To think Black Out nights in theatre ARE important

I just don’t agree with that analysis at all.

”White privilege” refers to the relative advantages that a white person has, compared to to people from other races, in certain societies.

Just sticking with the interview example; if black candidates are often passed over in favour of white candidates, due to conscious and/or unconscious biases of interviewers, then that’s an example of white privilege. It doesn’t mean that the successful white candidates have done anything wrong, but that they enjoy and may have benefited from the advantage of being less likely to be treated unfairly in the interview process.

That doesn’t make every white person accountable for racism, or import guilt onto them, it just describes one of the ways in which society treats white people (as a class) more favourably than people from some other races.

Given that most interviewers, even with conscious biases, aren’t going to tell the unsuccessful candidate “I didn’t hire you because you are black and I’m racist”, you’re never likely to know the extent to which racism has played a part in any given interview, even if overall trends are clear that there is a problem. I don’t see how you can tackle these insidious things without being able to acknowledge that they exist, which is what the term “white privilege” is designed to do.

I feel as though most people who are affronted by mention of “white privilege” are objecting to the term itself, and the connotations they take from it, rather than what it actually means.

It doesn’t pit anyone against anything.

it’s just white people who have knee jerk reactions and getting defensive about a system that’s set up and designed to benefit them.

racism is structural. It’s not just about people being racist in their day to day lives.

I think the focus should be on preventing racism across the board. To my mind 'white privilege' is a means to distribute racism across a population rather than focus on those are causing the privelege in the first place......racists.

So the equally qualified black person doesn't get the job....that's due to a bias of the interview panel or the presence of some racist attitudes...it's not the result of some vaguely described privilege white people carry around.

If white people avoid abuse and discrimination that is due to racists having other targets....it's the racist you should worry about and not a population as a whole.

White privilege seems to be something the whole of the white population should at one for and seems to be a characteristic that should be removed in that there is a general struggle against white 'privileged' people when the struggle should be against individual racists within that populatiion.

The concept of white privilege pits one ethnicity against another.

Was somebody asking you to feel guilty about it?

Well, I’m not going to feel guilty about it if that’s what you mean. Why should I? I’m not the oppressor.

I think that’s just you taking the existence of white privilege as a personal attack.

You’re directing your outrage at the wrong party here. It’s the party doing the judging you should be trying to change, not the poor sods who can’t do anything about it.

Very sorry and all that if being white gives me an advantage in a job interview, but if you want change at a societal level, you need to try and change the attitude of the interview panel, not the other candidates. What are they supposed to do about it?

It’s a bit like being a climate change protester and ignoring China. Utterly futile and stupid.

It’s Newbutoldfather’s way of saying that mixed race people are not truly black, or consider themselves as such.

Wtf is trans black

I actually didn’t ask if you would attend a Jewish event in this context, from what you have said so far I didn’t think you would. I asked if you would have the same lack of understanding if a Jewish friend or family member wanted to attend such an event? Whether or not you personally would go, would you better understand why someone else may want to go?

You have no idea what the ‘occasional’ experiences of wealthy black people are. As you said, you don’t know many. I do and I can tell you that the discrimination is far more than occasional. If every experience of discrimination was dealt with by instructing a lawyer, we would never have the time to accumulate the wealth in the first place! Nevertheless, there is not one experience of blackness and not every experience is the same. Which is exactly my point, for some an opportunity to not have to justify, quantify or measure your response to black oppression, may be useful.

You seem to struggle with the idea that things are happening in the world that don’t affect you and you have no experience of.

The quote that you used suggested that to feel oppressed in this context, was less empowering. You then went on to say that your experience of discrimination in Zimbabwe, “ a population that is truly oppressed”. Both statements suggest that you think there is a type of oppression that is “true” and by virtue, one that isn’t? The point I was making is that there is not a universal feeling of oppression, what may feel oppressive to one, may not to another. It doesn’t make either less valid.

To answer some of your questions; someone may feel that watching a film about graphic details of slavery is highly emotive, traumatic, upsetting, anger inducing and even embarrassing. Not only from the historical perspective but also, when looking at your current lived experiences and similarities that may have created in you, similar feelings to the ones expressed on screen. Any internal or external emotion you may feel as a result, may be less comfortably expressed when sitting in a room of people who are dismissive of those feelings, think you are being silly or in fact, think what is happening is, “not that bad”. Being in a room of people who ‘get it’ on some level, may be more comforting and may make you feel more relaxed to express those emotions without worry and shame. I agree, non black people should also face the horrors of these historical events and it is important for us all to be open and have these discussions. This event does not stop that happening though, there is still plenty of opportunity for non black people to attend, engage and discuss. Black out nights are only an offer and not compulsory. Because of this fact, I don’t think it does add to divisive society, it is 1/2 nights out of many others for those who wish to, to have a different experience of the play. I suspect lots will not need it but if you do, it’s a sort of option. How many racist white people would go to watch this show? I suspect not a lot but what this thread has shown is that there are quite a high number who would dismiss and ridicule those who found it difficult. That too would be very uncomfortable to experience.

I do agree with you completely though about the use of “safe spaces” can throw up a whole host of issues. In my mind, that is only relevant if it infringes on someone else’s right to access said space. In this case, it affects no one but those who would want to attend a Black Out night, even if for any reason a non black personal wanted to attend on those dates, they still could.

Unironically would be descendants of slave traders in the audience but because they’d be black, nobody would make a point of it

It is an invitation to people who do not have black heritage to respect the fact that some black people might appreciate the opportunity to watch this play about a highly emotive subject alongside other people who share aspects of that heritage.

People can, of course, choose not to respect that wish. They will not be prevented from entering the theatre if they have purchased a ticket. There is no exclusion or illegal discrimination.

I think the only people who would be unwilling to respect that polite invitation almost certainly have another agenda to push!

It really isn't.

If you can go at any other time then why are 3 out of 80 nights during which it's a specific audience, bother you?

@tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz ,

This idea that no one is excluded is just disingenuous (and an attempt to get around discrimination laws). If, genuinely, the intention wasn’t to exclude non blacks, it wouldn’t be a black out night, it would be a normal night.

The idea is to exclude whites (although, bizarrely, not ‘trans’ blacks) without breaking the law.

NOBODY IS BEING EXCLUDED.

YOU ARE FREE TO GO ON ANY EVENING.

ITS A SUGGESTION THAT A VERY SMALL PROPORTION OF EVENINGS WOUID WORK WELL AS A EVENING FOR A BLACK AUDIENCE.

As no one has been able to explain how this small ask disadvantages of a white folk I'm going to guess it's a good chance that some people can't bear black people having this for themselves and aren't worthy of a few hours to absorb and reflect a demonstration of their history without white people gawping on.

Right. Next step...

If [insert colour of your choice] employers and/or employees feel it's important to have [insert colour of your choice]-only workplaces then I don't feel it's my place to argue.

///

Fucks sake

THIS IS NOT AT ALL WHAT IS HAPPENING

Are some people just on the wind up?!

Very wise. Not much point in being dragged into an argument when you can see that you are going to lose.

It would seem to be a good thing that you are a former discrimination lawyer, rather than one who is currently practising. Good decision.

I've no intention of being dragged into an argument. I've stated my view. It's not difficult to understand. Clearly you disagree, and so be it.

So can you elaborate on exactly what you think is discriminatory in this specific scenario?

You're a discrimination lawyer and yet you fail to see that there isn't any discrimination in this scenario?!
You'd think you'd understand more than most and recognise that they would maybe appreciate being able to gather over shared experiences/ racism/slavery.

Interesting that as a former lawyer you didn’t notice that there is absolutely no exclusion here..

I'm not struggling to understand anything. Perhaps you struggle to understand that others who (like you, I assume) would prefer to see discrimination eliminated might have different ideas about how best to aim for that position.

As a former discrimination lawyer I'm not in favour of people being excluded from normal activities on the basis of their sex, race, age etc. We're still struggling to curtail the damage that overt discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, disability etc has done for hundreds of years, and continues to do albeit usually less overtly now. I simply don't think it's a good idea to start introducing 'reverse' discrimination (i.e. discrimination by groups who have historically been victims against groups who have historically been perpetrators) and attempting to justify it.

Sorry, can you elaborate on why you think think this comment is relevant?

You appear to be struggling to tell the difference between the perfectly legal, temporary creation of a safe space (for 2 nights out of 80) in which predominately black audiences can have a shared experience of watching a play about a historic evil that may be extremely triggering for some of them, and the introduction of a segregated workplace that discriminates illegally on the grounds of race.

Could you explain your thinking behind this in a bit more detail, please, and cast some light on why you believe that the comparison is valid? Because I'm not quite getting the logic.

If you wanted a more valid workplace comparison, surely it would be more along the lines of creating a dedicated discussion group for people from historically disadvantaged groups to discuss the issues that affect them in a safe environment? Which many employers do?

Very wise words, @Medschoolmum - I agree completely.