If you reread all the posts in this thread the focus is primarily on two things: (1) a show feeling it was being negatively affected by sound bleed from another show; and (2) how that situation was handled. Some dispassionate thoughts no doubt expressed imperfectly:
#1
Objectively, sound bleed is sound bleed regardless of the source, the focus of that production, and the race of its performers. Might sound bleed between productions be confronted more or less depending on the focus of the shows, the type/style of music, and the race of the performers? Answering that requires speculation that likely would not be helpful in addressing this specific example.
I did a conference keynote a few months ago and in the hotel ballroom next to mine was a gospel church service with primarily Black attendees. Noise bled through the airwall dividing our rooms and made it difficult for people to hear. My client asked a hotel staff person to speak to the person in charge of the service and ask them to turn down the speaker volume on the band and the pastor's microphone.
Race and faith had nothing to do with that request. We still heard periodic noise when the choir soared (they were great) but it was not totally disruptive like the amplified sound had been. The hotel could (and should) have prevented this problem by not scheduling two events next to each other where sound bleed was obviously going to be a challenge.
#2
When individuals have been marginalized, discriminated against, or attacked because of some aspect of their identity (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, faith, et al) it is natural that they filter other things that happen to them through those experiences. That doesn't mean everything that happens to them occurs because of their identity even if that is the primary lens through which they choose to filter a situation.
However, this also does not preclude them from feeling slighted, angry, or that micro-aggressions occurred in how situations are handled, the language used in the conversations, the way power is exercised, et al. And if individuals feel they've systemically been treated unfairly, it's not surprising they might have a "here we go again" response. Now we're wading into subjective territory: less universal truth and more individuals' truths.
In my experience, that's where everyone involved may benefit from checking their own perceptions and assumptions, as well as extending some empathy and grace toward other parties. Focus less (at least initially) on blame and who is right or wrong and more on understanding how everyone sees the situation and how to move forward. But this requires that everyone genuinely wants to hear and learn from each other and accept that their actions may have had unintended negative consequences. Not everyone will.
Your mileage may vary.