So you're saying that standard museums of history are majority white in the US/UK and that is fine because it's the truth. That proves the reason for the exist

So you're saying that standard museums of history are majority white in the US/UK and that is fine because it's the truth. That proves the reason for the existence of a black history museum then, because there are people that are overlooked. Do they not deserve to have their story told? Because that's the point of a museum. Stating that act of creating a museum for black history is racist towards white people makes as much sense as a museum for wooden boats being an affront to the metallic boats. It's very easy to see that there would be value in having a black history museum in a country where the majority of people are white. You can say the same for a "white history" museum in a country where being white is not the majority. However, what you'll find is that a lot of countries have a colonial history that ties into their history significantly. Where white Europeans came along and by force conquered them. Anyway, did you even read the article? It gives plenty of context for the museum. I don't see you arguing against it however, instead you've just latched onto it being a "Black" History museum.