Man!! Let me say, hat's off to you. I didn't imagine that you'd even tried to justify your figures and I was wrong. Discovering that somebody was a better person than I assumed is my favourite kind of wrong.

These figures still don't justify white people having 80% of roles (lumping white and hispanic people together makes no sense in general, but especially when talking about film roles), but sure, 11 vs 13% is hardly the height of oppression (4-6% vs 13% off screen is more damning though).

Anyway, I said I'd respond and I'm happy to. I'm not arguing that all disparities are the result of racism. That Kendian "logic" is ridiculous. Choice is, of course, a factor. So it's to be expected that we'll see variation in professions, especially professions like orchestral musician which I'd suspect black people are less likely associate with (just as we'd expect to see fewer white rappers). Blind auditions are one solution to the problem of unconscious bias for eveybody (they've also made a big difference for women), and I'd love to see more of them in auditions and interviews whenever possible.

But the other examples I gave, like CEO roles and businesss loans are far less likely to do with choice. Even if we account for those who had "insufficient knowledge about how the banking system works", that clearly doesn't account for a 2x difference in approval rates. You conveniently point to the black loan officer who says this but ignore that he's not denying that racism is also a factor.

To be clear, I don't think that racism is the only factor in ANY situation facing black people, but it is often A factor. And depending on the situation, historical factors like a lack of generational wealth (also referred to in the banking article), are important. You say that racism is a distraction from analysing the real reasons behind disparity", but racism IS one of the real reasons. I'm not sure why you want to deny this.