wave_walnutGerman 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... #worldnews
AutoTL;DRThis is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
The museum claims the objective is not to be discriminatory, but to reserve a safe space for reflection for non-whites.
“This is about an affected group, so the request is that the affected people can also be themselves and talk among themselves… that’s the approach, to discuss a topic for oneself and with oneself and then just be free from other people,” said Barbara Rüschoff-Parzinger of the Department of Culture for the Regional Association of Westphalia-Lippe.
But, the scandal broke out a few days ago after a video was released in which a white journalist from a radio station was not allowed to enter.
The original article contains 215 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 17%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
PugJesusI would have been much more sympathetic if it was to prove a point, ie "This is the sense of exclusion experienced by those under colonial oppression", but no, it's just some real yikes-worthy stuff 😬
For several months now, Saturdays at the museum have been reserved for black people and people of colour to explore a colonialism exhibition
Ohhh noo. Anyways…
What's the blood quantum for being allowed in, do you think?
earthlingStrange response to racism.
Heaven forbid that us white people feel the tiniest modicum of discomfort. I sincerely hope it’ll help foster a sense of empathy for those that continue to suffer real substantive harm.
Also, I find it pretty unlikely that the people who would cry about this tiny concession are the same people who would be interested in going to this exhibit anyways.
I would love to go to an exhibit on colonialism and its vast crimes, and I am upset by the matter on principle. I don't know why everyone is suddenly interested in running apologia for racial segregation.
It’s not unavailable to you. You can pick literally any other time but that four hours, like any other well adjusted adult would do.
It’s not unavailable to you. You can pick literally any other time but that four hours, like any other well adjusted adult would do.
You would say this, then, about a whites only 4 hours at the same museum, then, right?
No, as that would be completely ignorant of the contextual reality of the situation.
'Context' is not a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. Malcolm X's pre-Mecca racism, for example. was far, far less heinous than the racism of the America he lived in due to context - but that does not mean it wasn't bad. Likewise, othering a race with benevolent intent is still, at its core, othering a race of human beings.
Do you also consider affirmative action racism? Is women’s sports blocking male competitors misandry?
There’s a world where this could be racist, but it’s not the one we live in yet.
Do you also consider affirmative action racism?
Is women’s sports blocking male competitors misandry?
Misandry is a strong word for it, but I would say it's not ideal. Of course, there's also the broader issue of the most physical sports being, by their nature, a discriminatory (in the most literal, not moral, sense of the word) endeavor, from weight to height to genetics, and since I'm not a big sports person to begin with, I try not to have strong opinions on the subject.
I do have strong opinions on non-physical sports with separate women's divisions, and especially those which bar women from participating in non-women's divisions.
Are you this opposed to women's shelters not allowing men in order to provide a safe space for women?
No, because women's shelters are not a public venue to begin with.
Racism is either wrong or it isn’t.
darqThat's massively over-simplified.
Discrimination is bad. But not all discrimination is the same. Ubiquity and power dynamics play a huge role in what makes racism so damaging.
And, unfortunately, sometimes correcting for past discrimination can itself involve discrimination.
That's massively over-simplified.
No, it's really not. Racism is either wrong, or it isn't. There's not a middle ground here. That not all incidents of racism are equally bad does not mean all incidents of racism are bad.
And, unfortunately, sometimes correcting for past discrimination can itself involve discrimination.
There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution, as the saying goes. That is precisely why all solutions, even imperfect ones, must be built on solid principles. Affirmative action, for example, is built on solid principles (unless one is some right-libertarian market fetishist, but fuck them), because it seeks the integration and inclusion of all races, even though it currently predominantly benefits non-majority groups. It seeks a better world, a world where people aren't treated differently based on who their parents or grandparents were. Racism based on the idea of inferiority is far worse than racism based on the idea of collective ethnic guilt - but both are still bad. Racism based on collective ethnic guilt is worse than racism based on a simple but fundamental 'othering' of a racial group - but both are still bad.
Considering that people, incorrectly in my opinion, refer to affirmative action as racism constantly, this seems like an odd comment to square.
That's because people are shitheads and I hate them.
Affirmative action is simply the implementation of the view that society should be comprised, in as many areas as possible, of demographics which reflect the demographics of society as a whole. It does not 'other' anyone - it welcomes them into areas previously closed off. And the principle would, in theory, defend a white minority same as a black or Asian minority. It is a way forward, a better world, a more united world, not a less united one.
Yeah and I agree with that.
The issue comes in when actually trying to implement affirmative action. It will, sometimes, temporarily demand discrimination to be done to correct for past injustices. And that discrimination is sometimes going to be based on race.
But that discrimination based on race is what a lot of people are calling "racism". But it is not the same as actual racism. Not in effect or in principle.
Ah. Tokenism at it best.
Tokenism (n): The policy of making only a perfunctory effort or symbolic gesture toward the accomplishment of a goal, such as racial integration.
You get a news headline and feel so good that you did something...
FizzHow could they think anything good would come out of doing that. All they do is give ammo to the other side.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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 the sanctity of 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.
'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 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'?
In what fucking way is asking you to acknowledge that racial exclusion is, at its core, bad, a 'gotcha'?
Because every time a minority group tries to claim space for themselves, people in the majority group claim it's the same thing as when the majority excludes the minority.
It's a mainstay of discussions around race, sex, gender, sexuality, and pretty much every progressive topic.
It's happening in this very thread for goodness sakes. People claiming racism against white people, completely ignoring what makes racism so damaging in the first place. As if every instance of discrimination is the same because they look kinda similar on their face.
Because every time a minority group tries to claim space for themselves, people in the majority group claim it's the same thing as when the majority excludes the minority.
Because at its core, as a matter of principle, making a PoC-only space because the discussion would be 'disrupted' by the mere presence of white people is bad, and in the same way that if a museum in Zimbabwe which had a section on Mugabe's racial policies had an exclusionary area for whites-only to discuss, because PoC might 'disrupt' the freedom of the conversation with their presence. It doesn't mean it's as bad as legal segregation. It doesn't mean it's the same as turning away minorities from a business as a whole. It doesn't mean it's as bad as 99% of racism in modern society. But it is still springing from the same fundamentally flawed principle that racial exclusion is acceptable.
It's happening in this very thread for goodness sakes. People claiming racism against white people, completely ignoring what makes racism so damaging in the first place. As if every instance of discrimination is the same because they look kinda similar on their face.
It is racism against white people, by definition, unless you're using 'power+prejudice' definition, which would render all sorts of racism suddenly 'not racism'. Hate crimes by black folk against Muslims in the environment after 9/11 would no longer be racism.
Just because the racism is not as bad (and, distinctly, it is obviously and apparently not as bad as colonialism, or mass segregation by law, or the intermittent exclusion of races in individual businesses, or modern societal-level cultural prejudices) does not mean it is not bad. Just because it is a minor incident of racial exclusion from a public venue with good intent does not mean it is 'not bad', it just means you probably don't need an international embargo against Germany until they fix it. It's still bad.
If someone, say, in this thread, commits well-meaning microaggressions against people of mixed-race without malice and with only the intent of buoying minorities not of mixed-race, not tearing down mixed-race individuals, that's still bad, and on the same principle that all racism is bad. That doesn't mean that they're as bad as people who call mixed-race people slurs - it doesn't even mean they're even close. But it does mean that it's still bad. It still fundamentally springs from a principle which should be examined with a critical eye in order to root it out for all incidents going forward.
Because at its core, as a matter of principle
People don't live in principle, we live in reality, and reality is messy.
Taking into account the full context and effect of actions is important. And in many cases, things which violate our principles can still be, while not ideal, a net positive.
In a world that is still contending with discrimination, not to mention the long-tail effects of historical discrimination, sometimes we are going to see things like minority groups creating spaces by excluding majority group members. And it's just not the same in practice, even if "in principle" it's bad because it's discrimination. Dogmatically sticking to the principle with no regard to the lives of the people living under it only perpetuates the effects of that historical injustice.
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.
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!"
???
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.
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.
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”.
NacktmullIf 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 been to a museum in Germany, like … ever? German museums are as quiet and calm as it gets and they usually have security service too. Worst thing that can typically happen is you run into a class of school children on an excursion who make some noise …
And how many of them are usually neo-nazis?
Usually zero percent of people who visit an exhibition about colonial times in a german museum are neo-nazis. Have you ever been to Germany? You sure sound like you haven’t …
The museum creates a space for people of color to view the displays without having to worry about angry racists threatening them with violence
Nope! That is not what happens in german museums. Germany is not USA - you are obviously projecting and you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
By the way, the decision for the banning of white people from the exhibition was made by a white person and was arbitrary as in not based on actual racist incidents or requests by people of color.
Well isn’t your gate-keeping fascinatingly targeted?
If someone offers potential justification you don’t agree with, clearly they’ve never been to a German museum.
The people repeating your own opinions? They’re probably in a German museum right now, so no need to check their credentials.
But also, the people who run those German museums also aren’t as qualified as you are to say what the problems they may or may not face, nor what the solutions should be.
You must have a truly remarkable story to share about how you came to know more about German museums than anyone else in the world, except for other people on social media.
The museum claims the objective is not to be discriminatory
discriminatory
treating a person or group differently from other people, because of their race, gender, sexuality, etc.:
This seems fine to me? Why shouldn’t they have a specific day to go and reflect without me being there?
Maybe that's the only day of the week you have available to go. Maybe it doesn't help inclusionary cultural practices to intentionally separate races.
NobsiOh no i cannot go to a museum in the only 4 hours that i am free during the whole week. Discrimination!
"No, it's okay, our 'Whites only' event is only 4 hours a week."
LMAO, snowflake cannot handle not being welcome at an event theyre not welcome at.
“But muh racism”
“Hurr durr i cannot go to the safespace”
You sound like a little whiny bitch. Just go sunday loser. Or any of the other days theyre open.
“But muh racism”
“Hurr durr i cannot go to the safespace”
You sound like a little whiny bitch. Just go sunday loser. Or any of the other days theyre open.
“But muh racism”
Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a racist. I'll be sure to remember that you're a far-right chud in the future.
Yeah, come back when we are talking about an Event you actually want to go to. You’re just repeating far right talking points.
Theres also safe spaces for women. Womens shelters. How come you’re not ranting and raving about not being allowed in there?
Is that not discrimination?
Isn’t that also worthy of you to make an argument?
How about white only spaces that are white only 24/7?
Where’s your activism about them?
Theres also safe spaces for women. Womens shelters. How come you’re not ranting and raving about not being allowed in there?
Is that not discrimination?
Isn’t that also worthy of you to make an argument?
How about white only spaces that are white only 24/7?
Where’s your activism about them?
Yeah, come back when we are talking about an Event you actually want to go to. You’re just repeating far right talking points.
Not that I have the chance since international travel is expensive, but I would love to go to an event on the crimes of colonialism in a museum. Sorry that I find it deeply uncomfortable that I would either be excluded on the basis of my race, or included because my blood quantum was the right ratio to please the council of racial purity?
Theres also safe spaces for women. Womens shelters. How come you’re not ranting and raving about not being allowed in there?
Because women's shelters exist for the purpose of providing aid to a specific demographic. They aren't public venues. Why is this so hard to understand?
How about white only spaces that are white only 24/7?
Where’s your activism about them?
What the fuck space in the modern day is white only? I ask at least in the US.