Blackface fail

Even after I heard that the production of Brecht’s Saint Joan of the Stockyards from Schauspielhaus Zurich not only used full body black facing but incorporated a „booty enhancer“ as well, I went through with the decision to go watch it. I was determined to keep an open mind, because there should be freedom of art. Right?

Since the beginning of 2012, blackfacing on stage has sparked controversy in Berlin, spurring multiple protests, but I’d managed to steer clear of personally experiencing it myself. I was raised in post-Civil Rights Movement U.S.A., thankfully only saw the minstrel show tradition in books and wanted to keep it that way.

But when this piece was chosen as one of the 10 „most remarkable“ productions in the German-language theater world, I had to suck it up, put my American political correctness aside and face it.

And it was disturbingly terrible: an exaggerated reproduction of a „black other“ that more closely resembles 19th century caricatures and „darkies,“ than any sort of 21st century, repressed by global capitalism, „African“ that the character Mrs. Luckerniddle is now (there’s no reference to origins in Brecht’s text) allegedly supposed to represent. I felt sick to my stomach.

I mostly wanted to forget the experience as soon as possible, but I cannot help but feel outraged, especially since public funding was used to bring this piece to Berlin. (They also failed to mention the use of blackfacing in the jury’s decision AT ALL). So I wanted answers. Fast.

Thankfully my fellow Bloggerin had interviewed the director Sebastian Baumgarten. Justification?

Baumgarten: „I deliberately chose blackfacing, among others, as a technique for presentation, heightened presentation. That is a tool of art.“

Yes, blackfacing is a tool for presentation. And it’s been used to propagate negative stereotypes for centuries. To put this technique on stage and not create a venue within the work for the analysis and questioning of this historic usage deliberately ignores the explosive nature of this „tool of art“.

I still believe that art should be free. And that there might theoretically be a production in which even a technique as negatively-charged as blackfacing could be intelligently and powerfully addressed on stage. And that it could even be chosen as one of the 10 „most remarkable“ that year. But this car wreck of clashing stereotypes (let’s not forget the squinty-eyed, noodle-slurping portrayal of Mulberry) certainly isn’t it.

The audience discussion after the second performance last night was just disappointing: the director was back in Zurich and the dramaturg was left to fend for herself. Yes, they were aware of the controversy, but they needed „images“ to represent the globalisation of capitalism. Right.

The actress who portrayed the „African“ was notably absent. Why?

„I think she’s still in the shower.“

Kommentieren

  1. This is unbelievably embarrassing and angering – thank you for seeing the production and writing about it in English, Summer. The discussion about blackface is over, and has been for a century. I mean, get serious. The artists who use blackface in Germany use it stupidly, without understanding its aesthetic and political effects. They represent racist stereotyping because it makes their „points“ for them easily, ignoring its history or contemporary effects. Blackface alienates audiences—it is an ENTFREMDUNGSeffekt—and not just people of African origin, but any “others” in Germany (Turkish, Eastern European, etc.), all too often already excluded from full participation in German society. Blackface does not represent neoliberalism: it IS neoliberalism at its absolute worst. The Theatertreffen should be embarrassed for inviting this production. If they actually believe that theater has an effect, or that art must engage with society, they (meaning both the artists and the leadership of the Theatertreffen) should apologize to all people of color in Germany.

  2. Seconding Matt, thanks for writing about it in English, it means I could share the story with my fellow theatre students in the UK – we discussed blackfacing and minstrelsy a few weeks ago, firmly in the past tense (with the notable exception of the Wooster Group’s ‚Emperor Jones‘ in more recent performance); it is incredible and important to know that it is in fact still going on, apparently without a trace of the self-awareness that might have made it a justifiable tool for reflection and questioning. I am appalled that any discussion of it would be brushed under the carpet – ie not mentioned by the jury, dismissed as an artistic tool – just as the issue of race was in Theater Bonn’s ‚Ein Volksfeind‘, which was invited last year.

        • I agree, the justification for the invitation revolved around the fact that the aesthetics of the staging were historically mixed (including a jazz pianist and Brecht’s subtitles, as well as an extensive use of video in the set). Which is really not all that remarkable.

          • What is remarkable about the production is the staggering amount of ideological confusion. While Baumgarten goes out of his way to address the „global capitalism“ in his extensive comments, he also tries to set the production in a sort of a „ghost world,“ thus trying to distance himself from locating it in the contemporary political and economic world. The production attempts to „alienate“ the original intend of the Brechtian alienation. Nonetheless, despite all the attempts for „universality,“ and all the talk about the critique of the globalized economy, the final images, which the audience takes home with them are complete with the American flag and a series of cliche US images and icons. Thus in the end the production is nothing more than a more or less European intellectual critique of US capitalism. Baumgarten and his fellow Europeans (for the record, I’m both US and Swiss citizen) are perpetuating the worn-out tradition of washing our European hands of all misdeeds, and let the Americans take the fall, while we in Europe can sit on our fat behinds and pontificate. This is even more remarkable, considering the fact that Europe is dealing with the current economic crisis (which, characteristically, Baumgarten is, and is not referencing – he seems to want it all both ways in this production) is decidedly more neo-liberal in Europe than in the US. It is all very tiresome, and the Black- and Yellowfacing is only one, albeit symptomatic problem of this severely misguided, ideologically confused, and ultimately offensive mess of a production.

  3. …so, is that it, then? This group of people from Zurich are just able to head over to Berlin, stage their little racist minstrel show, and head on back? And what about the jury that selected this production and found qualities in it worth lauding? Are they let off the hook, too?

    What I don’t understand, what angers and confounds me even more than the use of black- and yellowface in Baumgarten’s Die heilige Johanna, is how little people in this city seem to care, how unfazed everyone seems to be about a production I found truly simple-minded, ignorant and sickening. The man sitting behind me who shouted ‚Bravo!‘ at the curtain call, I’d like to ask him, How do you feel encouraging this kind of arrogance, ignorance and reprehensibility? Are you not so embarrassed to be representing your country and its worldview (or lack thereof) in this light?

    Neither the author of this blog post nor the people who have left comments are German. What I would like to know is: do any white Germans actually find the racist and archaic techniques used in this production unacceptable? This country makes the most interesting and challenging theater in the world because of its artists‘ freedom and fearlessness. But we must not allow that freedom to justify appalling racism. Right now I’m just very confused: what is it about Germany and its struggle with multiculturalism that allows an incident as heinous as this to occur? Why are you people not offended?

  4. I also second and third the „thanks for writing this.“ I’m thinking now about Verrücktes Blut, invited to the Theatertreffen in 2011, the show that made Ballhaus Naunynstraße a widely known name. That was a show that deliberately played on modern-day stereotypes about Germans of color. The young, diverse cast had helped to devise the show. I’m taking a lot of this from the post-show discussion I attended that year and another talk with the Ballhaus’s dramaturg in Potsdam about „post-migrant theater,“ but essentially, the show—as did all Ballhaus N’s shows before they got „big“—at first had audiences that were overwhelmingly residents of the Kreuzberg kiez where the theater’s located: a lot of Turkish Germans, and Germans of other racial identities who live/work/go to school in a pretty diverse neighborhood. They understood the show’s portrayals of its characters as exaggerated stereotyping, the way it had been intended. But then Verrücktes Blut became a bit of a phenomenon, the perfect storm of the scandal surrounding Thilo Sarrazin’s book and some good press, and all of a sudden the show was selling out to the city’s standard (i.e., overwhelmingly white) audiences. And the reception was entirely different. People still liked the show very much, but more and more frequently, the reaction was, „That’s so accurate!“ „That’s how it is!“ (I wonder if this reaction is what led a lot of people to want to label the show as children’s theater?) Ultimately this raises a lot of questions about target vs. actual audience and artistic intent, but set in contrast with all of this thinly defended, lazy blackfacing, it makes me really angry. The white upper-class audience isn’t sophisticated enough, or open enough, to recognize the stereotyping and systemic racism that’s saturating the culture TODAY—stereotyping that any German of color or German for whom diversity is a regular part of his/her daily life IMMEDIATELY recognizes for what it is. If that isn’t a clear indication that we don’t have a clear eye yet when it comes to race, I don’t know what it is. I feel like the unspoken assumption here from Baumgarten and anyone else who’s going to defend this as an artistic tool is that we’re living in some sort of post-racial society, which I call bullshit on in the USA and I call bullshit on in Germany.

    • I think the debate about Verrücktes Blut is different. Because I went to a performance with pupils from the neighbourhood in the audience and they started to attack the „teacher“ during the performance verbally, it became really aggressive. They identified with the pupils and reacted against the authority on stage. So: I think, Verrücktes Blut is rather representative theatre than questioning stereotypes. Also, when the performance was over, I talked to some girls on the street and asked them about it. They said: „This is how it is.“ Again, they identified with the represented reality on stage. And were not thinking about the construction of stereotypes whatsoever. / Your point about the nonexistant post-racial society in Germany is quite valid, though

      • I agree that the debate is quite different; and a lot of it has to do with whether Verrücktes Blut was actually successful in what it was trying to do. (Although it seems like that question is very applicable to Baumgarten’s production as well.) Because the director and ensemble of VB state that they ARE trying to portray and, through that portrayal, question stereotypes—that’s the understanding I took away from the talks with the dramaturg, and with the ensemble after the show; they don’t believe that they are „representative“ theater. So if it comes off as being representative, then something is being lost between artistic intent and audience perception. My point was that this portrayal/use of modern stereotypes comes off as subtle because those stereotypes are so ingrained in us as truth, that we observe them as truth and not as stereotype. I guess the question with Verrücktes Blut then becomes: if you as a group of artists are trying to portray stereotypes in order to question them, but your portrayal of those stereotypes is so subtle (or the stereotypes themselves are so widely accepted) that the audience totally misses the fact that it’s stereotype, then maybe you’ve failed? Because you are just reinforcing the stereotypes?

  5. – Offener Brief –

    An

    Frau Intendantin Barbara Frey und Herrn Intendanten Thomas Oberender
    Frau Yvonne Büdenhölzer, Leiterin des Theatertreffens
    Herrn Vasco Boenisch, Juror
    Frau Anke Dürr, Jurorin
    Frau Ulrike Kahle-Steinweh, Jurorin
    Herrn Christoph Leibold, Juror
    Frau Daniele Muscionico, Jurorin
    Frau Christine Wahl, Jurorin
    Herrn Franz Wille, Jurorin
    Herrn Sebastian Baumgarten, Regisseur
    Frau Andrea Schwieter, Chefdramaturgin und stellv. Intendantin

    „Die heilige Johanna der Schlachthöfe“ von Berthold Brecht in der Inszenierung von Sebastian Baumgarten

    Berlin, 16. Mai 2013

    Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

    wir schreiben Ihnen, um die Inszenierung des Stückes „Die heilige Johanna der Schlachthöfe“ im Hinblick auf die (Re)produktion und Unterstützung von rassistischen Bildern zu kritisieren.

    Die Absicht, Brechts Text neu zu lesen und mit den Mitteln des Theaters auf die historischen, politischen und sozialen Veränderungen der Welt zu reagieren, wird durch die Verwendung diffamierender, diskriminierender und stereotypisierender Zeichen konterkariert. An der Behauptung, Kapitalismus hätte früher keine globalen Ausmasse gehabt, wird unter anderem deutlich, dass sich Herr Baumgarten der historischen Bedeutung des Kolonialismus und dessen gegenwärtigen Auswirkungen nicht bewusst ist.

    Sie als Verantwortliche für diese politische und letztlich auch künstlerische Fehlleistung hatten mehrere Möglichkeiten, Ihre konzeptionellen, inszenatorischen und kulturpolitischen Entscheidungen zu überdenken und zu revidieren. Diese Möglichkeiten haben Sie nicht wahrgenommen und Kritik als haltlos zurückgewiesen. In Bezug auf den Rassismus der Inszenierung haben sich bereits mehrere kritische Stimmen gemeldet, z.B. Henrike Terheyden, Summer Banks und Eva Biringer auf http://www.theatertreffen-blog.de oder Holger Syme auf http://www.dispositio.net. Wir würden eine Diskussion und Annahme dieser Kritik sehr begrüßen.

    Die in der Inszenierung verwendeten Zeichen enthalten enormes Gewaltpotenzial. Es werden rassistische Stereotype und Stilmittel verwendet, ohne dass diese im Rahmen des Stücks kritisiert, besprochen oder kontextualisiert würden. Die Darstellung einer „Afrikaner_in“ durch das in den letzten Monaten ausführlich diskutierte und von Schwarzen Menschen immer wieder kritisierte Stilmittel Blackface ist nicht das einzige rassitsitsche Stilmittel der Inszenierung. Auch andere Kolonialfantasien werden wieder zum Leben erweckt, etwa wenn das Kostüm der Frau Luckerniddle durch ein künstliches, besonders großes Hinterteil ergänzt wird. Diese Zeichen sind weltweit Synonyme für jahrhundertelange Unterdrückung von Schwarzen Menschen und Menschen of Color durch Weiße. Sie stehen für Versklavung, Deportation, Mord, Völkermord, Ausbeutung, Landnahme, soziale Ausgrenzung und die Betonung der Weißen Vorherrschaft. Zu behaupten, diese Zeichen wären rein ästhetische und darüber hinaus neutral, bedeutet die Leugnung dieser (gemeinsamen) Geschichte.

    Die stereotypen Darstellungen beschränken sich allerdings nicht nur auf die rassistisch konnotierten Aspekte der Figur der Frau Luckerniddle. Auch die Darstellung des Hauswirts Mulberry fällt in diese Kategorie, ebenso der vorgeblich „jüdische Akzent“ des Graham. Eine kapitalismuskritische Intention der Inszenierung rechtfertigt nicht die Verwendung solch drastischer Stereotypen, die auf Machtverhältnissen beruhen, die längst noch nicht überwunden sind. Vielmehr steht die Wiederholung verletzender Klischees dieser Absicht entgegen. Einer selbstkritischen oder ironischen Verwendung solch aufgeladener Mittel fehlt bisher die Grundlage einer breiten kritischen Debatte. Einer solchen Debatte wird auch nicht zugearbeitet, wenn diese Klischees einfach nur wiederholt und nicht dekonstruiert oder kontextualisiert werden.

    Auf die Worte „Die Kunst ist frei“ darf kein „Aber“ folgen. Die Verantwortung, die Kulturschaffende tragen, lässt sich jedoch genauso wenig negieren. Theater findet nicht im luftleeren Raum statt – deshalb bleibt es notwendig, verantwortlich mit dessen Inhalten und Mitteln umzugehen und sich über mögliche gesellschaftliche Auswirkungen im Klaren zu sein. Die ungebrochene und unreflektierte Verwendung rassistischer Bilder wie in diesem Fall fördert innerhalb und außerhalb des Theaters nur eines – Rassismus.

    Grada Kilomba sagt über die kontinuierliche Verwendung rassistischer Zeichen und Sprache: „Es ist ein gutes Beispiel wie Rassismus durch eine Machtdefinition bewilligt wird, das heißt die, die Rassismus praktizieren, haben nicht nur den Glauben an das Richtige ihrer Sache, sondern auch das Privileg und die Macht zu definieren, ob bestimmte Begriffe und Zeichen rassistisch oder diffamierend gegenüber denen sind, die diskriminiert werden. Eine absurde Situation, da die Perspektiven, die Definitionen und das Wissen von denen, die Rassismus erleben, absolut irrelevant werden.“ (HINTERLAND MAGAZINE, Ausgabe #15)

    Es scheint uns, als habe Herr Baumgarten bei dieser Inszenierung weder Schwarze Menschen, noch Menschen of Color als potentielles Publikum mitgedacht.

    Herrn Oberender und Frau Büdenhölzer fordern wir auf, vor Ablauf des Theatertreffens eine Möglichkeit zur öffentlichen Diskussion der Vorgänge zu schaffen. Sie als Vertreter des von öffentlicher Hand geförderten Kunstbetriebs haben die Macht und die Mittel dazu. Nutzen Sie sie!

    Mit besten Grüßen,

    BÜHNENWATCH

    • Es gab diese Möglichkeit bereits, etwa beim Publikumsgespräch zur Inszenierung, am Dienstag, 14. Mai. Und es gibt sie noch einmal, nämlich bei der Schlussdiskussion des Theatertreffens mit der gesamten Jury am Montag, 20. Mai, 14.30 Uhr im Haus der Berliner Festspiele, http://www.berlinerfestspiele.de/de/aktuell/festivals/theatertreffen/tt13_programm/tt13_programm_gesamt/tt13_veranstaltungsdetail_63067.php. Soweit ich weiß, wird der Moderator Tobi Müller die Blackfacing-Frage dort aufwerfen.

      • Nein, zum Publikumsgespräch wurde von Regisseur Baumgarten verlangt, daß die Schauspieler und Schauspieler nicht von BÜHNENWATCH „behelligt“ werden. Und das ist auch nicht geschehen …

        • Stimmt das wirklich? Beim Publikumsgespraech wurde nichts dergleichen erwaehnt, und es kam ja dann auch eine Frage zum Thema Blackface aus dem Publikum, die die Dramaturgin quasi wortgleich mit ihrer schriftlichen Stellungnahme beantwortete. War eigentlich jemand bei der „Open Campus“ Veranstaltung zu der Inszenierung? Ich konnte leider nicht. Wurde das Thema da diskutiert?

      • Die Publikumsgespräche und auch Abschluß-Diskussionen habe ich im letzten Jahr als nicht sehr produktiv oder konstruktiv empfunden, zumal kritische Diskussionen u.a. von Tobi Müller z.B. nach „Conte d’Amour“ oder „Hate Radio“ teilweise sehr fragwürdig abgebrochen wurden. Bleibt zu hoffen, dass das in diesem Jahr zum Thema Blackfacing anders läuft…

        • An Tobi Muellers Objektivitaet habe ich so meine Zweifel. Der erklaerte die Inszenierung beim Publikumsgespraech ziemlich abschliessend zum Meisterwerk, erlaeuterte, dass das was nach der Pause geschah, das Entscheidende gewesen sei — allerdings natürlich, ohne auszufuehren, worum es sich bei dieser grossartigen dialektischen Drehung eigentlich handelte. Klang toll, war aber ziemlich inhaltsleer, zumindest aus meiner Perspektive als Literatur- und Theaterwissenschaftler (also Laie). In seiner Wortmeldung steckte soviel Arroganz gegenueber Leuten, die die Inszenierung weniger ueberzeugend fanden, dass ich mir ihn eigentlich nicht als guten Moderator einer Diskussion ueber dieses Thema vorstellen kann.

  6. Pingback: Bühnenwatch

  7. a quick translation of the Bühnenwatch open letter into English.

    – Open Letter –

    To:

    Ms. Barbara Frey und Mr. Thomas Oberender, Berliner Festspiele directors
    Ms. Yvonne Büdenhölzer, Director of the Theatertreffen
    Mr. Vasco Boenisch, Jury Member
    Ms. Anke Dürr, Jury Member
    Ms. Ulrike Kahle-Steinweh, Jury Member
    Mr. Christoph Leibold, Jury Member
    Ms. Daniele Muscionico, Jury Member
    Ms. Christine Wahl, Jury Member
    Mr. Franz Wille, Jury Member
    Mr. Sebastian Baumgarten, Director
    Mrs. Andrea Schwieter, Chief Dramaturg and Assistant Artistic Director

    Saint Joan of the Stockyards by Berthold Brecht in a production from Sebastian Baumgarten

    Berlin, May 16th 2013

    Dear all,

    We are writing to criticize the production of the play „Saint Joan of the Stockyards“ for its (re) production and support of racist images.

    The intention to re-read Brecht’s text and to respond with theatrical means to historical, political and social changes in the world, is counteracted by the use of defamatory, discriminatory and stereotypical characters. Through his assertion that capitalism had previously not had such global dimensions, it is clear that, among other things, Mr. Baumgarten is not aware of the historical significance of colonialism and its current impact.

    As those responsible for this political and, ultimately, artistic blunder, you had several opportunities to rethink your conceptual, directorial and cultural policy decisions and to change them. These options are not perceived and criticism is dismissed as unfounded. In reaction to the racism of the production, several critical opinions have been voiced, including Henrike Terheyden, Summer Banks and Eva Biringer on http://www.theatertreffen-blog.de or Holger Syme on http://www.dispositio.net. We would welcome a discussion and acknowledgement of this criticism.

    The characters used in the production contain enormous potential for violence. Racial stereotypes and stylistic devices are used without being criticized, discussed or contextualized within the framework of the piece. The representation of an African woman through the stylistic device of blackfacing, which has been discussed in detail and continually criticized by black people over the past months, is not the only racist device used in this production. Other colonial fantasies come back to life: Mrs Luckerniddle’s costume is complemented by an artificial, particularly large rump. These characteristics are synonyms for centuries of oppression of black people and people of color by whites worldwide. They represent enslavement, deportation, murder, genocide, exploitation, land acquisition, social exclusion and the emphasis of white supremacy. To say that these characteristics were purely aesthetic and neutral suggests the denial of this (common) history.

    The stereotypical representations are not limited to the racist connotations of the figure of Mrs. Luckerniddle. The presentation of the landlord Mulberry falls into this category, as well as Graham’s purported „Jewish accent.“ An intention to be critical of capitalism in the staging does not justify the use of such drastic stereotypes based on power relations that are far from being overcome. Rather, the repetition of hurtful stereotypes hinders that intention. A self-critical or ironic use of such agents still lacks the basis of a broad critical debate. Such a debate is not created if these stereotypes are just repeated and not deconstructed or contextualized.

    „But“ is not to be permitted to follow the words „Art is free.“ However, the responsibility that the cultural sector carries cannot be negated. Theatre does not take place in a vacuum – that’s why it is still necessary to deal with content and resources responsibly, and to be aware of the potential social impact. The consistent and unconsidered use of racist images, as in this case, promotes only one thing both within and outside the theater – racism.

    Grada Kilomba says the following about the continuous use of racist signs and language: „It is a good example of how racism is granted by a power definition, that is, those who practice racism, not only the belief in the right of their cause, but also the privilege and the power to define whether certain terms and symbols are racist or defamatory to those who are discriminated against. It’s an absurd situation, as the perspectives, the definitions and the knowledge of those who experience racism, are absolutely irrelevant. „(HINTERLAND MAGAZINE, Issue # 15)

    It seems as though Mr. Baumgarten thought neither of black people nor people of color as a potential audience for this production.

    Mr. Oberender and Ms. Büdenhölzer, we urge you to create an opportunity for public discussion of these processes in the context of the Theatertreffen. You, as representatives of the government-funded art world have both the power and the means. Use them!

    best,
    Bühnenwatch

  8. Blackface fail #2:

    A few things I left out when writing the original post/want to clarify now.

    My biggest criticisms of Baumgarten’s usage rest on his defense of it. My one criticism within the piece itself is that a representation of racial stereotypes through broadly drawn caricatures (blackfacing, yellow facing) is mixed with a portrayal of a Mexican character from a Latin-American actress. The use of two methods for representing race on stage makes the usage of the stereotypes unclear. Are they intended to earnestly represent a certain race? Or are they intended to winkingly represent an entire tradition of racial stereotyping through caricature which continues today, in which case why use a Latin American actress in the same context?

    According to his defense, Baumgarten does not see the portrayals as caricatures, which is a clear misunderstanding of the portrayal of racial characteristics through the visual medium of the caricature over the span of art history.

    He then uses the freedom of art argument to justify the usage of blackfacing, which he admits makes people uncomfortable. I can get behind this argument up to this point, I like a lot of art that makes me uncomfortable, even nauseous. But I only go from being to disturbed to liking it if I can see a point behind it. And the reasoning behind using this technique appears to have been to actually represent „Africans,“ which not only ignores the diversity within this category, it also ignores the entire history of the use of this technique.

    Blackfacing itself does have a long tradition, eloquently explained by Holger Syme in his post on the production and it’s not always one of opression. But it also shouldn’t be misunderstood as a tool for authentic representation.

    The best commentary I know on this debate centers around portrayals of the title character in Shakespeare’s Othello. In her article on the subject, Elise Marks uses the term „racial drag“ to describe the practice of an actor playing characters of another race, similar to the way drag performers perform characters of another gender. It also helps us understand why the reactions to „drag“ performances are so different from „authentic“ performances of the same role – i.e. pants roles in operas, Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan, the opportunities for comparison are endless. We can also appreciate both for what they are. We don’t expect drag performers to authentically represent gender, so we also shouldn’t expect black facing to authentically represent race.

    I know I’m using the word authentic a lot without defining it. But that’s a subject for another blog post/dissertation.

  9. Diskussion „Zur Frage des Blackfacing“: Sonderveranstaltung im Haus der Berliner Festspiele anlässlich der Inszenierung „Die heilige Johanna der Schlachthöfe“ in der Regie von Sebastian Baumgarten am Schauspielhaus Zürich beim Theatertreffen 2013: Am 12. Juni 2013 von 16:30 bis 18:30 Uhr diskutieren Sebastian Baumgarten, die Aktivisten von Bühnenwatch und andere „Zur Frage des Blackfacing“. Es moderiert Tobi Müller. Der Eintritt ist frei.