Today’s “decolonization”, though superficially similar, has the opposite effect: to mutilate our culture, sow division and narrow our sympathies. Removing Shakespeare, Austen and Chaucer from the curriculum. Relating our history as unbroken violence and exploitation. Denigrating Mozart and Beethoven as products of the slave era. Rejecting “Enlightenment” ideas as racist. Characterizing the contents of museums as “loot”, however innocently acquired. Proving that science, maths and medicine – even cricket, gardening and golf! – are reflections of imperialist oppression. Various explanations of this phenomenon have been proposed, including philosophical (the influence of postmodernism) and political (the turn to “identity” and victimization). But there are, I think, historical reasons. We must ask the basic historical questions “why here?” and “why now?” “Decolonization” is a variant of anti-Westernism that until recently was confined to the political extremes. It is a mutation of anti-colonial nationalism very different from the worldview of the “founding fathers” who fought for independence. Men like Nehru, Jinnah and Mandela wanted to take over the institutions created by imperial rulers and modernize their countries with Western methods. What changed; One cause is the real or perceived “decline of the West.” Since 1989, when Francis Fukuyama famously announced the triumph of Western values and the “end of history,” Western states have made some disastrous mistakes, and their rise appears to be waning. Meanwhile, the apocalyptic pessimism of the radical Green movement, the political and psychological successor to Marxism, fundamentally undermines faith in economic, social and political progress, facilitating the “decolonization” of science as a form of exploitation. Such attacks on Western culture would have seemed outlandish in 1989. Now they seem to be the tide of history, accepted or even welcomed by much of the establishment in English-speaking countries. However, Fukuyama was right: there is no viable alternative ideology and no “colonized” technology if we want to limit climate change without mass starvation. Anti-Westernism cannot provide a sustainable vision for the future. Instead, he indulges in a nihilistic obsession with ludicrous caricatures of the past. The obvious reason is that this provides Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand with the wartime equivalent of the history of US slavery and segregation. Empire means that we too can find ourselves historically guilty, accused of having inherited the guilt of our ancestors, and face demands for reparations. However, most post-colonial states have not since independence equaled the achievements of Western liberal democracy, and many have disappointed the hopes of their founders. “Decolonization”, based on nationalist mythology, places the blame on empires. Indian politician Shashi Tharoor’s Inglorious Empire is the textbook example. It cannot admit that the Empire provided any advantages, as this would leave the post-colonial states responsible for their own failures. So everything is blamed on colonization and pre-colonial and post-colonial oppression is silently glossed over. The pace is often set in Britain by a group of academics and students who are often highly activist if not obviously representative – it is hard to believe that many overseas students pay large sums to come to British universities if they reject British culture, history and the science. Moreover, in a country whose next government will include senior officials born in or with family ties to former colonies, the “colonizers” seem unhappy at the margin exploited by false victims. Their provocative activism brings them fame and great career advantages. One example among many was the course defaming Churchill absurdly organized at Churchill College, Cambridge by Professor Priyamvada Gopal and featuring Dr Onyeka Nubia, Dr Madhusree Mukerjee and Profesor Kehinde Andrews. Many academics fear that they cannot oppose or ignore such voices without being accused of racism. University and museum administrators are acting like commercial companies protecting their marketing image by appeasing protesters. The ongoing saga of the Benin Bronzes encapsulates the confusions of ‘colonisation’. Several British universities and museums have decided to return works of art seized in 1897 to the descendants of slave traders in Nigeria. This has sparked protests from American descendants of enslaved Africans in what is now Nigeria, who assert their moral right to be consulted and want the works kept in Western museums. The original decision so far remains: otherwise, it would be a tacit admission that empires could sometimes bring benefits – in this case, ending the slave trade. Which of course would contradict the doctrine of “colonization”. All of this could be dismissed as virtue-signaling froth. But it is part of something bigger and more serious. The West – those diverse societies trying to implement the “Enlightenment” values of individual freedom, rationality, the rule of law and democracy – is more vulnerable than at any time since the 1930s. The invasion of Ukraine, the threat to Taiwan, the Iranian nuclear threat and the energy crisis show that we are masking our relative decline with wishful thinking, again in a way not seen since the 1930s. As Emmanuel Macron recently warned, the “age of plenty » is over and there is much more at stake than our fuel bills. If we want to address the dangers, a first step is to stop encouraging the undermining of our culture and history by people who obviously hate them. We need to strengthen the teaching of history by schools and other institutions. Too many people are ignorant of the past and therefore fall easy prey to noisy propaganda. Shame and guilt will not frighten the gathering vultures.
title: “The Decadent West Is Dismantling The Foundations Of Its Own Success Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-01” author: “Teresa Olson”
Today’s “decolonization”, though superficially similar, has the opposite effect: to mutilate our culture, sow division and narrow our sympathies. Removing Shakespeare, Austen and Chaucer from the curriculum. Relating our history as unbroken violence and exploitation. Denigrating Mozart and Beethoven as products of the slave era. Rejecting “Enlightenment” ideas as racist. Characterizing the contents of museums as “loot”, however innocently acquired. Proving that science, maths and medicine – even cricket, gardening and golf! – are reflections of imperialist oppression. Various explanations of this phenomenon have been proposed, including philosophical (the influence of postmodernism) and political (the turn to “identity” and victimization). But there are, I think, historical reasons. We must ask the basic historical questions “why here?” and “why now?” “Decolonization” is a variant of anti-Westernism that until recently was confined to the political extremes. It is a mutation of anti-colonial nationalism very different from the worldview of the “founding fathers” who fought for independence. Men like Nehru, Jinnah and Mandela wanted to take over the institutions created by imperial rulers and modernize their countries with Western methods. What changed; One cause is the real or perceived “decline of the West.” Since 1989, when Francis Fukuyama famously announced the triumph of Western values and the “end of history,” Western states have made some disastrous mistakes, and their rise appears to be waning. Meanwhile, the apocalyptic pessimism of the radical Green movement, the political and psychological successor to Marxism, fundamentally undermines faith in economic, social and political progress, facilitating the “decolonization” of science as a form of exploitation. Such attacks on Western culture would have seemed outlandish in 1989. Now they seem to be the tide of history, accepted or even welcomed by much of the establishment in English-speaking countries. However, Fukuyama was right: there is no viable alternative ideology and no “colonized” technology if we want to limit climate change without mass starvation. Anti-Westernism cannot provide a sustainable vision for the future. Instead, he indulges in a nihilistic obsession with ludicrous caricatures of the past. The obvious reason is that this provides Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand with the wartime equivalent of the history of US slavery and segregation. Empire means that we too can find ourselves historically guilty, accused of having inherited the guilt of our ancestors, and face demands for reparations. However, most post-colonial states have not since independence equaled the achievements of Western liberal democracy, and many have disappointed the hopes of their founders. “Decolonization”, based on nationalist mythology, places the blame on empires. Indian politician Shashi Tharoor’s Inglorious Empire is the textbook example. It cannot admit that the Empire provided any advantages, as this would leave the post-colonial states responsible for their own failures. So everything is blamed on colonization and pre-colonial and post-colonial oppression is silently glossed over. The pace is often set in Britain by a group of academics and students who are often highly activist if not obviously representative – it is hard to believe that many overseas students pay large sums to come to British universities if they reject British culture, history and the science. Moreover, in a country whose next government will include senior officials born in or with family ties to former colonies, the “colonizers” seem unhappy at the margin exploited by false victims. Their provocative activism brings them fame and great career advantages. One example among many was the course defaming Churchill absurdly organized at Churchill College, Cambridge by Professor Priyamvada Gopal and featuring Dr Onyeka Nubia, Dr Madhusree Mukerjee and Profesor Kehinde Andrews. Many academics fear that they cannot oppose or ignore such voices without being accused of racism. University and museum administrators are acting like commercial companies protecting their marketing image by appeasing protesters. The ongoing saga of the Benin Bronzes encapsulates the confusions of ‘colonisation’. Several British universities and museums have decided to return works of art seized in 1897 to the descendants of slave traders in Nigeria. This has sparked protests from American descendants of enslaved Africans in what is now Nigeria, who assert their moral right to be consulted and want the works kept in Western museums. The original decision so far remains: otherwise, it would be a tacit admission that empires could sometimes bring benefits – in this case, ending the slave trade. Which of course would contradict the doctrine of “colonization”. All of this could be dismissed as virtue-signaling froth. But it is part of something bigger and more serious. The West – those diverse societies trying to implement the “Enlightenment” values of individual freedom, rationality, the rule of law and democracy – is more vulnerable than at any time since the 1930s. The invasion of Ukraine, the threat to Taiwan, the Iranian nuclear threat and the energy crisis show that we are masking our relative decline with wishful thinking, again in a way not seen since the 1930s. As Emmanuel Macron recently warned, the “age of plenty » is over and there is much more at stake than our fuel bills. If we want to address the dangers, a first step is to stop encouraging the undermining of our culture and history by people who obviously hate them. We need to strengthen the teaching of history by schools and other institutions. Too many people are ignorant of the past and therefore fall easy prey to noisy propaganda. Shame and guilt will not frighten the gathering vultures.
title: “The Decadent West Is Dismantling The Foundations Of Its Own Success Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-07” author: “Gary Burton”
Today’s “decolonization”, though superficially similar, has the opposite effect: to mutilate our culture, sow division and narrow our sympathies. Removing Shakespeare, Austen and Chaucer from the curriculum. Relating our history as unbroken violence and exploitation. Denigrating Mozart and Beethoven as products of the slave era. Rejecting “Enlightenment” ideas as racist. Characterizing the contents of museums as “loot”, however innocently acquired. Proving that science, maths and medicine – even cricket, gardening and golf! – are reflections of imperialist oppression. Various explanations of this phenomenon have been proposed, including philosophical (the influence of postmodernism) and political (the turn to “identity” and victimization). But there are, I think, historical reasons. We must ask the basic historical questions “why here?” and “why now?” “Decolonization” is a variant of anti-Westernism that until recently was confined to the political extremes. It is a mutation of anti-colonial nationalism very different from the worldview of the “founding fathers” who fought for independence. Men like Nehru, Jinnah and Mandela wanted to take over the institutions created by imperial rulers and modernize their countries with Western methods. What changed; One cause is the real or perceived “decline of the West.” Since 1989, when Francis Fukuyama famously announced the triumph of Western values and the “end of history,” Western states have made some disastrous mistakes, and their rise appears to be waning. Meanwhile, the apocalyptic pessimism of the radical Green movement, the political and psychological successor to Marxism, fundamentally undermines faith in economic, social and political progress, facilitating the “decolonization” of science as a form of exploitation. Such attacks on Western culture would have seemed outlandish in 1989. Now they seem to be the tide of history, accepted or even welcomed by much of the establishment in English-speaking countries. However, Fukuyama was right: there is no viable alternative ideology and no “colonized” technology if we want to limit climate change without mass starvation. Anti-Westernism cannot provide a sustainable vision for the future. Instead, he indulges in a nihilistic obsession with ludicrous caricatures of the past. The obvious reason is that this provides Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand with the wartime equivalent of the history of US slavery and segregation. Empire means that we too can find ourselves historically guilty, accused of having inherited the guilt of our ancestors, and face demands for reparations. However, most post-colonial states have not since independence equaled the achievements of Western liberal democracy, and many have disappointed the hopes of their founders. “Decolonization”, based on nationalist mythology, places the blame on empires. Indian politician Shashi Tharoor’s Inglorious Empire is the textbook example. It cannot admit that the Empire provided any advantages, as this would leave the post-colonial states responsible for their own failures. So everything is blamed on colonization and pre-colonial and post-colonial oppression is silently glossed over. The pace is often set in Britain by a group of academics and students who are often highly activist if not obviously representative – it is hard to believe that many overseas students pay large sums to come to British universities if they reject British culture, history and the science. Moreover, in a country whose next government will include senior officials born in or with family ties to former colonies, the “colonizers” seem unhappy at the margin exploited by false victims. Their provocative activism brings them fame and great career advantages. One example among many was the course defaming Churchill absurdly organized at Churchill College, Cambridge by Professor Priyamvada Gopal and featuring Dr Onyeka Nubia, Dr Madhusree Mukerjee and Profesor Kehinde Andrews. Many academics fear that they cannot oppose or ignore such voices without being accused of racism. University and museum administrators are acting like commercial companies protecting their marketing image by appeasing protesters. The ongoing saga of the Benin Bronzes encapsulates the confusions of ‘colonisation’. Several British universities and museums have decided to return works of art seized in 1897 to the descendants of slave traders in Nigeria. This has sparked protests from American descendants of enslaved Africans in what is now Nigeria, who assert their moral right to be consulted and want the works kept in Western museums. The original decision so far remains: otherwise, it would be a tacit admission that empires could sometimes bring benefits – in this case, ending the slave trade. Which of course would contradict the doctrine of “colonization”. All of this could be dismissed as virtue-signaling froth. But it is part of something bigger and more serious. The West – those diverse societies trying to implement the “Enlightenment” values of individual freedom, rationality, the rule of law and democracy – is more vulnerable than at any time since the 1930s. The invasion of Ukraine, the threat to Taiwan, the Iranian nuclear threat and the energy crisis show that we are masking our relative decline with wishful thinking, again in a way not seen since the 1930s. As Emmanuel Macron recently warned, the “age of plenty » is over and there is much more at stake than our fuel bills. If we want to address the dangers, a first step is to stop encouraging the undermining of our culture and history by people who obviously hate them. We need to strengthen the teaching of history by schools and other institutions. Too many people are ignorant of the past and therefore fall easy prey to noisy propaganda. Shame and guilt will not frighten the gathering vultures.
title: “The Decadent West Is Dismantling The Foundations Of Its Own Success Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-23” author: “Eddie Purvis”
Today’s “decolonization”, though superficially similar, has the opposite effect: to mutilate our culture, sow division and narrow our sympathies. Removing Shakespeare, Austen and Chaucer from the curriculum. Relating our history as unbroken violence and exploitation. Denigrating Mozart and Beethoven as products of the slave era. Rejecting “Enlightenment” ideas as racist. Characterizing the contents of museums as “loot”, however innocently acquired. Proving that science, maths and medicine – even cricket, gardening and golf! – are reflections of imperialist oppression. Various explanations of this phenomenon have been proposed, including philosophical (the influence of postmodernism) and political (the turn to “identity” and victimization). But there are, I think, historical reasons. We must ask the basic historical questions “why here?” and “why now?” “Decolonization” is a variant of anti-Westernism that until recently was confined to the political extremes. It is a mutation of anti-colonial nationalism very different from the worldview of the “founding fathers” who fought for independence. Men like Nehru, Jinnah and Mandela wanted to take over the institutions created by imperial rulers and modernize their countries with Western methods. What changed; One cause is the real or perceived “decline of the West.” Since 1989, when Francis Fukuyama famously announced the triumph of Western values and the “end of history,” Western states have made some disastrous mistakes, and their rise appears to be waning. Meanwhile, the apocalyptic pessimism of the radical Green movement, the political and psychological successor to Marxism, fundamentally undermines faith in economic, social and political progress, facilitating the “decolonization” of science as a form of exploitation. Such attacks on Western culture would have seemed outlandish in 1989. Now they seem to be the tide of history, accepted or even welcomed by much of the establishment in English-speaking countries. However, Fukuyama was right: there is no viable alternative ideology and no “colonized” technology if we want to limit climate change without mass starvation. Anti-Westernism cannot provide a sustainable vision for the future. Instead, he indulges in a nihilistic obsession with ludicrous caricatures of the past. The obvious reason is that this provides Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand with the wartime equivalent of the history of US slavery and segregation. Empire means that we too can find ourselves historically guilty, accused of having inherited the guilt of our ancestors, and face demands for reparations. However, most post-colonial states have not since independence equaled the achievements of Western liberal democracy, and many have disappointed the hopes of their founders. “Decolonization”, based on nationalist mythology, places the blame on empires. Indian politician Shashi Tharoor’s Inglorious Empire is the textbook example. It cannot admit that the Empire provided any advantages, as this would leave the post-colonial states responsible for their own failures. So everything is blamed on colonization and pre-colonial and post-colonial oppression is silently glossed over. The pace is often set in Britain by a group of academics and students who are often highly activist if not obviously representative – it is hard to believe that many overseas students pay large sums to come to British universities if they reject British culture, history and the science. Moreover, in a country whose next government will include senior officials born in or with family ties to former colonies, the “colonizers” seem unhappy at the margin exploited by false victims. Their provocative activism brings them fame and great career advantages. One example among many was the course defaming Churchill absurdly organized at Churchill College, Cambridge by Professor Priyamvada Gopal and featuring Dr Onyeka Nubia, Dr Madhusree Mukerjee and Profesor Kehinde Andrews. Many academics fear that they cannot oppose or ignore such voices without being accused of racism. University and museum administrators are acting like commercial companies protecting their marketing image by appeasing protesters. The ongoing saga of the Benin Bronzes encapsulates the confusions of ‘colonisation’. Several British universities and museums have decided to return works of art seized in 1897 to the descendants of slave traders in Nigeria. This has sparked protests from American descendants of enslaved Africans in what is now Nigeria, who assert their moral right to be consulted and want the works kept in Western museums. The original decision so far remains: otherwise, it would be a tacit admission that empires could sometimes bring benefits – in this case, ending the slave trade. Which of course would contradict the doctrine of “colonization”. All of this could be dismissed as virtue-signaling froth. But it is part of something bigger and more serious. The West – those diverse societies trying to implement the “Enlightenment” values of individual freedom, rationality, the rule of law and democracy – is more vulnerable than at any time since the 1930s. The invasion of Ukraine, the threat to Taiwan, the Iranian nuclear threat and the energy crisis show that we are masking our relative decline with wishful thinking, again in a way not seen since the 1930s. As Emmanuel Macron recently warned, the “age of plenty » is over and there is much more at stake than our fuel bills. If we want to address the dangers, a first step is to stop encouraging the undermining of our culture and history by people who obviously hate them. We need to strengthen the teaching of history by schools and other institutions. Too many people are ignorant of the past and therefore fall easy prey to noisy propaganda. Shame and guilt will not frighten the gathering vultures.
