Brits to be more diverse in 2017

FriendlyPenguin

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 1

username2965904

Little Mix nominated- why?

Reply 2

MildredMalone

How stupid, nominations and wins should be based on merit alone. If minorities "aren't being nominated enough", they should put better stuff out.

Reply 3

NickAlex12

Original post by Mathemagicien

The awards should reflect the British population, which is increasingly non-white. Hypothetically, music that sounds good to a minority might not sound good to a judge, and vice versa. If this is the case, then it would be unfair to rely on a majority white panel to decide the best music, because they'd be biased towards white artists.

Why don't we just have the best people win it, regardless of race? And no, a white panel isn't going to be biased towards white artists, unless they're racists which they probably aren't.

Reply 4

PAStudent1996

Original post by Mathemagicien

Implying white people only like white music

Reply 5

Retired_Messiah

I do love inventing issues purely based on the colour of people winning awards that affect almost nothing.

Original post by Mathemagicien

Michael Kiwanuka
Nao
Kano
Lianne La Havas
Anohni

I have no idea who any of these people are. Are they deliberately scraping the bottom of the barrel just to say they're "diverse"?

Original post by Mathemagicien

Hypothetically, music that sounds good to a minority might not sound good to a judge, and vice versa. If this is the case, then it would be unfair to rely on a majority white panel to decide the best music, because they'd be biased towards white artists.

There's no way of saying if that's the case at all tho. And surely if music is only good to a minority of the population it just must not be that good generally?

Reply 6

username2705335

Original post by Mathemagicien

No, its implying that white people probably prefer a particular style of music on average.

Loads of white people listen to Future, Rae Sremmurd, The Weeknd and other artists. They aren't British though :smile:

Reply 7

retrolord

Original post by MildredMalone

How stupid, nominations and wins should be based on merit alone. If minorities "aren't being nominated enough", they should put better stuff out.

These brits are an accurate reflection of what is part of our culture now. It must really suck for you that modern pop culture is very diverse, you old conservatives must be devastated.

Reply 8

Mistletoe

Original post by Mathemagicien

Is there some kind of secret factory where non-whites are being produced at huge rates?

Reply 9

Mistletoe

Original post by Mathemagicien

Its called Africa

Why do you ask?

Lots of them will be mixed race or white, especially by 2050.

Reply 10

username1921011

Original post by Mathemagicien

Why should it 'reflect the british population'? It's an award, it is literally only given to people who are abnormally good and being so has no correlation to the amount of a certain race in any given country. How can an award for exceptional achievement be relatively representative of all people? Its entire purpose is to be the opposite.

The topic matter is inherently subjective but what is your basis for this assertion? If there are representative judges but they're all third generation immigrants is that good enough? Or should they be first generation? If you draw a disparity then why, they're both representatives of the race so are you actually attempting to get a certain type of music over promoted by relying on cultural affinity and if you do not is the implication what sort of music each race likes is inherently genetic as in a factor not affected by social factors or environment etc which would need serious evidence to assert. Otherwise where is the evidence for the race of the judge making a difference in regards to 'minority music' whatever that is (rap, a traditionally heavily black music type, is massive with many multiplatinum selling black artists, a huge white audience and ranks as incredibly profitable so by what metric are you asserting 'minority music'. It cannot be minority by definition if its at an award for essentially popularity - the BAFTA's never ask musicalbob from yt because it turns out he's actually really good. The closest to minority music would be indie which is entirely unrepresented. I presume you mean minority race music but then why is their race relevant if its a mainstream form of music?)

Why would a majority white panel be inherently biased against minorities? Would their brains really enjoy the tune but say 'hold on, he's not white!' and ruin their enjoyment? As a side note its funny a lot of the people who whinged about this now stand to win something - suspicious much.

Original post by Mathemagicien

Everyone is racially biased to a certain degree. Its not a black and white (heh) matter of being a racist or not.

Assuming that premise to be true (there is some validity in biological tribalism) would there not be an argument the 'tribe' is redefined especially in such a multicultural society not to white but to abstractly 'British' in the same way mesopotamia was 'Roman' or most of the east 'persian' at various points in history. The tribe became not simply a racial tribe but a tribe formed of its peoples - another example would be religions. People would defend religious allies of another race as 'tribesmen of their kin' before they'd defend someone of the same colour who was an athiest. The imperative seems to have shifted to a postmodern sitting, such as the male biological aggression is now shifted to work and to abstract 'victory' and 'success' rather than the traditional hunter/gatherer instiinct.

Enjoyed the pun, but again assuming this premise to be true (although especially in things like music it would need rigorous validation) then why is it assumed that people can't look beyond such biases? Especially in our societies with so many high flying people of all colours its not as if this is a be all and end all, rather it seems an auxiliary fact at best and close to socially outdated at worst. A good example is if they make you an extra £10,000 a year then nobody is going to say 'oh, but they're black' and hire someone who can't make that cash. The structure of our society punishes any adherence to this bias which is a learned pattern and trains the bias out of people or makes it so superfluous as to be irrelevant in the same way everyone can tell you 'polish people are lazy' your whole life but that stereotype won't withstand reality when you observe the opposite to be true. Similarly the bias won't withstand the demands of reality in a post tribal society of enormous multiculturalism because (a) there is no solidifying of race as the indicator of tribe (b) The bias would actively negatively effect you in numerous ways from silly little choices like (to use a stereotype for simplicity) selecting a white kid who can't play basketball because of shared race and losing the game, to losing lots of money in a corporate environment and so on, and (c) both (a) and (b) would remove the racial bias in order to achieve success in the society in which that person exists.

"Laura Mvula even threatened to boycott it. She told the BBC: "I guess the problem for me is knowing that there are young black kids growing up feeling that they're not acknowledged in society, in media and in mainstream music."

Firstly what validity is there to 'not acknowledged'. You're acknowledged if you're good because you make a lot of money. Society and its elements shouldn't constantly pander to represent every demographic in specificity. Should I complain there are no shows about working class people and no acknowledgement of my difficulties because of lower income and doesn't deal with problems specific to me? A story is a universal entity and not being able to get on board with principles like 'the human condition' or other universal elements of storytelling because the main character isn't also black and doesn't also own a renault is quite frankly psychotic.

Also if her statement is true then her action is pointless. If they dont want black people to show up then by boycotting it you do that for them without them having to be racially prejudiced - plus you won't make an impact because you wouldn't be in line to win anything anyway. She assumes her lack of presence will cause some kind of worry, concern, or conversation and therefore her principle that there is no acknowledgement is false. Also how they 'feel' is a matter of irrelevancy. A lot of white people feel irrelevant in society too, and Asians but if the former came forwards and said this Mvula would likely just laugh at them and this is why in part I oppose any statement where 'I feel' is tantamount to fact and also the whole excessive racial focus. I know people who have suffered from depression because they don't feel represented in society, they feel alone and like nobody cares and they were all white except for one (Asian) but there is no celebrity making a fuss about them - nor about the huge spike in suicides over the last ten years of primarily males.

The issues focused on are cherry picked rather than attempting to create a better society for all so we end up in a situation where 'manspreading' gets a page in every newspaper but a huge spike in male suicides doesn't even get an analytical mention or it does as 'toxic masculinity' which is dismissive and actually means 'they're killing themselves because men are wrong and don't know how men should be'.

My point is all this 'activism' is agenda based beyond the realms of common sense and Mvula 'feeling something' does not make it so particularly when her own course of action indicates a disparity with her proposal.

Reply 11

Mistletoe

Original post by Mathemagicien

I assume this is satire? In case its not:

Whites in Africa have around the same birth rate as whites in the developed world. Their numbers will decrease unless there is significantly more immigration of white people to Africa.

As for mixed-race people, I really wouldn't know, but there aren't that many of them in Africa, and there is no reason to believe their numbers will grow faster than the black population. For example, 100 years ago South Africa was only 67% black, but today it is over 80%, while the proportion of mixed race people has stayed roughly the same, around 9% of the population.

You seem to be indicating that whites are going to go extinct.

Reply 12

AperfectBalance

fed up of this racism going on in todays society. people should be put forward due to merit. having quotas is racist/sexist/Somethingphobic or somthing ist.
It is bascially saying Black people are not good enough to win awards so we need to shoehorn X percent in. Having more black having more gay having more transgender people in anything does not make it better. How some idiots want to impliment "diversity" is racism.

saying that because there are more black people in anything makes it better is racist. If there are not many black people or gay people or transgender people winning or being in x show you have to look for a few things

1.Are there more straight white people so statistically there will be more of them in shows (Yes in most situations)
2. Is there a evil white racist plot to stop black people winning. (Probably not)

I mean there is a black awards show and if you want to look at where the most racist and generally unnaceptable music comes from it is rap a black dominated culture.

Reply 13

Mistletoe

Original post by Mathemagicien

Not within our lifetimes. And if whites do go extinct, so what? Most people will probably be mixed-race by the year 3000.

As long as the mixed offspring survive (and my DNA) I don't care.

Reply 14

username1921011

Original post by Mathemagicien

@GonvilleBromhead Holy crap you've written an essay! :redface:

I greatly appreciate your post.

I'll reserve this place so that I can respond to your post when I've got time.

But have a PRSOM in the meantime.

Yes, there is an argument for that; but there is racial tribalism built into us, as has been demonstrated with studies on infants and children.

(I'll write more later, you evidently deserve a deeper discussion)

Haha yeah I accidentally went full academic :tongue:

It's certainly a factor, I'd just argue somewhat mitigated if not completely. If poss could you link any of those studies, I've looked into a lot of them and the methodology seems sh!t as in there was one where they said a baby stared for more time at a same race person than a different race person (so many vitiating factors to conclude with any certainty was madness).

Cheers for your engagement haha, too many forum goers just insult or detract the point

Reply 15

DBBEE

People should be put forward based on merit is correct, but when certain demographics are underrepresented due to being less mainstream is where the problem lies. Most music made by black people for example is in traditionally black genres (rap, grime, jazz etc), and as a result of being less mainstream or less popular than traditionally white genres (pop, rock, even indie to an extent), they aren't represented as much at awards shows outside of their categories.

The problem isn't "Black people don't make good music so we're gonna force the awards in their favour", the problem is unpopular music, while still having merit isn't valued as much by society, and when this unpopularity correlates with race it presents a problem.