About as much as a racist president giving one or two positions in the cabinet to a black person. It's called tokenism.
If they are fair they should be fair often. Bafta not giving a single nod to any actor of colour in the race this year, and their records of how they have treated Get Out, Moonlight or Denzel, compared to the other awards creates a pattern.
Them showing love to 12 Years A Slave (from a Brit), suddenly doesn't negate all of that.
We need to completely dispel the 1850s notion that "racism" or "prejudice" is willful and malicious and a binary of "racist" or "not-racist;" it's a sliding scale of biases ingrained in all human behavior on all levels, a consequence of the fact biases are implicit in the social systems of our society. Prejudice is inescapable, which is why it's vital you continually check your biases and allow yourself to be held accountable when you have to grow.
It's why plenty of people with latent prejudicial attitudes against people of color may have reasonably healthy relationships with people of color. So no, voting for 12 Years a Slave or Moonlight doesn't "cleans" racial bias from your voting members.
This is what I was trying to get to and express. I think labeling people or groups full blown racist or not having any racist tendencies at all typically disrupts any productive dialogue because people get defensive and close themselves out. For example, I think telling someone they're racist because they voted/loved Green Book is really not doing anyone any good.
That kind of singling out is wrong, I agree. Like the faux controversy about Margot in Once Upon a Time.
If QT would have regularly given mostly wordless roles to women throughout his career, then it could have been a point of objection. But not when he has been far ahead of his peers in terms of diversity, and frequently giving women, lead roles and plenty of screen time and dialogue.
Other than J-Lo and Lupita, what other minority actors won pre-cursor awards leading up to the Oscars? Those 2 were expected to get noms, but didn't--although the lead for Harriet did.
That's why I can't get too upset about Gerwig not getting a Best Director nom, even though she deserves it (and Little Women is my 2nd favorite film of 2019)--Gerwig wasn't winning really any pre-cursor awards prior to the Oscar nominations. She wasn't expected to get nominated because of this--but that didn't matter--social media still went in a stir with the all male director nominees.
Other than J-Lo and Lupita, what other minority actors won pre-cursor awards leading up to the Oscars? Those 2 were expected to get noms, but didn't--although the lead for Harriet did.
Awkwafina won a globe and did not even get nominated. Making it all the worse an Asian woman has never even been nominated in lead, talk about blowing a perfect time to make history. Also, Song had a lot of buzz to sneak into supporting. They loved Parasite but not enough to reward any of the actors I guess. Awards bodies and the industry in general track record with Asian actors is particularly abhorrent (Cough JJ Cough). Things are changing though.
...almost every single one of JJ's directorial projects are among the most diverse in the history of TV or film, including asian actors (John Cho, Maggie Q, Daniel Dae Kim, Yunjin Kim). He has also opened doors for many people of diverse backgrounds inside the industry.
I hate what happened with Rose too regardless of any practical explanation behind it, but making him "part of the problem" in the way you have isn't representative of his career at all.
