This argument is recycled every so often, and it seems people will never agree. My take on it is that where skin colour is relevant to the story (eg in a portrayal of Nelson Mandela) then of course a black actor should play the role. Where skin colour is incidental (eg Bridgerton) then the roles should go to the best person for the part. Not tokenism, but because skin colour is no more important than eye or hair colour. Six shows Henry's wives as modern women, which they were not. They didn't wear dresses split to the thigh, or enter singing competitions either, so why is it skin colour that attracts attention?🤔
As for Sarah Pochlin, how anyone can say that seeing more people of colour in adverts 'drives her mad', and then claim she is not being racist is beyond me. If she had just said that there is a disproportionate number of non-white actors in ads when compared to the number in the population it would be different. That is an observation - an odd one, but an observation.
Adding that this 'drives her mad' is racist. Is it because adverts show people in aspirational roles, rather than servile or underprivileged ones, and seeing black and Asian people in those roles upsets her? Would it 'drive her mad' if there were more green-eyed or red-haired people shown in adverts? Or would she not even notice, as she has nothing against those groups, and she doesn't object to their being shown on holiday, buying insurance or eating out of expensive dishes in fashionable houses? Who knows, but her comments do beg the question.