This is a response I had ready for today’s New York Times article, that I’m mentioned in, since I anticipated their piece to be soft. By sharing this statement, I don’t want to take away focus from the movement around Black lives, but understanding the structural implications of global white supremacy is crucial.
The largest institution of Asian arts in America. I’ve had my own experiences with this place and its core ties to white supremacy, which I shared last year in my project “Why You So Negative?” and my Mother Jones article accompanying it. I mentioned the museum’s founder Avery Brundage’s troubling past as a Nazi sympathizer. My commentary struck a chord with the public, but the museum remained silent.
I needed to speak out again when I saw the museum’s hollow Instagram post 2 weeks ago—May 31 (The comments and posts are in the sidebar.) They fell into what many organizations are doing with performative mechanical dances in the current climate around the Black Lives Matter movement without looking inward to see the structure of racial capitalism they operate in. The museum’s tiptoeing around Brundage is what white supremacy looks like, hoodless and institutionalized.
AAM exposed its hypocrisy and disregard for Black communities and specifically victims of police brutality. I commented on the museum’s first post about “fighting racism” while they used #BlackLivesMatter. I wrote: “Don’t you have a bust of Brundage—a Nazi sympathizer—in the entrance of your museum?!” I also pointed out Brundage’s openly anti-Black statements as Olympics president in ’68 and his racist actions as a country club owner.
Again my comments struck a chord with everyone but the institution. Days later they posted another timid PR statement. Coincidentally they held their biannual executive meeting last week, and since it’s funded by the city, the call was publicly live streamed, so I watched. Some executives seemed to think the call was private since one of them said the information was “confidential” (nope). The meeting, with dozens of people but not a single Black person, started with jokes and laughter and jumped into financial updates by Tim Kahn, president of the board of trustees and vice chair of the SF Asian Art Commission. A white man whose experience lays far from the arts—CEO of Dryers Ice Cream and CFO of Pizza Hut. What, no Panda Express? I get it, the museum’s board needs a business background, but this shows how the system works, even in a cultural institution.
The meeting continued without once mentioning protests nationwide, dismantling of monuments, Black communities, police violence, open white supremacy, George Floyd or Breonna Taylor or Ahmaud Arbery or Tony McDade—instead talking about a building expansion while saying, “We have to protect our collection.” (You mean your looted collection? Ah the irony.) The only mention of Brundage came 25 mins in, when the director referred to the statue and questioningly said it might be time to take it down. He also tiptoed around the need for better diversity while showing a pie chart of staff breakdown: 50% white, 27% Asian. Are you fucking kidding me? There should not be white people in leadership positions at the largest Asian arts institution in America, let alone majority-white. Then the director had the audacity to make the false comparison to Black museums, saying they too might have some demographic imbalances on staff. (You hear that, MoAD?)
Seeing the timid tone and topics of the meeting juxtaposed with their latest PR statement, after the museum was alerted about the NYT article in progress, was a clear example of code-switching. I’m encouraged by their statement but it’s an act of pure damage control and image maintenance. The institution does not deserve a pat on the back for slowly disavowing its Nazi-sympathizing founder. The museum is suddenly scrambling and using the right “woke” rhetoric. Its PR kinda reminds me of #BLM signs plastered on storefronts around San Francisco, creating the appearance of support but most likely posting signs for fear of getting their windows (or reputations) smashed.
Removing Brundage’s bust is only a cosmetic change. But I can see how this is a touchy subject, the museum being so attached to its donor and owner class. This is the thread that, once pulled, unravels the whole sweater. How did Brundage actually acquire his 8,000 pieces at the core of the institution? The museum should publish a credible list of exactly how he got each one. (Cue the museum’s legal loopholes and smokescreens.)
This is how institutional change is forced, from the outside in, but these barriers cannot be taken down by any individual’s determination alone. If the museum wants change, the change needs to be radical, and the structure can’t remain. To start, the current leadership needs to step down. White people in high positions in the education, curatorial, PR, and other departments need to step down. White people on the board should step down. Right now, four of the top five commissioners listed on its website are white—both vice chairs, secretary, and treasurer, and many other commissioners and trustees. Plus, control needs to be decentralized from its donor and owner class. This, on top of Brundage donating his collection to the city to cleanse and launder his name, to make sure his legacy shines—like Cecil Rhodes, Koch bros, Sackler family. Again what white supremacy looks like—hoodless, institutionalized, and, in this case, with an Asian facade.
Chiraag Bhakta / *PMH
June 15, 2020
