Calls for boycott of Oscars grow over diversity of nominees

[jaidam]

I'm so f&?&?g sick of these people playing the race card when it suits them ! <deleted> about that Black Awards they have ??? Isn't that outright racist....

no it's only racist when you are white and proud of your culture and heritage. Nobody likes a bragging winner.

[mopar71]

First of all, it is sad that when nominating people for awards, we are supposed to take into consideration the color of their skin and not what they did in order to get an award in the first place.

Second, there is this classic about "colored people"...

[mopar71]

Race only matters to liberals and racists. - Greg Gutfeld.

Greg Guttfeld, the living oxymoron. A right wing comedian.

White men should not talk about racism or sexism. You lot are completely out of your depth.

Hardly. White men are the last humans on the planet who you are allowed to be racist or sexist against. You win the trifecta if they happen also to be Christian.

[bendejo]

Can't we arrange for Bill Crosby to get some sort of award?

Then everyone can be happy.

Bing Crosby or Bill Cosby?

Give them both an award and make everyone happy.

Funny that Bing Crosby should pop up in this thread. His insisting that Louis Armstrong appear in a movie, and be given top billing, was probably the biggest breakthrough ever for black people in American cinema.

http://riverwalkjazz.stanford.edu/program/bing-and-louis-pocketful-dreams-gary-giddins

Before I learned of this every mention of Bing I'd ever heard was of what a bastard he was. Even when he died his family members had sort of a "woo! Now that that's over" attitude.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[bendejo]

Words, words words.

When I grew up in the 60's, the polite term was Negro.

They took offence, so, the polite term became Coloured.

They took offence, so, the polite term became Black.

They took offence, so, the polite term became People of Colour.

They took offense and we have now African Americans.

PS. It's only the African Americans that seem to get offended, others from Africa and Europe, not so much.

I think the introduction of "Afro American" was part of Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign. At the time I thought is was yet another "trip whitey" thing, another excuse for calling people racist for using a wrong word.

Black people from other countries that come to the US. especially the ones coming from Africa, are usually bemused by African-Americans, particularly the culture of victimhood. I first heard this from a Nigerian guy I used to work with when I was a teenager. Trevor Noah has commented on this in his stand-up shows, before becoming a celebrity in the US.

When the MLK movie came out in 2014 I saw the woman who directed it on a talk show (John Stewart). Stewart gently pointed out to her a historical inaccuracy (something that LBJ did, but in the movie MLK did it, I think (I didn't see the movie)). And she said something to the effect of "if people want history they're going to have to look it up in a history book. I didn't want to make a movie where a white man saves the day." This took Stewart aback, and me too. If someone wonders why that movie didn't get any Oscar notice this may have something to do with it.

So now there is a push to "guilt trip" the Academy into more awards for black people -- that's black people, not a Rainbow Coalition. These awards are only about the people in their own industry, and it's all a joke IMO. Having affirmative action (for those of you not from the US look up that term, it has a particular meaning) applied to awards would be a joke on a joke.

I really hate these trips. Stuff like this is funny and disgusting at the same time:

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10301020/star-wars-racist-harris-perry

Just happened to notice that the right-wing press gave this a lot more attention than anywhere else, my guess is the progressives found it regressive.

[BookMan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ

[sebastion]

Two black actors took best actor and actress in 2002 when there was less black people in the industry eligible to vote. Jada obviously didn't think this through.

[exbikey]

[SheungWan]

" ... Pinkett Smith, whose husband Will Smith wasn't nominated for his performance in the NFL head trauma drama "Concussion," said it was time for people of color to disregard the Academy Awards." About time is right, I gave up watching or caring about them years ago. Why dignify this sham event by getting upset by it.

If we strip away the secondary opinions in the above, the issue that should be addressed is whether the movie Concussion deserved nomination in any categories. I thought the best place to look up some reviews (haven't seen the movie myself) is IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3322364/?ref_=nv_sr_1 The movie itself only gets a 7 rating but Will Smith is particularly praised for his performance and received a Golden Globe nomination. So the question is whether Will Smith should have received an Oscar nomination over and above any of the other Oscar male actor nominees. The Oscar nominees are:

Bryan Cranston: Trumbo

Matt Damon: The Martian

de Caprio: The Revenant

Michael Fassbender: Steve Jobs

Eddie Redmayne: The Danish Girl.

[sanukjim]

Do you think that The Oscars should lower their High Standards so as to include a proportionally equal number of Races,Religion,Political beliefs,May be for ever ten white nominee they should have say 5 blacks,3 Mexican Americans,1 Chinese,1 Japanese,1 American Indian.Then to include Ten Protestant,5 Catholic,1 Buddhist, 1 Tao, and 1 Atheist..Now also 1 from each of the political parties and a non voter and a neutralist..To hell with the talent doing a great acting job ,they would then be more like the US cities police forces,US Army personnel,and university students all with lower qualifications and less qualified people.All this just to please some disappointing people " That Did Not Make The Grade" .To understand what you end up with lowering standards ,just look at what most of the so called "first world countries" have as their leaders,.The lower expect ions of of our leaders by the voters produce very poor qualified Leaders..........In my opinion..

I am very interested in this. You seem to have knowledge of what objective standards are used to judge the relative quality of media productions, both dramatic and non-dramatic. This is huge. Please share these criteria with us so that we know what constitutes what you call a "High Standard".

Perhaps also you could explain to we plebs how affirmative action for minorities lowers expectations?

As you must be of one of the groups that get by on the shirt tail of others via "affirmative action" laws you would be mostly anti against any reasonably explanation so any response would be wasted on your obviously closed mind.

[KarenBravo]

Anything other than a meritocracy is unacceptable.

[lostboy]

Do you think that The Oscars should lower their High Standards so as to include a proportionally equal number of Races,Religion,Political beliefs,May be for ever ten white nominee they should have say 5 blacks,3 Mexican Americans,1 Chinese,1 Japanese,1 American Indian.Then to include Ten Protestant,5 Catholic,1 Buddhist, 1 Tao, and 1 Atheist..Now also 1 from each of the political parties and a non voter and a neutralist..To hell with the talent doing a great acting job ,they would then be more like the US cities police forces,US Army personnel,and university students all with lower qualifications and less qualified people.All this just to please some disappointing people " That Did Not Make The Grade" .To understand what you end up with lowering standards ,just look at what most of the so called "first world countries" have as their leaders,.The lower expect ions of of our leaders by the voters produce very poor qualified Leaders..........In my opinion..

I am very interested in this. You seem to have knowledge of what objective standards are used to judge the relative quality of media productions, both dramatic and non-dramatic. This is huge. Please share these criteria with us so that we know what constitutes what you call a "High Standard".

Perhaps also you could explain to we plebs how affirmative action for minorities lowers expectations?

As you must be of one of the groups that get by on the shirt tail of others via "affirmative action" laws you would be mostly anti against any reasonably explanation so any response would be wasted on your obviously closed mind.

Just like I thought. Shooting off at the mouth with the usual old man grumps and when challenged you wobble like jello and collapse under the weight of your own BS into personal attack. You cannot provide any objective selection criteria because you haven't bothered to think that far beyond the chance to have a dig at PC, or race, or gender, or sexuality or religion or whatever else is irritating your bowels today.

You claim you have a reasonably (sic) explanation. Try it. I might just be 'anti against' (sic) and since a double negative makes a positive ... well you know...

Have a guess. Just which one of 'those groups' who have benefited from affirmative action - no quotation marks required, it is an actual thing in the real world where real people exist - would you categorise for me? Fascinated by your perspicacity. Firstly on the merits of the dramatic arts and now on the philosophy of equal opportunity. Waiting with baited breath for my mind to be expanded.

[pedro01]

So, Spike and the other nobody are saying that blacks should not be considered on their merit or acting skills, but purely for their colour? Some blacks take issue with being called black, I take issue with being called white, whitey, white boy, lilly white etc.

Actually Spike Lee is not saying that at all. he is saying that on merit there should be some inclusion, not zero inclusion.

Yes, but on the 'merit' of their skin color, not their performance.

Spike is a prolific racist.

Again no, that is not what is being said. The complaint is that movies with black performers which should have been considered on their merits were not included and if you look at the original article at the top of this thread you will see a reference to actors/movies which they think were unfairly excluded. One test is to look at the Golden Globe and prior international festivals to see whether there is a clear argument for particular movies to be included and the Oscar committee to be criticised.

Actually what is happening is Will Smiths wife is upset her husband didn't get an Oscar. Let's face it - he's not the best actor in the world.

Spike Lee jumped on board because this is his thing.

There is a group of people that decide who gets nominated - for this to be a valid complaint, some evidence needs to be brought forward that they nominated movies/actors based on race. The accuser of an offence absolutely has the burden of providing evidence that the people deciding the nominations were racist.

As it is, Jade and Spike are seeing effect and then claiming race is the cause. Their is no validity to their claims, no proof of motive. It is simply a case of "it looks too white for us" - but really this is all about a wife seeing her husband not get a nomination and then playing the race card.

Of course, now other people are jumping on board and saying "why not this black person" and claiming they should have been nominated. Well - I can only suggest that these people go to the Academy and look for a spot on the selection board if they do not like the way selections are going. They simply cannot prove race was a factor merely by the outcome.

If you toss a coin, at some point you might get 10 heads in a row - that does not mean you are a "tailist" tosser.

[SheungWan]

Actually what is happening is Will Smiths wife is upset her husband didn't get an Oscar. Let's face it - he's not the best actor in the world.

Spike Lee jumped on board because this is his thing.

There is a group of people that decide who gets nominated - for this to be a valid complaint, some evidence needs to be brought forward that they nominated movies/actors based on race. The accuser of an offence absolutely has the burden of providing evidence that the people deciding the nominations were racist.

As it is, Jade and Spike are seeing effect and then claiming race is the cause. Their is no validity to their claims, no proof of motive. It is simply a case of "it looks too white for us" - but really this is all about a wife seeing her husband not get a nomination and then playing the race card.

Of course, now other people are jumping on board and saying "why not this black person" and claiming they should have been nominated. Well - I can only suggest that these people go to the Academy and look for a spot on the selection board if they do not like the way selections are going. They simply cannot prove race was a factor merely by the outcome.

If you toss a coin, at some point you might get 10 heads in a row - that does not mean you are a "tailist" tosser.

Actually no, that is not what is happening. She is upset that Will Smith wasn't shortlisted. Your interpretation is a figment of your imagination. How do we know this? Because Will Smith was shortlisted for the Golden Globes and didn't win it, so no particular expectation re the Oscars other than shortlisting(BTW, Leonardo de Caprio won the GG). Second point re your comment about Will Smith is that the vote is on an individual movie, not his body of work so all you are really telling us is that you have not looked at all at any of the movie reviews for this particular movie. I did helpfully provide a link above but when guys get on their high horse a little research is not going to distract them from their bombast. Oh no.

Edited January 20, 2016 by SheungWan

[pedro01]

Actually what is happening is Will Smiths wife is upset her husband didn't get an Oscar. Let's face it - he's not the best actor in the world.

Spike Lee jumped on board because this is his thing.

There is a group of people that decide who gets nominated - for this to be a valid complaint, some evidence needs to be brought forward that they nominated movies/actors based on race. The accuser of an offence absolutely has the burden of providing evidence that the people deciding the nominations were racist.

As it is, Jade and Spike are seeing effect and then claiming race is the cause. Their is no validity to their claims, no proof of motive. It is simply a case of "it looks too white for us" - but really this is all about a wife seeing her husband not get a nomination and then playing the race card.

Of course, now other people are jumping on board and saying "why not this black person" and claiming they should have been nominated. Well - I can only suggest that these people go to the Academy and look for a spot on the selection board if they do not like the way selections are going. They simply cannot prove race was a factor merely by the outcome.

If you toss a coin, at some point you might get 10 heads in a row - that does not mean you are a "tailist" tosser.

Actually no, that is not what is happening. She is upset that Will Smith wasn't shortlisted. Your interpretation is a figment of your imagination. How do we know this? Because Will Smith was shortlisted for the Golden Globes and didn't win it, so no particular expectation re the Oscars other than shortlisting(BTW, Leonardo de Caprio won the GG). Second point re your comment about Will Smith is that the vote is on an individual movie, not his body of work so all you are really telling us is that you have not looked at all at any of the movie reviews for this particular movie. I did helpfully provide a link above but when guys get on their high horse a little research is not going to distract them from their bombast. Oh no.

No - yours and Jada's interpretation that race was the cause of him not getting nominated is a figment of your imaginations. The burden of proof is on you all prove race was a factor.

Will Smith has been nominated for 2 Oscars - once in 2001 and once in 2006. Amusingly, he was beaten in both cases by other black men.

So it seems that for your claim to hold water, that race was a factor, then the selection committee has (since 2006) been infiltrated by racists who now decide based on color.

It does not matter what the movie reviews say. It is a simple fact that YOU need to prove race was a factor to prove the disgusting claim that the people doing the selection are bigots.

[mopar71]

Last year the movie "Selma" was nominated for Best Picture. When I watched it I was shocked how lame it was. If it had come out 30 years ago, sure, I could see it as a powerful film. But the story has been told many times over since then. I thought it obviously got nominated for reasons of race.

Same thing with "Straight Outta Compton" this year. I like the movie enough, but it wasn't anything new or fresh. Good to see the Academy not just hand them a token nomination. They probably took enough behind the scenes crap for the Selma fiasco last year.

[SheungWan]

Actually what is happening is Will Smiths wife is upset her husband didn't get an Oscar. Let's face it - he's not the best actor in the world.

Spike Lee jumped on board because this is his thing.

There is a group of people that decide who gets nominated - for this to be a valid complaint, some evidence needs to be brought forward that they nominated movies/actors based on race. The accuser of an offence absolutely has the burden of providing evidence that the people deciding the nominations were racist.

As it is, Jade and Spike are seeing effect and then claiming race is the cause. Their is no validity to their claims, no proof of motive. It is simply a case of "it looks too white for us" - but really this is all about a wife seeing her husband not get a nomination and then playing the race card.

Of course, now other people are jumping on board and saying "why not this black person" and claiming they should have been nominated. Well - I can only suggest that these people go to the Academy and look for a spot on the selection board if they do not like the way selections are going. They simply cannot prove race was a factor merely by the outcome.

If you toss a coin, at some point you might get 10 heads in a row - that does not mean you are a "tailist" tosser.

Actually no, that is not what is happening. She is upset that Will Smith wasn't shortlisted. Your interpretation is a figment of your imagination. How do we know this? Because Will Smith was shortlisted for the Golden Globes and didn't win it, so no particular expectation re the Oscars other than shortlisting(BTW, Leonardo de Caprio won the GG). Second point re your comment about Will Smith is that the vote is on an individual movie, not his body of work so all you are really telling us is that you have not looked at all at any of the movie reviews for this particular movie. I did helpfully provide a link above but when guys get on their high horse a little research is not going to distract them from their bombast. Oh no.

No - yours and Jada's interpretation that race was the cause of him not getting nominated is a figment of your imaginations. The burden of proof is on you all prove race was a factor.

Will Smith has been nominated for 2 Oscars - once in 2001 and once in 2006. Amusingly, he was beaten in both cases by other black men.

So it seems that for your claim to hold water, that race was a factor, then the selection committee has (since 2006) been infiltrated by racists who now decide based on color.

It does not matter what the movie reviews say. It is a simple fact that YOU need to prove race was a factor to prove the disgusting claim that the people doing the selection are bigots.

Oh dear! So many corrections and so little time! I do not 'interpret' Will Smith not being nominated as due to race but don't let me stop you saying so. As for disregarding the movie reviews, well hey-ho in for a penny and all that. What I am leaning towards is that the Oscar Committee may have made another one of its selection/decision mess-ups (not the first time) and that both Spike Lee and Al Sharpton have seen an opening to exploit. However, do march on with your 'simple facts' and 'interpretations'.

[pedro01]

Actually what is happening is Will Smiths wife is upset her husband didn't get an Oscar. Let's face it - he's not the best actor in the world.

Spike Lee jumped on board because this is his thing.

There is a group of people that decide who gets nominated - for this to be a valid complaint, some evidence needs to be brought forward that they nominated movies/actors based on race. The accuser of an offence absolutely has the burden of providing evidence that the people deciding the nominations were racist.

As it is, Jade and Spike are seeing effect and then claiming race is the cause. Their is no validity to their claims, no proof of motive. It is simply a case of "it looks too white for us" - but really this is all about a wife seeing her husband not get a nomination and then playing the race card.

Of course, now other people are jumping on board and saying "why not this black person" and claiming they should have been nominated. Well - I can only suggest that these people go to the Academy and look for a spot on the selection board if they do not like the way selections are going. They simply cannot prove race was a factor merely by the outcome.

If you toss a coin, at some point you might get 10 heads in a row - that does not mean you are a "tailist" tosser.

Actually no, that is not what is happening. She is upset that Will Smith wasn't shortlisted. Your interpretation is a figment of your imagination. How do we know this? Because Will Smith was shortlisted for the Golden Globes and didn't win it, so no particular expectation re the Oscars other than shortlisting(BTW, Leonardo de Caprio won the GG). Second point re your comment about Will Smith is that the vote is on an individual movie, not his body of work so all you are really telling us is that you have not looked at all at any of the movie reviews for this particular movie. I did helpfully provide a link above but when guys get on their high horse a little research is not going to distract them from their bombast. Oh no.

No - yours and Jada's interpretation that race was the cause of him not getting nominated is a figment of your imaginations. The burden of proof is on you all prove race was a factor.

Will Smith has been nominated for 2 Oscars - once in 2001 and once in 2006. Amusingly, he was beaten in both cases by other black men.

So it seems that for your claim to hold water, that race was a factor, then the selection committee has (since 2006) been infiltrated by racists who now decide based on color.

It does not matter what the movie reviews say. It is a simple fact that YOU need to prove race was a factor to prove the disgusting claim that the people doing the selection are bigots.

Oh dear! So many corrections and so little time! I do not 'interpret' Will Smith not being nominated as due to race but don't let me stop you saying so. As for disregarding the movie reviews, well hey-ho in for a penny and all that. What I am leaning towards is that the Oscar Committee may have made another one of its selection/decision mess-ups (not the first time) and that both Spike Lee and Al Sharpton have seen an opening to exploit. However, do march on with your 'simple facts' and 'interpretations'.

So you agree with me that race has not been a factor in this years nominations?

Or are you saying you are 100 percent certain that there were black actors / directors /artists of whatever sort, that were overlooked and without a doubt should have been included?

Spike Lee just accepted an award from them last year that was an honorary award. Will he be giving it back?

Would you also mind answering the question as to whether you believe the Academy is in fact, racist?

[SheungWan]

Last year the movie "Selma" was nominated for Best Picture. When I watched it I was shocked how lame it was. If it had come out 30 years ago, sure, I could see it as a powerful film. But the story has been told many times over since then. I thought it obviously got nominated for reasons of race.

Same thing with "Straight Outta Compton" this year. I like the movie enough, but it wasn't anything new or fresh. Good to see the Academy not just hand them a token nomination. They probably took enough behind the scenes crap for the Selma fiasco last year.

We have got a problem here because you are saying that The Oscar Committee did nominate a movie on the grounds of race last year. The inference is that racial bias was applied when the 'black' movie won and not made when the movie this year was excluded. What utter tosh (I could have said something else....)

[SheungWan]

So you agree with me that race has not been a factor in this years nominations?

Or are you saying you are 100 percent certain that there were black actors / directors /artists of whatever sort, that were overlooked and without a doubt should have been included?

Spike Lee just accepted an award from them last year that was an honorary award. Will he be giving it back?

Would you also mind answering the question as to whether you believe the Academy is in fact, racist?

That would be difficult. Why? Because one of the contributors above said that racial bias was applied last year and you approved the contribution, so your subsequent assertions that racial bias does apply do not hold water. I suspect that the one's with the racial basis and agenda are rather contributors trying to climb on the Oscar's bandwagon rather than the Committee itself right now.

[mopar71]

Last year the movie "Selma" was nominated for Best Picture. When I watched it I was shocked how lame it was. If it had come out 30 years ago, sure, I could see it as a powerful film. But the story has been told many times over since then. I thought it obviously got nominated for reasons of race.

Same thing with "Straight Outta Compton" this year. I like the movie enough, but it wasn't anything new or fresh. Good to see the Academy not just hand them a token nomination. They probably took enough behind the scenes crap for the Selma fiasco last year.

We have got a problem here because you are saying that The Oscar Committee did nominate a movie on the grounds of race last year. The inference is that racial bias was applied when the 'black' movie won and not made when the movie this year was excluded. What utter tosh (I could have said something else....)

I am saying that Selma was a mediocre film. Nothing special at all and race is the only reason I can see why it got nominated (personal opinion). And maybe enough in the Academy were either ashamed so this year did not nominate a film because of race. Or maybe they felt like they had "paid their dues" by nominating Selma last year? Again, just an opinion.

As for what you inferred...I wrote nothing about a "black" movie that won anything so you are mistaken there. I can't think of any of the black winners who I thought didn't deserve it. Except maybe Spike Lee. Has he even made a film in the last decade?

The Academy is a very "political" organization (I don't mean the Democrat/Republican kind).

They wouldn't just nominate someone or something that was mediocre unless...

1) they were trying to compensate or reward someone for being snubbed during an entire career (such as really old actors that have had decades of classic films but no Oscar to show for it)

2) or trying to send a social message - like regarding race relations, AIDS, etc. They LOVE it when an actor portrays someone with a disability (even made into a joke in "Tropic Thunder" about going "full retard"))

Along the same lines, the Academy has neglected to vote for quality films because the director wasn't their type (Spielberg for many years comes to mind).

Gotta remember though, the Academy is made up of industry professionals who are human and have their own personal or professional reasons to vote for or against something or someone. There is a lot of lobbying behind the scenes to get nominated. Maybe some actors/producers/directors are better at it than others. Maybe some push the wrong buttons. Obviously some of them believe race is important otherwise we wouldn't have this topic in the first place. I'm sure there are more who would vote FOR because of skin color than those who would vote AGAINST because of skin color.Hollywood is pretty progressive after all.

Sorry if that is incoherent...I'm in a rush to get someplace.

[SheungWan]

Last year the movie "Selma" was nominated for Best Picture. When I watched it I was shocked how lame it was. If it had come out 30 years ago, sure, I could see it as a powerful film. But the story has been told many times over since then. I thought it obviously got nominated for reasons of race.

Same thing with "Straight Outta Compton" this year. I like the movie enough, but it wasn't anything new or fresh. Good to see the Academy not just hand them a token nomination. They probably took enough behind the scenes crap for the Selma fiasco last year.

We have got a problem here because you are saying that The Oscar Committee did nominate a movie on the grounds of race last year. The inference is that racial bias was applied when the 'black' movie won and not made when the movie this year was excluded. What utter tosh (I could have said something else....)

I am saying that Selma was a mediocre film. Nothing special at all and race is the only reason I can see why it got nominated (personal opinion). And maybe enough in the Academy were either ashamed so this year did not nominate a film because of race. Or maybe they felt like they had "paid their dues" by nominating Selma last year? Again, just an opinion.

As for what you inferred...I wrote nothing about a "black" movie that won anything so you are mistaken there. I can't think of any of the black winners who I thought didn't deserve it. Except maybe Spike Lee. Has he even made a film in the last decade?

The Academy is a very "political" organization (I don't mean the Democrat/Republican kind).

They wouldn't just nominate someone or something that was mediocre unless...

1) they were trying to compensate or reward someone for being snubbed during an entire career (such as really old actors that have had decades of classic films but no Oscar to show for it)

2) or trying to send a social message - like regarding race relations, AIDS, etc. They LOVE it when an actor portrays someone with a disability (even made into a joke in "Tropic Thunder" about going "full retard"))

Along the same lines, the Academy has neglected to vote for quality films because the director wasn't their type (Spielberg for many years comes to mind).

Gotta remember though, the Academy is made up of industry professionals who are human and have their own personal or professional reasons to vote for or against something or someone. There is a lot of lobbying behind the scenes to get nominated. Maybe some actors/producers/directors are better at it than others. Maybe some push the wrong buttons. Obviously some of them believe race is important otherwise we wouldn't have this topic in the first place. I'm sure there are more who would vote FOR because of skin color than those who would vote AGAINST because of skin color.Hollywood is pretty progressive after all.

Sorry if that is incoherent...I'm in a rush to get someplace.

Ok, Ok.......

[Baerboxer]

So, Spike and the other nobody are saying that blacks should not be considered on their merit or acting skills, but purely for their colour? Some blacks take issue with being called black, I take issue with being called white, whitey, white boy, lilly white etc.

Actually Spike Lee is not saying that at all. he is saying that on merit there should be some inclusion, not zero inclusion.

No he's not saying it should be merit based at all. He's saying if there are no African-Americans nominated then its overtly racist and they are being excluded on racial grounds.

He seems to think he's the best judge of acting ability in the world, and that in his view, there should be more African-Americans nominees and winners.

He doesn't expand his comments to include other racial groups such as Native American, Asian, Hispanic, Arabi or diversity based on sex such as more women directors, producers etc, or diversity based on religious mix, too many Jews, Christians, not enough Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus etc.

That's the giveaway. He wants African-Americans to be given favored treatment and any who won't do this to be decried as racist. No other racial or religious group in America constantly demands special treatment like this. Or is so hostile to others.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

Race only matters to liberals and racists. - Greg Gutfeld.

Greg Guttfeld, the living oxymoron. A right wing comedian.

White men should not talk about racism or sexism. You lot are completely out of your depth.

Do you realize the irony of your post?

[Andreas2]

Race only matters to liberals and racists. - Greg Gutfeld.

Greg Guttfeld, the living oxymoron. A right wing comedian.

White men should not talk about racism or sexism. You lot are completely out of your depth.

Do you realize the irony of your post?

+1

Ha, ha, you are so righ, Baerboxer! Actually I would even say it's a sarcastic post, because it's so true. What lostboy says is: Racism/sexism is a non-White thing.

I agree so much with his statement. In its actual state, the whole "discussion" is an aggressive, mental ma$turbation. Let's not waste any more time with this racism/sexism-bull!

[pedro01]

So you agree with me that race has not been a factor in this years nominations?

Or are you saying you are 100 percent certain that there were black actors / directors /artists of whatever sort, that were overlooked and without a doubt should have been included?

Spike Lee just accepted an award from them last year that was an honorary award. Will he be giving it back?

Would you also mind answering the question as to whether you believe the Academy is in fact, racist?

That would be difficult. Why? Because one of the contributors above said that racial bias was applied last year and you approved the contribution, so your subsequent assertions that racial bias does apply do not hold water. I suspect that the one's with the racial basis and agenda are rather contributors trying to climb on the Oscar's bandwagon rather than the Committee itself right now.

I have never asserted there is racial bias - go back & read my posts.

I am saying it's all nonsense.

[Jingthing]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

[sebastion]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Movies are in the business of making money. They want blockbusters and don't give a crap who makes it or stars in it as long as it makes money.

Her husband knows this and he has been apart of many blockbusters but hardly an acting heavyweight. He was good in Ali and was nominated for the award.

The movie Straight out of Compton is a documentary about some rap group. Does that appeal to the box office masses? No so doesn't get the exposure but the blacks say it's a racial thing.

It's a money thing.

[SheungWan]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Movies are in the business of making money. They want blockbusters and don't give a crap who makes it or stars in it as long as it makes money.

Her husband knows this and he has been apart of many blockbusters but hardly an acting heavyweight. He was good in Ali and was nominated for the award.

The movie Straight out of Compton is a documentary about some rap group. Does that appeal to the box office masses? No so doesn't get the exposure but the blacks say it's a racial thing.

It's a money thing.

If it was all about the money then the Oscars would be synonymous with box office takings and your comment about Will Smith would be redundant.