Friday, May 18, 2007
Shame on Dreamz?
(4)
The title says it all if you watched the last Survivor Sunday night: Yau-man offered Dreamz a deal: 'I'll give you this new truck if perchance you are in a position to transfer your immunity to me when four of us are left. Agreed?'
Dreamz, vehicleless since birth, agreed: he had only a one in four chance, a good bet.
Eventually, Dreams and friends tried to oust Yau-man for two reasons: Dreamz' bet, and the fact that Yau-man would certainly win the final four, if it came to that. No joy: came to the crunch Yau-man played the Immunity Idol with the result that Stacy (oriental girl) got voted out instead, leaving four: Yau-man and three African-Americans including Dreamz.
Question: would Dreamz honor his agreement with Yau-man? Failing that, would Dreamz give back the truck?
Dreamz did indeed win immunity and the answer turned out to be 'no' and 'no.'
The result was an unseemly situation, racewise, where the generous (and naive) Yau-man was betrayed by two 'brothers' and one 'sister.' Eheh.
The implication was that the AAs talked the simpleton Dreams into reneging and keeping the truck. The further implication was that there was nothing immoral in those proceedings because 'after all it is only a game.' The game rules apparently backed Dreamz.
Question: did Dreamz commit two transgressions against the Ten Commandments (lying and stealing)?
What we have here, in case you didn't notice, is a classic case of law versus morality.
Question: will this high visibility issue degrade the AA image in modern affairs? Specifically, did this contribute to the recent failure of the obviously superior black woman on American Idol? More importantly, will this issue affect Obama's Run? I think so. Many voters will have conjured up the image of AAs taking over and getting even for slavery.
The title says it all if you watched the last Survivor Sunday night: Yau-man offered Dreamz a deal: 'I'll give you this new truck if perchance you are in a position to transfer your immunity to me when four of us are left. Agreed?'
Dreamz, vehicleless since birth, agreed: he had only a one in four chance, a good bet.
Eventually, Dreams and friends tried to oust Yau-man for two reasons: Dreamz' bet, and the fact that Yau-man would certainly win the final four, if it came to that. No joy: came to the crunch Yau-man played the Immunity Idol with the result that Stacy (oriental girl) got voted out instead, leaving four: Yau-man and three African-Americans including Dreamz.
Question: would Dreamz honor his agreement with Yau-man? Failing that, would Dreamz give back the truck?
Dreamz did indeed win immunity and the answer turned out to be 'no' and 'no.'
The result was an unseemly situation, racewise, where the generous (and naive) Yau-man was betrayed by two 'brothers' and one 'sister.' Eheh.
The implication was that the AAs talked the simpleton Dreams into reneging and keeping the truck. The further implication was that there was nothing immoral in those proceedings because 'after all it is only a game.' The game rules apparently backed Dreamz.
Question: did Dreamz commit two transgressions against the Ten Commandments (lying and stealing)?
What we have here, in case you didn't notice, is a classic case of law versus morality.
Question: will this high visibility issue degrade the AA image in modern affairs? Specifically, did this contribute to the recent failure of the obviously superior black woman on American Idol? More importantly, will this issue affect Obama's Run? I think so. Many voters will have conjured up the image of AAs taking over and getting even for slavery.
