To think Black Out nights in theatre ARE important

You keep saying ‘outraged’ — do you mean ‘outdated’?

@valensiwalensi

apologies for the typo - I meant to say Caucasian is an outraged racial concept

@PenguinLord I was being dead serious. In a thread (that you started) that's entire premise is based on how the majority groups words and actions can have a major impact on the minority group's psychological safety, I'd have thought you would have picked your words more carefully. And when it was highlighted to you, you chose to respond snarkily instead of acknowledging it. I think that makes you a hypocrite.

@valensiwalensi

I suppose the general question is how you split people into white and non white for 'white privilege'.

who is deemed 'non white' and how do you make the distinction - skin tone?

Sorry you’ve lost me at your last sentence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

The use of the term Caucasian is outraged and actually brings in more complexity about how we categorise a rather arbitrary concept that of race.

You could define Spanish people as being the beneficiaries of white privilege as they conquered (along with Portugal) a lot of South America. The Spanish and Portuguese provided some of the original explorers and colonists.

The native people of South America you could argue would have been the suffering party of this 'white (?) privelge' but their descendent Hispanic communities maybe could be the disadvantaged of 'white privelege' in a role reversal.

Would it have been better to put academic effort into determining the factors that limited the social mobility of Americans of African descent rather than producing a theory that ties itself in knots trying to define a difference between white and non white.

We do not deem people black so why seem people white?

@StormingNorman

How do you define being 'deemed as white'. Won't you just define people who for various reasons benefit from privilege as being deemed white? Do you also then have a concept of being deemed black or a poc?

In this sense I would define white as being perceived as white, and all those perceived as white benefit from white privilege.

‘White-passing’ demonstrates this - someone who looks Caucasian often faces fewer barriers and less racism than others with black or mixed race heritage.

Asylum applications are up over 400% from 2017. They obviously haven’t put money towards recruitment.
Even labour were mulling off shore processing

I think the term 'white privilege' is a sloganistic term to try and embrace the social historical of colonisation. As colonisation was embarked on by the majority of European nations then you have to extend white to of European descent as some colonizing nations weren't white (e.g. Spanish). You therefore have to expand white to white and those deemed white and it seems quite an arbitary.

What I think is meant is a privilege bestowed on any peoples that have historically benfitted from an oppressive relation with another race and that is a lot more complex than simply being 'white'.

The alternative is for the tories to pull their finger out and process claims efficiently. We take 8x longer than any other comparable nation to process asylum claims.

@StormingNorman

But society is set up for the priveleged per se and there are many factors to privelege other than skin tone

So what’s the alternative? People moan when they are put in barracks, shipping containers etc so to ease the strain we process somewhere who has the capacity to house them.
We also pay France to help and that fails.

How do you define white? Does white extend to all descendents of colonist European nations because you have to include a whole range of skin tones?

White privilege in this context is like male privilege in gender politics. It means you have an advantage because society is set up for you. It means you are in a position to make room for parts of the community without losing anything yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege

I did read this to try and gain some insight into white privilege but I do think that ars some omissions to the concept which undemines it

Privelege is present within all societies and within all ethnicities. We have the white oppression of the British Raj counterbalanced by a caste system which effectively entrenched privelege within one ethnicity.

We limit white privilege to Western societies and that in a way negates privelege (often unearned) in some African countries e.g. Zimbabwe under the rule of Mugabe.

The definition of whiteness becomes opaque and in order to define whiteness there are obvious complexities. The idea of skin colour giving hidden advantages would do a great disservice to Jews in 30s Europe for example.

If we start to dismiss certain kinds of whiteness from being white (what is the difference between being white and deemed white) then I think we ultimately get back to class and background being the ultimate deteminator of privilege.

The privilege that white people are deemed to have stands relative to the ethnicity of the non white person. Where is the white privilege when comparing white people to Japanese people for instance.

A lot of Spanish people are non white but their descendants would probably be viewed as propagators of white privelege due to the colonisation of South America.

We have such blurring of the definitions of white and non white the theory creeks at the seams.

@WomensRightsRenegade That really is complete bollocks, you know.

It's completely ridiculous. Anyone of an6 colour can go any night. If they choose not to then so be it.

How is it racist or infantilising towards black people to sat that, they, rather than white people, are best placed to decide whether Black Out nights are appropriate or not?

And yet these nights are always a roaring success……

Any being allowed is the issue here

If the country is bad enough we allow people to settle here to escape, how can anyone sit with a straight face and say it’s acceptable to house other asylum seekers there.

And that’s not even getting into the most ridiculous part which is we’d pay more per person to have them in Rwanda compared to housing them here and processing their claim.

Have just seen someone above talk about ‘psychological safety’. What arrant nonsense and infantilisation. Jeez, some people have had their brains turned to mush by the desire to virtue-signal.

Incredibly divisive and patronising. Mumsnet is full of white virtue-signalling ‘right on’ women who like to infantilise people of colour, but anyone with the ability to think critically would see what a slippery slope this is, and how dangerous. Black people aren’t a different species, with special black fragility which means they can’t breathe the same air as white people while watching something in the dark, with lights off FFS.

It’s such bigotry of low expectations. And it’s racist. You can’t just say people can’t or shouldn’t go to something because of their skin colour, or any other immutable characteristic. Where the hell does that lead? Where does it ever end?

How have we gone so far backwards in such a short space of time - bringing back segregation and calling it progressive? It’s never been a better time to be black in the UK - a very inconvenient truth for those who want constant division. Something we’re not allowed to comment on, let alone celebrate.

The recent play was specifically about the black American experience too, not the British one.

And me too.

Yes, 4. I don’t think that’s many.