Samuel L. Jackson has a point

Since the words the actors say are in the script, I think the notion of "channeling" a topic is overrated. Or perhaps overrated if you are talking about using outstanding actors. Their skill and talent is taking words handed to them and creating the appearance of strong emotions. But that's the thing--it's the appearance of emotion, not generating real emotion. I've watched a filming where the actors seem so emotional in their scene, really seeming grief stricken, sobbing, etc. then they say cut, and it immediately stops and the actor is making jokes. Then they do it again, and you would swear the actor was really feeling the grief again. But they're not. That's the acting part.

http://youtu.be/6eWsFFQP0gA

Many others have a point regarding the argument "great actors can play some roles better than those who identify with the role personally".

The point here is that being able to personally identify with a role deeper than interviews and other types of research can mean more opportunities for those experiences to bleed through into the role and movie.

The words "can" and "maybe" are synonymous. He has a point. The casting of a British black isn't illegal or wrong, but it does mean a more critical eye by the public because we're not sure the role will be done to its best ability compared to someone who has lived that situation.

Either one of them would be acting, playing a role. I don't know either of the actors but suspect they both have played a few characters over the years they could identify with and others much less so. Talk about having very little to complain about if this makes your list.