5 ms·

Okay, still doesn't really explain how a "museum about the history of white people" doesn't exist, and is perceived differently.

• burkaman 10y ago
  Because nobody needs one. In a place where white people were systematically enslaved and excluded from history, one would make sense. In the US, a white history museum would just be a duplicate of a normal history museum.
  • SamUK96 10y ago
    Okay, so what about a "White History Museum" in Africa? Or China? Or Brazil? That is definitely perceived differently, and also it's content would not represent the "normal" history of the parent location.
    • burkaman 10y ago
      I think a White History Museum in Africa would be fine, but it would be about the history of white people specifically in Africa, which is not very pleasant. It would be mostly imperialism, slave trade, apartheid, etc. The black history museum is not supposed to represent the "parent country" it's supposed to represent black people in America. A white history museum would do the same.
      • wang_li 10y ago
        > I think a White History Museum in Africa would be fine, but it would be about the history of white people specifically in Africa, which is not very pleasant. It would be mostly imperialism, slave trade, apartheid, etc. That seems surprisingly narrow minded and makes me wonder whether you feel that there is a particular narrative that needs to be followed. European/white descended people and organizations have done some pretty amazing stuff in Africa. And continue to do so. One might ask how much time must pass after an event before it is considered history? Given that the Smithsonian African-American includes sections on Barack Obama and Anita Hill, as well as photos and memorabilia relating to sports stars, including LeBron James, it seems that the necessary time must be quite brief. As such I would expect an honest White History Museum in Africa would include the many significant positives.
        • burkaman 10y ago
          Yes of course, I shouldn't have implied it would be all negative. You're right, more recent history would include lots of positive stuff.
      • michaelbuddy 10y ago
        It would also be a history of agricultural prosperity. It would also have to include the billions of dollars of charity sent to Africa for decades by Western Countries, quite notably by the United States. Probably should illustrate how much better economically black people in the United States have over the countries they were removed from, as Muhammad Ali notably stated.
• tptacek 10y ago
  Because there is in fact no such thing as a "white person". Believe it or not, there is a coherent shared cultural identity of American black people, most of whom are descended from slaves brought here from Africa who had their original cultures stripped from them, and who belonged to a community segregated against legally into the 1970s. That those people came from several different countries on the continent of Africa is of little meaning, because their culture was deliberately cut off from its roots, and was built largely anew in the United States. Your inclination is to assume that if "black culture" is a thing, then "white culture" must also be a thing. No, that is not the case. What there is in addition to "black culture" is: * Irish-American culture, which has a museum, parades, and a holiday, * Italian-American culture, which has a museum, parades, and a holiday, * German-American culture, which has a museum and parades, * Polish-American culture, which has a museum, parades, and a holiday I can go on. The notion that there is some notional "white culture" is artificial, a lie begun in earnest in the 20th century. No, really. Before "white culture", the Anglo- and Germanic-American communities in the US targeted Italians, the Irish, and the Polish (as well as Catholics of all nationalities). When the writing appeared on the wall for end of Jim Crow, "white culture" emerged as a solidarity movement among those people prejudiced against blacks and black culture. This is a big part of why talking about "white history museums" generates so much flak. It's ahistorical, doesn't make much cultural sense (the Irish and Germans do not in fact have a huge overlap in music, art, language, or food), but is very much connected to 20th century racism. It's an Occam's Razor problem: the simplest thing to conclude someone would be talking about with a "white history museum" is racism. People can hardly be blamed for wondering aloud about this stuff. After all: practically every government form you fill out asks your race, and has "white" as an option. These forms aren't all designed to perpetuate racism --- in fact, most of the forms that offer you the option of declaring yourself "white" have the opposite intention. But the concept of "whiteness" actually does derive from racism (again: the concept of "Irish-Americanness" does not!), and while the concept of "blackness" does as well, black people really do have an important, coherent, complex, historically rich culture built inside that racist framework we forced them into. Worth checking out, also because it's just kind of amazing that you can: the Baldwin/Buckley debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w