Decolonizing the Engineering Curriculum
pressbooks.bccampus.ca
pressbooks.bccampus.ca
A safe space is a place where you won't be challenged. A brave space is a place where you will be challenged and held to the standards of civility politics, or in other words it's just anywhere that isn't a safe space.
It's basically just rules for a less formal debate. But debates don't prove anything and they don't seem to change minds. Every topic under the sun has already been debated to death and posted on youtube, why do we need to let it play out again in the classroom? Who gains from this?
Now, with the right authority leading the classroom and all willing participants a brave space would be a fantastic place to have discussions. But on the handful of hot-button topics I can think of right now it does put the onus on a group who are very likely victims (some of which may not have publicly come out about their status) to have a civil conversation with people who could have just as easily found this info online.
To be clear, if you're not willing to enforce a safe space for your students but you are willing to enforce a "brave space", I appreciate that. I appreciate you understanding and making that distinction clear. I just don't know how a "brave space" is any different than following the rules of the school? And if the educator feels uniquely qualified to moderate this debate why not just prepare a lecture?
Me neither. And not only the rules of a school but also the laws of a country. Although I haven't contemplated it fully, I tend to align with Mrs. Anderson:
That said the article isn't horrible. I think she's stretching the definition of "pogrom". The article makes no mention of rising Islamophobia.
And since the author is surprisingly sparse when it comes to enumerating examples of hate speech I'm hesitant to fully agree. There's a lot of nut jobs out there trying to redefine what is and isn't hate speech right now. Like people who want to redefine "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" as hate speech. No doubt, some of what went down at Cornell was anti-semitic.
But, if I put aside those complaints I more or less agree with her.
But... I'm not dumb enough to think that literally trying to police speech that makes you uncomfortable is somehow better than a safe space and Mrs. Anderson is walking a precarious line.
I would think someone who's whole career is about censorship would be extra careful when arguing that speech should be censored but... something something bias..
I came back to give Mrs. Anderson the benefit of the doubt but I noticed the second typo in the first article and it's just like... isn't that your one job?
First - "Is" should be capitalized: "express themselves on campus. is it threats from"
Second: "Acamfemic"
Third incorrectly worded sentence: "The very name of the Act it[self] suggests that those on campus have complete freedom of speech without limitation."
Fourth: "The[ir] purpose is to expose students to the breadth of views and ideas that exist in their particular discipline and ideally challenge their worldview – allowing them to argue back"
And if I really wanted to nit pick there's a hand full of other issues (incorrect oxford comma, incorrectly pluralized words, missing hyphen). It's sloppy.
go on USA. your path to being weak and past is well engaged.
The following link provides data supporting this view:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/6-charts-show-world-improvi....
Western ideas, customs, and institutions that enabled significant technological advancements and population growth, which in turn precipitated colonization, should be celebrated, and yes, in some aspects, considered superior.
The continuous efforts by academic disciplines to humble and demoralize the majority through socio-economic critiques of their culture and traditions need to stop.
Did peoples heads need to be cut off and sent to the phrenologists at the British and US institutes in order that child mortality be reduced?
You make a very weak argument.
The heart of Western 'civilisation' was once Dickensian era England which suffered poor literacy, poor child mortality rates, etc. Despite not being colonised, these things changed.
Again, the statistics you've linked do not demonstrate colonisation == good.
Indeed the bulk of the benefits kick in post war - the period associated with the death of colonial empires.
Perhaps you've provided grist to the argument that colonial governments should be removed.
>Indeed the bulk of the benefits kick in post war - the period associated with the death of colonial empires.
The post-war period replaced colonial empires underpinned by direct foreign rule with a different kind of foreign influence that is arguably better: Pax Americana which exerted US influence through US-led institutions that provide coordination amongst states, foreign aid and military protection.
But you make a valid point that this period saw colonial rule dissipitate, and that correlated with significant improvement. There are so many data points to consider that any theory is mere speculation, including mine. Hard to know what an alternate history where the European powers refrained from engaging in colonialism would have led to, aside from cases like colonial America, where English settlement clearly produced massive gains for the world.
I will say however that Western values have convincingly shown themselves to be beneficial to the world, and that the anti-colonialist mission to expel them from modern society and academic disciplines is therefore reckless and misguided.
What's the utilitarian argument in favor of genocide?
It ended slavery and genocide worldwide. Unlike other traditions, it upholds principles of humanitarianism above utilitarianism. It was the opponents of classical liberalism that instituted lockdowns around the world during the COVID pandemic "for the greater good".
It was the Aztecs, pre-colonization, that sacrificed 40,000 children in one day, "for the greater good".
source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9305-7
Market-based reforms across the world, including in China, India, Chile, and South Korea, are credited with lifting millions out of poverty, and bringing about a profound increase in average incomes.
Economist Lee Ohanian compares the labor market policies of Europe and the United States in his essay The Effect of Economic Freedom on Labor Market Efficiency and Performance. Compared to the United States, European nations have higher minimum wages, stricter rules that prevent the firing of workers, and high rates of unionization. These rules are intended to protect workers, but Ohanian finds that they discourage employment and result in lower compensation rates. His analysis indicates:
>These findings have important implications for economic policy making. They indicate that policies that enhance the free and efficient operation of the labor market significantly expand opportunities and increase prosperity. Moreover, they suggest that economic policy reforms can substantially improve economic performance in countries with heavily regulated labor markets and high tax rates.
source: https://www.hoover.org/research/capitalism-vs-socialism-2
A strong correlation is found between lower rates of government spending as a share of GDP, and the rate of economic growth:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...
If anyone... I guess any children are reading this my tip off was: "It ended slavery and genocide worldwide."
This... is an absurd thing to claim. I'm not even gonna address OP anymore because this is flat-earth levels of bullshit. It's the definition of correlation does not equal causation.
First of all, capitalism didn't end slavery. I can't speak for the whole globe but it sure as fuck didn't end slavery in America. The US stopped paying taxes to the monarchy in 1765. 10 years later we had the revolutionary war. In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed, in 1787 the constitution was signed. We still had slaves in the US. In 1862 the slaves were "freed" but it took 3 more years for news to travel and for slavery to actually be abolished in the US. Even still black people were effectively denied many rights until the 1960's
So, whichever date you want to pick out of that soup and decide "this is when capitalism solved slavery", you're wrong. And that doesn't even touch on American capitalists fencing slave labor in the modern day/recent past.
Second, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides
I'm not going to go point by point but I guarenteeeeeee you can find examples in that list to disprove the second half of the quote. Like there's literally a genocide going on right now and both the parties committing genocide are capitalists, but... yeah I don't even know how to engage with this level of head-empty-diamond-hands-stronk
You gotta stop debating people like this on Hacker News. Even if you disagree with someone, you should refrain from mockery/sarcasm that evokes flame wars.
First of all, capitalism didn't end slavery.
Western states, which were among the most capitalist in the world, played a significant role in ending slavery as a global institution. The British Empire, the most prominent colonial power, embarked on a century-long global campaign that compelled numerous states to formally abolish slavery, a practice that had existed since the dawn of human history.
And yes, slavery and genocide still exist and occur. My comment was simplistic, as I assumed the reader would grasp the point I was trying to convey. My point was that there is now a global consensus that slavery and genocide are unacceptable, and this consensus did not exist in the pre-capitalist era. This consensus has resulted in slavery/genocide becoming far less prevalent than they were in the past, as any quantitative analysis reveals.
And the emergence of this consensus was due primarily to the influence of predominantly capitalist states like the United States, and before it, the British Empire.
This is an internet community. I'm trying not to be too much of a dickhead but I'll be damned if I can't call an idea stupid.
You said a silly thing. It's like saying "2 + 2 = 5" with no further explanation. Doesn't mean you're dumb. We all make mistakes.
But it's one mistake to type it and it's a second mistake to send it and think "hell yeah, people will read that and know what I mean".
And now you're coming back and doubling down with a "no you didn't understand me".
No, man. No, I did understand you. You're just making a claim that doesn't hold weight. You've offered no more proof of your claim than I have that... hmm lets think... "lightbulbs solved slavery".
Your argument is akin to me saying: "Lightbulb, invented 1879. Know what you saw a lot of in 1870 that you don't see any more? slavery. Know what you see a lot of now that they didn't have in 1870? That's right, lightbulbs ended slavery. My point was that there is now a global consensus that slavery and genocide are unacceptable, and this consensus did not exist in the pre-lightbulb era."
And like, both our theories are fun theories, but you haven't shown your work to convince anyone that your theory is correct. You're just vaguely gesturing at literally all of history and saying "see". Why even drop the "well, ackshually" in the first place if you don't want to do the work of arguing your case?
You seem to be making excuses and refusing to acknowledge your mistake.
Regarding the format, I prefer written exchanges over voice debates, which don't provide adequate time to deliberate on each other's points and our pwn responses.
Before we digress too far, let's remember that this discussion originated from a debate about colonialism and, more fundamentally, the merit of Western values. The link submitted is critical of the notion of the superiority of Western ideas and values in academia.
Consider what this has resulted in in practice: In some professional settings, punctuality is being deemphasized because it's associated with white culture, and thus inappropriate to value. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-ask-rick-is-it-rac...
Western values, which have contributed to capitalist societies, the Industrial Revolution, the Scientific Revolution, and attempts to establish international laws against slavery and genocide, do possess merit. They should not be indiscriminately considered as having no more merit than any other cultural practices or norms found worldwide.
In no other region of the world is the intellectual class arguing that their own culture's values should be deemphasized, and that includes regions that are behind the West in a myriad of socioeconomic metrics. There is no excuse for this, and it needs to stop.
"Consider what this has resulted in in practice ..."
Who cares? Has this actually impacted your life in any way or are you just making a slippery slope argument?
"Western values ..." you're just talking to hear yourself talk man. Despite me, indirectly, asking 3 times now I've yet to be provided any kind of evidence connecting "Western Values" to the good things you want to give "Western Values" credit for.
So we can't even get to the next step of testing your theory because you won't explain any further. My next step would be to ask you how you grapple with the fact that "Western Values" also brought slavery to the Americas. But I see no point in asking insightful questions because you haven't even articulated whatever connection you think exists between the two concepts.
"There is no excuse for this, and it needs to stop."
Why? Why is it so wrong to inspect our philosophical frameworks or subjective values? Why does that behavior need to stop?
Ideas have a tangible impact. Take the scientific revolution. It was a product of Western thinking, and has undeniably advanced global health and technology. This isn't just an abstract claim; these are tangible advancements in the human condition.
As for slavery, it existed in the Americas among indigenous peoples before European colonization. While Western expansion was associated with certain negative practices, Western societies were also instrumental in ending slavery as a globally tolerated institution. Highlighting the positive does not imply denying the negative. It implies pursuing an impartial assessment to determine the net impact of Western values.
And my stance isn't against inspecting our philosophical frameworks; it's about ensuring impartiality that looks at achievements and flaws equally so as to not understate the merit of Western values.
---
you: "Capitalism ended slavery and genocide"
me: "No it didn't"
you: "What I meant to say is that Western Values influenced global consensus"
---
you: "Punctuality being deemphasized is bad"
me: "How has punctuality being deemphasized impacted you personally?"
you: "Abandoning merit leads to dysfunction"
---
And you can not seriously be offering up the pretense of impartiality?
"Highlighting the positive does not imply denying the negative." Ok but highlighting the positive is by definition not impartial.
Impartiality would be offering up the facts and letting others interpret those facts to come to their own conclusions. You're offering up a biased conclusion and working backwards with very few supporting facts.
"And my stance isn't against inspecting our philosophical frameworks;"
... let me repost the longer quote
"In no other region of the world is the intellectual class arguing that their own culture's values should be deemphasized, and that includes regions that are behind the West in a myriad of socioeconomic metrics. There is no excuse for this, and it needs to stop."
Arguing that ones own culture's values should be deemphasized is inspecting your philosophical framework from an objective point of view. It is literally the process of removing subjectivity from the established merit system. And you said it "has to stop".
As I explained:
Before we digress too far, let's remember that this discussion originated from a debate about colonialism and, more fundamentally, the merit of Western values. The link submitted is critical of the notion of the superiority of Western ideas and values in academia.
My aim is to stay true to my original point about the overall impact of Western values.
Regarding punctuality and merit, my concern is the broader implications, not necessarily immediate personal impact. It's about long-term societal effects.
As for impartiality, highlighting positives doesn't imply bias. It’s about balancing the one-sided take of the decolonization movement.
Also, being impartial doesn't require us to stop striving for our society's progress, nor does it oblige us to view all cultures as having equal impact on a society's material development. Recognizing that cultures are not all equally worthy of being emphasized is not bias—it's a practical observation that different cultural values will shape societies in different ways, and that some ways are preferable to others.
I stand by my statement on the unique trend in Western academia to question its own foundational values. It’s one thing to critique and evolve; it's another to deemphasize without recognizing the positive contributions alongside the negatives. An impartial analysis would, I contend, conclude that certain Western values are exceptionally conducive to a well functioning society, and deserve the emphasis they currently receive.