[MikeekiM]

The basement is on the second floor... Ha, ha... I expected as much... I guess they are just repurposing the same room and reconfiguring it throughout the season...

I don't know if it was just me...but with all the justified attention on the BLM movement, I felt a bit uncomfortable having the only two African American females up on the block together. I wonder if there will be any backlash or criticism in social media on the houseguests, or on CBS...

That said, you always want to put two people that are a voting block as noms to ensure that you break up that voting block...and Day and Bay are definitely a voting block...AND they aren't part of "The Commission" alliance...so perhaps there should be surprise here...

 

[Steveknj]

The basement is on the second floor... Ha, ha... I expected as much... I guess they are just repurposing the same room and reconfiguring it throughout the season...

I don't know if it was just me...but with all the justified attention on the BLM movement, I felt a bit uncomfortable having the only two African American females up on the block together. I wonder if there will be any backlash or criticism in social media on the houseguests, or on CBS...

That said, you always want to put two people that are a voting block as noms to ensure that you break up that voting block...and Day and Bay are definitely a voting block...AND they aren't part of "The Commission" alliance...so perhaps there should be surprise here...

I totally get what you are saying and I'm torn by this, it's a weird situation. On one hand, yes they are the only two black women. On the other hand, they ARE a voting block. And despite BLM and everything, the two black women wound up to have a strong bond. Was it because they are the only two black women or, because they actually became friend (or were friends outside the house? I don't usually follow these people outside the game). So, while it looks racist on the surface to put up the two black women at the same time, they absolutely ARE an alliance. Bayliegh even told (I think it was) Tyler, that she's her Ride or Die, so there's that too.

 

[MikeekiM]

I totally get what you are saying and I'm torn by this, it's a weird situation. On one hand, yes they are the only two black women. On the other hand, they ARE a voting block. And despite BLM and everything, the two black women wound up to have a strong bond. Was it because they are the only two black women or, because they actually became friend (or were friends outside the house? I don't usually follow these people outside the game). So, while it looks racist on the surface to put up the two black women at the same time, they absolutely ARE an alliance. Bayliegh even told (I think it was) Tyler, that she's her Ride or Die, so there's that too.

Yeah... If you read what I wrote, I pretty much have the same "torn" feeling... And I recognize everything you said (using different words)...

I am further torn because "this" is how real life is... Institutional racism actually looks legitimate in most cases... The ones running around using the "n-word" and causing racial violence are not the majority of racist behaviors.. Most racial biased behaviors look/appear legitimate...

Anyway... I think we are on the same page here...

 

[gweempose]

I don't know if it was just me...but with all the justified attention on the BLM movement, I felt a bit uncomfortable having the only two African American females up on the block together. I wonder if there will be any backlash or criticism in social media on the houseguests, or on CBS...

I totally get what you are saying and I'm torn by this, it's a weird situation.

It's definitely a complex situation. Ideally, race shouldn't matter within the confines of the game. In reality, however, it's never that simple. The game doesn't exist in a void. It is a microcosm of the world we live in, and it's impossible for major things going on outside the house not to affect the game. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Da'Vonne and Bailey have made it clear to the other players that they are not only working with each other, but they are both on a mission to be the first African American winner. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, it undeniably creates a moral dilemma for the other players. All I know is that if I was playing, I would be extremely hesitant to put up both of them at the same time. Even if that was the best move for my game, I'd be very worried about how it would be perceived given the current climate.

 

[Steveknj]

It's definitely a complex situation. Ideally, race shouldn't matter within the confines of the game. In reality, however, it's never that simple. The game doesn't exist in a void. It is a microcosm of the world we live in, and it's impossible for major things going on outside the house not to affect the game. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Da'Vonne and Bailey have made it clear to the other players that they are not only working with each other, but they are both on a mission to be the first African American winner. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, it undeniably creates a moral dilemma for the other players. All I know is that if I was playing, I would be extremely hesitant to put up both of them at the same time. Even if that was the best move for my game, I'd be very worried about how it would be perceived given the current climate.

I think the fact that Bayleigh said Da was her ride or die was enough to convince me it's OK to put them up. Break up the couples it always a good strategy and it would be used against ANY strong couple. In Survivor's last season they broke up Rob and Amber immediately because THEY were each other's ride or die. It was obvious. If Bayleigh had kept her mouth shut and didn't say that, I'd agree, it would make me hesitate. That gave the HoH a reason to do it that wasn't racist in perception.

 

[MikeekiM]

I think the fact that Bayleigh said Da was her ride or die was enough to convince me it's OK to put them up. Break up the couples it always a good strategy and it would be used against ANY strong couple. In Survivor's last season they broke up Rob and Amber immediately because THEY were each other's ride or die. It was obvious. If Bayleigh had kept her mouth shut and didn't say that, I'd agree, it would make me hesitate. That gave the HoH a reason to do it that wasn't racist in perception.

No... I hate to say it ... But it feels like the majority Caucasian side of the house is targeting the minority african american side of the house... (there, I said it)... It's not all out there in the open and obvious...but like I said, institutional racism looks legit...and you can ALWAYS find a logical reason for getting rid of whoever you want...

You can always find reasons to justify your actions... Hell, you can put up Nicole and Ian if you wanted to target them and justify it because they are both winners and that we can't let them win again... Yes, they are in an alliance together... Do you think race has anything to do with how the alliances are set-up? Maybe, maybe not... So let's say Ian and Nicole were people of color? How long would they last, all things being equal...

Honestly...I am definitely playing devil's advocate here... I agree that Day and Bay are ride-or-dies, that they are a voting block, and that I can justify why they should be on the block... But I think this is a VERY complex dynamic that has no good answers...

 

[Steveknj]

No... I hate to say it ... But it feels like the majority Caucasian side of the house is targeting the minority african american side of the house... (there, I said it)... It's not all out there in the open and obvious...but like I said, institutional racism looks legit...and you can ALWAYS find a logical reason for getting rid of whoever you want...

You can always find reasons to justify your actions... Hell, you can put up Nicole and Ian if you wanted to target them and justify it because they are both winners and that we can't let them win again... Yes, they are in an alliance together... Do you think race has anything to do with how the alliances are set-up? Maybe, maybe not... So let's say Ian and Nicole were people of color? How long would they last, all things being equal...

Honestly...I am definitely playing devil's advocate here... I agree that Day and Bay are ride-or-dies, that they are a voting block, and that I can justify why they should be on the block... But I think this is a VERY complex dynamic that has no good answers...

But, you can't look at EVERY situation as having racist intentions either. I think if this was solely about race, they would have been gone earlier. Is race a factor? Maybe. But there's just as many reasons why they were put up that aren't racially motivated. I'll give them a pass this time.

 

[series5orpremier]

Taking the moral dilemma mentioned by gweempose to the extreme, if everyone in the house felt guilty about race and had B & D's back, pushing them forward in the game and maybe even pulling punches in competitions until one of B & D eventually wins, would that first BB win for an African-American player still have the same meaning?

 

[hefe]

Yeah... If you read what I wrote, I pretty much have the same "torn" feeling... And I recognize everything you said (using different words)...

I am further torn because "this" is how real life is... Institutional racism actually looks legitimate in most cases... The ones running around using the "n-word" and causing racial violence are not the majority of racist behaviors.. Most racial biased behaviors look/appear legitimate...

Anyway... I think we are on the same page here...

This is NOT a perfect example of society in general, but it is illustrative of the concept of systemic or institutional inequality. It's not that anyone is specifically choosing to do anything overtly racist. (as far as we know) But the system is set up to provide incentives to behave in a way that identifies the potential power in a minority (in numbers) group and stamp it out. This is a game of numbers where the majority uses their power in numbers to eliminate the power of the minority. It requires structural changes to affect the inevitable outcome of that, to provide opportunity to anyone that isn't in the majority. Again, not a perfect analogy, but it can make you think about it.

 

[MikeekiM]

Taking the moral dilemma mentioned by gweempose to the extreme, if everyone in the house felt guilty about race and had B & D's back, pushing them forward in the game and maybe even pulling punches in competitions until one of B & D eventually wins, would that first BB win for an African-American player still have the same meaning?

I am sure that is a rhetorical question...but I'll answer it anyway... No, of course not...

And I am not necessarily suggesting that they should have done something different... Just that it is a complicated and uncomfortable situation that poses more questions than answers... And yes, sometimes the pendulum does needs to overcompensate in order to eventually land in the right spot... I don't know... Like I said...I have more questions than answers...

 

[MikeekiM]

This is NOT a perfect example of society in general, but it is illustrative of the concept of systemic or institutional inequality. It's not that anyone is specifically choosing to do anything overtly racist. (as far as we know) But the system is set up to provide incentives to behave in a way that identifies the potential power in a minority (in numbers) group and stamp it out. This is a game of numbers where the majority uses their power in numbers to eliminate the power of the minority. It requires structural changes to affect the inevitable outcome of that, to provide opportunity to anyone that isn't in the majority. Again, not a perfect analogy, but it can make you think about it.

I agree...

 

[hefe]

I agree...

Is your point that that is the only valid part? I mean, it's ok for you to think that, but I feel like there are ways that systems cause effects that aren't necessarily intended, and that's just a simple illustration.

 

[MikeekiM]

Is your point that that is the only valid part? I mean, it's ok for you to think that, but I feel like there are ways that systems cause effects that aren't necessarily intended, and that's just a simple illustration.

No... It (the bolding) was just meant for emphasis... All your supporting details makes sense too...

 

[gweempose]

This is NOT a perfect example of society in general, but it is illustrative of the concept of systemic or institutional inequality. It's not that anyone is specifically choosing to do anything overtly racist. (as far as we know) But the system is set up to provide incentives to behave in a way that identifies the potential power in a minority (in numbers) group and stamp it out. This is a game of numbers where the majority uses their power in numbers to eliminate the power of the minority. It requires structural changes to affect the inevitable outcome of that, to provide opportunity to anyone that isn't in the majority. Again, not a perfect analogy, but it can make you think about it.

It's pretty clear by now that the game is designed in a way that encourages, whether consciously or unconsciously, people of the same race to align with each other. As you said, it's all about the numbers, and people will naturally gravitate towards a situation that puts them on the right side of the numbers. Because of this, people who are scrambling at the beginning of the game tend to seek out others with similar backgrounds and life experiences. I agree that most players aren't being overtly racist when they do this. They are just looking for the quickest route to safety.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if they had a season where Caucasians were in the minority. I suspect they would be the ones who were targeted early for the exact same reasons.

 

[Mike Lang]

Didn't Da'Vonne freely admit she would vote to evict based on race? That if one of the two nominees were black she would vote for the other one?

 

[Steveknj]

It's pretty clear by now that the game is designed in a way that encourages, whether consciously or unconsciously, people of the same race to align with each other. As you said, it's all about the numbers, and people will naturally gravitate towards a situation that puts them on the right side of the numbers. Because of this, people who are scrambling at the beginning of the game tend to seek out others with similar backgrounds and life experiences. I agree that most players aren't being overtly racist when they do this. They are just looking for the quickest route to safety.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if they had a season where Caucasians were in the minority. I suspect they would be the ones who were targeted early for the exact same reasons.

Here's why I worry about this type of thing and perception. First of all, for those who have the live feed is there any indication this was a race related nomination? We've seen other times it was CLEAR there were racist undertones. I didn't see it this time. Second, we did see the two African-American women form an alliance. Why is that? My guess is culturally they felt comfortable with each other (and again, I don't know if there was any relationship between them outside the house. Third, the last two weeks before we saw ANOTHER ride or die get broken up in Kaysar and Janelle. Why is it different THIS time? It shouldn't be and it probably isn't. But the perception says otherwise. Fourth, they tried to pull in David and eventually they didn't. But there was STILL this feeling that as another African-American they felt the need to draw him in. But ultimately game play was more important and they jettisoned him. So there's a lot of mixed up, confusing issues here. In THIS case, I tend to think this was a straight game play. But I can certainly see it the other way too. I totally agree with you that if things were reversed, more than likely the white players would be banding together as the minority. Safety in numbers I suppose.

 

[catfan64]

Da'Vonne almost won HOH. If she had, she certainly would not have put up David or Bayleigh. Therefore she would have put up 2 white players. Do you think we would be having this same discussion right now, if that had happened?

 

[Steveknj]

Da'Vonne almost won HOH. If she had, she certainly would not have put up David or Bayleigh. Therefore she would have put up 2 white players. Do you think we would be having this same discussion right now, if that had happened?

It's different in that:

1) They are the only 2 AA women in the house, so what choice would they have had
2) They are each other's ride or die, so it would make zero sense if one won to put up the other
3) I think David would have been a viable option to put up. It's quite possible they might have done that. Maybe not Da, but certainly Bayleigh
4) Anytime the minority of the house is selected it raises flags. It would be the same if the house was majority AA and there were only a few white players. If the black players chose the two whites, the same questions would have been asked.

I don't think you can make that argument because that's just not the house dynamic as it is.

While I don't think race played a role in this week's nominations, I do think it's fair to ask the question if it did. It's not about this being black vs. white as much as it's about majority vs minority. Same as if there were 10 women and 2 men left and the 2 men were put up, or vice versa.

 

[2004raptor]

Didn't Da'Vonne freely admit she would vote to evict based on race? That if one of the two nominees were black she would vote for the other one?

I was halfway rooting for her until she said this. I can't remember but I think she was talking to bayleigh. If so, the "other" people didn't hear it. Imagine if one of them said something similar.