They're far outnumbered, but that's expected at society's extremes. If, say, a new actor had a 60% chance of being blue, and a 40% chance of red, it's likeliest that more than 60% of actors would be blue.
Why should that be the case if you ignore other factors? This doesn't make any sense statistically unless you are additionally supposing that blues make better actors or that society is racist against reds. Actually, it doesn't make much sense even then, unless you're also implying that the proportions are changing over time, so that now
it's 60/40 for new actors, but previously it was, say, 80/20.
Yeah...I'm not sure that I buy that explanation. Maybe if you were trying to explain very marginal inequalities, but everyone understands there's a bit of sampling variance. Nobody expects things to be *perfectly* proportionate. Just, yknow, sort of. If you're within a couple of percent, then most people are not going to worry about stuff that falls into the margin of error. Current role demographics cannot reasonably be explained as falling into that.
That said, your graph adds up to 18.1% of lead roles being minority, which is significantly higher than ten-ish. That's still not on par with actual demographics, but let's be accurate about it.
Don't get me wrong...Hollywood totally IS racist in some of it's stuff, sure. I just think that overstating the case, using weak arguments, etc risks the perception that started this whole thread.
As for why it's racist, well...you might look at, for instance, how movies are rated. Because there's nothing fair or reasonable about that...and there's a history of them being slow to adopt more modern mores. That's in addition to the dislike of risk, naturally. So, the "free market" argument is a bit off, since the market really isn't free. If your movie gets rated NC-17 because of two guys doing something that would be accepted as R between a guy and a girl...well, your movie simply is not allowed in most areas. That ain't freedom.
KrytenKoro wrote:Was this on shortpacked.com? I remember there being a comment thread where a self-identifying african american was saying that prejudice against any race, including whites, was wrong, and then a load of self-identifying caucasian americans told him that it's impossible to be racist against white people anywhere (he namedropped china as an example, if I recall correctly), and told him something like it was terrible that a black man had been taught that it's bad to be angry at white people.
I'm not entirely sure where I stand, personally, but that sounds like what you're describing.
That seems a bit wild. I've certainly heard the "it's impossible for white people to be victims" thing, but it's usually some extremist person. Or they are really, really focusing on a specific culture, and not thinking beyond that.
I tend to avoid overly extremist sites, though, so I might be missing some of this. I find little of value in most of them.
gmalivuk wrote:I'd like a citation before I accept that as fact, but it's a good data point if true: the South was willing to go to war to defend an institution they thought gave them an economic advantage, despite the fact that in reality something marginally less racist resulted in even higher profits. Meanwhile the film industry only makes the most rational, enlightened business decision because reasons.
(And even if it's not true, there are plenty of other examples of more humane (or at least less inhumane) alternatives that would make or save more money, but which weren't accepted for ultimately ideological reasons. The fact that giving homeless people houses is actually one of the cheapest ways to deal with homelessness, for example, or the fact that cutting down on work hours can increase overall productivity.)
I imagine that the details would depend on the exact comparisons made...but there are many examples in which profit sharing is a good motivator. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that this was the case. Certainly, the north had less in the way of slavery*, and they boomed economically compared to the south. Slavery covers up inefficiencies and reduces incentives to automate. It's never been an economically good idea from a macro perspective...it's just been nice for the guy on top.
*I am aware of indentured servents, etc, but...speaking generally here.
maydayp wrote:I think the poverty aspect is a good example of this. Personally, I think classism is a bigger part of the racism picture then people like to address. And I think a lot of the issues stem from this, rather then strait out racism. But the fact that "xyz" (in this case poverty) isn't racist, doesn't mean "abc" isn't. But when you compare two people, one Caucasian, and the other a PoC, who both share a family history of poverty? Most of the privileges are gone. That tells me how much of the issue is related to economics, and that it should be dealt with on that angle, when appropriate.
Oh, for sure. Being poor *really* sucks. It isn't the only factor, but it's almost invariably the largest factor by a significant margin. Hell, the more stable parts of the world(ie, not constantly breaking down into sectarian warfare) tend to be the ones with money. It's a self-reinforcing cycle...if you're at each other's throats, it's gonna hamper gains...which is gonna make people bitter, and of course, they always blame the other team...weeee.
maydayp wrote:In fact, in this instance, at least in canada, some PoC have more resources then a poor Caucasian does, through special, ethnic specific, scholarships/funding (frequently with less qualifiers then the general/Caucasian scholarships). The administrating practices of colleges/universities is too complicated for me to comment on, except that, unless there is a bloody (non-prejudicial) reason for it, No one should ever be passed over for someone who has less qualifications then another. In some cases this will mean that there aren't the proper number of PoCs. In others it hopefully would mean that more PoC are admitted.
In my tiny community college(the first of far too many colleges) in the US, this was particularly bad. I recall flipping through the list of scholarships, and concluding that there were literally none I could pursue, while pages existed for various minorities. Furthermore, as they had some sort of quota system, and northern MN's diversity consisting mainly of if you were german or norwegian, they bussed in a bunch of folks from Chicago every year, gave 'em a full ride, put them in the sports program(which required essentially no work), and put them up in the dorms, which existing basically just for them and the dealing of drugs. This mostly just caused annoyance as other students had the perception that this was...not even vaguely fair, and honestly, I don't think it gave the bussed in students much of an education either. Seemed to be an exercise in futility all round.