Why was the tag 'Oscars too white' not considered racist

This. Ignoring the biological differences between men and women is one of the biggest flaws of today's feminism.

And I'm not even familiar with the comment, and I don't fault the decision totally even though I don't agree with going back in a person's history and penalizing them for words. That's a dangerous game.

It's not all bad. It's just that it'll be a great day when people don't see skin color, and this kind of thing makes that day further away.

Agreed it was terrible, but that was a long time ago. There's more progress made from being strong than by being a victim.

Now we just have to wonder if Moonlight's Oscar was given or earned.

This seems like another motte-and-bailey. The charge is racism, yet you've tried to redefine it to whether they should "learn to be happy," a completely different question which is pretty blatantly rephrased and changed to smuggle in lots of other connotations that aren't actually in the thing you're replying to. "African-Americans should try to win even more Oscars" is not a controversial statement. "It's evidence of racism if they don't win more" is another claim entirely. I think you know that.

The charge is that the Academy system is not, in aggregate, giving African-Americans proper consideration for awards, right? The fact that the number of winners aligns with the general population seems pretty hard to reconcile with that charge, and I'm genuinely stumped as to how the quote above is meant to do so. NB: this fact does not preclude the existence of racism or its presence in any specific example. It's simply a direct challenge to the claim of systemic bias.

I quoted this same statistic to you when the controversy was fresh, by the way, and by my recollection you didn't address it at all. And I don't see how you have here, either.

Yup.


Here's what the real enemy who stirs up race hatred in the world today looks like...

"Racism exists" is not a defense for a specific charge of racism any more than "murder exists" means a particular person killed someone.

Thinking racism exists, and thinking it's a bigger problem than the people you're arguing with, perhaps, also should not obligate you to defend its presence in any given example. These are specific charges, not just generic, fungible excuses to express your general orientation to the culture. But it sure feels like that's what happens, over and over.

I agree i mean Kevin Hart shouldn't have been picked on for something he said 10 years ago. But there's no use debating people who look at this so irrationally.

irrational people saying and I quote WHITES CAN MORE EASILY AFFORD TO BE TAKEN DOWN A PEG. probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. This whole silly white guilt argument needs to stop. like you said about Denzel Washington winning an award and Foster Whitaker etc, people insisting the scales need to be tilted to achieve equality is a very pernicious and deeply unsettling argument.

As equality is not achieved by bringing One race down to bring another up. As nobody needs to be taken down a notch because that's racist behaviour within itself. It's strange all this racial tension has only become an issue in Hollywood and in the oscars as of recently. I swear in the early 2000s we never had these problems to the extent they are today, but it's people who insist that whites need to be taken down a peg that are adding to these issues.

We are all just human beings at the end of the day, but whether you're from Britain or Africa or wherever you're from. everyone has the right to be proud of their heritage. I'm a white guy from Britain and I'm proud of mine

But seriously cricket there's no use trying to have a civilised debate with someone irrational. Save your wise words for a more rational discussions that actually gets somewhere

If i can go back to the Kevin Hart issue of no longer hosting the Oscars. Why arent the same people that said the oscars were too white, now defending kevin Hart? Rather hypocryticial isnt it, that these people say the Oscars are too white and when it comes time for an african american man to host the oscars, the pc police (these people included?) rip into Kevin Hart for things he said 10 years ago.

First of all, with stand up comedy, the whole point of it, is nothing is off topic. Every group and every topic, is up for roasting. I have even seen stand up comics make jokes about 9/11, Dave Chappelle has joked about OJ Simpson's dead wife. But some how, making fun, jokes, about gay people is beyond the pale? I dont get it, is there some rule book hat says gay people cannot be made fun of by stand up comics. Also, why is it then, that gay stand up comedians themselves can joke about gay people as they themselves share theier sexual pursasion. Maybe from now on only white comics can joke about white issues, black comics about black issues and so on. Maybe then the pc police will be happy, and all will be right with the world in pc land.

Even if Kevin Hart this year, didnt come out and formerly apologize, why should he? This was things he said 10 years ago. And like he said on the Ellen show, he dealt with the issue 10 years ago, many times, including doing the media rounds for promoting Get Hard. So hes supposed to apologize on top of the apology? Why should he. I think the Academy made a big mistake not letting him host this years Oscars. Is Dustin Hoffman supposed to apologize for things that he may bot even done 20 years ago, just to appease people, which is basically what happened in an interview.

By the way, to the pc police who caused Kevin Hart to no longer host the Oscars, Ellen Degenerous said that Kevein Hart should host the Oscars on her show, when she interviewed Kevin Hart about he issue. Id love to know they reconcile that, when Ellen Degenerous, perhaps the most prominent LGBTQ person on tv, said at Kevin Hart should host. If anyone was going to be offended by it that had an opportunity to have her views expressed in public and have millions of people see it, wouldnt it be her.

Anyways, all this political correctness of the Oscars over the last decade really bugs me. How about just letting the best person win on the night, whoever that may be - whatever theier race,, sexual pursasion,. And how about letting great stand up comic, turned actor (or maybe one in the same) host the Oscars, since what he said was 10 years ago, and he apologized for it at the time, and as he stated, he is a more mature person, diffrent from the one that said those things.

because people have morphed the definition to enforce their own agenda

They realized the Oscars were becoming irrelevant and they thought that making it more diverse would bring in new people. By "hating on" the Academy for its so-called "old fashioned values" they could bring in new publicity and drum up interest from Millennials. The race/gender thing is talked about today because racism was still prevalent in what, the 1950s?

I think it's time we all let go of that like some others here were saying. People are people.

As an aside, if you go to awards in Japan or South Korea, good luck EVER seeing a white person (or any other "foreign" race) get nominated.

Yet there's also the saying about those who forget the past being doomed to repeat it.

I'm just going to concede this for now.

On an individual level, perhaps.

I'll agree with this up to a point, if only because - as both of us have noted - the only numbers mentioned so far don't paint a total picture that works for either of us.

At the end of the day, he has the right to make whatever choice he wants and he chose to double down like this even while aware of the consequences.

Apparently, but at least you sound halfway-sensible about it. Too many people see this kind of thing and immediately get more than a little frothy about it, which is decidedly less productive.

I get it, though. The Academy is (supposedly) trying to account for their own checkered past (what with the emphasis on #MeToo at last year's ceremony and all) and understandably want everything to run as smoothly as possible so this just came across as a precaution of sorts.

The problem with the idea of "not seeing colour" is that it sounds like you're actively ignoring a person's skin colour in order to see them as another human being, which comes across as more of a denial of their racial identity rather than acceptance of the same. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

There is strength to be found in standing up for yourself.

Yeah, that's disappointing. No wonder there are conspiracy theories regarding whether or not the envelope mishap was staged so that it would go down as the movie that "stole" La La Land's win.

I'm just not sure why the "10% of the population is black and 10% of the winners are black" has to be the be-all and end-all, if only because (as noted) it doesn't paint a complete picture and thus I can't completely rule my point out for the same reason I can't completely prove it. Maybe it is just too big to try to grapple with and it is just easier to concede this particular point, if only because it seems to be getting off-topic a little - but how else am I to answer people like the OP who are all "but it would be racist if it was about black people instead" without resorting to some blunt one-liner like "GEE I DON'T KNOW IT'S AS IF THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDS WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS" (which I know you hate, of course).

The same goes for the fact that the original statement claims that the Oscars are "so white" in a way that acknowledges the imbalance in a not-too-accusatory manner, which is why I have a problem with users like @marty344 misinterpreting it as "too white" as if to preemptively justify going on the defensive against what they perceive as a more direct attack on their personhood.

Tell me about it.

That's nothing, I once saw a user on here whose review of Solo simply referred to it as "an SJW story".

But seriously, that's being taken out of context. It doesn't hurt to be aware of the various social, political, and historical reasons why white people have generally managed to be more successful in Western society throughout the years and that it should be addressed rather than shrugged off as "irrational" simply because it makes you uncomfortable.

It probably has to do with the rise of the Internet allowing for the spread and reinforcement of marginalised voices in a way that couldn't quite be done in the pre-Internet era, which is why you probably found it easier to ignore. Hell, this Public Enemy clip dates from 1990 and it criticises reductive race-based Oscar-winners like Driving Miss Daisy, so it's not like this kind of attitude just sprung up overnight.



I'm a white guy from Australia and I know it is possible to take pride in one's heritage while also acknowledging that white privilege exists and that one can personally benefit from it. Also note the difference between cultural heritage and whiteness - if you're proud of being from a specific culture e.g being German then that's okay by itself but there's a reason that simply being proud of being white is considered racist.

It'd probably get somewhere if it weren't for all the white people who get so easily offended.

Because he's not the only black person who could host this thing. Defending black people as a whole does not automatically mean defending Kevin Hart, a black individual with his own compromising baggage. It's not like you're obligated to defend Craig McLachlan simply because both of you are white Australians.

What exactly is so hard about apologising that it's apparently such a problem for him that he can't do it again (and that's assuming he did it properly before)? Also, I don't think it's a mistake for them to stop him hosting because of this. It's not a good look for the Academy to preach values of tolerance and acceptance through the films they reward if they're going to allow an unapologetically intolerant guy to host the ceremony.

I do wonder if Ellen herself is in any way compromised by this situation - she's also got a connection to the Oscars and she's become so high-profile precisely because she's managed to fit so acceptably into the status quo. Cynical, perhaps, but does her being the single most high-profile LGBTQ+ person automatically invalidate the criticisms that other LGBTQ+ people have had regarding Hart's behaviour?

It's the Oscars, baby. The best person barely wins most of the time anyway.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

People have the right to be proud of anything they want in a free country, including their heritage but they should also be open enough question the wrongs that were done in it's name in the past.

Of what? It doesn't have to be the be-all and end-all of a discussion about racism. But it should pretty clearly be the end-all of "is the Academy engaging in systemic racial bias that's denying worthy African-Americans awards?" Because, if they are, they're not even doing a good job of it.

First, saying you can't "completely prove" your point is a pretty funny way to say you haven't provided any evidence for it, or even reconciled a glaring piece of evidence that strongly suggests the opposite.

Second, it doesn't have to paint a "complete picture," unless someone's citing it to dismiss the idea of racism ever existing. Not every charge of racism is a proxy for everyone's general posture about its scope or spread. It is possible for racism to be real, and bad...and not present in a specific situation just because somebody said it might be.

The fact that you regard this directly relevant fact as being "off-topic" is, I suspect, part of the problem. The topic is this specific charge. It's not "hey, something something racism, everybody take your usual places, no need to investigate the specifics."

I'm not sure how you would actually argue with that sentiment, though I wouldn't mind seeing the attempt. But however you do, I don't see what cause you'd have to try to handwave away simple, salient statistics in the process.

And I remind you you tried to do that with me, too, back when this was new, even though I sounded nothing like the OP. So it sure seems like the conclusion is coming first, and then simply refuses to move when it's presented with contrary evidence (nevermind, for now, that the conclusion was formed without the evidence to begin with).

It's a little more direct, but only a little. Nobody says "the Oscars are so white" as a purely neutral observation. The "too" is implied, even when it's not being stated outright (which it usually is).

Why stop at twice?

It cant be both. Either the Oscars are rewarded to the best actors, actresses and directors each year regardless of skin color. Or the Oscars are racist and try and go out of their way to make sure people that are not white are kept out of winning oscars.

Personally, i think its my first comment rather than the later. The academy member's jobs are quite easy. Choose the person in each catgory that they consider the best. Thats it, nothing more nothing less.

Having said that, for all i know theier could well be some flaimung racists that are stuck in 1900. But the facts speak for themselves. May african american actors and actresses as well as directrs have one this most coveted prize in all of cinema.

Some have even won it twice - Denzel Washington.

If the Oscars were so racist then these people would never have won, let alone been nonimated, if they were trying to keep non whites from winning.

I dont see how the Academy Awards is supposed to be more diverse. Its up to the filmmakers and all those involved in the film , to make a movie great enough to either be nominated for best picture, or be good eneough that its actors and actresses get nominated.

if anything why dont the pc police call out films as being too white? if that is indeed ther gripe.

Maybe im just blind to race. I dont see Michael Jordan as the greatest african american basketballer of all time. I just see him as the greatest basketballer of all time.

I was as happy when Leonardo Decaprio one best actor, as i was when Denzel Washington won it.

Anyways, seeing as i started this thing, maybe this is a good place to end it, unless anyone wants to say anything else.

This is an interesting proposition. Let us look at the successful acts and see what the gender breakdown is. Let's look at the decade of the 2000's (because it is the most modern complete decade and because it is the only complete decade of this century) and see. Here is a link to the list of the Billboard's Hot 100 Number-one singles of the 2000's:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_of_the_2000s


From the list:



Artist Weeks at number-one Usher 41 Beyoncé 36 The Black Eyed Peas 26 Nelly 23 50 Cent 23 Alicia Keys 22 Jay-Z 20 Mariah Carey 19 Rihanna 19


The artists with the most weeks at number one was Usher (male), Beyonce (female), The Black Eyed Peas (bit of both), Nelly (male), 50 Cent (male), Alicia Keys (female), Jay-Z (male), Mariah Carey (female) and Rihanna (female). The total is 4 males, 4 females and one group which contains both men and women. It looks as if it is exactly a 50-50 split.

Here, from the same list is the artists with the most number one singles of the decade:


Artist Number-one hits Singles
Usher 7

Rihanna 5
Beyoncé 5
Mariah Carey 4
Alicia Keys 4

50 Cent 4
Justin Timberlake 4
Nelly 4

Ludacris 4
Jennifer Lopez 3
Nelly Furtado 3
Fergie 3




You have Usher (male), Rihanna (female), Beyonce (female), Mariah Carey (female), Alicia Keys (female), 50 Cent (male), Justin Timberlake (male), Nelly (male), Ludacris (male), Jennifer Lopez (female), Nelly Furtado (female) and Fergie (female). That is 5 males and 7 females.



Judging by those numbers, yes, 50% (if not slightly more) of the successful music acts are women. Why is that so hard to believe?

Good point Theophile, but I was more thinking of the music industry as a whole. Unless women are involved in all levels including technical and behind the scenes it will still remain a male dominated industry, despite the star performers at the top of their game.

Couple of interesting articles

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&so...47541998097634

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&so...47541998097634

If your referring to slavery all contents have taken part in slavery at one point or another. And most who took part were large empires through out history. The Roman empire, the British empire, the Mongolian empire the list goses on. Go far back enough and none of are history is clean. Some only have to go 4 generation's back till they have an ancestor who believes in sacrificing their first born son or killing gays. But we as humans are still evolving just look how far we have come since 1919 which was only 100 years ago. But what's important is that we learn from are history and past mistakes but not hold guilt from are past unless we as individuals have something to be guilty of. But i don't think we should be responsible or feel guilty over the sins of are ancestors.

Take nazi Germany for example they suffered alot of poverty after world war 1 and had a lot of resentment for those they fought against in that war. If you lived in that state of poverty and suffering for years on end you probably would of been just as easily led on be Hitler's cause and committed crimes against your fellow man, and believing you were serving justice all the while. If you think you would have done things differently. Its most likely you would of been no different. Because when people are thrown in to extreme situations and are made to be puppeted by a government, its very hard to take a step back and to see things with moral clarity. Meny would not have the privilege or the position where they could step back and truly examine what is going on. And most who committed these terrible acs in war were merely porns of the government or a dictatorship which was the case in nazi Germany. The top nazi's though there's no excuse for them. But I'm referring to the foot soldiers in that war. We live in times where its easy to be moral, well not easy because are times come with different problems but easy in comparison to the men who had the misfortune of living under a dictatorship

wasn’t thinking about slavery in particular tbh, although obviously that’s a factor, but just reflecting on the fact that often you get extremists saying things like “I’m proud to be British and proud of our heritage’ and hearing bandied about names like Agincourt, the Tudors, Waterloo, the Empire, the Industrial Revolution without giving thought to the lives of ordinary people in those times. I’m not saying feel guilty or be responsible for the past, I’m just saying be mindful that the majority of the population was living in abject poverty, uneducated, and disenfranchised, with children working down mines and up chimneys and in dangerous factories .

The more measures the successive governments try to implement to counterbalance the racial subject the more they distinguish both. This is applicable to everything, from jobs applications which require the company/state to have % minorities, to everything else. The equality between races comes by not distinguish them, but unfortunately people use the race card very often.

I would counter here with the same argument that professions like music production don't seem to have the same draw for females, at least in my experience. Music production tends to be kind of a gearhead/gadget person field, and the interaction with people can often be confrontational, as musicians grapple with producers as they try to produce their recordings. These two situations seem to generate less interest for the female musicians I know/have interacted with. Obviously, there are exceptions, and I have certainly run into females that enjoy tinkering with gear and running a mixing board, but on the whole, most female musicians I have interacted with are more focused on the music/performance itself.

As in the STEM fields, the only way to achieve a 50/50 balance in the field, would be to make people who don't want to do a certain job, do that job. The interest just doesn't seem to be there.

__________________

im white and i think its fine to be racist to white people