The right kind of racism?

[Naturalcynic 632]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

It was a racist idea and it got called out, as it should have been.   Its not the calling out I was remarking upon but the fact that a lot of effort seemed to be going into arguing a point on which everyone was agreed.  If people want to put a lot of effort into labouring a point  and grabbing the last word that's their prerogative, but there are other things in life

There are indeed, but it doesn’t change the fact that if anyone dared promote a whites only performance there would be absolute outrage from the usual suspects, those involved in promoting the play would be rendered unemployable, and the theatre concerned would be boycotted and targeted by demonstrators.  But as it stands, the apparent attempts to grudgingly acknowledge that it’s indefensible whilst simultaneously trying to change the subject and “move on” simply demonstrates the double standards at play.

[Fen Canary 834]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

It was a racist idea and it got called out, as it should have been.   Its not the calling out I was remarking upon but the fact that a lot of effort seemed to be going into arguing a point on which everyone was agreed.  If people want to put a lot of effort into labouring a point  and grabbing the last word that's their prerogative, but there are other things in life.

I'm split on whether this is a minor thing as YF suggests.  In some ways I agree that there are bigger fish than worrying about a couple of performances of a play that will not exactly be packing them in on any other day (despite the publicity it now has) but there is also the broken windows argument that unless you take care of little details bigger things grow.

On its own you could say it’s simply a bad idea, but we’ve seen in the States how these things can evolve if they’re not discussed early doors. The fact you do have people defending it (a former university lecturer on here no less) implies that this style of segregation does enjoy some support amongst the higher echelons of society, even if it’s ridiculed by the hoi polloi 

[horsefly 4,303]

On 11/03/2024 at 17:38, Fen Canary said:

Ok, swap Carrow Road for a film at the local cinema then. I want a day set aside simply for those that have Saxon surnames, that way nobody will be potentially missing something unique. Is that a better analogy? 

Equally as stupid. You merely demonstrate time and again your complete ignorance of the issues, and your childish petulance. 

[horsefly 4,303]

On 11/03/2024 at 17:04, Naturalcynic said:

Oh dear, all you can come back with is the tired old “bigoted” epithet which is so excessively and inappropriately used by people such as you that it is rendered meaningless.

Try responding to the actual issues raised if you want a considered response. 

[horsefly 4,303]

On 11/03/2024 at 16:16, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's idiotic and ridiculous, but also an excellent comparison to people sitting in an audience who might feel uncomfortable because people with another skin colour are there. It very well illustrates how idiotic the theatre's announcement was, but unfortunately the political climate encouraged by people like yourself encourages this sort of divisive and polarising approach; ironically, it's an example of minorities apparently wanting apartheid.

What utter bilge. The reason for selecting a tiny few of the performances of a play about the evils of slavery for black only audiences is BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. The subject matter directly concerns the kidnapping of 2.3m African people by WHITE Britons, who subjected them to mass murder, rape, and forced labour. It shows an astonishing lack of imagination and simple common decency not to understand why 2 performances for a black only audience should be respected. Your description of the "discomfort" caused is entirely disingenuous. It is not caused simply because an audience member is white, it is because the play being performed depicts the brutality of white exploitation of black people. NOT ONE SINGLE WHITE PERSON is being prevented from seeing this play. How difficult is it to understand why 2 performances might be set aside for those people who want to see this specific play about slavery without the presence of the ancestors of the people who perpetuated the crime.

[BigManInTheBarclay 75]

In all honesty....who gives a **** if there are performances for a cetrain demographic?

It's likely this was done to encourage discussion around it and therefore give free press/social media coverage to get more tickets sold.

[Fen Canary 834]

8 hours ago, BigManInTheBarclay said:

In all honesty....who gives a **** if there are performances for a cetrain demographic?

It's likely this was done to encourage discussion around it and therefore give free press/social media coverage to get more tickets sold.

Would you give a **** if another group put on a performance that was only for white people? 

[Fen Canary 834]

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Equally as stupid. You merely demonstrate time and again your complete ignorance of the issues, and your childish petulance. 

I realise you’ve worked in academia for a long time, an area that is (ironically) prone to groupthink and homogeneity of attitudes so you may not have much experience of talking to people whose life experiences mean they have different opinions to yourself, but generally when talking to people with whom you disagree it’s generally not the done thing to ignore all their points and childishly insult them as a response. It simply comes across that you’re unable to defend your ideas and are having to resort to shutting down the conversation with accusations such as racism and bigotry, much like a child who flips the board over when he starts losing at Snakes and Ladders.

I’ll ask again, which black peoples should be allowed to view this play. All of them? Only those who can prove that they had an ancestor transported to the Americas? Mixed race people? North Africans who had ancestors that captured and sold the slaves? Whites from countries that played no part in the slave trade?

[Fen Canary 834]

14 hours ago, horsefly said:

What utter bilge. The reason for selecting a tiny few of the performances of a play about the evils of slavery for black only audiences is BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. The subject matter directly concerns the kidnapping of 2.3m African people by WHITE Britons, who subjected them to mass murder, rape, and forced labour. It shows an astonishing lack of imagination and simple common decency not to understand why 2 performances for a black only audience should be respected. Your description of the "discomfort" caused is entirely disingenuous. It is not caused simply because an audience member is white, it is because the play being performed depicts the brutality of white exploitation of black people. NOT ONE SINGLE WHITE PERSON is being prevented from seeing this play. How difficult is it to understand why 2 performances might be set aside for those people who want to see this specific play about slavery without the presence of the ancestors of the people who perpetuated the crime.

White Britons didn’t do the kidnapping generally, they tended to purchase the slaves from other black Africans.

As a side note, would you be in favour of a couple of nights of the play being reserved for whites only, as they may feel historical guilt watching the play in the presence of black people? 

Edited March 13 by Fen Canary

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

13 hours ago, horsefly said:

What utter bilge. The reason for selecting a tiny few of the performances of a play about the evils of slavery for black only audiences is BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. The subject matter directly concerns the kidnapping of 2.3m African people by WHITE Britons, who subjected them to mass murder, rape, and forced labour. It shows an astonishing lack of imagination and simple common decency not to understand why 2 performances for a black only audience should be respected. Your description of the "discomfort" caused is entirely disingenuous. It is not caused simply because an audience member is white, it is because the play being performed depicts the brutality of white exploitation of black people. NOT ONE SINGLE WHITE PERSON is being prevented from seeing this play. How difficult is it to understand why 2 performances might be set aside for those people who want to see this specific play about slavery without the presence of the ancestors of the people who perpetuated the crime.

Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. 2.3 million African people were not kidnapped by white Britons. None were. The Africans were firstly enslaved by their fellow Africans and then SOLD to slave traders who then transported them to the American colonies and the Caribbean. As a result, we might expect that call for reparations by be equally aimed at those African tribes engaged in selling slaves to the traders. As it turns out there is a deafening silence on the subject. One only hopes this play might tell the full truth about slavery. Somehow, I suspect it will serve up the sort of nonsense narrative that Horsefly believes in.

[Barbe bleu 827]

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

White Britons didn’t do the kidnapping generally, they tended to purchase the slaves from other black Africans 

The position in the Caribbean is different but in England's North American colonies it's a cruel irony that the legal framework that in effect created chattel slavery came about because of a court action taken by a freed black slave/indentured servant who didn't want to release his 'possession' at the end of his term of indenture. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/

https://foreignpolicyi.org/john-casor-the-case-of-the-first-slave/

If there was an academic who specialises in enlightenment thinking on here they would probably tell us that a belief in the sanctity of property rights helped forge our modern democratic state. Shame really then that it also led to slavery in the US.

Edited March 14 by Barbe bleu

[Fen Canary 834]

6 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The position in the Caribbean is different but in England's North American colonies it's a cruel irony that the legal framework that in effect created chattel slavery came about because of a court action taken by a freed black slave/indentured servant who didn't want to release his 'possession' at the end of his term of indenture. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/

https://foreignpolicyi.org/john-casor-the-case-of-the-first-slave/

If there was an academic who specialises in enlightenment thinking on here they would probably tell us that a belief in the sanctity of property rights helped forge our modern democratic state. Shame really then that it also led to slavery in the US.

It would certainly be a cruel irony if effectively the first recognised slave holder in America was a black man 

Edited March 14 by Fen Canary

[Herman 9,780]

If in doubt, blame the black guy.🙄

[Fen Canary 834]

It must be exhausting trying to constantly find some hidden bigotry in every single remark! 

[Herman 9,780]

It wasn't hidden.

[Fen Canary 834]

I agree, posting interesting quirks of history is the sort of behaviour we used to see from the National Front!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

I think the problem is that sections of minorities perceive their own grievances as justification for encouraging similar attitudes among themselves to what they were originally objecting to. There’s a also a problem that some will reject the notion that encouraging this sort of segregation is racist; there’s a notion that minorities can’t be racist against majorities and as such, while it gets some criticism, it still carries on. 

The danger to minorities is that it fosters collective resentment that turns into serious hostility. But ultimately I’ve no doubt the theatre’s cynical publicity stunt has both raised it ticket sales and also encouraged the notion among some that this sort of segregation is fine and harmless.

Edited March 14 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 827]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

It would certainly be a cruel irony if effectively the first recognised slave holder in America was a black man 

Depends how you want to define slave holder

Johnson was the first person to formally claim complete ownership over another person, so in some repects your 'if' is superfluous- the first chattel slave owner in N America was indeed black.  

Before then people held 'slaves' during of their term of indenture (and beyond if they were sentenced to servitude as punishment for a crime)  but that's a slightly different thing.

Also fair to mention tgat's the above is the legal view and no doubt things happened illegally before then. Also true to say that once the flood gates to chattel slavery were opened after the Casor case it rapidly took on a racialised element that until then was formally absent.

Edited March 14 by Barbe bleu

[Barbe bleu 827]

11 hours ago, Herman said:

If in doubt, blame the black guy.🙄

Take it up with the Smithsonian museum. Fact is Mr Johnson decided he wanted to own another human being and convinced a court to agree with him- I'm not sure he deserves a free pass because of the colour of his skin.

Whilst I think it is silly to take pride or shame in events beyond one's own control or influence I also think it is important to acknowledge history rather than hide or change it because it is inconvenient to a certain narrative or challenges certain preconceptions.

I've put it into  a post above but in the same spirit it does seem fair to provide balance by saying that colonial law in N America soon took on a far more racialised and discriminatory nature after the Castor case so no free passes there either. 

 

Edited March 14 by Barbe bleu

[BigManInTheBarclay 75]

20 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Would you give a **** if another group put on a performance that was only for white people? 

Nope....nobody should, but they obviously will.

Edited March 14 by BigManInTheBarclay

[Fen Canary 834]

2 hours ago, BigManInTheBarclay said:

Nope....nobody should, but they obviously will.

I would because it’s racist. Segregation by skin colour is always racist 

[horsefly 4,303]

On 13/03/2024 at 23:43, Rock The Boat said:

Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. 2.3 million African people were not kidnapped by white Britons. None were. The Africans were firstly enslaved by their fellow Africans and then SOLD to slave traders who then transported them to the American colonies and the Caribbean. As a result, we might expect that call for reparations by be equally aimed at those African tribes engaged in selling slaves to the traders. As it turns out there is a deafening silence on the subject. One only hopes this play might tell the full truth about slavery. Somehow, I suspect it will serve up the sort of nonsense narrative that Horsefly believes in.

So if I buy a woman sold into white slavery I am not a slave owner. You're an idiot!

[horsefly 4,303]

On 13/03/2024 at 18:54, Fen Canary said:

White Britons didn’t do the kidnapping generally, they tended to purchase the slaves from other black Africans.

 

Utterly idiotic! Buying a slave makes you a slave owner. Grow up ffs!

[horsefly 4,303]

On 13/03/2024 at 18:53, Fen Canary said:

I realise you’ve worked in academia for a long time, an area that is (ironically) prone to groupthink and homogeneity of attitudes so you may not have much experience of talking to people whose life experiences mean they have different opinions to yourself, but generally when talking to people with whom you disagree it’s generally not the done thing to ignore all their points and childishly insult them as a response. It simply comes across that you’re unable to defend your ideas and are having to resort to shutting down the conversation with accusations such as racism and bigotry, much like a child who flips the board over when he starts losing at Snakes and Ladders.

I’ll ask again, which black peoples should be allowed to view this play. All of them? Only those who can prove that they had an ancestor transported to the Americas? Mixed race people? North Africans who had ancestors that captured and sold the slaves? Whites from countries that played no part in the slave trade?

You have demonstrated time and again that you are too ignorant or simply too bigoted to engage in rational conversation. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your racist bilge.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

On 14/03/2024 at 02:44, Fen Canary said:

It would certainly be a cruel irony if effectively the first recognised slave holder in America was a black man 

Maybe slave traders who sell other black people into slavery identify as white though? Trans white people? They can't help what skin colour they were assigned at birth.

Edited March 15 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 834]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

You have demonstrated time and again that you are too ignorant or simply too bigoted to engage in rational conversation. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your racist bilge.

Because you’re unable to form a coherent response you instead choose to double down on the personal insults and unfounded accusations of racism?

I bet you were a fantastic university lecturer with an attitude like that! 

[Fen Canary 834]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

Utterly idiotic! Buying a slave makes you a slave owner. Grow up ffs!

It doesn’t mean you’re the one who kidnapped the slave in the first place though does it as you originally claimed. The kidnapping, transporting and owning of slaves are all equally reprehensible, but old whitey was very rarely involved in the first part of that chain