Call for Diversity Suspiciously Silent

Manufactured controversy surrounds the upcoming movie "A Mighty Heart", the memoir of Mariane Pearl. Pearl's husband, Daniel, a journalist, was kidnapped by terrorists who later released a tape of his merciless execution.

The pointless outcry here is that Mariane is biracial (Afro-Cuban & Dutch, according to the article) but she has chosen Angelina Jolie to portray her in the film. BET.com reports message board posters are outraged that Pearl will be portrayed by a white woman, which some consider to be the modern blackface in Hollywood.

There are two very distinct issues that arise here. Foremost, Dutch heritage is Caucasian, last I checked. That means that Pearl is just as "white" as she is "of color".

A black actress portraying her would be right but a white actress is racist, according to the posters. How can that be justified? If the woman has both races in her, then an actress of either descent is perfectly appropriate insomuch as accurately representing her genealogical make-up. Common sense tells you that much.

These people apparently can't grasp the notion that Pearl views herself as a human, not a color. Ignorance once again rears its head, as it so commonly does.

The armchair sociologist could make some guesses about her choice: It may indicate that Pearl is an intelligent, educated, self-confident woman who refuses to be bogged down by society's stereotypes. She doesn't categorize herself or allow others to do so.

Isn't that what we are all supposed to do? I thought we were supposed to be colorblind because we're all the same on the inside. We're all equals in every possible capacity. Every race, ethnicity or heritage is just as good as the next and there are no inferiors.

I'll bet that if you asked any one of the outraged posters those questions, they would answer with a resounding "Yes". But if so, they clearly don't practice what they preach or they wouldn't be angered at the thought of a white woman portraying a partially white woman in a movie.

There is such a disgusting double-standard in America today. On one hand, we are all expected to be colorblind & act accordingly. But at the same time, those who preach equality are constantly & relentlessly demanding recognition above & beyond what their neighbor receives.

If you believe that everyone is equal & that skin color is irrelevant, then it is just that - irrelevant. It's not irrelevant when it suits you but an advantage when you want it to be. If it's something that shouldn't be used against you, then it also shouldn't give you an advantage.

The message our society sends seems to be that we want "diversity" but only if it gives undeserving people opportunities that they haven't earned. The diversity mongers demand complete diversity at any cost. No matter what type of affirmative action it requires or how society might suffer because of underqualified peoples in a particular position, it's required.

But those same people rail against diversity when it's used to diversify a movies box office $$$ potential. Interesting double-standard, indeed.

The less weighty but still important second issue here is, who has the right to tell Mariane Pearl who should portray her? Nobody.

There are a myriad of reasons why Pearl might want Jolie. Foremost, Jolie sells tickets. She's one of the hottest actresses in Hollywood & she commands a crowd. Such a name could mean the difference between a so-so movie and a blockbuster.

On a more selfish level, many women would be ecstatic at the prospect of one of Hollywood's most celebrated beauties portraying her on film.

Jolie isn't just a pretty face or lithe body that brings in money, however. She is a celebrated actress that will generate attention in this project.

Since she's telling the tragic story of her brave husband, the father her son will never have the chance to know, she has an important message and hopes to share it with the widest possible audience.

Or perhaps it's Jolie's altruistic spirit and myriad of international goodwill that found it's way into Pearl's heart. In light of her experiences offscreen, Jolie is in a unique position to understand Daniel's life in a way that most people never could: the danger of traveling to unstable foreign lands in an effort to do good in this crazy world of ours.

Maybe Jolie's dedication to helping those in need and giving back to the world allowed her to outshine competitors for the role. Weighing it from a moral standpoint, would you rather be represented by a woman who adopts third-world orphans or by a woman that drives drunk, causes bodily harm to innocent drivers, then flees the scene, such as Halle Berry?

Incidentally, the critics have floated names of black actresses (such as Berry) but apparently their demands for racial representation are self-serving, as usual. The article mentions no outrage whatsoever as to the lack of Cuban representation. How about a fantastic actress such as Salma Hayak or Eva Mendes if you prefer a woman of color? But no, color apparently only means black to these critics.

Of course, Jolie's no innocent, considering how she hooked her man, but she has done more good for the world than most in Hollywood could ever hope to boast.

Maybe in Hollywood it's no big deal to break the law or hurt people. After all, Kate Moss' career has blossomed quite nicely since she was photographed snorting coke. I suppose reputation has a whole different meaning there. But to everyday people like Mariane Pearl, morals might still mean something.