So a better analogy would be, if you think this is a valid idea, then you should be aware that the people responsible for chairs, eating utensils and the widespread use of the English language may also have had reprehensible views.
Do we really need to be aware of that? Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, it's a lot less dangerous or absurd than what you're suggesting.
You seem to have missed the core idea of math and science, and confused it with one of those other human endeavors subject to being in and out of political favor. So allow me to clarify. Science and math, above all else, is an ideological commitment to the premise that truth does not derive from authority. The validity of Euclid's elements does not derive from Euclid carrying a certain clout in a mathematical establishment of prestige. Relativity did not supplant Newtonian physics because Albert reached a certain level of control within the ranks of the Royal Society. Pointing out the views and beliefs of scientists and mathematicians which have since fallen out of favor maybe detracts from their respectability, but their work wasn't built on the authority of their institutional respectability in the first place.
> So allow me to clarify. Science and math, above all else, is an ideological commitment to the premise that truth does not derive from authority.
Will it actually work out that way? I don't know for sure, but I don't dismiss it as quickly as many people here seem to.
And this is irrelevant at best, stupid at core and dangerous at worst. Learning stuff is what matters in an educational institution, not moral judgement of the one who discovered each bit of current knowledge.
But we do hold the discovery process to moral standards. Every study involving humans (and I guess animals as well) goes through an ethics boards.
I think it's not too far out there to earmark certain discoveries as "knowledge obtained by methods we would not allow by today's standards".
And second of all, there are degrees to it. Not every bit of medical knowledge was obtained by vivisection and Mengele-style experiments on "undesirables".
There are a finite number of hours in the day and week: what do we spend them on?
If you want to learn the history of science/math, take a history course. If you're in a science/math course presumably your goal is to learn those subjects, and not history.
Who did Euclid or Pythagoras oppress? Leibniz or Newton? Pascal or Laplace? Euler or Gauss?
Liebniz wasn't much better: "Leibniz’s early views were no more savoury; ‘barbarians,’ whom he considered ‘beasts’ (see Perkins, 111), could be destroyed in order to civilize them." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/
Obviously not all mathematicians espoused problematic views, but it's worth demonstrating sensitivity to this aspect if it broadens the appeal of the subject.
Firstly on p6:
> Values of EDI [Equality, Diversity and Inclusion] should permeate the curriculum and every aspect of the learning experience to ensure the diverse nature of society in all its forms is evident. MSOR providers should reflect on their curricula and processes to ensure that no group is disadvantaged or othered; for example, decolonising the curriculum can involve explicit reflection on the history of MSOR knowledge generation, as well as reflecting on how delivery or admission practices might adversely impact on certain subgroups within the student cohort. EDI aspects of student engagement and achievement should be monitored and actions formed to ensure equity.
Then on p. 7:
> the curriculum should present a multicultural and decolonised view of MSOR, informed by the student voice. Where possible, it should present the work of a diverse group of MSOR practitioners. Students should be made aware of problematic issues in the development of the MSOR content they are being taught, for example some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, or some mathematicians had connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism. Students should be educated in general EDI matters and also those that are specifically elevant to MSOR, such as the need to consider diversity in data collection and analysis.
I sympathise with the idea that this isn't particularly relevant to the content of mathematics. But I see nothing in the above that suggests social constructivism or challenges objective knowledge.
> for example some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, or some mathematicians had connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism
That's really a form of history, maybe social history or science history. At best it's mixing subject matters and potentially depriving people of learning math, and at worse it's pushing this ideology that has to see everything through the lens of oppressor and oppressed (not saying it's never useful, but the ideology seems to pushing itself into every corner of society and distorting everything it comes across).
Nobody cares if the person who invented the chair, tortured puppies in their free time. It doesn't change the history of the invention, nor the utility of it. It's just a way for unimportant, unaccomplished people to farm digital reputation through virtue signaling.
Every one in history held morally reprehensible views the Wigs, the Nazis, the Commies every one.
If we spent all day reading about all the morally reprehensible things that where done in history we would never do any maths as we would be doing history. Obviously there is more history than can be known so what is the point?
If people fail to understand that a person who lived 2300 years before our time must have held quite a range of views that we would today consider totally abhorrent, then that's not a failure in the teaching of mathematics but of history - or maybe even a failure to use common sense.
Chairs were known in ancient Egypt, the fork in Byzantium. Neither is a colonial power by any reasonable definition.
Beg your pardon? If a colonial power is a country that expanded by force in lands that were not ethnically theirs (and I can't really think of a meaningful definition that would single out European powers between the 16th and early 20th century), then ancient Egypt and the (Eastern) Roman Empire are definitely colonial powers.
By your definition, almost every native civilization of the Americas is a colonial power. Something has gone awry. (I’m not certain what “lands that were not ethnically theirs” means absent the doctrine of terra nullius, which also postdates any ancient empire.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_colonialism
“Colonialism in the modern sense began with the "Age of Discovery", led by Portuguese, who became increasingly adventuresome following the conquest of Ceuta in 1415. . .”
Such a manipulation only leads to absurd situations, such as the famous Greek or Phenician colonies, from Marseille to Carthage through Odessa, not being classifiable as colonies anymore. Or the Russian colonization of Siberia not being a colonization anymore.
Talk about ‶European overseas invasions″, ‶European transcontinental settlements″ or whatever, but please don't hijack a word that has been used with a much wider meaning for centuries.
>> the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people.
Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. I do not know a lot about China, but Sinicisation seems to fit colonial markers, so the first empire to really colonize should be chinese? The Umayad Califate in some sense too, but I think i'm missing the idea of "pressure" and "force" in the definition.
off the top of my head, both Roman Britain and Roman Egypt fit this one perfectly. The "exploitation" wasn't purely negative, just like the exploitation of colonies by Britain or France wasn't purely negative, but it was still exploitation.
You obviously have no knowledge of Europe/North Africa/Asia Minor Antique Era; your definition is perfectly accurate for both the Egyptian and the Roman empires (and many others, from the Assyrians to Hittites through the Persians, the Greeks [ever wondered where the “pont” in “pontus region” is coming from?] and the Carthaginians).
> full or partial political control over another country
The definition of an empire.
> occupying it with settlers
Exactly what the Romans did in Gaul, Germania, Dacia, Illyria, Hispania, Anglia, Magna Graecia, Sicilia, Batavia, Helvetia, Thracia, Egypt, Judea, Mauritania, etc. You should know that gifting a plot of land somewhere in the Empire to veterans to compensate them for their service was both a way to motivate them and spread Roman culture and way of life.
> and exploiting it economically
Wars were among the big sources of slave labor.
> while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people.
Spoiler alert: the “Roman” in Gallo-Roman is not endogeneous, and nowadays romance language share the same ancestor language for a very simple reason. And if everywhere from London to Benghazi and Porto to Ankara is covered in Roman ruins, it's not because aliens put them there.
And the story is exactly the same for the Egyptian Empire: Syria, Kush, Nubia, Lybia and Canaan are not the cradle of the Egpytian dynasties.
> so the first empire to really colonize should be chinese?
The first empire to really colonize is probably dating back to before there was writing to remember its name.
> The Umayad Califate [...] missing the idea of "pressure" and "force"
Ah yes, of course, Christian Spain voluntarily got incorporated into the Califate, and the famous battle they had with the Franks in the middle of France was but a playful tourney... sweeping military expansion is a major characteristic of the Umayad caliphate.
Latin was originally spoken in a small part of central Italy. By 400 it was spoken in all of Italy, Gaul, Hispania, the North African coast, substantial parts of what is modern Germany and the Low Countries, Dacia (Romania) and was no doubt still spoken in Britain. That happened through conquest, not voluntary accession.
The Gauls, Celts, and many other colonized peoples may beg to differ.
Egypt extended as far south as modern Sudan at various times. They ruled over people of different cultures and languages for hundreds of years. During the New Kingdom period Egypt extended as far north as modern Syria.
The Byzantine Empire did in fact contain many nations, which were not in any sense equal. The Greek speaking Roman Christians ruled over Dacians, Illyrians, Isaurians, Cappadocians, other Anatolians.
If having an empire doesn’t make you a colonist what does?
He probably means Windsor chairs, the construction and design of which are superior to all other chairs, full stop. They were perfected in the workshops of Philadelphia in the 1700s. They are the pinnacle of chair design and construction.
What the Egyptians (and following cultures) had were benches. Until recently, a chair with a back was a luxury item. It wasn't until the Welsh stick chair, where a poor Welsh farmer during the off-season first crafted himself a chair from the sticks in his hedge, or the Windsor chairs that followed, that common folk had access to such technology.
Imagine thinking chairs are a product of colonial culture…