By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wonktonodi on 25 January 2016
Edit Thread
Aielyn said:
Wonktonodi said:
I disagree that your not knowing proves your point. She wasn't the first to be arrested for not giving up her seat. The boycott is part of what made Martin Luther King Jr. so well known and showed what the movement could do when they worked together. The boycott wasn't to keep the pressure, the boycott was the pressue.

In this case the "event" could be considered two years in a row of only white people being nominated for the acting roles, but indeed in this case for the boycott to be efective would either them getting people not to watch the show or not to watch movies the show being an easier target than movies since they would have a hard time getting peopel to agree what movies need to be boycotted to prove the point.

for an efective boycott of the show they need to have many more high profile people not show up to the awards ceremony,  even if they got changes in the nominating process, the issues go much further back when the movies are made to begin with, where there isn't diversity in the making of the movies and good acting roles as well as directing, aren't cast as diverse, so for all those who don't even get offered acting roles because of race, it is an econimic issue and the awards are only a symptom of the underlying issue, not the issue itself.

If you don't think it proves my point, then I suspect you haven't understood my point. The momentum for the civil rights movement was triggered by Rosa Parks' highly visible action (there were previous cases, but they didn't push those events due to relative "unsuitability" of the women involved). Boycotts require momentum, they don't create momentum.

What we have right now is some rich black people vowing to not attend a glitzy awards event. That's just not going to start any momentum for change. The "#OscarsSoWhite" hashtag itself (or whatever it's called) is a more effective movement (and that's not really saying much).

When I spoke of lack of economic relevance, what I was talking about was specifically the issue with the Oscars, not to the film industry in general. Think of it this way - a boycott of the bus system sends the message "deal with this, or you won't get our money". What, exactly, does the boycott of the Oscars say? "Deal with this, or... we won't attend your event"? They're trying to boycott a social situation (an event that they get to go to for free) rather than a market. And that just won't work.

So if I understand your understanding correctly, you think that Rosa Parks case was so highly visible that it lead the blakc community boycotting the busses?  You should know the boycott started 4 days later, on the first day of her trial, that's hardly the time for any event to become highly visible. Her case and her name are well known because of the boycott.

The NAACP of wich she was a member, had wanted to do it for a while but they wanted a good face for the movement. They didn't think a 15 year old pregnant girl would be suitable. The movement was already there to make Rosa Parks known, it didn't form out of her arrest and court case.

This all stemed though from you saying there wasn't a boycott as an example of what they should be doing now.

As for your thoughts on what is going on now. Even talking of boycotting it has people talking about it, and the academy has already spoken of some changes they plan to make, so that's already achomplishing something might only be a small step but it's already showing that it's more effective than many here think.  You might dismiss them as a rich black people, who feels snubbed about awards, but that's just the narative people use to dismiss the deaper issues.