hear, hear- well argued
Deirdre
Sent from my iPhone:
Associate Professor Deirdre Barron
Centre for Design Innovation | Faculty of Health Arts & Design
Internal Mail H31 | PO Box 218 Hawthorn Vic 3122<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> |
Ph: +61 3 9214 6091<tel:+61%203%209214%206091> | [log in to unmask]<https://outlook.swin.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=p9W16Z_g9Ei8fT45gvt62nyBYkbUJdIIos8URgAbejba0tSY6PS4g2ep0Z6abOV2z_-lSC-WyG4.&URL=mailto%3arcooney%40swin.edu.au>| http://www.swinburne.edu.au/designinnovation<https://outlook.swin.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=p9W16Z_g9Ei8fT45gvt62nyBYkbUJdIIos8URgAbejba0tSY6PS4g2ep0Z6abOV2z_-lSC-WyG4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.swinburne.edu.au%2fdesigninnovation> http://www.swinburne.edu.au/designinnovation<https://outlook.swin.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=p9W16Z_g9Ei8fT45gvt62nyBYkbUJdIIos8URgAbejba0tSY6PS4g2ep0Z6abOV2z_-lSC-WyG4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.swinburne.edu.au%2fdesigninnovation>
On 10 Oct 2017, at 11:43 pm, Johann van der Merwe <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Thanks to Gunnar’s post I managed to get a copy of Bruce Gilley’s article.
I read two pages before thinking: surely, this man cannot be serious? The
gist of what he argues for … reclaiming colonialism … is so wrong as to be
laughable in academic terms. That is not to say that everything he writes
about is wrong, or so objectionable as to be certifiably offensive (also,
“empirically and historically inaccurate”), but that when he argues for the
return of an emotive situation that still elicits resentment today he
misses an opportunity to make any case for the fruits of “colonialism”.
That is exactly the point: Gilley mentions SA’s Helen Zille who, on
visiting Singapore, wanted to make the point that the infrastructural and
technological legacies of colonialism was something that nobody would wish
away, indeed, that every person benefited by. Keep what is good and get rid
of the bad. However, the politically correct atmosphere is so bad that her
message was completely lost under a barrage of insults and invective,
despite the fact that she is one of SA’s best politicians “of and for the
people”, with an anti-apartheid record bar none. It all counts for nothing
in the contemporary social media marketplace … what Gilly should have
argued for is the case to be made for building on, not the fruits of
colonialism (the emotive trigger), but the fruits of the inherited
structures when the colonists left (and good riddance to them). My own
people, the Afrikaners, and the Irish, felt only relief when the English
left (or were kicked out, aka., voted out), but we did not destroy what
they left behind.
Whatever the merits or faults of Gilley’s article, it is beyond belief that
our so-called modern world can countenance such political censoring … what
is the difference between the West and all the examples we have seen of
Eastern academic institutions blocking posts on this list because they felt
certain words or terms objectionable? Are we to import the political stance
of China, and severely censor what we do not like? Turn into an academic
Breitbart News Network?
I have to agree with Gunnar: it is wrong and utterly objectionable to
retract articles of this nature that you simply do not agree with. If you
feel strongly enough about the subject, then publish a refutation /
rebuttal, without the invective, and with a solid counter argument. To
shout your opponents down and call for banning, and, increasingly in SA, to
threaten violence is beyond being human. My building at CPUT, that I worked
in before retiring, was firebombed twice recently, as well as the church
just across the way (the width of a road from my window), by student
“activists” that believe in violence as a legitimate act … in KwaZulu Natal
the murder rate among ANC leaders is mounting almost daily, as caders
jockey for position ahead of the December conference.
I do not need a reminder, of the worst that people can do to each other, on
this list as well. We have to live with this reality daily.
Johann
On 9 October 2017 at 19:30, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> Introducing threats of violence and giving in to threats of violence are
> clearly morally wrong as far as I’m concerned. Just as, say, those whose
> positions have been colonized (if you’ll excuse the term) by racists and
> misogynists have a special obligation to clarify their objections, so do
> those who demanded the removal of the article have a special obligation to
> condemn the reasons the article was removed.
>
>
> Gunnar
>
>
>
--
Dr. Johann van der Merwe
Independent Design Researcher
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|