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.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    … 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.

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        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.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          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.

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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?

            • darq@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

                • darq@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • PugJesus@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • PoliticalAgitator
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        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.

        Sounds like it isn’t a very safe place for some people.

        “Issues of disorder or creating public unease are promptly resolved.”

        “Sounds unsafe!”

        ???

        • PoliticalAgitator
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            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.

            Your “there’s nothing to worry about” comment just showed there was something to worry about.

            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.

            • PoliticalAgitator
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People being escorted out for being disorderly is very far from a stabbing

              The far-right are responsible for the majority of domestic terrorism the world over. It’s much easier to hand wave it away when you’re not the target.

              But if you were, what amount of “disorderly conduct” would you be cool with you and your family enduring? Staring? Physically blocking you? Tattoos and tshirts advertising how much they’d like to kill you? Screamed slurs? Screamed slurs at your children? Threats of violence? Punching? Stabbing?

              As gatekeeper of what people should feel, what is the correct amount of those things to tolerate so that other people don’t hurt their own feelings? When are we permitted to become uncomfortable? When are we allowed to feel in danger and when do we have to politely ignore it?

              Once there has already been an incident worthy of physically escorting someone from the building, do we have to feel okay instantly, or is it acceptable to still feel uneasy on the way to the car? What about the next day? What about if you end up on video?

              Of course if you had to answer all of these questions before a trip to the museum, you just wouldn’t go. That’s the chilling effect they’re after and they’re thrilled to hear you’re more upset at the idea of not being able to go to a museum one day a week.

              To equate that with the violence and threats minorities can be exposed to for even acknowledging historical oppression shows what a cozy little bubble you’ve been living in.

              But it’s not too late to lead by example. Grab yourself a pride shirt and go wandering around a Trump rally, safe in the knowledge they’ll kick out anyone who gets “disorderly”.