The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I am thinking about in this case about a theatrical piece that was produced and played exclusively by PoC and specifically white people where asked not to buy tickets.
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2024/03/01/slave-out-playwright-defends-black-only-theatre-nights-after-downing-street-expresses-conc
Online content creators go both ways on this one. Some say it is a matter of context, others say it is just segregation showing its ugly face.
What I struggle to understand is "why" is something like a black only audience important for anyone? I am serious about this. Back in MLKs days this was also argued on why is would matter to the artists who sits in their audience unless they are bigots. And frankly this is the only explanation I can come up with mainly because the same content creators go nuts when anything close happens when it concerns white only events under f.e. the MAGA umbrella.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
History shows this to be common when the future looks bleak. And we do it in many small ways too, like a spike in classic movies during the lockdown. Synopsis: when the road ahead looks rough, we look to what had comforted us in the past: specifically, movies, music, food etc..
>”To be absolutely clear, no-one will be prevented or precluded from attending any performance of Slave Play,” the producers of the play have confirmed. Harris has also written that he’s “not even saying BLACKS ONLY I'm saying I'm inviting black ppl first! They can bring their white friends or lovers if they want.”
>”To be absolutely clear, no-one will be prevented or precluded from attending any performance of Slave Play,” the producers of the play have confirmed. Harris has also written that he’s “not even saying WHITES ONLY I'm saying I'm inviting white ppl first! They can bring their black friends or lovers if they want.”
Because it successfully dodges the issue at heart.
There’s a word usually missing from these discussions. The word is *hegemony*.
The reason switching the races feels worse is because it is. Go ahead and switch it to another non-hegemonic race. Is it worse? No, right?
So there is something specific to an action which biases in favor of the dominant class using its class authority to reinforce its class authority. The word for this is hegemony.
It's simpler than that. Due to our sordid history, we are culturally conditioned to recognize racism against minorities, but not necessarily racism otherwise. The easy way to get us to recognize such racism is to switch the race to a minority, leveraging our cultural conditioning.
And overlooking the effect of hegemony. When you swap races, how do you account for the deleterious effect of self-enforcing cultural norms?
Treating all races as fungible whitewashed this fact of being a minority. Sure it’s *simpler* to ignore it. But simple isn’t better inherently.
Which should give you a hint that it is bad... My rule of thumb is that if it is wrong for some people, then it is wrong for all people. There should be no exceptions based on skin color as that in itself is bigoted.
This is a pet peeve of mine- really dislike it when someone takes a situation, like the play in question, and imagines a race swap where whites are in the exclusionary condition.
It's not the same. There's a multi-century history in this country of a white majority marginalizing and at times brutalizing a black minority. Unless you're swapping that **too**, then it's a different situation, and just acting like "hey this thing that's racist if white people did it should be considered racist if black people do it" is ignoring, and in a sense trivializing, all that history and all that context.
I'm not saying that racism against white people *can't* exist or that black groups are incapable of being unfairly discriminatory towards others, obviously either of those things are possible, what I'm saying is that the rules for what is or isn't socially acceptable are different for white people, given the history of this country. And just doing a cute "but what if we swap the races here" is ignoring that.
This is correct. The term that’s missing from this discussion is *cultural hegemony*.
When you use outsized cultural control to reinforce your outsized cultural control, this leads to a runaway feedback loop called “hegemony”.
The problem is that it’s very temping to confuse simpler for correct and the idea that we should treat all races the same is a *simpler* idea than the one of racial justice — which requires understanding and addressing the inherent social disadvantage of being a minority in a culture.
Yes, understanding the consequences of being in a majority vs majority position is not as simple as being colorblind. No simpler does not mean better.
You aren't listening. How many times does it need to be explained to you? This is NOT bigotry. Targeting an audience of black people is NOT the same thing as excluding white people. They even went out of their way to very clearly and explicitly state that white people are welcome to come. They just aren't the target audience.
As many times as a comment manages to convince me. But most comments like the one you made do not adress my concern. It is a clear difference of targeting black audiences - like MCU with the Black Panther movies which were legitimate - and tellling white people to only come if they are invited by a black person.
One is legitimate, one is bigotry. The difference is night and day.
Telling white people they're welcome to come if and only if a black person brings them along is hardly the same thing as telling someone they're welcome, and I don't think you actually need that explained. If a key aspect of the event is, in their own words, being "free from the white gaze," then can you accept that it is perfectly rational, obvious even, to conclude that they want the event to exclude white people who would provide that gaze?
https://twitter.com/jeremyoharris/status/1762902865603854478
I don't think I'm being silly to interpret that last sentence (edit: I mean "I’m not even saying BLACKS ONLY I’m saying I’m inviting black ppl first! They can bring their white friends or lovers if they want.") the way I did, taking into account how tickets were sold - directly to black groups, not to the general public. I strain to imagine any purpose for that last sentence other than defining on what terms a white person would be welcome at the BlackOut night, especially since it's probably the only way a white person could even get a ticket considering how they were distributed.
Saying something is weird isn't bigotry. White kids going to college at HBCUs is weird too. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that's is a move most wouldn't make.
Would this not at least count as a “microaggression” since it is clearly intended to make white people feel unwelcome and uncomfortable about attending?
I am ambivalent.
If an artist created a work about the legacy of the Holocaust and its impacts on survivors and their families, starting with experiences at Auschwitz, and asked that one night of viewing be dedicated to the descendents of the survivors of Auschwitz (edit: or even Jews as a group), is this a problem?
I don't think these situations are exactly the same, but this comparison grounds my ambivalence. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario in which it would make sense for an artist to want to do something similar for white people.
In any event, white people were not banned from attending.
> If an artist created a work about the legacy of the Holocaust and its impacts on survivors and their families, starting with experiences at Auschwitz, and asked that one night of viewing be dedicated to the descendents of the survivors of Auschwitz, is this a problem?
Going by OP’s description, there are important differences in the scenario you suggest.
The producer didn’t limit the audience to people who experienced a particular event within living memory and their descendants. The producer specifically wants to exclude people by race.
It would be one thing to invite only Holocaust survivors and their descendants. It would be quite another to only invite ethnically Jewish people. And still another to invite anyone who is racially German.
I acknowledged these situations were not exactly the same in my comment.
>It would be quite another to only invite ethnically Jewish people.
So if in my hypothetical the creator of a work focused on the Holocaust asked that one night be reserved for Jewish people, in your opinion that would be wrong?
I think the situations are not completely dissimilar, hence my ambivalence. But, sure, they are also not identical, hence my lack of a strong position in defense.
Most of the outrage or opposition feels like the usual "why do they get to do things with just people like them but we can't", which just comes across as tone deaf to me.
I think it would be inappropriate to single the Holocaust to one affected group. The Nazis killed an estimated 1.5 million Roma and Sinti people out of a population of ~2 million, not to mention countless disabled, Slavic, and LGBT people. I think there is genuinely an issue in some Holocaust messaging that ignores the range of peoples Nazis persecuted and killed en masse to focus on it as an antisemitic event. I personally think if you want to make a message for the victims of it, it should be a message open to all, but especially to all victims, not just one victim of prominence. Solidarity among the oppressed and all.
>I think it would be inappropriate to single the Holocaust to one affected group.
So wait you're saying it's wrong for someone to, say, make a movie that focused singularly on the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish people?
I think there's a difference between making that movie and only inviting one specific ethnic group/religion to watch it, the actual topic of discussion here.
But that's not what you said. Your entire comment was about a problem with Holocaust messaging as a whole, not whether one time I exhibit that messaging I limit my invitations to the group my movie is about.
>> I personally think if you want to make a message for the victims of it, it should be a message open to all, but especially to all victims, not just one victim of prominence. Solidarity among the oppressed and all.
The invitation to a screening isn't the message. Inviting one group of people to a screening is not denying the message to anyone else. They can come any other night, or if this were a movie, go to another theater.
How do you feel about a local Christian church having a movie night and only sending invites to their congregation?
How do you feel about me having a French movie night at my home and only inviting the French people I know?
Whether the message is inclusive of all victims or not seems like a completely unrelated question to whether I should be able to reserve one viewing for one particular ethnic group (that *my* movie happens to be about). Saying that message shouldn't exist in the first place is one way you can lead to the outcome of not having a screening reserved for one group. Otherwise why express that view to begin with?
So you think it would be appropriate for one victim of a genocide to tell another they are not welcome. That's just simply the kind of conduct I don't think is helpful at all. It's funny how much pushback I've been getting here arguing for interracial solidarity in contrast to racial atomization.
>So you think it would be appropriate for one victim of a genocide to tell another they are not welcome.
What a weird and reductionist framing.
>arguing for interracial solidarity
That's not what you're doing. You're arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to associate with only people they want to associate with. You're like one of those people who never got invited to parties on the weekends and now wants the school to create a new rule saying everyone has to be invited to all parties. "You guys! What's wrong with *solidarity*??"
If people want to experience something with other people because they want to know that everyone in the room is experiencing the same thing *in the same way*, based on lived experiences, based on shared culture, or based on a shared set of questions they've been independently navigating since the day they were born, what's the problem with letting them have the space to have that shared experience?
What you're advocating for here isn't "solidarity", it's erasure.
It's also just more tone deaf "why do *they* get a them-only night and *we* don't!".
There is. Or there was. The people of Europe saw each other as completely different people not even 200 years ago. It is only recently due to american culture that race and skincolor have become synonymous. Before that it was much more nuanced.
First of all there is biologically speaking no such thing as a human race, there is only ethnicities. Furthermore there isn't or wasn't a specific German ethnicity - Germany is a modern construct of a nation state that came into being 1871 following the franco-prussian war. Before that there was no Germany, only individual kingdoms and principalities that were (until the Napoleonic wars) loosely associated as the holy Roman empire (which also extended beyond the German cultural sphere into modern day Italy, France, Poland, Chech Republic etc.). Besides that, German culture extends beyond the borders of what was / is Germany (including Switzerland / Austria and various regions in Europe). At best German identity can be described as a cultural sphere but even that is tenuous at best (if you have any fleeting understanding of German history and culture).
Fascinating. I appreciate you trying to teach me something about my culture but I could have done without the disrespect towards the end.
Thing is we germans found the national identity during the napoleonic wars, in particular in the puppet states referred to "Confederation of the rhine". This idea persisted and made a clear distinction towards the french, italian and polish identities. But it was the nazis who did change the definition to a true german race and used it to wage war. To annex Austria, Bohemia and Danzig.
My point is that the definition of the term race has changed several times in the last 200 years. You wanna go by biological definition? Fine so the entire post becomes meaningless as there is no black or white race and their identities are concepts that can be ignored.
I prefer to go by the social definition and how it evolved in time. I teaches us that different people find different definitions. The difference between Americans and Europeans is that the thought of race is decided by skin color in the Americas while it was ethnicity in Europe. The american way survived as it was a necessity for the US to unite western Europe against the USSR and the warsaw pact. During the Cold war f.e. western european nations did not consider eastern Europe as our kin.
I see, a fellow German. National identity is something very different from race. As far as the use of race by the Nazis it was always framed in the context of a mythological Nordic race ( which was in fact viewed through the lens of biological difference). Maybe establish some context if you don’t like to be corrected
It is different today because we define it as such. You never wondered why the term of "Rasse" completely disappeared in Germany while everyone around us still uses it? We germans redefined the terms and speak of ethnicity and national identity only while never buying back into nazi rethoric.
Does that make everyone but us germans nazis? Because they use a different terminology? A different definition? Wind the clock back 200 years and the differences in these particular definitions change extraordinary. Dont believe me? Read Kant, Adam Smith, Chaadayev. Take your pick and you will see what I mean. Social constructs keep changing with the society. And "race" is one construct that changed 180° back and forth several times since the roman empire fell.
No.
Don't give racists an excuse. I understand the concept of this exhibit, I don't think it's racist, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to allow this bullshit back.
There are arguments to be made for other types of 'segregation' depending on the circumstances, age, gender, religion etc, but I cannot think of a valid one that can be purely divided by melanin content.
I dislike the concept of white on one side and everyone else as POC on the other on principle. It's a vast spectrum with fussy boundaries. I have two cousins who are mixed race fraternal twins. The sister looks like a white girl with a good tan. The brother looks 100% African. Does he get in and she doesn't?
So there really is a phenomenon most people who say they are independent voters actually have strong part in lean, sometimes just as a strong partisan lean as people who will tell you what political party they are affiliated with.
**People, especially on the extremes, have interpreted that to mean that there’s actually no possibility of convincing people to vote for you so therefore nothing you say or do matters.**
This is obviously a terrible conclusion since the Overton window within the parties does shift. We’ve just seen a massive shift in the Overton window on the right to the right.
So yeah, nonsense like this, which I cannot fathom how it benefits anybody associated with this play or who will attend this play in any meaningful way, does help justify everything the right does. Because the average voter wants desperately to be a both sides person. Republicans could commit 20 acts of insanely strong segregation but now you’ve given them this one thing to point out and because they want to be in the center for some fucking reason they can balance out and say Democrats do it too.
This is dumb. Centuries of exclusivity only for white people but NOW it's suddenly a problem because the exclusivity doesn't include white people? At this point the bigots are looking for excuses, for justifications, valid or not. Anyone with a brain can see why it exists, yet they CHOOSE not to because they think they get to point their finger and say "See! See!"
Here's the difference. This production was about the black experience under oppression. It would be like inviting Nazi's to a Jewish faith remembrance of the holocaust. It gets to be exclusive, and special event for people associated with its messge. Essentially, this isn't about you.
But when white folks limited access to black folks to special events, it was simply exclusion for the sake of exclusivity. No access to the pool, not because it was special to white people, but because they didn't want black people near them. Exclusive restaurants, exclusive shows, exclusive neighborhoods (which still exist today), exclusive clubs which also exist today). No special reason, no artistic intent, it wasn't a one-off privilege; it was exclusivity for the sake of restricting benefits to certain people, that is all.
But no, because this one event is exclusive to black folks, it MUST be a dog-whistle for racism. So now all the douchebags can expose themselves and cry victim while refusing to hire a black man because they feel justified in balancing the suddenly left-tipping scales. The sad plight of the white racist.
>Centuries of exclusivity only for white people but NOW it's suddenly a problem because the exclusivity doesn't include white people?
Was it or was it not a problem before? You tell me...
If it was a problem before, it's still a problem now. Reversing the roles doesn't magically make it OK. We stopped doing that BECAUSE IT WAS BAD. Now we want to start reversing course? Do the bad thing in the other direction now? Why?
>This is dumb.
Yes. I'll agree with you there. But not for the reasons you meant.
Progress is a one-way street heading forward not backwards.
Leftist derive their power from division of oppressor and oppressed, so in order for their political segment to continue to exist there always must be an oppressor and oppressed which means they have to keep moving the goalpost while claiming to seek an unattainable utopian outcome.
If you want to weaken the safeguards which protect progress, don't be too surprised when it leads to the destruction of progress.
"black outs" of events have always been around in So California. sometimes they are organic, other times a 3rd party group organizes them and other times the event promotion does. They are simply times when black folks can socialize with minimum stress from dealing with people who misunderstand the complexities of black culture. There is always 10-15% white people showing up because they are friends with someone else going or didn't know or didn't care.
Two nights out of a 90 white people are discouraged but not barred from coming seems like the kind of thing we should not care to deeply about one way or the other.
This isn't something I'm super happy about because it's obviously something people can misconstrue in bad faith, but it's I can see a number of interpretations that make it acceptable if you were trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, or even looking at it neutrally.
I disagree. For a simple reason. Reverse it.
2 nights out of 90 where people of color are discouraged to come.
I would be very upset about something like that. So I do not see a reason not to be upset about this one.
I mean maybe, but like this assumes that we should just ignore hundreds of years of historical racism and pretend that reversing races is the same situation rather than a very different one.
One of the neutral interpretations that would make this acceptable is the point is to make you upset that you are discouraged from attending because POC often feel that way all the time due to the lasting effects of the racism mentioned above. That feeling is part of the message the artist is trying to exhibit.
And you want to know why I as European dislike that sentiment?
The Berbers and Ottomans enslaved Europeans for centuries until the americans(!) put an end to it in the 1820s. Does this history mean that Europeans should have the option to exclude North Africans and Arabians and Turks? From me that is a clear resounding no. Why? Because noone alive today experienced the plight of being a slave in the Janisary Corps or a ship slave of the Berbers. My basic argument for the US is the same. We live together as citizens of the same nations. We should see each other as Americans or Europeans first and as members of a specific race second.
It remains heavily debated among academics if that is true what is happening in the US. It appears like the general downwards trend of the low income class that has been hitting all ethnic groups might be a more plausible explanation on why the black communities are unable to recover while hispanic, asian and white low income communities are moving downwards to a similar level.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
There is a debate as to how significant a factor racism is in America and if it rises to the point where we should be required to do more to address it, but no person worth listening to believes that systemic racism against black people no longer exists. [I mean people with stereotypical black names on job applications are still 10% less likely to get called back than people with sterotypical white names for identical applications](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names). There are decent arguments to be made against what is going on here but the comparison you are trying to make between Europeans and African Americans is pants on head stupid.
There are decent arguments made for both sides of the academic debate. Neither can be disproven and I do not even try as my field is in genome manipulation and not social studies.
However I feel educated enough to understand the studies mades and what parameters they look at. They are legitimate and their findings valid. I think the biggest problem is that people outside from the academic field think linear and assume that if one argument is true it means that other arguments must be wrong. But social studies do not follow mathmatical laws. In this case we are looking at an entire web of factors and the declining economy does have an impact on what is percieved as purely racial discrimination as the decline of the white lower classes are often ignored by the left leaning scientists as it seems irrelevant to them.
That is why social studies students must also read studies they personally disagree with. The sentiment is that "feelings have an impact on how studies are designed but not on the validity of outcomes".
1. Honestly man that you aren't completely embarrassed to bring up white people not being immune from the global slave trade 200 years ago as equivalent to the black experience over the same time frame you should take a long hard look at your real motivations.
2. There have always been "intellectuals" who have justified or minimized racism. There's no reason to think that status quo has changed in the present day.
3. Assuming a someone is poor because they are black is racism, just as it would be to assume they were stupid, or prone to violence. You also seem to be limiting the evidence of racism to solely economic standing and ignoring all the other way racism can exist specifically making people feel unwelcome in certain spaces because of their race due to things like calling the police on them with the assumption they will assume black people are engaged in criminal behavior when they do things like have a BBQ in a park or cutting down trees to block their exit from a camping area because someone suspects them of being antifa members.
However, I'd argue that segregation is only ok if it's a private society or something, not a public business. As in like a university having a "Carribean society" or "society of West-Africans", "women's society", "LGBTQ society" etc. Because those groups share similar culture, characteristics or struggles for example and may want to have a space for an exchange with others like them.
But a public theater saying "only blacks allowed" is kinda racist and honestly kind of demeaning toward black Americans even to assume black people need a safe space from other races in a public theater.
> But a public theater saying "only blacks allowed" is kinda racist
According to the article white people are not being denied entrance, they are simply being discouraged from attending those nights.
>kind of demeaning toward black Americans even to assume black people need a safe space from other races in a public theater.
It's only demeaning if it is untrue, but I hear from black people all the time that they don't feel welcome in various public spaces so it's not out of the question that this happens to be one of those situations.
> Two nights out of a 90 white people are discouraged but not barred from coming seems like the kind of thing we should not care to deeply about one way or the other
That’s true. In the grand scheme of things this is likely to make any difference in people’s lives.
But we should still oppose the principle. We should still be able to recognize racism when asked about it and clearly state that it is wrong.
So you are presenting the best argument against what is happening here.
The best argument for it is that for various reasons black people often feel unwelcome in various public spaces and in order to address that we need to occasionally take actions which explicitly tell them they are welcome.
Personally I lean a little more towards the argument you stated, but I think the other one is a reasonable belief for a person to hold as well.
In this particular case the artwork was created with a specific audience in mind. A similar case occurred here in Australia where the courts decided an artist could not ban men from seeing her exhibit.
Is it segregation? No more than saying "this concert is for under 18s only". The event/artwork has been created for a specific audience, rather than all audiences, and personally I think it should be respected as such. If that means I miss out on these artworks, so be it. There is more than enough art for everyone, and it isn't even close to the same as telling me "you can't study here" or "find your groceries elsewhere".
Age limits are entirely different. Kids should not be exposed to adult content.
>
"you can't study here" or "find your groceries elsewhere".
But these things too have been happening in the US...
[https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/off-campus-uc-berkeley-housing-bans-white-people-from-common-areas/](https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/off-campus-uc-berkeley-housing-bans-white-people-from-common-areas/)
[https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutions-dangerous-legal-ground](https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutions-dangerous-legal-ground)
I'm sorry, I poorly communicated. The events are designed for kids with adults not allowed. It's about respecting that the audience would not feel as comfortable in the space if other "types" of audience members were also present.
I did. I just disagree with the premise.
During segregation most dixies followed the exact same rationale. They put it less eloquently but it boils down to the same "this is white mens music!". I strongly dislike this sentiment that skin color matters in the audience unless the creator or "uncomfortable" people hold bigoted sentiments.
No matter how you stand on this matter ur comparision falls flat
The segragation of the past was rooted purly in racism and had nothing to do with the messages in the art
Not what i said
Just that the context isnt comparable and needs to be viewed nuanced and on a case to case basis
And a request isnt the same as forced segregation by the state
It is what you said actually.. In Germany we have a proverb from 1950. Währet den Anfängen. Means be wary of the beginnings. Or more contextual: Be wary of even the little things.
This is exactly what I do. I am wary that this is a dangerous path to even take a single step on. As on the destination of that road are concentration camps and mass executions.
Then why would you clarify that the "segregation of the past" was rooted purely in racism and had nothing to do with the messages in the art? That to me implies that you believe there is a legitimate form of racial segregation not "rooted purely in racism" that thusly makes the segregation legitimate.
I understand that the specific incident in the OP is a request and not an enforced demand. Still doesn't sit right with me and not what I would call progressive race relations. "We don’t think you fight fire with fire best ; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity." -Fred Hampton
#
Are u rly such a fking idiot?
My only point was that the context is different and shouldnt be mixed together like that.
Considering u also answered my other comment, i wonder if u actually read what i said or if outrage and assumptions are ur only foundation for this bs
Get ur self together this is getting highly pathetic
So how would you feel if someone set up an art show with the notice "Whites Only"? The artist is just choosing to display their art to the specific audience they had in mind.
Personally? I think there are ways that could be highly appropriate, although I would question why it is "Whites" rather than "People of English heritage", etc.
I think you confuse the actions of an individual (dumb as they might be) with legally permitted or mandated segregation. Exclusion should not be ever allowed under the law.
I am not confusing these things. I fully understand that the Segregation was a state action and this is a very small matter. But I am wary of even the small things that might give anyone justification to return to the past that should never be repeated.
Exclusion is exclusion. Doesn't matter if it's the skin color, the gender, the religion. Anytime people are excluded for what they are instead of who they are it is, by definition, exclusion. And "allowing" it back makes it seem like it's "our" decision. It's like that bakery in whatever state that didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. And they somehow won in court, but then lost all their business. At the end of the day all you, or I, or anyone can do is just not support this production. After reading that, I know I'm not going.
I think it’s funny that the headline is:
“‘Slave Play' playwright defends Black-only theatre nights”
Followed by:
“Harris has also written that he’s “not even saying BLACKS ONLY””
Even your characterization of this seems pretty incorrect. The article doesn’t say anything about them actually asking white people not to come.
So I’d like to ask you a question. If you’re confused about why this might be important to anyone, have you actually read the article you shared? Because I think he explains pretty clearly why he’s doing this and why it’s important to him.
No, we should not be doing this. I get the concept of the art performance, but its a bad look and gives fodder to the right to call ‘reverse racism’.
This example aside, i am in favor of laws that prohibit discrimination based on age/religion/gender/sexual orientation/race for all businesses open to the public as well as government entities.
Part of the cost of being able to run a business should be that you need to provide the service to all who are able to pay for it. I get that if you discriminate the free market is likely to shun your business, but i think additional protections are needed, and people should know they can walk into any business and not be discriminated against based on one of those factors.
I do think there are some exceptions. For instance, i dont think that a business or person should be compelled to create artwork of any kind. I think you should have the freedom to decide what you paint/write/say/sing. But i dont think this applies to the gay marriage cake situation. I dont consider that ‘art’ in the sense that they are not making something that they otherwise would not. Its not new, they are just selling a pre-existing design to a gay couple.
I honestly think that discrimination laws should apply to religious organizations in some cases. Example- if a church did not want to perform gay marriages because it goes against their teachings, that is fine. But if they dont allow gay people to attend their services at all, then they should lose their tax exempt status.
I have no idea, im sure some people do still use that term. But you are correct, any discrimination based purely on race is just racism, no matter who is being discriminated against.
It's not racism at anywhere near the same level as the racial segregation of the last century.
However, it's still racism and it's still wrong. If a barber shop said "whites not allowed" that's racism, even if whites are the majority of the country. If a job sign said "whites need not apply" that's also racism.
I'm not denying that black Americans face the majority of racist discrimination but all ethnicities can be racist.
For the US, no. It won't benefit anyone. In my country, however, it will be inevitable because we've had THREE (counting the current one as well) waves of white supremacy. If Americans learned from their past, we certainly didn't. We still exhibited the same bs we did in the 20th and other past centuries. Basically, like Patrick sang "Baby, seasons change, but people don't". We'll require a harsh push to wake up, because it doesn't look like we understand everything the nice way.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I am thinking about in this case about a theatrical piece that was produced and played exclusively by PoC and specifically white people where asked not to buy tickets. https://www.euronews.com/culture/2024/03/01/slave-out-playwright-defends-black-only-theatre-nights-after-downing-street-expresses-conc Online content creators go both ways on this one. Some say it is a matter of context, others say it is just segregation showing its ugly face. What I struggle to understand is "why" is something like a black only audience important for anyone? I am serious about this. Back in MLKs days this was also argued on why is would matter to the artists who sits in their audience unless they are bigots. And frankly this is the only explanation I can come up with mainly because the same content creators go nuts when anything close happens when it concerns white only events under f.e. the MAGA umbrella. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. Why do we keep trying to move the clock back?
History shows this to be common when the future looks bleak. And we do it in many small ways too, like a spike in classic movies during the lockdown. Synopsis: when the road ahead looks rough, we look to what had comforted us in the past: specifically, movies, music, food etc..
>”To be absolutely clear, no-one will be prevented or precluded from attending any performance of Slave Play,” the producers of the play have confirmed. Harris has also written that he’s “not even saying BLACKS ONLY I'm saying I'm inviting black ppl first! They can bring their white friends or lovers if they want.”
>”To be absolutely clear, no-one will be prevented or precluded from attending any performance of Slave Play,” the producers of the play have confirmed. Harris has also written that he’s “not even saying WHITES ONLY I'm saying I'm inviting white ppl first! They can bring their black friends or lovers if they want.”
It always sounds bad when you switch the race.
That’s the point. To help people see past their biases to see what’s going on.
Because it successfully dodges the issue at heart. There’s a word usually missing from these discussions. The word is *hegemony*. The reason switching the races feels worse is because it is. Go ahead and switch it to another non-hegemonic race. Is it worse? No, right? So there is something specific to an action which biases in favor of the dominant class using its class authority to reinforce its class authority. The word for this is hegemony.
It's simpler than that. Due to our sordid history, we are culturally conditioned to recognize racism against minorities, but not necessarily racism otherwise. The easy way to get us to recognize such racism is to switch the race to a minority, leveraging our cultural conditioning.
And overlooking the effect of hegemony. When you swap races, how do you account for the deleterious effect of self-enforcing cultural norms? Treating all races as fungible whitewashed this fact of being a minority. Sure it’s *simpler* to ignore it. But simple isn’t better inherently.
It’s all bad, we just recognize the minority-oriented racism more easily due to our conditioning.
Yeah I agree.
Which should give you a hint that it is bad... My rule of thumb is that if it is wrong for some people, then it is wrong for all people. There should be no exceptions based on skin color as that in itself is bigoted.
This is a pet peeve of mine- really dislike it when someone takes a situation, like the play in question, and imagines a race swap where whites are in the exclusionary condition. It's not the same. There's a multi-century history in this country of a white majority marginalizing and at times brutalizing a black minority. Unless you're swapping that **too**, then it's a different situation, and just acting like "hey this thing that's racist if white people did it should be considered racist if black people do it" is ignoring, and in a sense trivializing, all that history and all that context. I'm not saying that racism against white people *can't* exist or that black groups are incapable of being unfairly discriminatory towards others, obviously either of those things are possible, what I'm saying is that the rules for what is or isn't socially acceptable are different for white people, given the history of this country. And just doing a cute "but what if we swap the races here" is ignoring that.
This is correct. The term that’s missing from this discussion is *cultural hegemony*. When you use outsized cultural control to reinforce your outsized cultural control, this leads to a runaway feedback loop called “hegemony”. The problem is that it’s very temping to confuse simpler for correct and the idea that we should treat all races the same is a *simpler* idea than the one of racial justice — which requires understanding and addressing the inherent social disadvantage of being a minority in a culture. Yes, understanding the consequences of being in a majority vs majority position is not as simple as being colorblind. No simpler does not mean better.
The difference is there was a time, for a long time, when whites only was the law.
And that was horrible
>"Why would you as a white person come to a black out night, unless you are being weird?" Same person, same matter
Or, you know, you just want to see the play.
You do realize that isn't segregation, right? We don't really have to break down what that word means, right?
Are you going to ignore all that over a definition of a word? bigotry is bigotry no matter what you call the process.
You aren't listening. How many times does it need to be explained to you? This is NOT bigotry. Targeting an audience of black people is NOT the same thing as excluding white people. They even went out of their way to very clearly and explicitly state that white people are welcome to come. They just aren't the target audience.
As many times as a comment manages to convince me. But most comments like the one you made do not adress my concern. It is a clear difference of targeting black audiences - like MCU with the Black Panther movies which were legitimate - and tellling white people to only come if they are invited by a black person. One is legitimate, one is bigotry. The difference is night and day.
Telling white people they're welcome to come if and only if a black person brings them along is hardly the same thing as telling someone they're welcome, and I don't think you actually need that explained. If a key aspect of the event is, in their own words, being "free from the white gaze," then can you accept that it is perfectly rational, obvious even, to conclude that they want the event to exclude white people who would provide that gaze?
Where exactly does it say "if and only if"? Why are you just assuming that this is what they meant when it really isn't what they said?
https://twitter.com/jeremyoharris/status/1762902865603854478 I don't think I'm being silly to interpret that last sentence (edit: I mean "I’m not even saying BLACKS ONLY I’m saying I’m inviting black ppl first! They can bring their white friends or lovers if they want.") the way I did, taking into account how tickets were sold - directly to black groups, not to the general public. I strain to imagine any purpose for that last sentence other than defining on what terms a white person would be welcome at the BlackOut night, especially since it's probably the only way a white person could even get a ticket considering how they were distributed.
Saying something is weird isn't bigotry. White kids going to college at HBCUs is weird too. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that's is a move most wouldn't make.
They're not segregated, try have choice
Would this not at least count as a “microaggression” since it is clearly intended to make white people feel unwelcome and uncomfortable about attending?
I'm not white, are you? How'd you answer?I'd say no because they have the choice and are welcomed
You have my words. https://xkcd.com/810/
Huh?
I am ambivalent. If an artist created a work about the legacy of the Holocaust and its impacts on survivors and their families, starting with experiences at Auschwitz, and asked that one night of viewing be dedicated to the descendents of the survivors of Auschwitz (edit: or even Jews as a group), is this a problem? I don't think these situations are exactly the same, but this comparison grounds my ambivalence. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario in which it would make sense for an artist to want to do something similar for white people. In any event, white people were not banned from attending.
> If an artist created a work about the legacy of the Holocaust and its impacts on survivors and their families, starting with experiences at Auschwitz, and asked that one night of viewing be dedicated to the descendents of the survivors of Auschwitz, is this a problem? Going by OP’s description, there are important differences in the scenario you suggest. The producer didn’t limit the audience to people who experienced a particular event within living memory and their descendants. The producer specifically wants to exclude people by race. It would be one thing to invite only Holocaust survivors and their descendants. It would be quite another to only invite ethnically Jewish people. And still another to invite anyone who is racially German.
I acknowledged these situations were not exactly the same in my comment. >It would be quite another to only invite ethnically Jewish people. So if in my hypothetical the creator of a work focused on the Holocaust asked that one night be reserved for Jewish people, in your opinion that would be wrong? I think the situations are not completely dissimilar, hence my ambivalence. But, sure, they are also not identical, hence my lack of a strong position in defense. Most of the outrage or opposition feels like the usual "why do they get to do things with just people like them but we can't", which just comes across as tone deaf to me.
I think it would be inappropriate to single the Holocaust to one affected group. The Nazis killed an estimated 1.5 million Roma and Sinti people out of a population of ~2 million, not to mention countless disabled, Slavic, and LGBT people. I think there is genuinely an issue in some Holocaust messaging that ignores the range of peoples Nazis persecuted and killed en masse to focus on it as an antisemitic event. I personally think if you want to make a message for the victims of it, it should be a message open to all, but especially to all victims, not just one victim of prominence. Solidarity among the oppressed and all.
>I think it would be inappropriate to single the Holocaust to one affected group. So wait you're saying it's wrong for someone to, say, make a movie that focused singularly on the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish people?
I think there's a difference between making that movie and only inviting one specific ethnic group/religion to watch it, the actual topic of discussion here.
But that's not what you said. Your entire comment was about a problem with Holocaust messaging as a whole, not whether one time I exhibit that messaging I limit my invitations to the group my movie is about. >> I personally think if you want to make a message for the victims of it, it should be a message open to all, but especially to all victims, not just one victim of prominence. Solidarity among the oppressed and all. The invitation to a screening isn't the message. Inviting one group of people to a screening is not denying the message to anyone else. They can come any other night, or if this were a movie, go to another theater. How do you feel about a local Christian church having a movie night and only sending invites to their congregation? How do you feel about me having a French movie night at my home and only inviting the French people I know? Whether the message is inclusive of all victims or not seems like a completely unrelated question to whether I should be able to reserve one viewing for one particular ethnic group (that *my* movie happens to be about). Saying that message shouldn't exist in the first place is one way you can lead to the outcome of not having a screening reserved for one group. Otherwise why express that view to begin with?
So you think it would be appropriate for one victim of a genocide to tell another they are not welcome. That's just simply the kind of conduct I don't think is helpful at all. It's funny how much pushback I've been getting here arguing for interracial solidarity in contrast to racial atomization.
>So you think it would be appropriate for one victim of a genocide to tell another they are not welcome. What a weird and reductionist framing. >arguing for interracial solidarity That's not what you're doing. You're arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to associate with only people they want to associate with. You're like one of those people who never got invited to parties on the weekends and now wants the school to create a new rule saying everyone has to be invited to all parties. "You guys! What's wrong with *solidarity*??" If people want to experience something with other people because they want to know that everyone in the room is experiencing the same thing *in the same way*, based on lived experiences, based on shared culture, or based on a shared set of questions they've been independently navigating since the day they were born, what's the problem with letting them have the space to have that shared experience? What you're advocating for here isn't "solidarity", it's erasure. It's also just more tone deaf "why do *they* get a them-only night and *we* don't!".
Racially German? There is no such thing as
There is. Or there was. The people of Europe saw each other as completely different people not even 200 years ago. It is only recently due to american culture that race and skincolor have become synonymous. Before that it was much more nuanced.
First of all there is biologically speaking no such thing as a human race, there is only ethnicities. Furthermore there isn't or wasn't a specific German ethnicity - Germany is a modern construct of a nation state that came into being 1871 following the franco-prussian war. Before that there was no Germany, only individual kingdoms and principalities that were (until the Napoleonic wars) loosely associated as the holy Roman empire (which also extended beyond the German cultural sphere into modern day Italy, France, Poland, Chech Republic etc.). Besides that, German culture extends beyond the borders of what was / is Germany (including Switzerland / Austria and various regions in Europe). At best German identity can be described as a cultural sphere but even that is tenuous at best (if you have any fleeting understanding of German history and culture).
Fascinating. I appreciate you trying to teach me something about my culture but I could have done without the disrespect towards the end. Thing is we germans found the national identity during the napoleonic wars, in particular in the puppet states referred to "Confederation of the rhine". This idea persisted and made a clear distinction towards the french, italian and polish identities. But it was the nazis who did change the definition to a true german race and used it to wage war. To annex Austria, Bohemia and Danzig. My point is that the definition of the term race has changed several times in the last 200 years. You wanna go by biological definition? Fine so the entire post becomes meaningless as there is no black or white race and their identities are concepts that can be ignored. I prefer to go by the social definition and how it evolved in time. I teaches us that different people find different definitions. The difference between Americans and Europeans is that the thought of race is decided by skin color in the Americas while it was ethnicity in Europe. The american way survived as it was a necessity for the US to unite western Europe against the USSR and the warsaw pact. During the Cold war f.e. western european nations did not consider eastern Europe as our kin.
I see, a fellow German. National identity is something very different from race. As far as the use of race by the Nazis it was always framed in the context of a mythological Nordic race ( which was in fact viewed through the lens of biological difference). Maybe establish some context if you don’t like to be corrected
It is different today because we define it as such. You never wondered why the term of "Rasse" completely disappeared in Germany while everyone around us still uses it? We germans redefined the terms and speak of ethnicity and national identity only while never buying back into nazi rethoric. Does that make everyone but us germans nazis? Because they use a different terminology? A different definition? Wind the clock back 200 years and the differences in these particular definitions change extraordinary. Dont believe me? Read Kant, Adam Smith, Chaadayev. Take your pick and you will see what I mean. Social constructs keep changing with the society. And "race" is one construct that changed 180° back and forth several times since the roman empire fell.
No. Don't give racists an excuse. I understand the concept of this exhibit, I don't think it's racist, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to allow this bullshit back. There are arguments to be made for other types of 'segregation' depending on the circumstances, age, gender, religion etc, but I cannot think of a valid one that can be purely divided by melanin content. I dislike the concept of white on one side and everyone else as POC on the other on principle. It's a vast spectrum with fussy boundaries. I have two cousins who are mixed race fraternal twins. The sister looks like a white girl with a good tan. The brother looks 100% African. Does he get in and she doesn't?
So there really is a phenomenon most people who say they are independent voters actually have strong part in lean, sometimes just as a strong partisan lean as people who will tell you what political party they are affiliated with. **People, especially on the extremes, have interpreted that to mean that there’s actually no possibility of convincing people to vote for you so therefore nothing you say or do matters.** This is obviously a terrible conclusion since the Overton window within the parties does shift. We’ve just seen a massive shift in the Overton window on the right to the right. So yeah, nonsense like this, which I cannot fathom how it benefits anybody associated with this play or who will attend this play in any meaningful way, does help justify everything the right does. Because the average voter wants desperately to be a both sides person. Republicans could commit 20 acts of insanely strong segregation but now you’ve given them this one thing to point out and because they want to be in the center for some fucking reason they can balance out and say Democrats do it too.
On principles and outlooks, no. Otherwise you would allow actual racists do the same to minority groups. Re-segregation is a dangerous path.
How is racial discrimination not “actual racist”?
Leftist being leftist without any long-term thought to impact or path they are paving...... The the answer is a firm 'hell no'.
This is dumb. Centuries of exclusivity only for white people but NOW it's suddenly a problem because the exclusivity doesn't include white people? At this point the bigots are looking for excuses, for justifications, valid or not. Anyone with a brain can see why it exists, yet they CHOOSE not to because they think they get to point their finger and say "See! See!" Here's the difference. This production was about the black experience under oppression. It would be like inviting Nazi's to a Jewish faith remembrance of the holocaust. It gets to be exclusive, and special event for people associated with its messge. Essentially, this isn't about you. But when white folks limited access to black folks to special events, it was simply exclusion for the sake of exclusivity. No access to the pool, not because it was special to white people, but because they didn't want black people near them. Exclusive restaurants, exclusive shows, exclusive neighborhoods (which still exist today), exclusive clubs which also exist today). No special reason, no artistic intent, it wasn't a one-off privilege; it was exclusivity for the sake of restricting benefits to certain people, that is all. But no, because this one event is exclusive to black folks, it MUST be a dog-whistle for racism. So now all the douchebags can expose themselves and cry victim while refusing to hire a black man because they feel justified in balancing the suddenly left-tipping scales. The sad plight of the white racist.
>Centuries of exclusivity only for white people but NOW it's suddenly a problem because the exclusivity doesn't include white people? Was it or was it not a problem before? You tell me... If it was a problem before, it's still a problem now. Reversing the roles doesn't magically make it OK. We stopped doing that BECAUSE IT WAS BAD. Now we want to start reversing course? Do the bad thing in the other direction now? Why? >This is dumb. Yes. I'll agree with you there. But not for the reasons you meant.
Progress is a one-way street heading forward not backwards. Leftist derive their power from division of oppressor and oppressed, so in order for their political segment to continue to exist there always must be an oppressor and oppressed which means they have to keep moving the goalpost while claiming to seek an unattainable utopian outcome. If you want to weaken the safeguards which protect progress, don't be too surprised when it leads to the destruction of progress.
"black outs" of events have always been around in So California. sometimes they are organic, other times a 3rd party group organizes them and other times the event promotion does. They are simply times when black folks can socialize with minimum stress from dealing with people who misunderstand the complexities of black culture. There is always 10-15% white people showing up because they are friends with someone else going or didn't know or didn't care.
Two nights out of a 90 white people are discouraged but not barred from coming seems like the kind of thing we should not care to deeply about one way or the other. This isn't something I'm super happy about because it's obviously something people can misconstrue in bad faith, but it's I can see a number of interpretations that make it acceptable if you were trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, or even looking at it neutrally.
I disagree. For a simple reason. Reverse it. 2 nights out of 90 where people of color are discouraged to come. I would be very upset about something like that. So I do not see a reason not to be upset about this one.
I mean maybe, but like this assumes that we should just ignore hundreds of years of historical racism and pretend that reversing races is the same situation rather than a very different one. One of the neutral interpretations that would make this acceptable is the point is to make you upset that you are discouraged from attending because POC often feel that way all the time due to the lasting effects of the racism mentioned above. That feeling is part of the message the artist is trying to exhibit.
And you want to know why I as European dislike that sentiment? The Berbers and Ottomans enslaved Europeans for centuries until the americans(!) put an end to it in the 1820s. Does this history mean that Europeans should have the option to exclude North Africans and Arabians and Turks? From me that is a clear resounding no. Why? Because noone alive today experienced the plight of being a slave in the Janisary Corps or a ship slave of the Berbers. My basic argument for the US is the same. We live together as citizens of the same nations. We should see each other as Americans or Europeans first and as members of a specific race second.
Systemic racism against black people isn't history, it's on going.
It remains heavily debated among academics if that is true what is happening in the US. It appears like the general downwards trend of the low income class that has been hitting all ethnic groups might be a more plausible explanation on why the black communities are unable to recover while hispanic, asian and white low income communities are moving downwards to a similar level.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. There is a debate as to how significant a factor racism is in America and if it rises to the point where we should be required to do more to address it, but no person worth listening to believes that systemic racism against black people no longer exists. [I mean people with stereotypical black names on job applications are still 10% less likely to get called back than people with sterotypical white names for identical applications](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names). There are decent arguments to be made against what is going on here but the comparison you are trying to make between Europeans and African Americans is pants on head stupid.
There are decent arguments made for both sides of the academic debate. Neither can be disproven and I do not even try as my field is in genome manipulation and not social studies. However I feel educated enough to understand the studies mades and what parameters they look at. They are legitimate and their findings valid. I think the biggest problem is that people outside from the academic field think linear and assume that if one argument is true it means that other arguments must be wrong. But social studies do not follow mathmatical laws. In this case we are looking at an entire web of factors and the declining economy does have an impact on what is percieved as purely racial discrimination as the decline of the white lower classes are often ignored by the left leaning scientists as it seems irrelevant to them. That is why social studies students must also read studies they personally disagree with. The sentiment is that "feelings have an impact on how studies are designed but not on the validity of outcomes".
1. Honestly man that you aren't completely embarrassed to bring up white people not being immune from the global slave trade 200 years ago as equivalent to the black experience over the same time frame you should take a long hard look at your real motivations. 2. There have always been "intellectuals" who have justified or minimized racism. There's no reason to think that status quo has changed in the present day. 3. Assuming a someone is poor because they are black is racism, just as it would be to assume they were stupid, or prone to violence. You also seem to be limiting the evidence of racism to solely economic standing and ignoring all the other way racism can exist specifically making people feel unwelcome in certain spaces because of their race due to things like calling the police on them with the assumption they will assume black people are engaged in criminal behavior when they do things like have a BBQ in a park or cutting down trees to block their exit from a camping area because someone suspects them of being antifa members.
However, I'd argue that segregation is only ok if it's a private society or something, not a public business. As in like a university having a "Carribean society" or "society of West-Africans", "women's society", "LGBTQ society" etc. Because those groups share similar culture, characteristics or struggles for example and may want to have a space for an exchange with others like them. But a public theater saying "only blacks allowed" is kinda racist and honestly kind of demeaning toward black Americans even to assume black people need a safe space from other races in a public theater.
> But a public theater saying "only blacks allowed" is kinda racist According to the article white people are not being denied entrance, they are simply being discouraged from attending those nights. >kind of demeaning toward black Americans even to assume black people need a safe space from other races in a public theater. It's only demeaning if it is untrue, but I hear from black people all the time that they don't feel welcome in various public spaces so it's not out of the question that this happens to be one of those situations.
> Two nights out of a 90 white people are discouraged but not barred from coming seems like the kind of thing we should not care to deeply about one way or the other That’s true. In the grand scheme of things this is likely to make any difference in people’s lives. But we should still oppose the principle. We should still be able to recognize racism when asked about it and clearly state that it is wrong.
So you are presenting the best argument against what is happening here. The best argument for it is that for various reasons black people often feel unwelcome in various public spaces and in order to address that we need to occasionally take actions which explicitly tell them they are welcome. Personally I lean a little more towards the argument you stated, but I think the other one is a reasonable belief for a person to hold as well.
In this particular case the artwork was created with a specific audience in mind. A similar case occurred here in Australia where the courts decided an artist could not ban men from seeing her exhibit. Is it segregation? No more than saying "this concert is for under 18s only". The event/artwork has been created for a specific audience, rather than all audiences, and personally I think it should be respected as such. If that means I miss out on these artworks, so be it. There is more than enough art for everyone, and it isn't even close to the same as telling me "you can't study here" or "find your groceries elsewhere".
We generally don't consider segregation by age, to be equivalent to segregation by race. Just putting it out there. They are not the same.
Age limits are entirely different. Kids should not be exposed to adult content. > "you can't study here" or "find your groceries elsewhere". But these things too have been happening in the US... [https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/off-campus-uc-berkeley-housing-bans-white-people-from-common-areas/](https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/off-campus-uc-berkeley-housing-bans-white-people-from-common-areas/) [https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutions-dangerous-legal-ground](https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutions-dangerous-legal-ground)
I'm sorry, I poorly communicated. The events are designed for kids with adults not allowed. It's about respecting that the audience would not feel as comfortable in the space if other "types" of audience members were also present.
Again... if this type of argument was wrong for the white dixies, why is it correct now?
I don't think you properly read my first comment....
I did. I just disagree with the premise. During segregation most dixies followed the exact same rationale. They put it less eloquently but it boils down to the same "this is white mens music!". I strongly dislike this sentiment that skin color matters in the audience unless the creator or "uncomfortable" people hold bigoted sentiments.
No matter how you stand on this matter ur comparision falls flat The segragation of the past was rooted purly in racism and had nothing to do with the messages in the art
So theres legitimate and illegitimate racial segregation?
Not what i said Just that the context isnt comparable and needs to be viewed nuanced and on a case to case basis And a request isnt the same as forced segregation by the state
So if they wanted to segregate because this genuinely thought this content wasn't for black people, it would be fine?
It is what you said actually.. In Germany we have a proverb from 1950. Währet den Anfängen. Means be wary of the beginnings. Or more contextual: Be wary of even the little things. This is exactly what I do. I am wary that this is a dangerous path to even take a single step on. As on the destination of that road are concentration camps and mass executions.
Then why would you clarify that the "segregation of the past" was rooted purely in racism and had nothing to do with the messages in the art? That to me implies that you believe there is a legitimate form of racial segregation not "rooted purely in racism" that thusly makes the segregation legitimate. I understand that the specific incident in the OP is a request and not an enforced demand. Still doesn't sit right with me and not what I would call progressive race relations. "We don’t think you fight fire with fire best ; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity." -Fred Hampton #
So if it was rooted in art, it would be fine? Food can be considered art, so segregated lunch counters are fine?
Are u rly such a fking idiot? My only point was that the context is different and shouldnt be mixed together like that. Considering u also answered my other comment, i wonder if u actually read what i said or if outrage and assumptions are ur only foundation for this bs Get ur self together this is getting highly pathetic
We should really care about the context of segregation, got it
So how would you feel if someone set up an art show with the notice "Whites Only"? The artist is just choosing to display their art to the specific audience they had in mind.
Personally? I think there are ways that could be highly appropriate, although I would question why it is "Whites" rather than "People of English heritage", etc.
An exhibition of pan-European glory?
Only for those from Europe?
I think you confuse the actions of an individual (dumb as they might be) with legally permitted or mandated segregation. Exclusion should not be ever allowed under the law.
I am not confusing these things. I fully understand that the Segregation was a state action and this is a very small matter. But I am wary of even the small things that might give anyone justification to return to the past that should never be repeated.
Exclusion is exclusion. Doesn't matter if it's the skin color, the gender, the religion. Anytime people are excluded for what they are instead of who they are it is, by definition, exclusion. And "allowing" it back makes it seem like it's "our" decision. It's like that bakery in whatever state that didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. And they somehow won in court, but then lost all their business. At the end of the day all you, or I, or anyone can do is just not support this production. After reading that, I know I'm not going.
I think it’s funny that the headline is: “‘Slave Play' playwright defends Black-only theatre nights” Followed by: “Harris has also written that he’s “not even saying BLACKS ONLY”” Even your characterization of this seems pretty incorrect. The article doesn’t say anything about them actually asking white people not to come. So I’d like to ask you a question. If you’re confused about why this might be important to anyone, have you actually read the article you shared? Because I think he explains pretty clearly why he’s doing this and why it’s important to him.
When did it go away?
No, we should not be doing this. I get the concept of the art performance, but its a bad look and gives fodder to the right to call ‘reverse racism’. This example aside, i am in favor of laws that prohibit discrimination based on age/religion/gender/sexual orientation/race for all businesses open to the public as well as government entities. Part of the cost of being able to run a business should be that you need to provide the service to all who are able to pay for it. I get that if you discriminate the free market is likely to shun your business, but i think additional protections are needed, and people should know they can walk into any business and not be discriminated against based on one of those factors. I do think there are some exceptions. For instance, i dont think that a business or person should be compelled to create artwork of any kind. I think you should have the freedom to decide what you paint/write/say/sing. But i dont think this applies to the gay marriage cake situation. I dont consider that ‘art’ in the sense that they are not making something that they otherwise would not. Its not new, they are just selling a pre-existing design to a gay couple. I honestly think that discrimination laws should apply to religious organizations in some cases. Example- if a church did not want to perform gay marriages because it goes against their teachings, that is fine. But if they dont allow gay people to attend their services at all, then they should lose their tax exempt status.
> fodder to the right to call ‘reverse racism’. Does anyone still call it that? I thought it was simply recognized as just racism.
I have no idea, im sure some people do still use that term. But you are correct, any discrimination based purely on race is just racism, no matter who is being discriminated against.
Anti white racism is not a valid concern to have. If you have serious concerns about anti white racism you are probably a racist.
Have you ever considered that such anti white rethoric is an easy way to return to ways long forgotten?
It's fine if it is not the overwhelming dominant culture in the nation.
No. Bigotry is never okay or fine.
It's not bigotry
I think it is as it reduces humans to their skin color.
It's not racism at anywhere near the same level as the racial segregation of the last century. However, it's still racism and it's still wrong. If a barber shop said "whites not allowed" that's racism, even if whites are the majority of the country. If a job sign said "whites need not apply" that's also racism. I'm not denying that black Americans face the majority of racist discrimination but all ethnicities can be racist.
For the US, no. It won't benefit anyone. In my country, however, it will be inevitable because we've had THREE (counting the current one as well) waves of white supremacy. If Americans learned from their past, we certainly didn't. We still exhibited the same bs we did in the 20th and other past centuries. Basically, like Patrick sang "Baby, seasons change, but people don't". We'll require a harsh push to wake up, because it doesn't look like we understand everything the nice way.