybe to you and me, separating by skin color isn't any different than separating by favorite color. Realistically, there are still plenty of people out there who think that separating by skin color is prudent, because they (people of other colors) are different, and inherently, inferior. Realistically, people still currently associate color segregation with slavery, unfairness, and inequality.

Maybe you don't think it's anything to get bent about, and that's your opinion. I don't see it that way. But then again, I'm a minority, and we're always too over-sensitive about such things, right?

Whoa! Too much drama here for a post on Survivor. I'll try to politely step around that and just talk about the issue of the show.

While I think the idea of making the tribes split on the basis of race is bad, I don't find it more offensive than splitting them up by gender. Either way, it's attempting to use old prejudices as dividing lines to create more drama for the show. (It's supposed to be people stuck in the wild without fire and having to make do on their own for most of their food and water. Why do you need fake drama?)

I will admit that someone coming up with the idea of splitting the tribes by race is great comedy. What do the producers expect? Am I supposed to feel some sort of solidarity for the white tribe because I share a lack of pigment? Do I root for them because they had ancestors who lived on the same continent mine did? Do they think I'm going to sit in front of my TV screaming, "Come on whiteys! Row that boat faster. It's just like when you were on the crew team back at college."

It might be idealistic, Mikey, but look at it - And I'm assuming that where you live is similar to where I live, which is probably laughable given you're in CA and I'm in NE. BUT...while you have some integration, it definitely tends to be Black neighborhoods in one area, Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods in another, and white neighborhoods in another. This is not (to me) as much of an economic striation as it is a choice. In our area, the housing prices are basically the same in North Omaha as South Omaha, and yet, the African American community is largely present in North Omaha, and the Latino community is largely present in South Omaha - and I posit that that is because that is where each group is more comfortable (around people from a similar background). THAT to me is reality - that colors tend to segregate anyway. If that's a true representation of "how things are", why is it so far fetched to do it on survivor?

first off, hi! found you through Miss Zoot, i think.

anyway... i agree with you on the Survivor thing. i'm still a bit stricken that it hasn't dawned on any of the producers that other people might not see it the way they do. but.... last season they separated the cast by age. wasn't that age descrimination? i don't really remember anyone being mad about that one... but i digress...

Honestly, I don't think that colors would segregate anyway. Honestly, I think that there's probably a lot of "We don't want your kind in our neighborhood." And, to be fair, there's probably a bit of "Don't live over there; that's their neighborhood. Come live with your [whatever ethnic background] brothers."

But, that can't be proven, so I won't belabour that point.

So, let's go on the premise that colors would segregate anyway. Wouldn't a good social experiment be to put equal parts of different ethnic groups together, and then see how they separate themselves? If your "true representation" really were true, you wouldn't need to segregate them - they'd do it themselves, right?

To force segregation like that is a far cry from just "letting it happen." If it would happen like that at all.

Maybe you should suggest that to the Survivor producers. Tell them they should let the group decided how to divide themselves?

Or would that be too much like grade school sports, where the buff, athletic kids get chosen first, and the fat kids get left 'til last, and feel awful when no one wants to pick them.

Or would that be "Fitness segregation"?

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: