Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In my experiance, the most racist people are those who view everythin through a lense of racism, assuming people are in situations because of it, not inspite.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
That's seems stupid to me, I don't see how not talking about race or race issues solves racial problems. I guess MLK Jr. should of just shut up and did as he was told instead of talking about the injustices of black people.

2016 =/= the 1960's.

You're missing the point he was making. Focusing so much on race and viewing everything through a filter of racism helps perpetuate those problems. He was criticizing the mindset of dividing people into categories of "black" and "white".

But by all means, feel free to say how a black man is stupid for not wanting everything to be all about race.

Morgan Freeman isn't an expert on racial injustice just because he's famous and has dark skin. Obviously he has his own insights and experiences to speak to, and they may be instructive, but linking to an video called "Morgan Freeman solves the race problem" where the advice is "stop talking about racism, and it disappears" is a pretty weird appeal to authority.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I wish people would listen to Morgan Freeman more.

Spoiler:

That's seems stupid to me, I don't see how not talking about race or race issues solves racial problems. I guess MLK Jr. should of just shut up and did as he was told instead of talking about the injustices of black people.

2016 =/= the 1960's.

You're missing the point he was making. Focusing so much on race and viewing everything through a filter of racism helps perpetuate those problems. He was criticizing the mindset of dividing people into categories of "black" and "white".

But by all means, feel free to say how a black man is stupid for not wanting everything to be all about race.

I like how you echo an opinion about wanting people to ignore race, but then defend that point by arguing that it was made by a black man, and so is unassailable.

If we just treated people as being people, and not by the color of their skin, it would be a helluvan improvement.

Nobody's accomplishments should rest on the color of their skin. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If we just treated people as being people, and not by the color of their skin, it would be a helluvan improvement.

Nobody's accomplishments should rest on the color of their skin. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist.

Basically!

Equality comes from seeing as people as the same, not their experiences but they themselves as the same in terms of equality. Seeing as their fellow man, and ignoring their skin color, as the skin color is not deteriment on who they are.

It will control you if you let it. You either repeat the past or look to the future.

It must be nice to say things like "color shouldn't matter" when the reality is it does. Sort of like pretending things are a meritocracy when all evidence says otherwise. It makes us feel better to pretend such things are true, and really, in the end, feeling smart and right are better than actually being either.

 Ahtman wrote:
It must be nice to say things like "color shouldn't matter" when the reality is it does. Sort of like pretending things are a meritocracy when all evidence says otherwise. It makes us feel better to pretend such things are true, and really, in the end, feeling smart and right are better than actually being either.

I can agree with that.

But I won't treat them any differently. You treat everyone the same, but you treat them differently based on the experiences they have had. Making an assumption makes asses out of us.

Give people a chance. Chubby girls try harder!

#ChubbyLivesMatter

 Asherian Command wrote:

But I won't treat them any differently. You treat everyone the same, but you treat them differently based on the experiences they have had. Making an assumption makes asses out of us.

This. Me personally, I try to be more like Morgan Freeman.... That bit where he says, "I am not a black man, you are not a white man. I am Morgan Freeman, and you are Mike Wallace." That's basically how I try to treat everyone, especially on first meeting.

I dont think Not talking about Racism is a good idea, its a silly idea. But I think not viewing everything through the lense of racism is a good start. like how someone earlier explained how it might not be the Academy is racist, but the wider problem of why blacks are not in Oscar movies? I mean look you had John Boyega as arguably the main lead of star wars. You have Compton become amazing. but the oscars dont look at those.
Or another example. schools. UCSC science has been called racist for not having as many blacks or hispanics in them? Is the science department racist? Unlikely, the likely answer is to find out why certain races might not be going into certain majors. Everything viewed through the lense of racism is a problem.

To be fair, name one Star Wars actor from any Star Wars movie that was nominated for a Best Actor/Actress or Best Supporting Actor/Actress (for a Star Wars role).

The movies aren't particularly well acted. We watch it for the crazy aliens, awesome effects, and gak blowing the feth up. Oh, and the force and gak.

That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.

 kronk wrote:
Chubby girls try harder!

Not all of them, but those that do....

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.

Straight Outta Compton apparently is. The Caucasian screenwriters were nominated but none of the non-Caucasian actors or crew were.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.

Straight Outta Compton apparently is. The Caucasian screenwriters were nominated but none of the non-Caucasian actors or crew were.

I think Ice Cube sums up how that is... on page 3 there's the clip of him on the Graham Norton Show, where he basically says if you're making movies for the awards, you're in it for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, for him, an award for Compton is really just icing on the cake.

 kronk wrote:
Give people a chance. Chubby girls try harder!

#ChubbyLivesMatter

And as a result, they give the best lovin'.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.

Straight Outta Compton apparently is. The Caucasian screenwriters were nominated but none of the non-Caucasian actors or crew were.

Because the acting was mediocre? There are plenty of instances where writers are nominated but their actors aren't. Hell, FOUR of the best screenplay nominees don't have actors nominated this year.

Indeed, the acting was so mediocre they barely won a best picture award from the AFI and got nominated for the same from the Screen Actor's Guild.

How come Fant4stic Feces didn't get nominated? Pure gold [wrapped dog poo], that movie was!

Straight Outta Compton was an Ok movie with some good performances, and a lot of bad stuff left out but I never expected it to be up for an Oscar.

Creed on the other hand should have gotten more than just Sylvester Stallone a nom. I don't think it will win but the Film and Michael B Jordan deserved at least a nomination.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
How come Fant4stic Feces didn't get nominated? Pure gold [wrapped dog poo], that movie was!

There are other awards for that movie

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, I think that Chris Rock should do the job... If they are worried about him being too "inflammatory" during his parts, and want him to submit a draft, he should do it..... and then not use it, opting instead for one he wrote and didn't show them

This.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
How come Fant4stic Feces didn't get nominated? Pure gold [wrapped dog poo], that movie was!

Well, DUH! There were like, two and a half black people in it!

 Ahtman wrote:
Straight Outta Compton was an Ok movie with some good performances, and a lot of bad stuff left out but I never expected it to be up for an Oscar.

Creed on the other hand should have gotten more than just Sylvester Stallone a nom. I don't think it will win but the Film and Michael B Jordan deserved at least a nomination.

Honestly, I didn't think there was anything special about his performance. It's good. But for me that's where it stopped. Wasn't exceptional. Certainly wasn't bad. Was "just good." FWIW I'm not sure Stallone deserved one either for just Rocky mumbling through his lines and having movie cancer.

I like the film, but my biggest takeway was how much I liked how they introduced boxers with the video game style fighter profile.

Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but analysis done by the Economist ( here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race ) shows that the amount of academy awards given to black nominees pretty much falls in line with the percentage of black population In the U.S. This doesn't NOT mean that there isn't a prejudice, and the article seems to lay the blame more at the feet of Hollywood itself and the drama schools, but do take a read and judge for yourself as I'm not sure I fully understand it.

 Goliath wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You guys are aware Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith are not "keyboard warriors", right?

You mean that this can't all be traced back to SJWs?

 CaoCaoTipper wrote:
this sort of reaction will just lead to quota-filling token nominations.

Will it though? Will it really? Your post seems to be half saying that "keyboard warriors" get nothing done, and half worrying that they'll cause the apocalypse.

It needs to change naturally, not through Internet outrage and Twitter campaigns.

How do you propose that the change is going to come about "naturally" then? Because it's been changing "naturally" for the past 60 or so years, and there's still a disparity.

I don't really care if Chris Rock does it or not. The awards are stupid anyway.

"Actually I never cared about it in the first place, that's why I commented on it complaining about keyboard warriors".

Won't lie, that post was a bit of a rambling based on half baked ideas and barely any knowledge of the whole drama ^^ I think most of my points still stand though, as opinion. I do think this sort of reaction will lead to quota filling nominations, because I think the Oscars are a pointless publicity pagent anyway. It's purely speculation as we won't know for years to come, but saying "will it tho" doesn't really convince me otherwise. I'm not saying "keyboard warriors" can't effect any change at all, I'm saying the changes are usually knee-jerk reactions by big bloated organisations purely done to save face, not done in any sincere need to be more inclusive.

As for not caring about the Oscars, that's all the more reason for me to comment about it, thank you for the passive aggressiveness. People are so hugely upset by what's essentially a pointless set of awards that are based on opinion and nothing more. As if a bunch of people casting votes on movies is somehow setting us back into the slave-era. I didn't realise that opinion meant I wasn't allowed to comment, sorry.

 CaoCaoTipper wrote:
what's essentially a pointless set of awards

Except they aren't pointless, they just don't matter to many of the viewers. It is an industry show and to those in the industry, such as actors, producers, and directors, it means a great deal and can change their fortures as well as income. Does it effect my income? Nope. Does it effect yours? Odds are it does not. Does it to the people in the industry? You bet it does.

As for bringing up the population issue, well, that has already been addressed. If the number of black actors, directors, producers, and audience were in line with overall population numbers it might work, but they are not.

 Ahtman wrote:

 CaoCaoTipper wrote:
what's essentially a pointless set of awards

Except they aren't pointless, they just don't matter to many of the viewers. It is an industry show and to those in the industry, such as actors, producers, and directors, it means a great deal and can change their fortures as well as income. Does it effect my income? Nope. Does it effect yours? Odds are it does not. Does it to the people in the industry? You bet it does.

As for bringing up the population issue, well, that has already been addressed. If the number of black actors, directors, producers, and audience were in line with overall population numbers it might work, but they are not.

I think public recognition and praise will come to those who deserve it, despite whether they get an award. The Oscar snub is a well known thing. Hitchcock and Cubrick, two of the best and most celebrated Hollywood directors in history never received an Oscar. Ice Cube himself said, when talking about Straight Outta Compton and it's snub from the Oscars "I’m not pissed. I’m not surprised. It’s the Oscars, they do what they do. The people loved the movie, the people supported the movie. It was No. 1 at the box office, over $200 million worldwide. I can’t be mad, you know."

Maybe that's not the circumstances for everybody that could get an award, you might be entirely right. I'd be interested to see some statistics on what effect an Oscar has on someone career. It usually appears that the Oscars are awarded AFTER the subject has had tonnes of praise and rewards though. They aren't really for the little guy.

 CaoCaoTipper wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 CaoCaoTipper wrote:
what's essentially a pointless set of awards

Except they aren't pointless, they just don't matter to many of the viewers. It is an industry show and to those in the industry, such as actors, producers, and directors, it means a great deal and can change their fortures as well as income. Does it effect my income? Nope. Does it effect yours? Odds are it does not. Does it to the people in the industry? You bet it does.

As for bringing up the population issue, well, that has already been addressed. If the number of black actors, directors, producers, and audience were in line with overall population numbers it might work, but they are not.

I think public recognition and praise will come to those who deserve it, despite whether they get an award. The Oscar snub is a well known thing. Hitchcock and Cubrick, two of the best and most celebrated Hollywood directors in history never received an Oscar. Ice Cube himself said, when talking about Straight Outta Compton and it's snub from the Oscars "I’m not pissed. I’m not surprised. It’s the Oscars, they do what they do. The people loved the movie, the people supported the movie. It was No. 1 at the box office, over $200 million worldwide. I can’t be mad, you know."

Maybe that's not the circumstances for everybody that could get an award, you might be entirely right. I'd be interested to see some statistics on what effect an Oscar has on someone career. It usually appears that the Oscars are awarded AFTER the subject has had tonnes of praise and rewards though. They aren't really for the little guy.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't change the economic change and marketing that come with winning or being nominated. The Oscar isn't a guarantee of success either, just look at Cuba Gooding Jr. Of course that is acting, for the people that don't get much notice that aren't in front of the screen, such as wardrobe and make-up, it makes a difference. The fact that it has become a staple of television doesn't really change that, though I would imagine it has had an effect on it.

 CaoCaoTipper wrote:
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but analysis done by the Economist ( here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race ) shows that the amount of academy awards given to black nominees pretty much falls in line with the percentage of black population In the U.S. This doesn't NOT mean that there isn't a prejudice, and the article seems to lay the blame more at the feet of Hollywood itself and the drama schools, but do take a read and judge for yourself as I'm not sure I fully understand it.

Well, they mean exactly what they say: black actors actually have done all right from 2007-2013 (the data set they used). Of course, that ignores the years of 2014 and 2015, which both resulted in all white nominations for actors.

However, the article goes on to make two points. First, white actors are grossly overrepresented. While black actors get roughly their "share," Latino and Asian actors are nearly absent, and white actors benefited. They showed that while 70% of SAG members are white, all 40 nominees over two years being white would be a one in a hundred thousand anomaly.

Second, they point out the complete absence of directors of color, which is one area that nobody really can defend.

So yes, for one seven year period, not counting the years in question, black actors actually got their fair share. However, all other non-white actors, and directors of color, are almost fully absent.

I watched Beasts of No Nation tonight. After all the hype, I was really expecting to be blown away by Idris Elba's performance, but I wasn't. He did a decent job, his "somewhere African" accent was certainly a lot more convincing than Will Smith's, but he's a supporting actor, and I didn't think he stood out especially. If I compare his performance to that of Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York (for which an Oscar was awarded)... The rolls are actually quite similar: "a tyrannical commander, who takes the main character into his wicked fold", but Bill the Butcher is terrifying, for the whole film I was on the edge of my seat wondering when he was just going to flip-out and kill someone. You never question for a moment why people do as he tells them. Joe Pesci has a similar intensity in Goodfellas (which won him an academy award). Even LL Cool J (who is not exactly known for his acting prowess), is really fething scary in the film "In Too Deep", if nothing else, he won my respect in that film.

Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation... His performance was good, but not so good that I feel it's a crime (or even surprising) that he wasn't nominated for an Oscar.