We don't know why her site is down or how much heat she personally got over this.I'm trying to catch up to this shit show. So, a woman was harassed and shut down her site because of it? All because someone was full of shit? Is this correct?
We don't know why her site is down or how much heat she personally got over this.I'm trying to catch up to this shit show. So, a woman was harassed and shut down her site because of it? All because someone was full of shit? Is this correct?
I'm trying to catch up to this shit show. So, a woman was harassed and shut down her site because of it? All because someone was full of shit? Is this correct?
No. That is incorrect, and highly reductive. Just read the thread. Its pretty informative.
No. That is incorrect, and highly reductive. Just read the thread. Its pretty informative.
I read the first several pages when the thread went up, but haven't touched it since the update. Not sure if I wanna read through 13-14 pages of forum posts. Unless you are saying there is legit shit to be known in here...and I mean LEGIT.
Simply replacing the OP wholesale is a garbage move.
Walk your shit back and take accountability for fucking up.
I read the first several pages when the thread went up, but haven't touched it since the update. Not sure if I wanna read through 13-14 pages of forum posts. Unless you are saying there is legit shit to be known in here...and I mean LEGIT.
I guess it comes down to whether you value the discussion that was had, or whether you're just curious about what the end result of it was.I read the first several pages when the thread went up, but haven't touched it since the update. Not sure if I wanna read through 13-14 pages of forum posts. Unless you are saying there is legit shit to be known in here...and I mean LEGIT.
This is why we need curators.Simply replacing the OP wholesale is a garbage move.
Walk your shit back and take accountability for fucking up.
I guess it comes down to whether you value the discussion that was had, or whether you're just curious about what the end result of it was.
Yes, there is a lot of good discussion about black representation, if that's legit enough for youUnless you are saying there is legit shit to be known in here...and I mean LEGIT.
I'll admit I laughed pretty hard at this
We can thank Big_Blue for quoting the op in his post on the first page
Simply replacing the OP wholesale is a garbage move.
Walk your shit back and take accountability for fucking up.
Great job completely replacing the OP so this thread makes even less sense.
The thread is 1,500 posts long. It's quite fair for someone to ask for a recap at this point, especially given how much the situation changed.
Not to toot my own horn, but this is the result of 10-15 min of Googling I did earlier today. (For whatever reason, OP refuses to include these posts in the revised OP as context and supporting evidence.)I read the first several pages when the thread went up, but haven't touched it since the update. Not sure if I wanna read through 13-14 pages of forum posts. Unless you are saying there is legit shit to be known in here...and I mean LEGIT.
RepostIng this to the new page because this whole thread is based on what are basically inaccurate information.
How The Smithsonian Is Building Its New, Sweeping Collection Of Black American Music
Smithsonian Music - Dr. Kevin Strait
There is no "hip hop section" in the NMAAHC. There's an exhibit that speaks generally about African American musical history, called Musical Crossroads, which appears to have been open since 2016 (when the NMAAHC was opened).
The collection being talked about is an out of context reference to the upcoming Smithsonian Anthology of Hip-Hop and Rap, which is due to be released later this year. This is a collection of music, essays, and photographs from different contributers. Ms. Burnside is one of the people putting together this anthology, but how big of a role she has is unclear. The "announcement video", if you will:
Then Super Corpse Soldier pointed out that the Tweetthread OP posted to prove Burnside was THE curator actually proved the opposite, and that was all she wrote.Man, I totally wasted my time, didn't I?
This is your friendly reminder that
1) there is no "hip hop collection" at NMAAHC, just a general music exhibit called "Musical Crossroads",
2) Ms. Burnside played a role in procurement and curation of items, but as part of a team. At least one of that team of experts, one Dr. Kevin Strait, is black. There is no evidence that supports the idea that she played an outsized or leadership role in creating the exhibit.
3) The "collection" of hip hop is a forthcoming anthology being created in part by NMAAHC. She is on the team behind this anthology. There's no evidence that suggests she is the sole individual or shotcaller behind putting together the anthology.
The thread is 1,500 posts long. It's quite fair for someone to ask for a recap at this point, especially given how much the situation changed.
"Guys sure the OP was wrong and we've harassed someone who should be a valued ally, maligned the credentials and ideals of the most important black museum in the country, and called a bunch of important and influential leaders in the black community uncle toms. All because of some lies and misinformation.
But consider this, what if it was real? Huh? Isn't angrily discussing a hypothetical situation that isn't actually happening worth all those bad things?"
This thread is an embarrassment. You people sit on your high-horses all day looking down on people cry "fake news" but you sat here for damn near 30 pages reacting to a story/situation you knew dick all about based on a random tweet.
Truly pathetic. How is this not locked?
Ah, this one is definitely directed towards me. My point was that I found it hard to believe that a black person would be given the same benefit of the doubt regarding the strength of their credentials to curate something outside of their perceived cultural background.tl;dr
- Twitter got outraged, because the Hip Hop section of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture, was curated by a white woman.
- OP created a thread
- Then it was found out she has been working there 10+ years.
- It was also found out she is passionate about her work.
- So people realised her qualifications were alright
- the outrage morphed into one about black representation, and the exhibit being potentially whitewashed
- Then it was revealed that the museum has predominantly black staff, she has black bosses, etc.
- The word "Bad Optics" was used a lot.
- Some users suggested that only black people should be given roles in the museum.
- Some users suggest it would be "weird" for a black person to be curating a Norwegian museum
- Some users suggested that is kinda racist...
- Some black users thought the outrage was nonsensical, atleast one was called an uncle toms in the process
- Then it turned out there was no such thing as the "hip hop section"
- The lady didn't really have a senior position in the museum
the thing I find interesting is that the revelation that she's not a senior person is the thing to calm this thread down.
It's fucking insane that in 2018, the idea of a non-black person having a senior position at a black museum really that... controversial?
Some black users thought the outrage was nonsensical, atleast one was called an uncle toms in the process
Oof. the conversation about black representation in black cultural spaces was important and a lot of good points were made over the past 20 pages.Oh, Jesus. I didn't even notice that.
And now he's in here defending the thread with, "It sucks that she was harassed but hey, we had a conversation about important issues, right guys?"
Oof.
The misrepresentation is because the several faux-liberal racists that populate this site see this thread as the ultimate gotcha-moment and are reveling in black people mistakenly being annoyed with something they perceived to be true :)Ah, this one is definitely directed towards me. My point was that I found it hard to believe that a black person would be given the same benefit of the doubt regarding the strength of their credentials to curate something outside of their perceived cultural background.
Also, I find it a little unfair that many people's arguments are being misrepresented. A lot of sentiment here was from the standpoint of representation from the beginning. I'm not exactly sure why the prevailing summary of the "opposition's" argument was that Burnside's race invalidated her credentials. I sure as shit didn't argue that. Nor did someone like Royalan, etc.
The problem with the representation argument was that it was established pretty early on that there was a lot of African American staff in both lower and upper echelons at the African American history museum. So in that context, what does "representation" mean? Does it mean a black monopoly on jobs there, de facto if not de jure? Or does it mean diversity, in the sense of many people of different backgrounds coming together? People were arguing that she should have allowed her position to be filled by a black person to promote "representation" in that context.Ah, this one is definitely directed towards me. My point was that I found it hard to believe that a black person would be given the same benefit of the doubt regarding the strength of their credentials to curate something outside of their perceived cultural background.
Also, I find it a little unfair that many people's arguments are being misrepresented. A lot of sentiment here was from the standpoint of representation from the beginning. I'm not exactly sure why the prevailing summary of the "opposition's" argument was that Burnside's race invalidated her credentials. I sure as shit didn't argue that. Nor did someone like Royalan, etc.
That conversation happened despite your inflammatory OP, not because of.Oof. the conversation about black representation in black cultural spaces was important and a lot of good points were made over the past 20 pages.
Considering that was literally the point of the discussion, ya the thread was the catalyst for it.That conversation happened despite your inflammatory OP, not because of.
So not only you pretending you didn't fuck up by blasting this woman and her employer from the jump, you're trying to twist it into being the catalyst for an important discussion.
"I'm trying to catch up but can't actually be bothered so I'm just going to cry for some attention instead"
The point of your OP was to call out this poor lady and the people who were defending her. Any discussion about representation in the study of black spaces was incidental to that.Considering that was literally the point of the discussion, ya the thread was the catalyst for it.
I don't doubt this happens.... but it's also the kinda thought patterns we need to stomp out, not reinforce.Ah, this one is definitely directed towards me. My point was that I found it hard to believe that a black person would be given the same benefit of the doubt regarding the strength of their credentials to curate something outside of their perceived cultural background.
....now wait a secondThe misrepresentation is because the several faux-liberal racists that populate this site see this thread as the ultimate gotcha-moment and are reveling in black people mistakenly being annoyed with something they perceived to be true :)
The point of the OP was literally "should white people be allowed to lead black cultural sections of museums?" You're still acting like people were attacking the woman the entire thread.The point of your OP was to call out this poor lady and the people who were defending her. Any discussion about representation in the study of black spaces was incidental to that.
The problem with the representation argument was that it was established pretty early on that there was a lot of African American staff in both lower and upper echelons at the African American history museum. So in that context, what does "representation" mean?