Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not an ambiguous situation. The article is quite clear what happened:
1) Singer tells all brown women to come to the front and to essentially take spots where people already are.
2) White woman photographer, already at the front (working volunteer for festival), does NOT give up her spot for a brown woman.
3) White woman kicked OUT of festival because her actions are deemed racist.
4) Singer denounces the racism of the white woman who refused to give up her seat for a brown woman.
5) Music festival apologizes to singer and others for the racism of the white woman.
The white woman did NOTHING WRONG. She was reacting to racism. Good for her for standing her ground.
Maybe more people just need to start reacting to this SJW nonsense by simply saying, "No." And "Shut the **** up." At some point the SJW will either give up or go home. The more apologies they garner, the more tortured requests for foregiveness, the more emboldened they become.
I don't disagree with you, but the article does not specify what the "racist behavior" was. If it was simply not to move, then they were wrong. If she was telling them all to go back to Africa, that is another story. As another poster said, it was a really poor response (either way) from the festival. THEY said that the photographer was a racist, so THEY should have been very specific as to how they back that claim up. To your point, they did not back it up, so we are left to guess. I see no evidence that the photographer was racist, but I also see no evidence that she wasn't. It's a poor response by the festival, no matter what.
1. wrong (of them)
2. right
3. wrong
4. wrong without further evidence
4. wrong without further evidence.
I don't disagree with you, but the article does not specify what the "racist behavior" was. If it was simply not to move, then they were wrong. If she was telling them all to go back to Africa, that is another story. As another poster said, it was a really poor response (either way) from the festival. THEY said that the photographer was a racist, so THEY should have been very specific as to how they back that claim up. To your point, they did not back it up, so we are left to guess. I see no evidence that the photographer was racist,but I also see no evidence that she wasn't. It's a poor response by the festival, no matter what.
1. wrong (of them)
2. right
3. wrong
4. wrong without further evidence
4. wrong without further evidence.
The article was very clear, I had no trouble understanding it.
This is not clear:
“There was a man standing behind me, an older man, who was referring to Lido as a racist because she was dividing the crowd,” she says.
“I also saw two women fighting closer to me, yelling in each other’s faces and giving each other the finger.”
Nor is this:
"The Halifax festival says the incident involved a white volunteer photographer and several white audience members who reacted negatively when Pimienta invited “brown girls to the front” during her Oct. 19 show.
The first examples show that there was certainly some heated pushback (perhaps understandable, but it happened).
"Reacted Negatively" can mean anything. It can mean that they didn't like that they didn't leave their space, or it could man that they starting throwing out N-bombs and making provacative statements. It's very ambiguous.
nothing (in my opinion) would excuse asking people of one race to move to the back to make room for another, but knowing more about the reaction might help explain if her expulsion was justified or not.
To be overly dramatic, what if they politely asked her to move to the back, and she whipped out an uzi and started pointing it at everyone? (I don't think for a second that is what happened, but I'm trying to illustrate my point that we don't know what actually DID happen.)
I've said in EVERY one of my posts after the first that I don't think the artist or the festival response was justified in any way, but I am not clear what the photographers response, if any, was. Are you?
I can't believe, I can admit I was wrong, without any if's ands or buts, but if I even question a fact that is missing, people on the internet still want to argue about it. (Of course I can believe it, but WOW.)
I'm atypically taking your side (because it's the right side) and you still want to argue with me. Why not consider my point, and either accept it, or prove it wrong with facts? All I am saying is that the response of the festival left a lot to be desired, and they made an allegation that they didn't back up. By doing so, it leaves questions about how this was interpreted.
I've said in EVERY one of my posts after the first that I don't think the artist or the festival response was justified in any way, but I am not clear what the photographers response, if any, was. Are you?
She refused to give up her spot so she was removed. Think Rosa Parks.
There were apparently other people in the audience upset because the singer was asking "brown" people to come to the front and "white" people to give up their spot and move to the back. One man called the singer racist for dividing the audience. Another instance a couple women were arguing. As far as I can tell they were not removed, but IDK.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
