German museum in racism row over partial ban of white people
German museum in racism row over partial ban of white people
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
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
As I haven't said anything about those topics, you're tilting at windmills here.
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.
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.
As I haven't said anything about those topics, you're tilting at windmills here.
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?
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.
So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?
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.
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.
So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?
As that's an entirely different situation, with an entirely different context, seems pretty easy to say I'd feel differently about it.
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.
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.
As that's an entirely different situation, with an entirely different context, seems pretty easy to say I'd feel differently about it.
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.
Ah, so you aren't addressing the point because it makes you uncomfortable, considering that the original conversation is about racial exclusion and why it isn't acceptable. How predictable.
Are you incapable of reading?
Or are you just so eager to throw out accusations than you just can't help yourself?
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.
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.
Are you incapable of reading?
Or are you just so eager to throw out accusations than you just can't help yourself?
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.
Discrimination based on race is bad,
I'm sorry, could you say this one louder? Because I'm pretty sure it's core to the issue here.
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.
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?"
When the fuck did I say they were equally bad?
You claimed they're equally applicable right here, dickhead:
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.
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.
You claimed they're equally applicable right here, dickhead:
'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
'Equally applicable' is not 'equally bad'. Jesus Christ, I can't believe I have to explain this to another human being.
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:
So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?
Is not only an obvious "gotcha" but you know it's an obvious "gotcha".
Oh sod right off.
If you know they're not equally bad, then you understand they're different because of context.
'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".
Is not only an obvious "gotcha" but you know it's an obvious "gotcha".
In what fucking way is asking you to acknowledge that racial exclusion is, at its core, bad, a 'gotcha'?