[From article]
Between 2000 and the present, the percentage of the U.S. general population that is black has ranged between 12.3% and 12.6%. Over this time, the proportion of black Oscar nominees for acting was 10% – a slight under-representation, but not egregious by any reasonable standards.
On the other hand, nearly 15.5% of Oscar wins for acting were by blacks, which not only balances out any perceived under-representation at the nomination stage, but likely over-compensates. Winning an Academy Award is far more prestigious than being nominated for one.
[. . .]
According to the research team, among all racial categories, "Black males were the most likely to be shown in a committed relationship (68.4%)." Surely this must be excellent news. Perhaps a question should be raised as to why the film industry portrays white males as far less likely (only 58.1%) to be in socially positive committed relationship roles.
White females are more likely to be sexually exploited in top films.
[. . .]
In fact, the USC team noted that "across the 100 top-grossing 2013 films ... [a] total of 3,932 speaking characters were evaluated for race/ethnicity ... 14.1% [were] Black ... Black speaking characters slightly over index (1.5%) in comparison to [the] 2010 U.S. Census."
In others words, blacks are over-represented in speaking roles within top-grossing films compared to their proportion of the general population, and blacks are over-represented within Oscar wins for acting since 2000.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/blacks_overrepresented_in_oscar_wins_since_2000.html
March 9, 2016
Blacks over-represented in Oscar wins since 2000
By Sierra Rayne
* * *
[From article]
Easily one of the most intellectually bankrupt social movements in recent times has been the absurd claim that blacks are under-represented in Grammy nominations and on popular music ranking systems, such as the Billboard Top 100.
[. . .]
Back during the 1980s, the racial demographics of the United States ranged from 80% to 83% white and 11.7% to 12.1% black. Thus, if Grammy nominations over this period were based on true equality – namely, each race receiving a number of nominations proportional to its share of the population – then whites should have received 7 times more nominations than blacks in any given year.
As a result, we must conclude that 1989 was a horrendously racist year for Grammy nominations – against whites. Among the 20 nominations discussed in the Vocativ article, 13 (65%) went to black artists, and just 7 (35%) were received by white artists. Had the nominations achieved racial equality, the number of black artist nominations should have been 2 or 3, with 17 or 18 of the nominations going to white artists.
Conveniently, Vocativ “crunched the numbers” on the number of Grammy nominations by race since 1959 and Billboard Top 100 artists by race since 1965. As shown in the figures below, the results are shocking for their discrimination against whites in favor of blacks.
During the 1960s and 1970s, on average there were about three times more Grammy nominations for white artists than for black artists. Based on American racial demographics at the time (83.1% to 88.6% whites vs. 10.5% to 11.7% blacks), there should have been 8 times more white artist nominations to reach racial equality.
The situation then got even worse for white artists. By 2000, the ratio of white to black artist nominations reached just 1.5, while at that time whites outnumbered blacks in the general population by 6:1. In other words, white artists were receiving severalfold fewer Grammy nominations than racial equality would dictate.
During the past few years, the ratio has increased in favor of white artists, back up to just over 3:1, but still constituting a gross under-representation of white artists as nominees and a corresponding over-representation of black artists.
For the entire history of the Grammy Awards, systematic racial bias is evident against whites and in favor of blacks.
[. . .]
On one aspect, the music industry race baiters are correct: if you accept the premise that any deviation from strict racial proportionality equals racism, there is substantial evidence of racism between whites and black artists. But the data strongly suggests that the racism is against whites, not blacks.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/whites__not_blacks__are_underrepresented_in_grammy_nominations_and_on_the_billboard_top_100.html
March 9, 2016
Whites, not blacks, under-represented in Grammy nominations and on the Billboard Top 100
By Sierra Rayne
No comments:
Post a Comment