The row centres around the exhibition 'This is Colonialism' and the museum's decision to restrict white people from entering a small section of the display
Police officers are gathered in front of the Zeche Zollern museum in Dortmund, the focus of what social networks are describing as a racism scandal.
The row centres around the exhibition 'This is Colonialism' and the museum's decision to restrict white people from entering a small section of the display. For several months now, Saturdays at the museum have been reserved for black people and people of colour to explore a colonialism exhibition
The museum claims the objective is not to be discriminatory, but to reserve a safe space for reflection for non-whites.
There's no good answer to the problem and the far-right uses that to always "win".
The museum creates a space for people of color to view the displays without having to worry about angry racists threatening them with violence. This makes racists angry and violent.
If you buckle and open up the space, who moves in? Why, the racists of course! The space is no longer safe and people are intimidated out of it. The racists don't want them seeing it, so now they don't get to see it.
If you don't buckle, what happens? You get 600 "the left are the real racists" comments on social media from people privileged enough to have never been pushed from any space.
Its the same formula whenever schools have LGBT spaces without homophobes or gyms and trains are "women only" to avoid being leered at and sexually assaulted.
If anyone reading is having trouble relating to these feelings, imagine watching pornography with the actors parents standing behind you -- whatever their feelings may be towards their daughters work, you'd definitely be more comfortable if they weren't there.
... have you ever been to a museum before?
They're usually pretty prompt in firmly asking you to leave if you make other people uncomfortable with your behavior.
It's worth considering that it's not always about behaviour. Presence is also a factor. People are going to act and speak differently depending on who is around. This is especially true for charged topics such as discrimination and colonialism. I wouldn't be surprised if people affected by colonialism engage with the exhibit differently during the times where they're alone in the space.
A parallel experience I can relate it to is being in LGBTQ spaces. When I'm with other LGBTQ people, I express myself more openly. In mixed company, I'll keep things to myself. Because I've learned that that is what is safest. And it's not the behaviour of the specific cishet people in the company causing that discomfort, so there's no behaviour to call out. But nonetheless their presence still has an effect because of a lifetime of previous experiences.
You could say that about any demographic or combination of demographics though. Asians who are only amongst other Asians likely discuss the issue differently than in a group of Asian and black people. WoC likely discuss the issue very differently amongst only other women. Hell, black people from Africa likely will discuss the issue very differently amongst themselves than in a group mixed with black Germans. Should there separate 'African black people only' days? 'Women only'? 'Men only'? Separate 'Asians only' days?
The concept of a safe space is one for private clubs, not public venues. Admittedly I bring a pretty strongly American bias into this seeing as that's what anti-discrimination law in the US is based on.
I mean... Yes and no.
We can get more specific about demographics. But it's certainly not any combination of demographics. We usually place specific importance on demographic divides that feature particular conflicts or differences in institutional power. Like the one that an exhibit on colonialism would be focusing on. Not all combinations are going to have strong effects.
But more to the point, of what relevance is this? Just because there are many different places where we could draw a line, doesn't mean a line cannot be drawn somewhere based on people's best efforts.
Do you not think there is a considerable difference in the institutional power of black Europeans in comparison to black Africans throughout the history of colonialism? What about mixed-race people? Should they be excluded due to the differences in institutional power afforded to them under colonialism? Their presence might change the conversations being held. Am I to be counted as white because I pass? Is that not simply colorism? Or are we playing blood quantum games?
The point of this is that the premise that "People will discuss the issue differently or more freely in a group of only X" is not particularly compelling in and of itself as a reason to exclude individuals from a part of a public venue on racial criteria.
If the line was drawn at black Africans only, and not allowing black Europeans to participate, what would your reaction be then, do you think? If there was a day for whites only, how would you feel?
As I haven't said anything about those topics, you're tilting at windmills here.
You're free to think that. I was just mentioning that there is more than just behaviour to consider, in response to your previous comment that inappropriate behaviour will get you removed from the museum.
Ultimately, this whole thing is a nothing-burger. A single museum has set aside a 4 hour timeslot on one day a week for people of colour to enjoy a single exhibit about colonialism.
There seems to be reasons for choosing to do so, even if one disagrees with them. And it's not some significant public exclusion that would degrade one's quality of life.
That you've said nothing about those topics doesn't mean they're irrelevant. They operate on the same principles you're basing your argument for the legitimacy of this practice on. If you're reluctant to address how the principle applies as a point of comparison for why it might be unjust, maybe you should re-examine the principle. If you're concerned that doing so might make you uncomfortable, then you should definitely re-examine the principle.
I ask the question again - as a mixed-race person, am I to be included or excluded according to the principle you're basing your argument on?
So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?
You are mistaken. It's not that I'm not considering those topics. It's that I'm refusing to allow you to lead me around by the nose and make me chase after whatever point you want me to address, derailing the original conversation.
As that's an entirely different situation, with an entirely different context, seems pretty easy to say I'd feel differently about it.
Ah, so you aren't addressing the point because it makes you uncomfortable and you realize your point is not on firm ground, considering that the original conversation is about racial exclusion and why it isn't acceptable. How predictable.
No, it's really not. All the arguments you put forth to justify this incident of racial exclusion are equally applicable to specific scenarios regarding white people and having conversations on issues that effect them. Sorry that you think racism is okay. I happen to think that racism is bad in all fucking scenarios.
Are you incapable of reading?
Or are you just so eager to throw out accusations than you just can't help yourself?
Predictable.
And I'm sorry that you have a child's understanding of racism.
Racism isn't terrible simply because of discrimination. Discrimination based on race is bad, but that isn't what makes racism so damaging. Racism is harmful because it is systemic, widespread, and has actual power behind the discrimination. Because those with systemic power deny those without access to what they need to live a fulfilling life.
A minority group, lacking in systemic power, reserving a small amount of space for themselves is not the same as the majority group leveraging their systemic power to exclude the minority from society.
Oh, so the original conversation isn't about racial exclusion and why it isn't acceptable? Is that what you're saying? Or are you deflecting because you know you can't actually defend any of your points.
I'm sorry, could you say this one louder? Because I'm pretty sure it's core to the issue here.
When the fuck did I say they were equally bad?
It's dogshit people like you who make being mixed race in modern society still so fucking frustrating. Thanks.
Absolutely wild that you are trying to accuse me of putting words in your mouth when you are constantly making up arguments for me and saying "is that what you are saying?"
You claimed they're equally applicable right here, dickhead:
If you don't think they're equally bad, great!
But then you know that throwing up that trash and accusing me of thinking racism is okay is nonsense.
So you're just another bad-faith waste of time.
'Equally applicable' is not 'equally bad'. Jesus Christ, I can't believe I have to explain this to another human being. It is equally applicable to argue that a principle regarding the sanctity of human life renders the murder of one person and the murder of a million bad - they spring from the same principle. But they're not 'equally bad', the principle is 'equally applicable' ie they are both bad, not that they are both equally bad.
For fuck's sake.
If someone was racist against white people AND East Asians, and decided, on those principles, to beat me to a pulp in a back alley and call me racial slurs, that would be bad, because unprovoked violence and racism are both bad. That doesn't make it equally bad as the fucking totality of 19th century colonialism, even though 19th century colonialism is bad based on those principles. as well
Oh sod right off.
If you know they're not equally bad, then you understand they're different because of context.
So you asking me:
Is not only an obvious "gotcha" but you know it's an obvious "gotcha".
'Different' does not mean 'not bad'. "This is bad" does not mean "This is as bad as all other crimes of this principle", it means "this is bad".
In what fucking way is asking you to acknowledge that racial exclusion is, at its core, bad, a 'gotcha'?
Because every time a minority group tries to claim space for themselves, people in the majority group claim it's the same thing as when the majority excludes the minority.
It's a mainstay of discussions around race, sex, gender, sexuality, and pretty much every progressive topic.
It's happening in this very thread for goodness sakes. People claiming racism against white people, completely ignoring what makes racism so damaging in the first place. As if every instance of discrimination is the same because they look kinda similar on their face.
Because at its core, as a matter of principle, making a PoC-only space because the discussion would be 'disrupted' by the mere presence of white people is bad, and in the same way that if a museum in Zimbabwe which had a section on Mugabe's racial policies had an exclusionary area for whites-only to discuss, because PoC might 'disrupt' the freedom of the conversation with their presence. It doesn't mean it's as bad as legal segregation. It doesn't mean it's the same as turning away minorities from a business as a whole. It doesn't mean it's as bad as 99% of racism in modern society. But it is still springing from the same fundamentally flawed principle that racial exclusion is acceptable.
It is racism against white people, by definition, unless you're using 'power+prejudice' definition, which would render all sorts of racism suddenly 'not racism'. Hate crimes by black folk against Muslims in the environment after 9/11 would no longer be racism.
Just because the racism is not as bad (and, distinctly, it is obviously and apparently not as bad as colonialism, or mass segregation by law, or the intermittent exclusion of races in individual businesses, or modern societal-level cultural prejudices) does not mean it is not bad. Just because it is a minor incident of racial exclusion from a public venue with good intent does not mean it is 'not bad', it just means you probably don't need an international embargo against Germany until they fix it. It's still bad.
If someone, say, in this thread, commits well-meaning microaggressions against people of mixed-race without malice and with only the intent of buoying minorities not of mixed-race, not tearing down mixed-race individuals, that's still bad, and on the same principle that all racism is bad. That doesn't mean that they're as bad as people who call mixed-race people slurs - it doesn't even mean they're even close. But it does mean that it's still bad. It still fundamentally springs from a principle which should be examined with a critical eye in order to root it out for all incidents going forward.
People don't live in principle, we live in reality, and reality is messy.
Taking into account the full context and effect of actions is important. And in many cases, things which violate our principles can still be, while not ideal, a net positive.
In a world that is still contending with discrimination, not to mention the long-tail effects of historical discrimination, sometimes we are going to see things like minority groups creating spaces by excluding majority group members. And it's just not the same in practice, even if "in principle" it's bad because it's discrimination. Dogmatically sticking to the principle with no regard to the lives of the people living under it only perpetuates the effects of that historical injustice.
But reality is built on principles. Seeking to align reality with our principles is why life is less shitty now than it was in the 60s, or the 1910s, or the 1800s. Accepting the 'mess' as it is is nothing but stagnation and conservatism (in the realest sense, not in the 'reactionary chud' sense).
I don't necessarily disagree with the (hoho) principle of this, but that doesn't mean that those things should be seen as 'not bad'. They are bad. But they're a necessary evil, at best, and one should expect backlash to them, and such backlash is not inherently unreasonable, even if it is the least bad solution available at the time.
Even if it's not the same in practice, that the principle is wrong should result in us seeking alternate paths around such solutions. Allowing bad principle to take root only ensures that it will remain, and torment future generations. I don't want to live in a society that's no longer racist against black people, but has then decided that those of Nepalese descent are just fundamentally disruptive to certain parts of 'our' society.
And dogmatically sticking to principles in ignorance of reality is why we are still contending with so much crap in our lives to this day.
Sometimes we are going to need to deviate from principle. Because reality demands it, and shying away from it leads to worse outcomes.
I said literally nothing about accepting the mess. You are completely off the mark with this comment.
If that backlash consistently prevents action to improve people's lives, then it becomes its own evil.
Deviation from principle should be recognised as what it is, unfortunate but sometimes temporarily necessary because we do not live in a perfect world. It shouldn't be permanent. But yes we do sometimes have to take less-tha-perfect actions.
You are making a whole bunch of assumptions about my position here. That any deviation from a pure principle is going to become permanent, or that I'd support it becoming permanent. And that is just not what I'm arguing for.
As I said elsewhere, it's not that it's intended to be permanent. It's that temporary solutions often entrench themselves as stubbornly as permanent ones. But I'm done with this argument as a whole. I think we started poorly but ended better, but the whole subject exhausts me. Please just keep in mind that these exclusionary behaviors, in addition to the principles mentioned, create no end of trouble simply by their very existence with regards to the identity and belonging of mixed-race individuals.
That is fair, and I'm sorry you have to put up with that. It is often the same in my country for mixed race people, our implementation of affirmative action is far from ideal to say the least.
I think we may have started from different sets of assumptions and argued past each other a bit. I'm sorry for that.
I apologize too. I let my frustration and aggression boil over against someone operating in good-faith. Too used to dealing with people operating in bad faith, lmao.
Been kicked out of a few have you? Or have you just happened to have repeatedly seen unruly people in them often enough to be able to confidently say they'll promptly be removed?
Sounds like it isn't a very safe place for some people.
I am - or rather, was - a constant visitor to museums of various kinds. Ones with no admission fee and small museums suffered more from the problem, though I wouldn't say it was ever common.
"Issues of disorder or creating public unease are promptly resolved."
"Sounds unsafe!"
???
They were still there in the first place. Is a bar that has 2 stabbings a night "safe" if the people with knives are promptly removed?
Your "there's nothing to worry about" comment just showed there was something to worry about.
People being escorted out for being disorderly is very far from a stabbing, and furthermore, there are no public venues of any kind that lack disorderly conduct entirely. I don't really know what you're trying to get at here.
So by that standard, if there are any incidents of disorder in these narrowed racial colonialism discussion groups, we should regard them as unsafe and seek to further narrow the criteria? For the safety of the people there, who are clearly unsafe from the presence of any incidents of disorder, of any magnitude, ever.