By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 02:02:33 +0000

One problem I have with the decolonization narrative is that it is predicated on the badness of colonality and its willingness only to take a critical view on the group it classes as oppressors. It attempts to align only negative power usage with colonisation and filters out any mention of benefits it has brought. It seeks to demonstrate uncritically accept the virtues of the minority narratives while portraying only the oppressions of the colonisers, whites, males, able bodied, etc. It promotes its approach as giving new voices to the voiceless but portrays only the negative qualities of the group it narrates as the oppressor. This can be seen very clearly as it attempts to shut down the Western civilization course and portray it as potentially toxic rather than saying – yes, all voices are welcome. It promotes diversity of identity recognition but equally promotes stereotyping according to skin colour, lineage, and ethnicity. Double standards abound. If we want to respect true diversity, the end point is the individual, who has any number of combinations of identities and mixes of social experiences, both privileged and oppressed, and which is impossible to tell simply by judging based by the stereotype of race, gender, etc.

Comments on: Understanding the USC academics who want to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum

By: Nathan