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.
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.
I can’t imagine most racists would even be aware of this exhibition if the museum hadn’t striesland effected it into the news cycle with this decision, which benevolent or not, us discrimination.