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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.