Begs the question of why they pick the people they do though? Darren was quite dopey, Lee hardly said a word. Dean was put in to just to father Brian. Allison was so loud she was bound to go. Narinder! Anoushka barely opened her bags. Sunita was too intelligent and reserved to stay let alone win and went even faster. You didn't need much of an IQ as a caster to predict that Gos would turn into an appendage to the sofa. They couldn't have picked a better caricature of the asylum seeker than idle Ahmed. Becki got the judas kiss role. Victor was obviously picked to be the nasty threat to Nadia and her friends - he was a caricature of a caricature of something nasty.

Even when they picked Mel and Amma who had very positive characters they cast them in negative roles or to fit the stereotype of Amma's last job. Mel was the most successful BB HM in her house, she had the brains and the looks but she was obviously cast as house vamp and edited to look more like one. Amma became an ex pole dancer and potential love interest for Elizabeth when Endemol briefed the press or wanted a new storyline.

None of them looked like potential winners with the possible exception of Mel who predictably put off the female vote. It wasn't Ray who went to Africa. It wasn't Amma who filled the Bubble or Brian roles in BB2. Victor wasn't the transexual.

The point? You wonder if they don't pick ethnic minority HM with a chance of winning because they know that, even if they did pick one who was obviously a winner, they wouldn't win? Its far better for them to have a house full of ethnic minority people with tons of negatives who obviously won't win rather than to put one in who looks like a winner but fails to get the votes. it looks PC and they don't have to explain why the voters are not.

Victor was obviously picked to be the nasty threat to Nadia and her friends - he was a caricature of a caricature of something nasty.

I think he was quite obviously picked to clash with .. forgot her name .. the pseudoanarchorebel ..

A gypsy is full Romany.

A pikey is half blood.

A didecoy is quarter blood.

I could have some of that the wrong way round or even all of it wrong but that's how I heard a gypsy woman describe the differences on a documentary programme, some time ago.


In stereotypical terms a pikey is a thieving, park his caravan anywhere he feels like it, traveller.

thanks!..
my mum used to call them 'tinkers'(some were thieving ones that is)...however, when mentioning Romany gypsy,..up Scotland, i know them as people who used to knock on the house-door selling their 'crafts'...blankets, pegs, towels ect..
lol tho'..that would be an insight if there were a 'pikey' as you say, on BB..

I haven't come down on any "side".

Your reply doesn't even make sense.

I said it was not the behaviour that gets housemates evicted,...but the perception of that behaviour.

If you weren't too hooked up with trying to win an argument, and chose not to see things in black and white by seeing it as though it's all about one side against another, then maybe you might actually consider opinions that differ from your own.
You still might not agree with them, but at least you could see where they were coming from and realise that people who hold different opinions can have "common sense" even if their views conflict.

It probably doesn't matter what I write if you are going to make out that I said something completely different to what I actually said anyway.
Maybe you were just skimming through the thread and thought you'd spotted something to use in a "win at all costs" argument, and posted in haste.

The thread was developing a bit, but from your reply it looks like you want to turn it back into petty tit for tat arguing again.

Kitten?

That was one clash - jason was the one who reverted to his military past and started obeying BB's orders though when kitten wanted to revolt. Victor was going to clash with Dan and Shell too as they wanted to establish a happyhoue whilst Victor wanted antagonism and conflict so he could manipulate it and win.

I was thinking of the harem-jungle cat divide. If Victor hadn't existed there wouldn't have been two sides (miserable individuals outside Nadia's gang but not two sides) and the clash between the two sides was the main storyline at the centre of the show. It provides the 2 final HM to fight it out and that might have been Nadia and Victor if Victor hadn't exploded early?

The point for the thread was that having Victor as evil to Nadia's good, Becki as the Judas kiss girl and Ahmed as the sexist, idle free riding immigrant who let the group down was very notable. It could only be either a symptom that Endemol were so racially PC they didn't worry about ethnic backgrounds when casting peole for roles or they were aware that they were casting peope in the roles a BNP party political would put them in and didn't care.

This is what you actually said:

.........I think it's the estimations and guesswork about the general behaviour of a housemate that gets them evicted.....not the general behaviour of them...........

Even if it's only perceived behaviour that get's a housemate evicted, it's still behaviour and not what some might estimate, guess or perceive as racism, that's caused their demise.

I must apologise and admit that I am sometimes guilty of skimming your posts because quite honestly, sometimes I haven't got a clue what your on about.

Racists always percieve behavior for the racist iin the negative ..... Take two people of different races who behave in an identical manner, the racists will see only the bad side of the race they dislike.....


I think it shows....

If you use that logic; you could be perceive a Racists because you always perceive behave for black HM in The Positive ..... Take two people of different races who behave badly, you will never see the bad side of the Black HM..... I think it shows in some of your posts.

If a Housemate behaves badly in the house we should all have the right to vote them out with out being accused of being racist

Ah...so you accuse me of racism for daring to say racism exists and that racists will have their opinion influenced by their prejudices ..... fascinating.


And I have the right to discuss racism in Big Brother without being accused of being racist....oh the irony...

Ah...so you accuse me of racism for daring to say racism exists and that racists will have their opinion influenced by their prejudices..... Fascinating.

It is your own logic that accuse you racism

And I have the right to discuss racism in Big Brother without being accused of being racist....oh the irony

Yes you have the right to discuss racism in Big Brother but when you accused other people of doing something that you have been guilty of you should not be suppressed to be questions about it

No Dany...quite specifically it was you.....In response to a point I made that two idenitcally behaving people, from different races then any prejudiced person would treat the race they hate worse you decided I had to be racist because you allege I never see the bad side of black contestants...."...you will never see the bad side of a black HM..... "..... Three points really...you consider it racist if someone doesn't hate someone as much as you feel they deserve (racism is a hatred, not failing to dislike someone enough) , you make a specific accusation at me in a discussion that wisely remained general and demographic and finally your "logical" conclusion involves you specifically accusing me of racism with something as weak as "I think it shows in some of your posts"



Are you going to quote the post where I've accused anyone here of racism Dany? I think you should before you start making allegations.....And are you going to produce a link to prove I've been racist?
Last edited by Mesostim : 01-02-2005 at 22:51

I'm very wary of threads like these because it's very easy for someone to get the wrong end of the stick and accuse you of being something that you're not

And I'm sure Alrightmate will give me a very eloquent bollocking for it.

If you haven't got a clue what I'm on about, then it hardly puts you in the best position to answer them does it?

You quoted a part of my post, and despite it being completely clear and straightforward, you still failed to understand it.

You'll give me a complex if you keep saying that.

What's not to understand? The main point of the quote is HM's behaviour, without any mention or hint of racism.

It's a shame really, because earlier in the thread, most people said that a proportion of racists probably do vote, how big a proportion nobody can be sure. So really it shouldn't be a necessary argument anymore.
Or at least it shouldn't be necessary to be simply the main topic of discussion to focus on.

The thread moved on a bit and developed. Maybe colour prejudice whatever your colour is a more relevant factor.
The post about the South African Big Brother was an example that showed that it's probably the same in predominantly non-white countries too.
Identifying like with like in a positive prejudice could be as likely as negative colour prejudice.

Yet despite some people sensing that it was going nowhere getting bogged down with one main argument about racism as the main topic, and trying to focus on other aspects instead to move things on.
One or two of the people who demand and insist that racism isn't a factor in BB decide to bring the discussion right back to a petty row soley focused entirely on racism again...But then blame the people who happen to believe racism does play a part to be the guilty party for an argument of their own choice.

It sometimes feels like it's the same people who say it's so boring to talk about racism, and who often say they are sick of reading threads about racism,...who are often the very same people who can't resist arguing about it on a very confronational level. And then bring the discussion right back to racism again.

The thread topic isn't even about racism. It's question is about colour. Racism is something that may only need take up a tiny part of the discussion. I think the thread has the potential to be lot richer. But it can't happen if some people keep focusing on one element alone, and drag it back up from a few pages ago to recontinue a petty "one side against the other" argument.

A housemate isn't necessarily to blame for our own perceptions of their behaviour.
Therefore it's not their behaviour that is necessarily bad,..it's if we perceive their behaviour to be bad that makes all the difference.

This is something that I thought you agreed with from what you posted during BB4.

Lots of us were being very anti-Cameron,...you pointed out that our anger towards him was completely out of proportion.
In hindsight, I thought you were probably more right than me at that time. I admit that maybe I let myself down a bit by getting more angry then I needed to be.

But you now don't appear to view things the way you did when Cameron was involved. Now you say that housemate's behaviour justifies negative judgements of them.

LO..absolutely..L
ooh! the irony! of "tripping-round-the-mulberry-bush"

no doubt 'rascism' was going to be mentioned in this type of 'thread'..
so in reply, i posted a few attempts at opening-up the "whole" colour/race issue..
thinking that this would lead to an insight of rascism within individual races..and then perhaps share varied rascist experiences/knowledge from each 'one'...
i did'nt think it was 'enough' to spend pages debating/insisting on speculating numbers and said so...
as a result my posts were being surgically-hacked and dismissed...hence my outburst of repetitive-twitch)
does anyone want to consider discussing rascism that exists within either their own or another race?...
and the question? around whether media, social guidance/laws, communities ect are using the correct approach in dealing with 'race-equality'.

Me too.
I considered some of the feelings, and I don't think racism as the prime focus of the thread just used as an excuse to argue is helpful.
Like you say, it should be mentioned at some points now and again. But it keeps getting dragged up as an arguing point.

I know the thread wasn't created to be about racism. Although it should be able to be discussed without beating people over the head with it.

About two pages ago, it felt like the thread was getting interesting, and It looked like it was going into another direction.
But it's managed to have been brought back as though it's what the thread is all about again...which it isn't.
Nothing against talking about it, but when the discussion moves on, it seems to keep getting brought back with a sarcastic taint to it, that seems to take the discussion backwards.

(in a level voice)..just so you know there's no sarcasism, unless you see a friendly 'wink')..only joking!
the thread question?- 'coloured winner' and 'media approach', was enivitably going to draw comments on 'racism'...if race was not intended/expected to be an issue, then why? mention- "will......coloured.."
i won't complain tho'.. thru this thread, i've recently learned to spell the word 'racist' correctly)..
i reckon the reason for it going round in ?circles? was because comments tended to drift focus onto 'it's' "word", rather than insighting into why's/who/how's of 'it's' practice...
to remember/acknowledge that many races(all colours) take part in race-discrimination, by no means diminishes the wrongness of that practice, but it does remind us that we're all in the 'same boat'...and as individuals, we're not that neccessarily more qualified to exceptional-benefits than the other..
accepting we all have similar basic needs, opens the option of setting personal example within problem-areas of one's own community..
'media' are required thru laws/guidelines to achieve ethnic-policies/quotas/criterias...
in an effort to meet these requirements there brings with it a sort of empty-hearted superficial tone...i think that's one reason why some people suspect something sinister..
guidelines/laws, media and establishments could do with re-addressing their approach while 'turning-the-tables"..
cos no matter how many times 'they' have turned..'they' have yet to land on their 'feet'.
more later, another time, on HMs and public opinion, as i've rambled enuff...
i try to stick to 'shorts'...long passages exhaust me and take forever, ..but i guess it's Aquarius in the air at the moment

I don't think I did say that discussion couldn't continue otherwise, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Also, I did not "finally give an answer". I never gave a guess at the percentage of racists. I did say why I didn't, which I supposed could be considered an answer (despite not being accepted as an answer at the time) but it wasn't "finally".

I sometimes ask for evidence and reasons in such cases, as do others from time to time.

Yes, that would be fair; but asking me to guess at the percentage of racists among BB viewers isn't asking that question. I gave my reasons for thinking the percentage was likely to be different. It's fine with me if someone disagrees with my reasons or comes up with better evidence to the contrary. It's not fine with me if someone badgers me with a question or implies that I'm lying about my reasons for not answering it.
Last edited by Veri : 02-02-2005 at 07:44

Behaviour can't be the whole explanation because different forum members (and other BB viewers) react in different ways to the very same behaviour. And the reactions can be very different. The housemate liked best by some may be most disliked by others.

Alrightmate is therefore right to point to the way the behaviour is perceived.

Also, the reactions to HMs can be much stronger than the HM's behaviour can justify.

You might find this surprising, but people do answer survey questions and say that they are (for instance) "very" or "a little" prejudiced against people of other races. Of course, that's likely to underestimate the amount of prejudice.

It's also possible draw inferences from the amount of support for parties such as the BNP and from the amount of concern about asylum seekers and immigration.