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.
Heaven forbid that us white people feel the tiniest modicum of discomfort. I sincerely hope it’ll help foster a sense of empathy for those that continue to suffer real substantive harm.
Also, I find it pretty unlikely that the people who would cry about this tiny concession are the same people who would be interested in going to this exhibit anyways.
Racism is either wrong or it isn’t.
That’s massively over-simplified.
Discrimination is bad. But not all discrimination is the same. Ubiquity and power dynamics play a huge role in what makes racism so damaging.
And, unfortunately, sometimes correcting for past discrimination can itself involve discrimination.
No, it’s really not. Racism is either wrong, or it isn’t. There’s not a middle ground here. That not all incidents of racism are equally bad does not mean any incident, large or small, of racism is not bad.
There’s nothing more permanent than a temporary solution, as the saying goes. That is precisely why all solutions, even imperfect ones, must be built on solid principles. Affirmative action, for example, is built on solid principles (unless one is some right-libertarian market fetishist, but fuck them), because it seeks the integration and inclusion of all races, even though it currently predominantly benefits non-majority groups. It seeks a better world, a world where people aren’t treated differently based on who their parents or grandparents were. Racism based on the idea of inferiority is far worse than racism based on the idea of collective ethnic guilt - but both are still bad. Racism based on collective ethnic guilt is worse than racism based on a simple but fundamental ‘othering’ of a racial group - but both are still bad.
Considering that people, incorrectly in my opinion, refer to affirmative action as racism constantly, this seems like an odd comment to square.
That’s because people are shitheads and I hate them.
Affirmative action is simply the implementation of the view that society should be comprised, in as many areas as possible, of demographics which reflect the demographics of society as a whole - ie that prejudices should not be allowed to dictate the construction of the institutions which rule our daily lives. It does not ‘other’ anyone - it welcomes them into areas previously closed off. And the principle would, in theory, defend a white minority same as a black or Asian minority. It is a way forward, a better world, a more united world, not a less united one.
Yeah and I agree with that.
The issue comes in when actually trying to implement affirmative action. It will, sometimes, temporarily demand discrimination to be done to correct for past injustices. And that discrimination is sometimes going to be based on race.
But that discrimination based on race is what a lot of people are calling “racism”. But it is not the same as actual racism. Not in effect or in principle.
I would love to go to an exhibit on colonialism and its vast crimes, and I am upset by the matter on principle. I don’t know why everyone is suddenly interested in running apologia for racial segregation.
It’s not unavailable to you. You can pick literally any other time but that four hours, like any other well adjusted adult would do.
You would say this, then, about a whites only 4 hours at the same museum, then, right?
Are you this opposed to women’s shelters not allowing men in order to provide a safe space for women?
No, because women’s shelters are not a public venue to begin with.
No, as that would be completely ignorant of the contextual reality of the situation.
‘Context’ is not a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card. Malcolm X’s pre-Mecca racism, for example. was far, far less heinous than the racism of the America he lived in due to context - but that does not mean it wasn’t bad. Likewise, othering a race with benevolent intent is still, at its core, othering a race of human beings.
And in any case, the point is meant to refute the idea that “you can pick literally any other time”. That you can pick another time does not mean that the circumstances which force you to do so are right. Even if you still think it is correct to continue this practice, that “It’s only 4 hours” is not a valid argument regarding whether the principle of the thing is moral or not.
Do you also consider affirmative action racism? Is women’s sports blocking male competitors misandry?
There’s a world where this could be racist, but it’s not the one we live in yet.
No
Misandry is a strong word for it, but I would say it’s not ideal. Of course, there’s also the broader issue of the most physical sports being, by their nature, a discriminatory (in the most literal, not moral, sense of the word) endeavor, from weight to height to genetics, and since I’m not a big sports person to begin with, I try not to have strong opinions on the subject.
I do have strong opinions on non-physical sports with separate women’s divisions, and especially those which bar women from participating in non-women’s divisions.
So how about something like chess or e-sports, which have little physical demands if at all? (It’s my understanding that both have open leagues and women’s leagues – no women exclusionary leagues.) Do you think it’s (problematically) discriminatory to have women’s only leagues? If so, why?
Ahh, see, that to me seems exactly what is being intended here: to help make a space more accessible for an otherwise under-represented group. That’s why it doesn’t strike me as being particularly segregationist, even though I’d agree that in a vacuum it’s problematic.
“The other water fountain is right there, boy.”
Nice false equivalence. That’s not what’s going on here.
Just letting you know what you sound like.
Take a moment to think about what brought you to defend discrimination based on skin color. Then consider if that’s a positive for humanity.
Here I thought we settled this bullshit already but I guess some have some catching up to do. We really were too lax on the South when we beat their ass.
My dude, you are getting baited by the people you’re decrying. This policy is affirmative action to help get minority groups who otherwise might not go in to see the exhibit. It’s attempting to address structural issues by carving out a safe space for the victims of colonialism. It IS a form of discrimination, as is affirmative action in general, but the purpose and intent is positive. It is neither segregation nor racism.
If you don’t believe me, I’d urge you to consider who ran this news piece, and what their motivations might have been. When you call this racism, you yourself are siding with racists.
No I’m simply living my morals consistently regardless of who’s being harmed.
Which is more than you can say.
That’s not a rational response. I believe the same thing about myself as well. You’re just too conceited to even consider you might be wrong on this one. If you have an actual counter argument, make it, otherwise all I’m hearing is your cognitive dissonance trying to deflect.
Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Excluding any race is racism.
Fuck racism and anyone who defends it.
How some of you make it more complicated than that I will never understand.