I can see both sides to this. Not long ago, the Fox Movie Channel was planning to have a Charlie Chan film festival, showing the best of the movies about the famous Chinese detective that were quite popular back in the thirties and forties. Asian american groups objected. Why? Because in those movies, not only were are the characters now considered unacceptably stereotypical, but in the best known of the films, Charlie Chan was played not by a chinese actor, but by Warner Oland, a white guy, a well known Swedish actor.

The most popular radio show of the era was Amos 'N Andy, about two black friends from the south who have come to the big city to work. Audiences, black and white, loved the show. But being on the radio, most didn't realize that the two black characters were being-- very credibly-- voiced by two white guys. When they made Amos 'N Andy into a tv show, they got black actors to play the characters, but the tv show turned out to be more controversial than the radio show, because I guess blacks playing stereotypical blacks is worse than whites playing stereotypical blacks. The tv show is never or rarely ever shown on tv in reruns, despite its original popularity.

So is Angelina Jolie playing a black woman any different than Warner Oland playing a Chinese detective, or two white guys playing Amos 'N Andy on the radio? I guess it depends on what your perspective happens to be.