Well, even if I would likely listen to the lecture by Francis Widdowson and am in favor, naturally, of free speech and free opinion, I have to say some things about this issue:
1) Whatever learning comes out from an abuser will be surely always a traumatic learning. And that we must refuse strongly and clearly.
2)The problem about the abusers against the indigenous children inside those residential schools in Canada in 19th and 20th centuries is not really that we can't have a discussion upon it. Certainly, we can. The problem deals instead with the interpretation of history:
history can't be rewritten, justifying the errors of the past, always claiming that we must contestualize the events in their historical periods.
So, we surely can't make an operation of actualizing the past: this is obvious wrong. But at the same time we must not justify the horrible crimens which happened for sure (there are probes of that) with the ideology of the historicism and every time claiming: the responsibles of the crimens in fact did the best they could as what they knew and the education they received at those epoches: they were only doing their duty according to the culture they came from. Precisely this way of thinking is an insidious interpretation of those historical events, because it's already a judicium a posteriori that risks to lighten the guilt of those individuals who ruined and broke the lives, thousands of lives, of other innocent people. Unhappiness tortures violence and death actually were the inhabitants of those residential schools while the rest of the world ignored that for too long.
Finally, if there could be a restorative history, that should be in favor of the victims, the Canadian indigenous people, since the truth emerged at the end.
Ah, about the indigenous knowledge into the university courses: why not? We could learn something useful and new.
history is always rewritten in some sense.. and whatever happened should be explored and discussed widely.. as for indigenous knowledge.. that is not the issue.. but no need to teach indigenous myths in an astronomy class, for example.
As seen, even in these comments, it is very difficult to have a real discussion in today's society. It will normally be reduced to hyperbole and comparisons that have only have a connection on the surface. I don't think it is people not wanting to offend but people not wanting to be seen as supporting something untoward even a little bit but I guess that really just goes back to the lack of discussion taking place on difficult and polarizing subjects such as residential schools.
yeah and its quite unfortunate. there was a reason and a rationale behind residential schools, which do not mitigate the personal sufferings- but do go a great way toward explaining the actions taken at the time. but to your point- it is a challenge to have real discussions anymore- and why bother- why risk the downsides ? do you really have time to argue in a flame war ? Not me, frankly.
Its funny how we are moving towards echo chambers. i recall the early days of the 'net and how some argued passionately about this new device would being a gateway for brave new thought, ideas and expressions. Didnt quite work out like that eh ?
This is a relatively "mild" case, so I agree with you in favor of freedom of speechI, however, I worry whether we should also tolerate lectures in defense of subjugation (or even rape) of women, extermination or this or the other population, flat earthers and the like in University settings. Such "debates" already occur in the social media. What purpose is served in hosting them in educational settings under the guise of freedom of speech and wasting money and time? I guess I am asking whether you believe there are any limits in the context of allocating resources to such speech in academic institutions.
I would err on the side of too much speech.. for I feel that those who make ridiculous arguments in these settings can be thoroughly discredited in the course of the discussion after the lecture.
I get your point but you know, I was lucky enough to go to a school where we were free to think and express outrageous thoughts. This was back in the late 80's when Canada was focused on Meech lake, Quebec separatists, Morgentaler and his abortion clinics, and other "big concerns" like Sunday shopping (gasp!). If we cannot talk about these topics in schools, where do we have the conversations ?
as for flat earth, well i note to you Graham Hancock has a great new series out on netflix-it has been very popular. he believes an alternative history, right - well, I have friends who believe all that and to be fair, Hancock is pretty compelling. Fair enough- they can believes what they want- but i would suggest schools are the very best places to refute these alternative ideas.
I understand what you are saying, but do you count expressing hate as an "alternative idea"? Abortion pro and con; religion pro and con; communism, monarchy, socialism, etc, I count those as ideas to be expressed. But I draw the line in exterminate the (Jews, Irish, Greeks, blacks, etc) and rape the women. These are not ideas in my opinion and they are no longer rare.
Yeah, I happen to agree with you on both points, well except for "the" Irish :) I dont know about that lot eh :)
Seriously, and I am drawing on what i see in a post-covid world where folks really dig deeply into their silo chambers and stay there. I am not a complete free speech absolutist- i think that smacks of naivete. But i wonder how we combat odious thoughts and views if we push them underground ? Sometimes I think we have to let the idiots feel welcome to express their idiocy in a public environment.
This is not entirely analogous here, but I recall how American polls put Hillary well ahead in 2016, even though we all saw massive crowds at Trump rallys and handfuls greeting the democratic candidate. Clearly many american voters no longer felt comfortable telling polsters what was really on their minds. and to be honest with you, if in there place Im fairly confident I would have voted for the New York huckster.
Up here in Canada we now have an national anti-islamophobia 'special representative.' Her job is to go all about and defend islam i guess- im not sure what the role is precisely. Yet Islam is a religion- and ought to be mocked and ridiculed just like mormonism, scientology, or other another dopey faith system.
Is it hate when I defend Sir John A and his policies, or is it hate- and who decides ? And if i am told to shut up, where do i go privately to air my sentiments ?
And you know, I still really enjoy Mel Brook's films. Could they be made today ?
actually I am quite aware of the issues you pose- if you recall, we had that dummy drive a van down Yonge Street Toronto, killing and wounding a number of folks- all because he just couldn't get a date.
I'm by no means making light of this- so many lives were damaged by this nut. And this is what worries me a bit- when crazy and dangerous ideas cannot be expressed, where do they go ?
So, Im by no means offside with you on this- I dont know what the answer is. And I enjoy the conversation you and others raise here- it makes me think a bit, and for that i both grateful and appreciative.
Now i have to go exercise. I gained a few pounds over the holidays and they have not come off yet a month into the new year
Hello, professor Krauss.
Well, even if I would likely listen to the lecture by Francis Widdowson and am in favor, naturally, of free speech and free opinion, I have to say some things about this issue:
1) Whatever learning comes out from an abuser will be surely always a traumatic learning. And that we must refuse strongly and clearly.
2)The problem about the abusers against the indigenous children inside those residential schools in Canada in 19th and 20th centuries is not really that we can't have a discussion upon it. Certainly, we can. The problem deals instead with the interpretation of history:
history can't be rewritten, justifying the errors of the past, always claiming that we must contestualize the events in their historical periods.
So, we surely can't make an operation of actualizing the past: this is obvious wrong. But at the same time we must not justify the horrible crimens which happened for sure (there are probes of that) with the ideology of the historicism and every time claiming: the responsibles of the crimens in fact did the best they could as what they knew and the education they received at those epoches: they were only doing their duty according to the culture they came from. Precisely this way of thinking is an insidious interpretation of those historical events, because it's already a judicium a posteriori that risks to lighten the guilt of those individuals who ruined and broke the lives, thousands of lives, of other innocent people. Unhappiness tortures violence and death actually were the inhabitants of those residential schools while the rest of the world ignored that for too long.
Finally, if there could be a restorative history, that should be in favor of the victims, the Canadian indigenous people, since the truth emerged at the end.
Ah, about the indigenous knowledge into the university courses: why not? We could learn something useful and new.
history is always rewritten in some sense.. and whatever happened should be explored and discussed widely.. as for indigenous knowledge.. that is not the issue.. but no need to teach indigenous myths in an astronomy class, for example.
but the intention of your points is well taken
Chief Brant- who was taught to me to have been a great warrior, leader and British ally - owned black slaves. When will Brantford be renamed ?
As seen, even in these comments, it is very difficult to have a real discussion in today's society. It will normally be reduced to hyperbole and comparisons that have only have a connection on the surface. I don't think it is people not wanting to offend but people not wanting to be seen as supporting something untoward even a little bit but I guess that really just goes back to the lack of discussion taking place on difficult and polarizing subjects such as residential schools.
yeah and its quite unfortunate. there was a reason and a rationale behind residential schools, which do not mitigate the personal sufferings- but do go a great way toward explaining the actions taken at the time. but to your point- it is a challenge to have real discussions anymore- and why bother- why risk the downsides ? do you really have time to argue in a flame war ? Not me, frankly.
Its funny how we are moving towards echo chambers. i recall the early days of the 'net and how some argued passionately about this new device would being a gateway for brave new thought, ideas and expressions. Didnt quite work out like that eh ?
This is a relatively "mild" case, so I agree with you in favor of freedom of speechI, however, I worry whether we should also tolerate lectures in defense of subjugation (or even rape) of women, extermination or this or the other population, flat earthers and the like in University settings. Such "debates" already occur in the social media. What purpose is served in hosting them in educational settings under the guise of freedom of speech and wasting money and time? I guess I am asking whether you believe there are any limits in the context of allocating resources to such speech in academic institutions.
I would err on the side of too much speech.. for I feel that those who make ridiculous arguments in these settings can be thoroughly discredited in the course of the discussion after the lecture.
Maria
I get your point but you know, I was lucky enough to go to a school where we were free to think and express outrageous thoughts. This was back in the late 80's when Canada was focused on Meech lake, Quebec separatists, Morgentaler and his abortion clinics, and other "big concerns" like Sunday shopping (gasp!). If we cannot talk about these topics in schools, where do we have the conversations ?
as for flat earth, well i note to you Graham Hancock has a great new series out on netflix-it has been very popular. he believes an alternative history, right - well, I have friends who believe all that and to be fair, Hancock is pretty compelling. Fair enough- they can believes what they want- but i would suggest schools are the very best places to refute these alternative ideas.
all the best to you my friend
I understand what you are saying, but do you count expressing hate as an "alternative idea"? Abortion pro and con; religion pro and con; communism, monarchy, socialism, etc, I count those as ideas to be expressed. But I draw the line in exterminate the (Jews, Irish, Greeks, blacks, etc) and rape the women. These are not ideas in my opinion and they are no longer rare.
Yeah, I happen to agree with you on both points, well except for "the" Irish :) I dont know about that lot eh :)
Seriously, and I am drawing on what i see in a post-covid world where folks really dig deeply into their silo chambers and stay there. I am not a complete free speech absolutist- i think that smacks of naivete. But i wonder how we combat odious thoughts and views if we push them underground ? Sometimes I think we have to let the idiots feel welcome to express their idiocy in a public environment.
This is not entirely analogous here, but I recall how American polls put Hillary well ahead in 2016, even though we all saw massive crowds at Trump rallys and handfuls greeting the democratic candidate. Clearly many american voters no longer felt comfortable telling polsters what was really on their minds. and to be honest with you, if in there place Im fairly confident I would have voted for the New York huckster.
Up here in Canada we now have an national anti-islamophobia 'special representative.' Her job is to go all about and defend islam i guess- im not sure what the role is precisely. Yet Islam is a religion- and ought to be mocked and ridiculed just like mormonism, scientology, or other another dopey faith system.
Is it hate when I defend Sir John A and his policies, or is it hate- and who decides ? And if i am told to shut up, where do i go privately to air my sentiments ?
And you know, I still really enjoy Mel Brook's films. Could they be made today ?
Well, I agree with you about all the "phobias". My problem is this. Lets take religion: one side says criticizing religion A is a phobia of A and another side says "lets get rid of all the followers of A". I cannot accept either side. You and many people here are concerned about the first side. We should be free to criticize religion. But you are not concerned the other side that does not want to argue about religion A, just wants to abuse the followers of religion A. In the social media, for example, there is verbal abuse of women no matter what they say. There is verbal abuse of men, too, but the two are not equivalent because women's position is still inferior in society. See for example https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/02/female-scientists-antarctica-sexual-harassment-mcmurdo-nsf-report/?utm_source=mj-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-02-09-2023&fbclid=IwAR0QhwgVir0MHNse6wxaUSJnmXMzJCwFdW1tATi_2Q7MM-1VY2rV4cE0MLA
actually I am quite aware of the issues you pose- if you recall, we had that dummy drive a van down Yonge Street Toronto, killing and wounding a number of folks- all because he just couldn't get a date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack
I'm by no means making light of this- so many lives were damaged by this nut. And this is what worries me a bit- when crazy and dangerous ideas cannot be expressed, where do they go ?
So, Im by no means offside with you on this- I dont know what the answer is. And I enjoy the conversation you and others raise here- it makes me think a bit, and for that i both grateful and appreciative.
Now i have to go exercise. I gained a few pounds over the holidays and they have not come off yet a month into the new year
all the best my friend
Best of luck, James. Just cut the sugar for a few days, it works for me :)