Boycott the Oscars?

movingpicturequeen - Copy

In keeping with the current reality of everything coming down to race in our supposedly post-racial nation (as expected and promised–but not fulfilled–by the election of Obama), controversy is brewing over a lack of Academy Awards nominations for black actors, directors, or movies:

Outrage erupted online Thursday about the lack of diversity in this year’s Academy Awards nominations, and stars are continuing to weigh in.

Jada Pinkett Smith, whose husband, Will, missed out on a best actor nod for Concussion, took to Facebook Saturday to air her grievances — even mulling a potential boycott of the show itself.

“At the Oscars … people of color are always welcomed to give out awards … even entertain, but we are rarely recognized for our artistic accomplishments,” the actress wrote. “Should people of color refrain from participating all together?”

Well, that’s certainly their right. It’s up to them. This is, after all, still a more-or-less free country.

Putting aside the racist-on-its face expression people of color, let’s think about the validity of the “grievance” against those people who nominate other people for awards based, admittedly, upon subjective standards of excellence in acting or directing or the many other accomplishments that are recognized and honored in the movie business.

One expects that those who do the nominating have at least some level of expertise beyond that of the ordinary moviegoer. Artists are probably better able to judge art than are non-artists.

There is, however, something to be said for the common person’s gut feeling. If an actor gives a convincing and moving performance, then it’s likely that most viewers of the movie would agree that the performance was above average, if not excellent and worthy of accolades.

But wait! The grievances do not consist solely of a perception that persons of color were overlooked by the Academy: Some perceive that females were unfairly excluded, as well.  A black female director, Ava DuVernay, and a white female director, Angeline Jolie, were dissed by not getting a “nod.” But not in the opinion of Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs, a black female herself.

There are a lot of terrific motion pictures, it’s a very competitive time, and there’s a lot of great work that has been done.

To no one’s surprise or grievance, the African-American Film Critics Association recently declared

STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON as top film of 2015.

To each his own. Or should I say, hir own?

Organizations form. Organizations decide to give awards. Organizations, in our country, have a perfect right to make subjective judgments in their own way. Right?

Numerous news articles have questioned the demographic makeup of those who decide Oscar nominations, telling us that the voters are

almost exclusively white men. According to a recent survey conducted by The Los Angeles Times, Oscar voters are on average 63 years old. 76% of them are men, and 94% of them are white.

Hmm. Old white men. Sounds like a meme. But it’s a lot more complicated when you consider that The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and  Sciences (AMPAS) is

made up of more than 6000 (currently 6,028) voting members. All are film industry professionals, most are US-based, and almost half are active filmmakers (i.e. their most recent credit was 2010 or later).

One would think that being an active filmmaker would be far more pertinent and relevant to a judgment about the quality of acting or film-making than skin color, race, sex, or ethnicity. In a sane world, that is.

Dig down deeper into the article and you find possible explanations for how some movies, actors, or directors might be overlooked; but it seems that too often these days a simple soundbite or a Twitter hashtag is more attractive and easier to digest than a complicated but perfectly plausible explanation:

There are different voting branches for each category at the Academy Awards, where members vote in their own fields. For example, the Actors branch (which has 1,176 members) votes to nominate in all four acting awards, the directors vote for Best Director nominees, and so on. How many votes you need to secure a nomination depends on the size of the voting branch.

Actors vote for acting; directors vote for directing. Who knows better, huh? Skin color, race, sex, ethnicity. Do they matter? Should they?

Are people with grievances suggesting that if more of the 6000+ voters were “people of color” or female, then the voters would choose nominees based upon skin color, race or sex, regardless of the true perceived quality of the movie or performance?

Even with the complicated nominating process, one must also consider the campaigning that goes into securing a nomination. Did people of color perhaps choose ineffective public relations consultants or not campaign at all?

It’s so much easier to choose simple culprits (old white men) or explanations (racism, sexism) than to consider the multiple variables that may lead to one’s preferred actor, director, or movie being passed over.

Surely somebody, somewhere, is going to suggest some kind of legal “solution”, such as forcing the Academy to diversify or maybe forcing all voters to undergo cultural sensitivity training or its equivalent.

According to the U.S. census, in 2014 the demographic breakdown of the United States was: White: 77.4%; Black: 13.2%; Latino: 17.4%; Asian: 5.4%.  (It does not add up to 100% because Latinos can be any race.)

Let’s play a little game. Following is the rundown of the diversity of the National Basketball Association (NBA):

[T]he NBA in 2015 was composed of 74.4 percent black players, 23.3 percent white players, 1.8 percent Latinos, and 0.2 percent Asian.

Therefore, blacks are over-represented in the NBA by a whopping 61.2%, while whites are under-represented by 54.1%.

Players are chosen by teams based upon subjective standards used by their recruiters and other team authorities. They don’t look at race or ethnicity. They look at who they believe will help their teams to win, draw fans, and make them money. In other words, players who show talent.

Should this be changed? Should whites boycott the NBA unless and until they “diversify” teams to better represent the demographics of the nation, no matter any lack of talent by white players who didn’t get a “nod?”

Of course not. That’s ridiculous.

We could look at this another way. Odds are that the recruiters themselves, the team owners, the team managers, the coaches, are mostly white. Is it relevant? Their own race didn’t seem to matter when it came time to recognize talent by rewarding black players with positions on teams. So are whites who disproportionately hire talented black players for the NBA not inherently racist, while whites who determine Academy Award nominations are inherently racist because in some years, in their judgment, they didn’t decide to nominate any blacks?

If a certain number of nominations are supposed to be reserved for “people of color”, because of their representation in the overall population, then shouldn’t the African-American Film Critics Association give 77.4% of their “top film” awards to movies produced by, directed by, or performed by whites?

How about the Latin Grammy Awards? Should 77.4% of the awards go to white Hispanics? How about the BET Awards? 77.4% to whites?

Have you noticed that halftime performers at the Super Bowl are disproportionately “people of color”? Should we demand that the honor of performing at the Super Bowl be awarded based upon national demographics–race, sex, skin color, ethnicity–or consider a boycott?

Have you noticed the disproportionate representation of “people of color” in TV advertising? Shouldn’t whites be more fairly represented in TV ads, based upon their percentage of the population?

Do you observe that only about 13% of the people appearing in TV ads are black? Hardly. Vastly over-represented. Is that fair?

We’re still waiting for our post-racial country. How long will we have to wait? How sick are you of this perpetual division, this professional grievance industry? There are very few people who look like me in movies or on TV, as I’m multi-ethnic, multi-racial–the epitome of post-racial assimilation, the progeny of people who chose mates based upon the content of their character instead of on skin color, race, or ethnicity.

On this MLK Day, shouldn’t we all strive to honor what he professed to want?

#####

Advertisements

142 responses to “Boycott the Oscars?

    • Several questions:
      1. Is there a time limit on applying for that CRBA?
      2. Did she try and get refused, which is why he won’t release his records?
      3. Did she assume Canadian citizenship, tacitly or actually renouncing U.S. citizenship, and vote in their elections, and then come back here, pretending to still be a U.S. citizen, and getting U.S. citizenship for her young son at that point, if possible?
      4. Even if this is how Canadian law works, won’t they just argue then the same crap they did for Barry: His mother can’t renounce his citizenship, so it doesn’t matter if she got a CRBA or not?
      5. If she renounced her U.S. citizenship in Canada, but didn’t inform the USA, then is it possible for her to still claim U.S. citizenship, making her foreign-born kids U.S. citizens, too? IOW, if Canada considers her solely a Canadian citizen, does it follow that the USA does, too?
      6. Supposing she did file a CRBA and it was granted in 1970. What then, happens to the minor child who’s now an EXCLUSIVE U.S. citizen? Did he have to get a visa of some kind to be allowed to stay and live there until his parents moved to Texas?

      It appears to me that he’s got as much funky stuff in his background as Barry. EXACTLY like Barry, with a mother who did whatever she did and is allowed to get away with it by hiding behind “privacy” to keep the public from knowing the TRUTH. With both of them, just release the damned documents. As an infamous obot-turned-birther now says, it’s suspicious when somebody won’t release documents, because then it seems as if the papers must prove that what he’s saying isn’t true.

      • Wow. No way, Ted Cruz is not releasing his documents?
        I missed that tidbit.

        • Well, I don’t know if anybody has asked him directly or if his campaign responded in any way (another example of him being like Barry–doesn’t speak for himself), but I have read articles that say that people asked for his INS records and got the usual response anybody got when they asked the same for Barry–that HE would have to release them because they’re protected by privacy laws/rules. So, knowing people are specifically asking for a CRBA, etc., where is it? His campaign has said and he has said, I believe, the he didn’t have to do anything special to be a U.S. citizen, IMPLYING but not directly stating that there IS no CRBA. People have opined that he doesn’t want to supply one, if one exists, because that would, in essence, prove that before his mother got it, he WASN’T a citizen. I don’t know the ins and outs of the law. Nobody does. But it sure seems likely that somebody who has obligations of citizenship to two or even three countries, cannot, by definition, be an NBC because he’s not subject to the sole jurisdiction of the USA, nor is he giving allegiance only TO the USA. People asked him for proof and what does he provide? His mother’s BC. But that doesn’t show us whether or not she actually gave up her citizenship at some point. That link alfy gave, below, says even voting in another country’s elections or RUNNING FOR or HOLDING OFFICE in another country, doesn’t negate one’s U.S. citizenship. That’s totally RIDICULOUS. However, since CANADA did not ALLOW dual citizenship, then it follows that IF his mother did assume Canadian citizenship and VOTE there, then she MUST HAVE renounced her U.S. citizenship. I wonder when the liberals at “findlaw” wrote that article in that exact way? I checked the WayBack Machine and it dates to 2012 (convenient for Barry) and it specifically says that dual citizenship is allowed (but doesn’t say that makes one a NBC, just a U.S. citizen).

        • http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/birth-abroad.html
          you have till you’re eighteen, but it suggested to get the CRBA as soon as possible after birth .

          • For what it’s worth Crus would most likely be a naturalized citizen by “proxy”. He would have a US passport and a Canadian passport.

          • For people who have met the “requirements for transmitting citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

            That says it all. IMMIGRATION and nationality act OF CONGRESS to basically award citizenship to someone in his situation. But that means he cannot BE a “natural” citizen. I wonder if his mom got one when they decided to return to the USA, when he was more than an infant. Or maybe when they tried to register him in school in Texas. I wonder if that was the law and procedure in the 1970s? I do know that in the 1970s, Canada did NOT allow dual citizenship.

        • Yes, I am aware of most of that. I didn’t know he was hiding his paperwork.

          • I guess technically he’s not “hiding” it; he’s just allowing it to be sealed and remain sealed and not asking for it to be provided. Just like BARRY.

    • You know, if these people in the elite consider Sarah a traitor of some kind for supporting Trump, then maybe they should look in the mirror and consider how they treated her. Why SHOULD SHE support one of “theirs” instead of someone the people want? They despise us common folks.

      • I was thinking she became aware a lot things concerning Ted Cruz ‘ bona fides and strayed away.

        • Probably. I can’t believe some of what I’m reading about him. His dad is a real trip. The egotistical stuff about basically considering himself “chosen” by God? Well, reminds me far too much of Barry.

  1. http://carolineglick.com/the-obama-administrations-most-covert-war/
    This is definitely Hill’s and Obama’s mode of operendi; Good ole NGOs . I remember reading before about Pinkering…..this email on Hillary’s server should be of great concern. I’m sure this is how Libya and Egypt got taken down….hired protesters and the like.

    • The Obama team to part in the Youth Alliance, in early Dec. ’08. It was there that the attendees were taught how to stay incognito while getting the hordes out to protest.

      I learned about this years ago, while reading Wikileaks. Egyptian officials found the brochures from this gathering in the suitcase of, I believe, an Egyptian that had links to GOOGLE. He may have even been arrested. I’ll have to look in my research.

      When I read the Wikileaks, I looked up the details of this The direct link no longer exists. I did find this, however:
      STATE DEPARTMENT TRAINED EGYPT PROTEST ACTIVIST
      JERUSALEM – A group that is one of the main youth movements helping to organize the anti-government protests planned for Egypt this weekend participated in a 2008 U.S. State Department-sponsored training summit on how to use social media to organize societal change, WND has learned.
      (…)
      A PBS “Frontline” profile of the April 6 Movement reported one member visited the U.S. to participate in the State Department-organized “Alliance of Youth Movements Summit” in New York City.
      Also, a Wikileaks cable claimed the activist said he discussed with other activists there techniques to evade government surveillance and harassment.

      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/state-department-trained-egypt-protest-activist/#CHQzY8fX425mhhCb.99

    • Despicable. And all this does is confirm what many countries believe anyway (because it’s probably true and was, btw, true when SAD worked for “NGO’s”)–that these organizations aren’t charities and aren’t do-gooders but ARE spies and fronts for the CIA and others with agendas not in keeping with the welfare of the countries where they interfere. Needless to say, they put the lives of those people who DO believe they’re doing good at risk. Surely not ALL people in these NGO’s are spies, but enough are to endanger all of them. It’s like with journalists. Now they’re suspect, because SOME ARE spies. Israel is our ALLY, not our enemy. This shows their true colors.

      btw, they don’t just do this in foreign countries. It’s at work here, too, via BLM and Occupy and other “activists”.

  2. joseph N……….

  3. 😀

  4. Stay safe dear friends. ❤

  5. Hillary Clinton angers Iowa fans who waited hours for 5 – minute speech
    Not even a special performance by singer Demi Lovato improved the mood of some supporters who were unimpressed by Democratic candidate’s brevity
    Demi Lovato endorses Hillary Clinton, saying the Democratic candidate embodies ‘women empowerment’.

    ~ Adam Gabbatt in Iowa City, Iowa
    @adamgabbatt
    Hillary Clinton left her audience Cold in Iowa City on Thursday night, after she spoke for Less than 5 – minutes to a crowd of more than a thousand people, some of whom had lined up for more than an Hour to see her.

    After a day marred by a new poll showing Bernie Sanders leading her by eight points in Iowa, Clinton might have been expected to go for broke during a rally at the University of Iowa, which featured a performance by popstar Demi Lovato.

    But Clinton did not refer to the Vermont senator, or much else, in her speech. The lack of length and substance of her address appeared to upset some in the crowd.

  6. ~ dualer 73p · 2 hours ago …YES WOW COOL ….OUT RAGE-OUS

    Cruz and Rubio can be disqualified by logic without even defining nbC.

    1) Natural born Citizens have always been citizens upon their birth.
    2) Ted Cruz, if born in the same situation, to a US (supposedly) citizen mother, and a foreign father, in Canada, would not have been considered a US citizen upon his birth prior to 1934.
    3) Ted Cruz can only considered a US citizen “at birth” now because of US naturalization law. (8 US Code 1401 (g))
    4) Cruz is NATURALIZED.
    5) Cruz is not a natural born Citizen.

    ….. Same with Rubio:

    1) Natural born Citizens have always been citizens upon their birth.
    2) Marco Rubio, if born in the US to resident alien parents in 1802 would not not have been considered a US citizen until his parents naturalized (See NA 1802 S. 4).
    3) In 1802 Marco Rubio would have been naturalized at the age of 3 or 4 by the naturalization of his parents.
    4) Marco Rubio is only considered a citizen “at birth” (at birth means “after birth”) today by the operation of naturalization law (8 US code 1401 (a))
    5) Marco Rubio is naturalized and not a nbC.

    ~ Frank_O’Pinion · 1 hour ago
    Dialog is great.
    The truth will foam to the top.

    ~ dealio · 1 hour ago
    A fifth grader could also tell you cruz is ineligible. What about soetoro, trump?! Is soetoro eligible?!

    Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/donald-trump-highly-respected.html#wgGezCmSFWjSoweT.99

  7. I’ll tell you this. If Cruz gets the nomination, they will work — some of them will work — to undermine him. I mean, there’s no question. The same thing with Trump. There’s too much at stake here for the Republican Party, folks. This is the point that I’m trying to make. All these age-old Jurassic Park Dinosaurs, they want to hold on to their Club. They want to hold onto control of the Club. They want to be able to be the ones determine who gets in the Club. They want to be able to determine who is a leader of the Club.

    They don’t want to lose the Club and they don’t want to lose control over it, and it doesn’t matter what happens to the country in the process. This is their livelihood, as far as they’re concerned. This is their careers. This is their money. This is their income. This is their future. See, when it’s their future on the line and it gets threatened, then they’ll do whatever it takes to protect it. When it’s your future that’s imperiled resulting from policies they either don’t oppose in Washington or support, you’re supposed to gut it up, toughen up, and understand that there are larger things we have to work on here. …….
    @Rush ….”have U ever” …

  8. REALTIME
    ~Asok Smith ~ FlagAsok Smith Rank 1485
    Kasich is a day late and a dollar short: GOP operative Rick Wilson has already called for the assassination of Trump via firearm.

    BTW, while these guys don’t have the guts to actually assassinate Trump themselves, they keep using this inflammatory language on purpose in the hope that they’ll incite some unstable nutjob to do the dirty work for them. The press is complicit too by continuously repeating this inflammatory language. At this point they all know that assassination is the only thing that’s going to stop Trump from being President of the United States.« less

  9. Did y’all hear about how Charlotte Rampling called them out on their racism against white people? It’s about time somebody spoke up. It’s the truth. Straight up.

  10. Hi Y’all,
    I never watch the oscars anyways.
    Who wants to see a bunch of up themselves elites pontificate on
    why they got the award and etc.
    I am not going to watch the oscars this year, just like I didn’t watch them last
    year or the year before that.
    Boycott them all ya want,
    I’ll watch Big Brother of Fox News.
    There’s trash TV and then there is TRASH TV!
    My question:
    There don’t seem to be any eskimo nominees?
    What about that?

    • Hey, Dave. Hope all’s well with you. I don’t watch them, anyway, either. I would like to go to the movies but week after week I look and find NOTHING that, imho, is worth my time or money. You are SO CORRECT! When was the last Oscar for an Eskimo? (btw, I think that’s not PC anymore.) Nanook of the North?

      Somebody went back and did an analysis and found that black nominees since 2000 are almost EXACTLY in proportion to their population AND blacks are OVER-REPRESENTED as Oscar winners. So it’s all a LIE, just like “hands up/don’t shoot” was a LIE. I think they want “equality” in terms of half for them and half for whites (or maybe even less than half for whites, where Hispanics and Asians get a share of the “white” nominations).

      Don’t you love, too, how they jump groups from one race category to another just so they can say FALSELY that whites are less than 60% or even less than half the population? They’ve moved Indians, Pakistanis, Mexicans (when they want to), Middle Easterners (sometimes), even the Kardashians, into the “people of color” groups. See here: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI125214.htm

      Technically, according to the gummint, unless you “maintain membership” in a tribe, you aren’t a “Native American”. Interestingly enough, they consider “Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups” as Native American, but NOT most Mexicans, whom they consider “white”, even though many Mexicans are mixed race (mestizo), iow from native tribes. Can’t you just imagine the little Obama minions, sitting in the bowels of the census bureau, re-categorizing people just so they can REDUCE the “white” population?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s