The Oscar boycott by Will and Jada Pinkett Smith was shameful and counterproductive.

Okay, so as I understand it, your main argument is this: 1) Black players in the film industry must openly and enthusiastically celebrate the accomplishments of their white counterparts in order to be recognized for their own accomplishments. This is because: a) The white actors/actresses, etc. played no role in the lack of recognition of blacks. b) The white actors/actresses, etc. have been and will be there to celebrate their black counterparts. 2) The boycott did the opposite. It actually did harm to the celebration of whites' accomplishments. This is because: a) The boycott hurt the feelings of a number of white people in the industry. b) The boycott distracted people from the accomplishments of said white film industry players. Therefore, 3) The boycott should not have taken place. Given that these are the points of your argument (please correct me if I'm wrong), I will address each, point-by-point. Point 1.a. may be true. Of course, we do not know this for a fact. There have been rumors going around that the Academy Awards and their nominations are secretly paid for by the film's or actor's production company, in order to better market the product. Even given that Point 1.a. is true, however, I don't believe that the boycott was directed at these white actors/actresses/etc. I believe that it was directed at the members of Academy who chose the films/people/teams to be nominated for awards. So I consider this point irrelevant. Point 1.b. is true. Their white counterparts have been and will likely continue to be there to celebrate black accomplishments. Again, however, this misses the point. The boycott is directed at those responsible for the exclusion of blacks from the list of nominees: the voters of the Academy. The same applies to Points 2.a. and 2.b. To argue that Group A (black film workers) should not challenge Group C (Academy voters) on the basis that Group B (white film workers) will be unfairly and unnecessarily harmed by such a scuffle, is much akin to saying that an abused wife should not divorce herself from her abusive husband on the basis that their children will be unfairly and unnecessarily harmed. Sure, perhaps the boy-cotters could have expressed themselves in a gentler way, but I can't think of any. I will also address what I believe is another point you are trying to make, but haven't made clear in the wording of your posts: that the exclusion of blacks from the list of nominees this year could indeed indicate that the works of blacks just were not as competitive as whites' in the eyes of the Academy. This may very well be the case. But I highly doubt that every single film, actor/actress, etc. nominated this year could be claimed as superior to every single film, actor/actress, etc. by or about blacks this year. I simply cannot believe that not a single one could stand toe-to-toe with any of those nominated this year. Also, your post's header is "The Oscar boycott by Will and Jada Pinkett-Smith was shameful and counterproductive." The Merriam-Webster definition of the word "shameful" is "bad enough to make someone ashamed." So if your description of the boycott as shameful was not meant to ascribe shame to the Smiths, then who exactly are you claiming should be ashamed?