De-colonizing classrooms?

[buildup]

What does 'decolonizing classrooms' mean? After classrooms are decolonized, what would be taught? Some elements of the teachers unions seem to be pushing this concept, and I'm not sure whether the goal is to reserve more teaching positions for certain groups or to change the curricula. My opinion is all of this could be captured under Canadian history or politics.

 

[SunriseChampion]

What? Are they going to banish all the immigrant children?

 

[buildup]

What? Are they going to banish all the immigrant children?

I think they just like to say the word "de-colonize" it can't possibly mean anything. If they intend to remove European or Western content, there won't be much left as they well know. I'm embarrassed to say 5-10 yeara ago, I was on board this Progressive insanity.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I think they just like to say the word "de-colonize" it can't possibly mean anything. If they intend to remove European or Western content, there won't be much left as they well know. I'm embarrassed to say 5-10 yeara ago, I was on board this Progressive insanity.

Allow me to correct you: "Progressive".

What changed?

I'm not sure what it means, but to me it means the removal of immigrant children.
Or children from other school catchment areas?
Different provinces?

Anything else is some sort of new-age euphemism for laying blame.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

It is a good buzzword but it makes no sense since colonization is directly responsible for our high standard of living. De-colonizing requires us to move back in time to an era before electricity and I am not particularly interested in.

 

[lenaitch]

Since I am long removed from the educational system, I had to look up the term. I don't think too many would argue that, from today's perspective, many of the actions of European 'settlers' in relation to the aboriginal population were culturally damaging to them, and that the recognition and recounting of our history has to be fair and balanced, but I'm not sure what teaching 'aboriginal history' to non-aboriginal students intends to accomplish. So long as Canadian history is or becomes the history of all of us then it accomplishes its goal of being a fair and accurate recounting; it can't be re-written. On that note, at least European or 'settler' history is, in fact, written.
It is fair that when a society commits wrongs or damage to another, that it be acknowledged and reasonable efforts made to right the damage, but at some point everybody needs to move forward.
Aboriginal cultures should be free to teach anything they want about their culture, but there has to be a recognition that, for better or worse, their culture has been unalterably changed. There may be a longing to return to traditional ways, but I'm not sure how much of it blends with the non-traditional economy and lifestyle that most now live in.

 

[jje1000]

What does 'decolonizing classrooms' mean? After classrooms are decolonized, what would be taught? Some elements of the teachers unions seem to be pushing this concept, and I'm not sure whether the goal is to reserve more teaching positions for certain groups or to change the curricula. My opinion is all of this could be captured under Canadian history or politics.

It's just political groups/leftwingers pushing for a bigger share of the pie while the progressive stack is still piping hot in the current political climate. Same with the whole concept of Indigenous Knowledge, where Indigenous thinking is placed on the same weighting as Western ones.

The real problems is that many of these goals are subjective rather than qualitative (read up on operational definition in sociology)- and that even if everyone gave them everything they wanted, there will always need to be another grievance for these groups to address for these organizations to remain relevant. Ultimately, this is yet another off-shoot of the whole realm of psychology and sociology- a branch of the academic realm that needs some serious reorganization to fix.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Since I am long removed from the educational system, I had to look up the term. I don't think too many would argue that, from today's perspective, many of the actions of European 'settlers' in relation to the aboriginal population were culturally damaging to them, and that the recognition and recounting of our history has to be fair and balanced, but I'm not sure what teaching 'aboriginal history' to non-aboriginal students intends to accomplish. So long as Canadian history is or becomes the history of all of us then it accomplishes its goal of being a fair and accurate recounting; it can't be re-written. On that note, at least European or 'settler' history is, in fact, written.
It is fair that when a society commits wrongs or damage to another, that it be acknowledged and reasonable efforts made to right the damage, but at some point everybody needs to move forward.
Aboriginal cultures should be free to teach anything they want about their culture, but there has to be a recognition that, for better or worse, their culture has been unalterably changed. There may be a longing to return to traditional ways, but I'm not sure how much of it blends with the non-traditional economy and lifestyle that most now live in.

Well said.
If all it is is a representation of history in a balanced and fair way, then I'm all for it.
However, I don't trust people who are especially keen on revision to do that.

The reason I brought up immigrant children in this context is because the colonisation of Canada continues to a certain extent and I don't think that's acknowledged or even recognised often enough.
A large part of it seems to be a certain reactionary focus on swinging the pendulum the other way, which inevitably leads to an equal but opposite state of ridiculous.
Sort of how Czechoslovakians who escaped during the communist era of disaster are so anti-communist that it borders on paranoia. For example, anything remotely socialist scares the hell out of them, because they're truly psychologically scarred from previous experience.

I should add: in spite of my current siggy, I'm not one of them.
Though, I am related to some.

 

[jje1000]

Well said.
If all it is is a representation of history in a balanced and fair way, then I'm all for it.
However, I don't trust people who are especially keen on revision to do that.

The reason I brought up immigrant children in this context is because the colonisation of Canada continues to a certain extent and I don't think that's acknowledged or even recognised often enough.
A large part of it seems to be a certain reactionary focus on swinging the pendulum the other way, which inevitably leads to an equal but opposite state of ridiculous.
Sort of how Czechoslovakians who escaped during the communist era of disaster are so anti-communist that it borders on paranoia. For example, anything remotely socialist scares the hell out of them, because they're truly psychologically scarred from previous experience.

It's interesting that some children/grandchildren of victims (i.e. Holocaust, Aboriginal) are now talking about "embodied trauma" or "intergenerational trauma".

 

[SunriseChampion]

It's interesting that some children/grandchildren of victims (i.e. Holocaust, Aboriginal) are now talking about "embodied trauma" or "intergenerational trauma".

That's a load of bollocks except in cases where past traumatic experience causes one to treat their progeny in a way that is also traumatic.

In fact, if it were a real phenomenon that somehow passed on trauma through the ages in our genes then we'd all be victims of it. Every single last bastard on this planet.
Of course, no one would suggest that so it becomes a competition for who the biggest victim is.

"My lineage's historical trauma is worse than yours."

 

[lenaitch]

However, I don't trust people who are especially keen on revision to do that.

Neither do I. Perhaps I'd feel a bit more comfortable if academia and the halls of higher learning were, themselves, more open to different and, yes, perhaps uncomfortable ideas. Keep in mind that the role of academia is to tell other people how to live their lives. I always thought that's what spouses were for.

It's interesting that some children/grandchildren of victims (i.e. Holocaust, Aboriginal) are now talking about "embodied trauma" or "intergenerational trauma".

I will accept that someone who was raised in a strict and loveless environment will not likely grow up to be a loving and compassionate parent, and that the impact of that will be generational, but I don't accept that it becomes embedded; rather, it should diminish over time. However, if it turns out to be verifiably true, I'm suing the British for the trauma in my life flowing from Culloden.

 

[jje1000]

Aboriginal cultures should be free to teach anything they want about their culture, but there has to be a recognition that, for better or worse, their culture has been unalterably changed. There may be a longing to return to traditional ways, but I'm not sure how much of it blends with the non-traditional economy and lifestyle that most now live in.

This is also what I find fascinating. For all intents and purposes, nearly all First Nations outside of the isolated/Arctic reserves live lives largely similar to their western counterparts. Even those living in the isolated/Arctic reserves, aside from a different diet gained through traditional gathering and hunting live in westernized structures, communities and under westernized governmental systems.

Moreso, some tribes (i.e. Tsawwassen in Vancouver) have actively sought out the development of their traditional territories, whereas others have Metis-ized to the extent that some tribe members are indistinguishable from their white counterparts. How are they different? Is modern First Nations culture ultimately a differentiating veneer over a westernized society? Or are there inherent differences that modern revanchist ideology seeks to restore (how far back can reconcilliation reach)?

Whether or not the way they transitioned into this lifestyle was good for them is up for debate (the Inuits essentially went from a stone-age existence to a space-age one in the 50s), but it's very clear that there's no going back. The modern vision of the First Nations as a people who are inherently closer to the land is a largely romanticized and historical one, and in reality far more variegated in today's world.

 

[buildup]

Neither do I. Perhaps I'd feel a bit more comfortable if academia and the halls of higher learning were, themselves, more open to different and, yes, perhaps uncomfortable ideas. Keep in mind that the role of academia is to tell other people how to live their lives. I always thought that's what spouses were for.



I will accept that someone who was raised in a strict and loveless environment will not likely grow up to be a loving and compassionate parent, and that the impact of that will be generational, but I don't accept that it becomes embedded; rather, it should diminish over time. However, if it turns out to be verifiably true, I'm suing the British for the trauma in my life flowing from Culloden.

I love that story, the 'black night of Culloden' since I'm of Scot descent. I assumed it was a virtual holocaust, it seems like about 7 people were killed.

 

[pman]

http://decolonizingconference.com/

Our math scores may be going down the drain, but we’re a world leader in social justice education!

Seriously, though, why does OISE even exist?

 

[buildup]

http://decolonizingconference.com/

Our math scores may be going down the drain, but we’re a world leader in social justice education!

Seriously, though, why does OISE even exist?

It's a grievance industry. Too many people got worthless humanities degrees (bird courses) which they now need to monetize. And there are only two ways - govt employment, govt funding or social media. Tickets to the conference are like $40 for a full day, even they know its worthless. Sandy Hudson is speaking, say no more..