LipeJJ said:
Bandorr said:
LipeJJ said: So, he's implying that they should nominate people not by their merit, but based on ethnic/cultural diversity? Or the did I read it wrong? |
I wonder the same thing. I can't tell if it is being implied that the "committee" is racist, or if they should be picking people based on things OTHER than their acting skill.
I assumed the first thing, but seeing as how the committee has over 6000 members it seems hard to call them ALL racist.
|
I'm seriously considering it's a mix of both.
|
I think there's some merit to it. The Oscar voters are predominantly white in a country where we white people are also a minority. I've heard somewhere around 70%, compared to somewhere around 44% total population (if I recall the census data correctly). The problem is the scope of this issue. Black actors, generally, have a proportional likelihood to win an Oscar (10% to 12% US population). It's everybody else that's underrepresented.
Overall, though, when you put this in theory, and throw two similar actors (barring their ethnicity) with similar performances onto a vote where 70% of the voters are white, the odds are the white guy wins. If we proportionally diversify the voting group the odds become much more fair to EVERYBODY worthy of an Oscar.
That's just my two cents; I have no vested interest in this, but logically there's an argument to be made. They're just making the wrong one.
You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt! I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading. After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!