| >This in no way represents the average in the UK in fact the UK is almost 90% white - so what message is the BBC trying to send? "Hey brown people. You're not being completely ignored by our society. When we have to make decisions based on arbitrary characteristics like race, we prefer to occasional choose people you might be able to relate to on the bases of colour, rather than trying to appeal to some obviously incorrect notion that we should only relate to 'the average UK citizen' (which doesn't exist)." Or maybe those actors just worked best? Or maybe they drew straws. Either way, there's no reason to believe that the skin colour of the actors on your screen is some kind of manipulation/propaganda against you. That's an irrational leap. >Am I one of the bad guys to recognise the colour of the skin? No. You're one of the bad guys for failing to recognize that the colour of the skin is an arbitrary choice and thus not relevant. The only thing about a person you should consider relevant is their ability to make good decisions. The BBC will not occupy any moral high ground by using only white actors. (Which is what you're saying they should do, on account of some frankly stupid appeal to 'averages.' The 'average' UK citizen is riddled with disease and missing most of their limbs. So maybe don't try to tacitly substitute 'average' for 'ideal/typical/most common'. And why does the BBC has any obligation to represent any of these anyway?) Maybe that's a harsh-seeming way of putting it, but that's the logical alternative you imply by using crappy metrics. |