StefanAVFC Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Black people have been represented in the Oscars in accordance with black population figures (as discussed in that Economist article above) Hispanics though. Massively under-represented. Yet where's the outrage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 28, 2016 Author VT Supporter Share Posted January 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Ah I see. That's just as valid though. Whether or not is true is one thing, but I don't see why it's silly if the people boycotting it believe it's true? Yeah when I said valid, I meant I didn't know whether there was any truth in it. From what Stefan posted, it would seem that's in doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Black people have been represented in the Oscars in accordance with black population figures (as discussed in that Economist article above) Hispanics though. Massively under-represented. Yet where's the outrage? Dude did you even read the rest of the article? Because that's definitely not the conclusion to be drawn from it. Also just because there isn't outrage from even more under-represented people doesn't mean there shouldn't be outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Nope, not THE conclusion but a valid one. 12 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Ah I see. That's just as valid though. Whether or not is true is one thing, but I don't see why it's silly if the people boycotting it believe it's true? Edit: According to the article Stefan posted above "But blacks are under-represented in the roles that count for the Oscars, getting just 9% of the top roles since 2000", so it's definitely not missplaced. 9% of the roles considered for the Oscars, when the black population of the States since 2000 has been what? Around 12%? Add into that, not all of those 12% will be well enough educated (as you'd expect in any population or any race) to get anywhere near an Oscar and the figures aren't bad at all. Also: Quote Of course the data are not random. Yet, despite the 2015-2016 whiteout, an analysis of Oscar selections since 2000 suggests that the imbalances are industry-wide, not primarily to do with Academy voters. And they affect all ethnic minorities. Oscar nominations have not dramatically under-represented black actors. Instead, they have greatly over-represented white ones. Blacks are 12.6% of the American population, and 10% of Oscar nominations since 2000 have gone to black actors. I think the real shame are in the black directors figures', and especially black women. Edited January 28, 2016 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Yeah when I said valid, I meant I didn't know whether there was any truth in it. From what Stefan posted, it would seem that's in doubt. I'm not so sure it is, because according to the article "But blacks are under-represented in the roles that count for the Oscars, getting just 9% of the top roles since 2000, according to our own analysis. (We define “top roles” as the top three names on the cast-list on IMDb, an online film database, in films with a rating of 7.5 or greater, an American box-office gross of at least $10m, and which were neither animated nor in a foreign language.)". So while they're not underrepresented overall when it comes to roles, it's just as you said, they aren't given the opportunities for the top roles. While it might be an overreaction, it's definitely valid imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Nope, not THE conclusion but a valid one. 9% of the roles considered for the Oscars, when the black population of the States since 2000 has been what? Around 12%? Add into that, not all of those 12% will be well enough educated (as you'd expect in any population or any race) to get anywhere near an Oscar and the figures aren't bad at all. Also: I think the real shame are in the black directors figures', and especially black women. Yep. I think the most poignant line in that article is that black people aren't dramatically under-represented, it's just that white people are over-represented. Edited January 28, 2016 by Keyblade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 2/3 of the U.S. population is white, yet 2/3 of the NFL players are black. I think you can look too much into things, just because x% of the population is of a certain race doesn't mean that the same % of people will be suited to any particular job or be worthy of awards. Still, it does seem a bit fishy that no black actor got a nomination but I've not seen enough films and it's a debate worth having as to whether the film industry naturally feels financially it makes more sense to make films that cater for a white audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: 2/3 of the U.S. population is white, yet 2/3 of the NFL players are black. Was thinking this too. It's a case of black people being over-represented rather than white being under though. Similar to the Oscars. it stems down to culture as well. Black people are more likely to play sports. White people are more likely to get into acting. It's definitely a class thing too (without getting anywhere near racism) Edited January 28, 2016 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post will87 Posted January 28, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted January 28, 2016 If Michael Jackson were alive today he would have cleaned up at the WOBO's. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Someone know anyone in music industry to see what happens if we introduce "WOBO" awards?" Guranteed it would cause uproar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 If you take a long enough view, we're all 'white of black origin'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Someone know anyone in music industry to see what happens if we introduce "WOBO" awards?" Guranteed it would cause uproar! It would because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. What music is of white origin? Maybe folk, classical, uhh? Popular music as it is now is almost entirely based on r&b, jazz, soul, hip hop. Even modern 'white' genres are born from jazz/blues influences. It's a clunky name that was attached to an awards ceremony designed to recognise music genres some felt were being overlooked in the 80's and 90's, that happened to be mostly performed by black artists. It's not exclusively for black people though, as evident by the many MOBO's won by people like Ed Sheeran, Jessie J, Disclosure and Jess Glyne in the last couple of years. EDIT: The real question is why do people give a shit about awards ceremonies anyway? The extent of the general public's (i.e the part of society that vote in these things) interest in music is putting radio 1 or capital on in the background while they punch numbers into a spreadsheet. They like what they get told to like because they can't be arsed to find anything different, and as such the winners of these awards will always be whoever the industry decides to thrust upon the public. The collective celebrity ego masturbation of the Grammy's, Oscars and so on are pretty nauseating, as many things in life those with the most financial support get the most credit. Of them all, I actually find the MOBO's relatively inoffensive as it tries to highlight artists and genres not represented anywhere else. Edited January 28, 2016 by a m ole 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 MOWO ffs . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 23 minutes ago, a m ole said: It would because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. What music is of white origin? Maybe folk, classical, uhh? Popular music as it is now is almost entirely based on r&b, jazz, soul, hip hop. Even modern 'white' genres are born from jazz/blues influences. It's a clunky name that was attached to an awards ceremony designed to recognise music genres some felt were being overlooked in the 80's and 90's, that happened to be mostly performed by black artists. It's not exclusively for black people though, as evident by the many MOBO's won by people like Ed Sheeran, Jessie J, Disclosure and Jess Glyne in the last couple of years. EDIT: The real question is why do people give a shit about awards ceremonies anyway? The extent of the general public's (i.e the part of society that vote in these things) interest in music is putting radio 1 or capital on in the background while they punch numbers into a spreadsheet. They like what they get told to like because they can't be arsed to find anything different, and as such the winners of these awards will always be whoever the industry decides to thrust upon the public. The collective celebrity ego masturbation of the Grammy's, Oscars and so on are pretty nauseating, as many things in life those with the most financial support get the most credit. Of them all, I actually find the MOBO's relatively inoffensive as it tries to highlight artists and genres not represented anywhere else. Its not about the music, its about always being uproar about ridiculous things about black people. For example if a white guy says "black guy" its deemed racist but then you see black guys like rappers calling people "white boys" but thats not deemed racist. Thats the point. All comes down to this "political correctness bullshit" god its 2016 not 1816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Seat68 Posted January 28, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted January 28, 2016 I dont think anyone considers the term black guy racist. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post troon_villan Posted January 28, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted January 28, 2016 If you take a long enough view, we're all 'white of black origin'. What you sayin' bout my momma? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted January 28, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted January 28, 2016 42 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: For example if a white guy says "black guy" its deemed racist It really isn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 'White: of black origin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, Designer1 said: It really isn't. Come round to my area and use the term black guy and you will live to regret it. I agree it isnt racist but to them they find it offensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 44 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Its not about the music, its about always being uproar about ridiculous things about black people. For example if a white guy says "black guy" its deemed racist but then you see black guys like rappers calling people "white boys" but thats not deemed racist. Thats the point. All comes down to this "political correctness bullshit" god its 2016 not 1816 I think you have vastly missed the point. You said "why are there not WOBO's (MOWO's)?" I explained that the MOBO's started because of a, more than likely legitimate, impression of under-representation at typical awards ceremonies at the time which didn't reflect what music was really popular with all of society (not just the white, middle class). It's entirely understandable why people who feel under-represented aim to correct that. All you're doing by suggesting a white version of a black thing is highlighting the ridiculousness of that mis-representation in the first place. in 500 or so years when globalization means humans have blended into one giant beige mass and the concept of 'race' no longer exists and everyone has the same ancestors, you won't have to get so annoyed by certain groups of people wanting their voices heard in equal measure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts