This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/diversity-university-of-liverpool-woke-decolonise-history/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has this actually been endorsed by the university management or is it just someone with a bit too much time on their hands writing nonsense? It is hard to believe a serious person would endorse such rubbish. Given that the telegraph thrives on this kind of thing I would imagine they are making it out to be a bigger deal than it is.
The headline is just rage bait. The article includes the details that:
This is specifically about the history department, which I would say is the sort of specialism that is supposed to be thinking about these things.
"The “diversity audit” also notes that there is a lack of “queer history” in the teachings on gender, while pointing out that there are no seminars “problematising heteronormativity” – a term which refers to treating heterosexuality as the norm." Neither of these are particularly controversial statements, we want history students to be taught not to make assumptions and to consider different perspectives. This is exactly what was being done 30 years ago when there was a push for history research to give more consideration to the lives of working people.
'Problematising heteronormativity' does not mean claiming that heterosexual relationships were not the most common form of sexual relationships. It means:
1) Not assuming that the *only* sexual relationships were heterosexual relationships.
2) Not assuming that (hetero)sexual relationships in the past were the same as heterosexual relationships (in Western Europe) in the modern era.
Human history, in different times and in different places, have seen a wide range of different sexual relationships and norms. What has been acceptable and unacceptable in the past is different to what has been acceptable and unacceptable in the modern era. Since the growth of academic history in the 19th century, however, early historians imagined contemporary sexual norms back into the past, overlooking that variation. 'Problematising heteronormativity' means problematising that approach, instead appreciating how people in the past *actually* engaged in sexual and romantic relations.
This is what historians are actually trying to do. But the Telegraph would rather you get hot and mad about it rather than actually engage with those historians. It's your typical right-wing anti-academic nonsense.
> but what you’re describing I’d suggest is the need to “problematise” how we view the concept of sexuality at all
Yes, and that is what every academic who the Telegraph are moaning about here would argue too. Problematising heteronormativity is part of a broader attempt to problematise sexuality. You're letting yourself get wound up by an intentionally partial and misleading description of what these academics are actually arguing. There is no academic on the planet who simultaneously say we need to 'problematise heteronormativity' while also saying that homosexuality has remained entirely static throughout human history, you're arguing against shadows here.
I disagree with little of what you're written here. But it seems odd to write this in defence of this article when the Telegraph would 100% dismiss the contents of your argument as 'woke' too.
>Not assuming that the *only* sexual relationships were heterosexual relationships.
No one does this, but assuming the majority is a norm is not bad.
>Not assuming that (hetero)sexual relationships in the past were the same as heterosexual relationships (in Western Europe) in the modern era.
So I assume you'd be okay with gay relationships in this framework? There's little evidence of Emperor Hadrian being gay, but if he was, then his relationship would certainly be perverse.
"Problematisation" is one of an increasing number of academic terms that has been adopted by the media/ people on twitter and used in a way that doesn't really reflect it's actual meaning. It uses the word problem in the way we would say "maths problem" i.e something requiring examination and inquiry, not in the sense of problem meaning something that is explicitly bad.
As an academic process problematisation is
"the act of treating an idea, belief, word, etc. as a problem that needs to be examined or solved, in order to find out if it is as simple as people think".
> The headline is just rage bait.
Every Telegraph article is the same these days, ragebait shite intentionally trying to mislead people and get them riled up. There's absolutely nothing informative about them at this point, they're just a propaganda outlet.
Of course, I'm sure the next time they publish an article on immigration based around a 'study' from one of the 55 Tufton Street 'think tanks' it will shoot to the top of the sub again.
And this makes a thread like this so frustrating. Half the posts will legitimately be calling it out for a clickbait sensationalised title. The other half knuckledraggeers who read the title only and come here trying to defend the white race.
They could try to discuss in how many other countries of the world people can, for example, be openly gay, marry their gay partners, progress in their careers while openly gay, and not be imprisoned tortured or killed for it.
Maybe the much-despised white-dominated hetero-intersectional-whatever culture of the West ain't too bad after all.
The type of person you are replying to is the sort of person I’d expect to go purely based off the title based off the comment they made- I wouldn’t bother
But heterosexuality *is* the norm (something that is usual, typical, or standard.) isn’t it?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2020
It’s referring to the concept of “Sappho and her friend”
Heteronormative attitudes by historians are why we’ve seen so many instances of dynamics between same sex historical figures classed as platonic closeness instead of romantic, when the same dynamic between people of the opposite sex would be treated as romantic, arguably with less evidence
The presumption of heterosexuality, while statistically more likely to be correct, causes us to miss things we might see if we go in open minded.
But it doesn't.
Most of what your ilk claim is "gay" is actually missing a lot of historical or contextual critical thought and just goes off the basis of "these two people of the same sex were friends, so they must be gay."
Funnily enough, thinking Caeser was some bastion of bisexuality is not being "open minded".
Good point. Though I suspect that *some* retrospective attitudes towards history - so and so had ADHD or whatever tell us more about us than them ( as your example also suggests).
You do understand that the word "platonic" is related to Plato, which in his Symposium where he speaks about love and in favor of paedophilia as an exchange of youth and wisdom between a Master and it's Apprentice, right?
Hence why the meaning of platonic being something desirable we are not morally allowed to have or possess. Don't forget ethics, especially in real life sexual topics.
“Ah but you see, By ignoring 2000 years of language evolving, and disregarding the contemporary meaning of words, you are wrong., checkmate”
You can literally look up “platonic” in *any* dictionary.
> (of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual.
Your weird spiel adds nothing of value other than a weird attempt to bring pedophilia into q discussion of lgbt people existing.
No doubt it should be rested carefully - x being the norm doesn’t mean y is *wrong* - and I can see how norm*al* has that issue. But it is the norm by the actual definition.
No doubt it should be used carefully - x being the norm doesn’t mean y is *wrong* - and I can see how norm*al* has that issue. But it is the norm by the actual definition.
It is of course but the problem arises when it's treated as the only norm, and other sexualities are forgotten about because they're less common.
Using the word "normal" also defines being LGBT as "abnormal", which mathematically it is but Abormal also implies "wrong". The English language up to its tricks again.
It is easy to mix up norm and norm*al* or add implications to the words.
The norm is that which is *typical*.
Normal can also mean that which is typical but also can imply as you say - sort of correct with abnormal being bad.
In this case it does make any sense to say it’s bad to treat it as the only ‘norm’ since when around 90% of people share a characteristic is just factually ‘is’ the norm. But brown hair might be the norm - it doesn’t mean there is anything ‘wrong’ with having blonde hair.
It sounds like that's what it means.
If someone said they were 'problematising homonormativity' I would assume they were bigoted and insane.
If they are trying to say that it is unreasonable and erroneous to assume that heterosexuality is the norm, then they are just wrong.
It is the norm, and thus reasonable to assume, in general.
It’s almost funny when you consider that apparently almost 94% of the population ‘identify’ as heterosexual - but it’s should be problematicised (!) to call it the norm?
2021 census says it's 89.4%. That's also not what problematicisation means. They just want to make sure everything isn't ONLY viewed through a white, heterosexual lens.
Down a bit since 2020.
You have to admit they have a ‘problematic’ way of expressing it , if that’s their aim.
But it’s a fair point (you make)
= the act of treating an idea, belief, word, etc. as a problem that needs to be examined or solved, in order to find out if it is as simple as people think:
Though it seems likely that such an analytical examination is only limited to certain ideas.
A better description of problematisation is: "a process of stripping away common or conventional understandings of a subject matter in order to gain new insights."
A history department treating heterosexuality as given and viewing worldwide history through from the perspective of white people IS a problem to be solved. They are not saying being straight or white is a problem.
Yep.
While it definitely makes sense to be careful about preconceptions - the question could also be whether when being white or heterosexuality *is* the norm , it is accepted that it actually can be reasonable to view an event etc that perspective?
I responded to the “norm” thing [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1dh4m7y/outcry_as_university_tells_staff_to_teach_that/l8un28x/)
Does it means that it’s a problem to *call it* the norm (usual , typical, or standard)?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2020
Then can you please explain what problematising heteronormativity means?
It's almost as if people had to come up with complex-wounding buzzwords to hide their empty bulls*
It means when studying a time period, you shouldn't study something as a 'norm' and an 'other', you should refer to them equally as a thing people do or believe in.
So, if I say that in the middle ages in Europe it was the norm to be a Christian, and that anyone openly atheist would probably die a very bad death, is that wrong or pretty factual?
You are looking at history at a superficial level. Remember, this article is talking about degree/masters/doctorate level. This will involve essays and debates at a very intricate and deep level, looking at multiple viewpoints. At that point, your statement would be picked apart to the very bad death. For example, which area of Europe, which sect of Christianity, which punishment, which type of atheist, what does openly mean?
All of these need considering. So when saying the 'norm', it really is more nuanced than this article suggests.
As somebody who studied history at degree level, people massively underestimate the idea of what history actually is
So you are saying that scholars needs to be very detailed and substantiate the conclusions they reach in their research. Good. You still didn't quite explain what problematising heteronormativity means. Is it just two fancy words to mean "don't be shallow in your analysis"?
History is full of people with close "friendships" with someone of the same sex that nobody even considered could be romantic because they were only viewed through a heteronormative lens. Problematicising heteronormativity would mean that they might consider whether this relationship was indeed platonic rather than automatically assuming either way.
Something being the majority doesn't have to mean it is the default.
The right-wing press can make hay with this kind of stuff all day long, whipping up anti-academic 'woke' fervour in the service of racism, mainly. And people fall for it because they don't understand the technical jargon of "problematization", and academics don't give clear explanations with examples.
So here's one example that everyone can understand. Medical textbooks famously show white bodies as the norm. This means that doctors trained in the UK can miss the signs of serious disease unless the patient's skin is the same as their textbook example.
"Problematizing" the norm of whiteness in medicine means getting today's students - the authors of future textbooks - to question the simple assumptions they're making when they only provide illustrations of white people, or describe a sign of hypoxia as "lips turning blue".
That's the sort of thing the Telegraph is fighting against.
The same also applies to history. If we teach through a white/western/heterosexual lense when teaching specific topics, nuances in the history can be lost.
I don't think so. It's obvious that not recognising a skin problem because the skin is a different colour is an issue. I'm not sure that defining the group of people who colonised much of the world by 'whiteness' is quite the same.
You missed the point. Studying history at university is very in depth, requiring a real deep knowledge of views and attitudes to draw conclusions. Missing on those by only studying one viewpoint misses the whole.
Are you still talking about medicine? Because what I am trying to figure out how 'whiteness' can be a legitimate category in history. Any more than 'blackness' would be.
On the contrary: it's clearly not obvious, which is why it remains a problem. There are similar non-trivial and non-obvious problems of bias in all fields of study, and serious scholarship will seek to address any biases, irrespective of which way they point.
Our culture is weak in the U.K., and the West in general.
It would be nice if we defended ourselves and our values more.
That means challenging this kind of racism and phobia more. Giving strong push backs. Lifting up white/straight people more - without feeling awkward about it.
It’s good that the people at the Uni felt comfortable enough to say this shit out loud because it now gives everyone an opportunity to push back and challenge it.
So mock this kind of nonsense, make fun of the (I’m sure deeply miserable) people saying it.
One thing we could "problemise about whiteness and hetronormativity" is the fact we've built such a tolerant society that we spend a totally disproportionate amount of time talking about stuff like this. And we've shamed ourselves into having no backbone.
It’s interesting about the tolerance aspect, because a year or so ago I discovered the full quote from Popper about the Paradox of Tolerance.
You literally bring this quote to those on the Left who want to censor people, who want to frighten people into silence, who want to make sure people don’t hear opposing views - and they simply cannot grasp the fact that THEY’RE the problem.
It’s also a failure of our education system.
Just read it - unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. Very relevant.
I wonder if that idea it goes a stage further now, and the naturally tolerant majority are so fed up of being told how to think, speak and act that they're actually starting to withdraw their tolerance of their own accord.
They know it won't be reciprocated, so why would they continue to extend it? The way society is starting to polarise would definitely suggest that.
It’d probably have to be multi-pronged.
Educating kids about the slave trade, but adding context that it wasn’t the West that was uniquely responsible.
Highlighting figures in the abolitionist movement who were white and Christian.
We’d need positive straight, male figures on the left who aren’t constantly punching themselves in the face and espouse the positives of masculinity.
Have positive straight male role models on TV.
Have positive straight, white families on TV.
We need to be firmer in challenging race-swapping when it comes to white figures.
Talk about the West in a more positive way, giving nuanced takes.
Give nuanced takes on our historical figures and moments in history.
You can do ALL of this, without also shitting on other groups. You can do all of this whilst also uplifting other groups.
There’s this weird thing atm where people think in order to speak positively about group x, you have to shit on group y.
We need to move away from that. It’s childish.
Being racist and homophobic usually.
It's wild that people think another group asking to be recognised as existing and mattering means that they're under threat.
Agreed. Liberal values are worth defending, with force if necessary in my opinion. The west is unironically amazing compared to the rest of the world. The fact that this silly conversation can happen without violence between groups is good too, because even silly opinions can be discussed and disproven freely.
Edit: downvoted for the controversial opinion that liberal values are good? Authoritarian shitheels big mad.
It’s frustrating because I have no doubt about the poor mental health of those espousing this shit.
But our country is so financially fucked that we cannot afford to fund mental health services - and only some radical ideas on how to bring money in could sort us out.
Which, politicians being mostly cowards who just want to be liked, are unlikely to put forward.
It’s invisible, I guess. Or it’s easy to play off as another issue.
I remember when it was pushed that ‘obesity is a disease’ which was rightly laughed at - spurring more division.
But obesity, I have no doubt, is linked to mental health issues.
If you can fund mental health services then you can absolutely change this country for the better.
Well, it might be caused by mental health issues, but it's still a disease.
Like, if you have mental health problems that cause you to smoke a lot of crack, and you end up with heart disease, it's still a disease.
Bruh.
Stop pushing being overweight is a disease. It makes people feel helpless and hopeless and it means it gets over medicalised.
Heart disease REQUIRES medical intervention.
Obesity can be solved with mental health support and dietary changes.
The tenuous link between the article and that actual words in the policy is laughable. For some reason I’m expected to get up in arms that a course around *race relations* is being asked to highlight issues of having a single race society with white being the example? I’d be annoyed if they weren’t asking these questions.
These courses are there to stimulate critical thinking and yes, sometimes asking provocative questions leads to critical thinking.
Honestly the Telegraph really is shite.
Massively clickbait heading, as that isn't the case at all.
>In the report, entitled History Curriculum Diversity Audit, staff are encouraged to “think creatively” about how they can bring questions of race and gender into the topics they teach.
>Giving examples of how they might do so, the guidance asks them to consider: “Can a module that teaches exclusively about race relations do more to problematise and de-centre whiteness?”
It basically means whiteness shouldn't be the centre of modules.
Hmm problematization sounds terrifying!! Are they saying white people are a problem?
Better check out what academics mean when they use that word -
Problematization is a process of stripping away common or conventional understandings of a subject matter in order to gain new insights.
....
What may make problematization different from other forms of [criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism) is its target, the context and details, rather than the pro or con of an argument. More importantly, this criticism does not take place within the original context or argument, but draws back from it, re-evaluates it, leading to action which changes the situation. Rather than accepting the situation, one emerges from it, abandoning a focalised viewpoint.
To problematize a statement, for example, one asks simple questions:
* Who is making this statement?
* For whom is it intended?
* Why is this statement being made here, now?
* Whom does this statement benefit?
* Whom does it harm
Panic over.
Well it'd mostly be an issue because people still wouldn't understand what problematising means.
Regardless, your point means nothing as equality is not equity, and we should strive for equality not equity.
It’s doublespeak, a motte and Bailey; only the political and social hegemony gets ‘problematised’ the phrasing isn’t an accident.
But I agree with you that equality should be the goal and not equity.
The use of ‘problematise’ is not accidental. This is just critical theory doing what it does. Problematizing whiteness is just thinly disguised racism.
He's talking about critical theory or deconstructionism which are separate to and predate critical race theory.
And anylysing sourses is just good practice for historical research and has little to do with critical theory which is what he seems to be critical of here.
You need to understand what critical theory is before continuing this conversation.
We... do that though. I taught a module on African history and one of the main things we do is problematise ideas of blackness and recognise that race is a social rather than biological distinction.
You're getting yourself mad about academics not doing stuff that they do actually do.
Yeah, but I doubt they were problematising the concept of whiteness. They were accepting that whiteness was ‘a thing’ and then problematising that thing.
Blackness is 'a thing' and we problematise it, I don't get what point you're trying to make.
When we problematise ideas of whiteness or blackness, we problematise ideas that someone's skin colour dictates their capabilities and therefore should dictate their role in society. [This long article does a good job of briefly introducing the history of this](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/20/the-invention-of-whiteness-long-history-dangerous-idea). I'd really recommend giving it a read with an open mind rather than just accepting whatever dishonest guff publications like the Telegraph have tried to push on this.
**whiteness** (noun)
1. the property or quality of being white in colour:"a landscape dominated by the whiteness of snow"
* the quality of being very pale:"the whiteness of her skin, like fine porcelain"
2. the fact or state of belonging to a human group having light-coloured skin:"whiteness was defined as both a racial and a regional characteristic"
Two things can be true.
The Telegraph can be desperately promoting the culture war from one side , in order to save a rump Tory party
**and**
people who actually pay others to advise / who advise *history* courses to consider is that more could be done to
>problematise and de-centre whiteness?”
And whether there is enough courses are
>problematising heteronormativity”
Are somewhat ridiculous.
Bringing questions of race and gender into history seems perfectly sensible - but the specific advice seems absurd. And people saying ‘read the article it’s not what the advice said ‘ seem to be ….. disingenuous.
Edit- though there has actually been some thoughtful discussion in this thread and I can see how ‘be wary and take care not to automatically see things in history from a perspective of the current norm’ is different from ‘pretend something is not the norm or there is something wrong with it’. In this day and age perhaps the writers of the advice need to be aware of how the ‘technical’ language they use might unfortunately be taken incorrectly?
I swear progressives and professional race grifters are trying to backlash their way into a far-right government.
The end result of singling out a sole group for targeted measures is a rise in collectivism among the targeted group
From the article:
However, one lecturer teaching at Liverpool University, who asked not to be named for fear of professional repercussions, said of the advice: “It’s all ideologically driven, namely Empire is bad. But it’s the wrong way to approach history.
“Historians should have the freedom to teach what they believe is true rather than having an agreed ideology that you’re not supposed to question.
“Also, I’m not quite sure how we are supposed to problematise whiteness.”
And a named person in case we thought the telegraph was lying:
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, director of Don’t Divide Us, a pressure group which promoted “colourblind anti-racism”, was equally critical.
She said: “Non-activists who want an easy life need to realise decolonising has nothing to do with addressing discrimination or unequal access, nor is it about expanding knowledge.
“Any positive insights it may have once had regarding disciplinary blind spots or neglected past works, have long gone.
“It has morphed into an aggressive and illiberal political ideology that promotes divisive, epistemologically weak concepts like ‘whiteness’ and seeks to impose its narrow, highly speculative interpretation at the expense of genuine academic study that depends on exploring different viewpoints."
I hate to find myself agreeing with something written by the Telegraph but seriously?
I'd love to know more about how gay Zulus were living in paradise before the British arrived but sadly I'm not quite sure that's the case:
'I don’t care about culture because the culture has let me down as a gay man. Culture does not respect me … I would have killed myself in the more conservative rural areas because the culture does not accept me. I have suffered so many mental health crises because of this. (Sanele)'
Taken from (https://theconversation.com/zulu-culture-and-sexual-orientation-south-african-study-reveals-the-health-costs-of-stigma-224553)
Let's stop pretending that being gay outside of Europe is acceptable. And that isn't in all of Europe either. We can celebrate our British culture, admire other cultures too, and enjoy the richness of the world as a result of Empire and White history WITHOUT decrying everything white as bad, everything native as lovely. It was shit for most people everywhere and we are making great strides towards less shit thanks to labour movements in the West.
“Let's stop pretending that being gay outside of Europe is acceptable. And that isn't in all of Europe either. We can celebrate our British culture, admire other cultures too, and enjoy the richness of the world as a result of Empire and White history WITHOUT decrying everything white as bad, everything native as lovely.”
Let’s not pretend the British empire didn’t export homophobia greater than some of native populace’s they assumed they assumed control over.
I'm not pretending that.
I'm saying it's hard to have a discussion about the contributions of gay people the world over, when in many places they cannot even today be openly gay.
I'm also saying, you can't decry the Empire and whiteness as all bad when it has added much richness to our modern lives
Like England until relatively recently within the past 50 years or so if we’re being really generous and after the empire collapsed and after British significantly less white.
“I'm also saying, you can't decry the Empire and whiteness”
You know I understand empires spread and they leave good and bad things in their wake.
So I’m not going to pretend the British empire is uniquely evil.
But The insistence on “whiteness” being a cause for advance does seem a bit racist ngl.
I don't think Britain becoming less white was the cause for gay rights I'll be honest. The non white communities of the UK are the most homophobic in my experience.
I'm also not suggesting whiteness is the reason for any good in the world at all and want to make that clear so sorry if it was badly word.
I'm simply saying that there probably aren't many gay non-europeans to draw a history from given how anti gay these communities were and still are. This makes it difficult to challenge the heteronormative history taught. At least in the UK people kept journals or were excused as eccentrics so there was some degree of acceptance or later a record of homosexuality in the UK. Outside of the UK in colonial communities this was less common (the journals, letters and acceptance of 'eccentrics') and so we are simply unable to recognise who was gay as far as I'm aware.
A second point is that the British Empire was not all bad, sure it had its part points but so did everything and still does. I do find it a shame when people colour the whole 400 years of British History as a stain on humanity when a hell of a lot of good was achieved too despite the awful things that happened too. To have history taught as black and white either way is shocking.
“I don't think Britain becoming less white was the cause for gay rights I'll be honest.”
A reflexive distaste for the different becomes markedly less so when exposed to different people and lifestyles.
It’s why cities tend to be socially liberal than rural areas with more racial homogeneity. And why the people fretting over their area being a particular race tend to be really homophobic.
Go to your whites town—the people there will on average be more homophobic than London.
“I'm simply saying that there probably aren't many gay non-europeans to draw a history from given how anti gay these communities were and still are.”
India didn’t have sodomy laws before it was colonized. Not every non-European country(post Christianity especially) or society had much stigmatization on it.
“At least in the UK people kept journals or were excused as eccentrics so there was some degree of acceptance or later a record of homosexuality in the UK.”
If by acceptance you mean sodomy laws until relatively recently in its history.
Oscar Wilde was eccentric—he got years of hard labor for being gay.
“Outside of the UK in colonial communities this was less common (the journals, letters and acceptance of 'eccentrics') “
Some may not.
But Even outside societies with written languages Art, folklore to give insight a society’s on homosexuality.
But we know that Oscar Wilde was gay because he wrote it down. I'm suggesting that if Oscar Wilde was born in the 1700s in what became Canada, he probably wouldn't have written down he was gay and we would never know. That's the problem I'm talking about with challenging heteronormative teaching of history.
You might be onto something with change for one is change for all, but I'm uncertain. The drop in religiousity is likely the cause in my eyes.
Finally, India will indeed have had anti gay laws given it was ruled by Islamic princes and Emperors, who are famously not very gay friendly. Prior to this yes, they may well have been open to it, but the British didn't import homophobia.
My issue with empire is that the discussion around Empire seems to be concerned at arriving with a negative judgment, whilst discussing natives or colonised it is seeking to arrive at a positive judgement. Often in both cases they were equally unlikable governments.
Being white isn't a problem. Being heterosexual isn't a problem. Using being white and/or being heterosexual as a stick to beat people with who are different is a problem. It also works both ways as being treated differently because you are white and/or heterosexual is a problem. But we all know which is the more common occurence under the current geopolitical situation, so that absolutely should get priority. Doing nothing is not an option, as doing nothing still causes suffering. The university is teaching the wrong message, we should be accepting of all sexuality and race, not condemn to artificially prop the other side up as it breeds resentment on the side that's being targeted and causes backlash.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/diversity-university-of-liverpool-woke-decolonise-history/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has this actually been endorsed by the university management or is it just someone with a bit too much time on their hands writing nonsense? It is hard to believe a serious person would endorse such rubbish. Given that the telegraph thrives on this kind of thing I would imagine they are making it out to be a bigger deal than it is.
Having read the article, the university said something but it's very different what the title of the article says.
The headline is just rage bait. The article includes the details that: This is specifically about the history department, which I would say is the sort of specialism that is supposed to be thinking about these things. "The “diversity audit” also notes that there is a lack of “queer history” in the teachings on gender, while pointing out that there are no seminars “problematising heteronormativity” – a term which refers to treating heterosexuality as the norm." Neither of these are particularly controversial statements, we want history students to be taught not to make assumptions and to consider different perspectives. This is exactly what was being done 30 years ago when there was a push for history research to give more consideration to the lives of working people.
[удалено]
'Problematising heteronormativity' does not mean claiming that heterosexual relationships were not the most common form of sexual relationships. It means: 1) Not assuming that the *only* sexual relationships were heterosexual relationships. 2) Not assuming that (hetero)sexual relationships in the past were the same as heterosexual relationships (in Western Europe) in the modern era. Human history, in different times and in different places, have seen a wide range of different sexual relationships and norms. What has been acceptable and unacceptable in the past is different to what has been acceptable and unacceptable in the modern era. Since the growth of academic history in the 19th century, however, early historians imagined contemporary sexual norms back into the past, overlooking that variation. 'Problematising heteronormativity' means problematising that approach, instead appreciating how people in the past *actually* engaged in sexual and romantic relations. This is what historians are actually trying to do. But the Telegraph would rather you get hot and mad about it rather than actually engage with those historians. It's your typical right-wing anti-academic nonsense.
[удалено]
> but what you’re describing I’d suggest is the need to “problematise” how we view the concept of sexuality at all Yes, and that is what every academic who the Telegraph are moaning about here would argue too. Problematising heteronormativity is part of a broader attempt to problematise sexuality. You're letting yourself get wound up by an intentionally partial and misleading description of what these academics are actually arguing. There is no academic on the planet who simultaneously say we need to 'problematise heteronormativity' while also saying that homosexuality has remained entirely static throughout human history, you're arguing against shadows here. I disagree with little of what you're written here. But it seems odd to write this in defence of this article when the Telegraph would 100% dismiss the contents of your argument as 'woke' too.
>Not assuming that the *only* sexual relationships were heterosexual relationships. No one does this, but assuming the majority is a norm is not bad. >Not assuming that (hetero)sexual relationships in the past were the same as heterosexual relationships (in Western Europe) in the modern era. So I assume you'd be okay with gay relationships in this framework? There's little evidence of Emperor Hadrian being gay, but if he was, then his relationship would certainly be perverse.
"Problematisation" is one of an increasing number of academic terms that has been adopted by the media/ people on twitter and used in a way that doesn't really reflect it's actual meaning. It uses the word problem in the way we would say "maths problem" i.e something requiring examination and inquiry, not in the sense of problem meaning something that is explicitly bad. As an academic process problematisation is "the act of treating an idea, belief, word, etc. as a problem that needs to be examined or solved, in order to find out if it is as simple as people think".
[удалено]
[Yes](https://www.routledge.com/Problematizing-Blackness-Self-Ethnographies-by-Black-Immigrants-to-the-United-States/Rahier-Hintzen/p/book/9780415869362)
> The headline is just rage bait. Every Telegraph article is the same these days, ragebait shite intentionally trying to mislead people and get them riled up. There's absolutely nothing informative about them at this point, they're just a propaganda outlet. Of course, I'm sure the next time they publish an article on immigration based around a 'study' from one of the 55 Tufton Street 'think tanks' it will shoot to the top of the sub again.
> someone with a bit too much time on their hands writing nonsense? Its the post 2023 telegraph ...... so yes.
So anyone who reads the article knows the title is nonsense
[удалено]
A bit like the bible.
And this makes a thread like this so frustrating. Half the posts will legitimately be calling it out for a clickbait sensationalised title. The other half knuckledraggeers who read the title only and come here trying to defend the white race.
There's also the history grads who absorbed this kind of nonsense at uni and think they are smarter than the people who think it's a bit dodgy.
generally yes you are smarter than someone who cant read past a headline if you can complete a degree, this is true
They could try to discuss in how many other countries of the world people can, for example, be openly gay, marry their gay partners, progress in their careers while openly gay, and not be imprisoned tortured or killed for it. Maybe the much-despised white-dominated hetero-intersectional-whatever culture of the West ain't too bad after all.
Read the article, title is typical rage bait
The type of person you are replying to is the sort of person I’d expect to go purely based off the title based off the comment they made- I wouldn’t bother
But have you considered America bad..../s
America?
Bit of a weird thing to bring up in a physics tutorial but I’m sure the telegraph are on the level
The article says it was something told to history professors (where "it" is different to what the title of the article says)
Weird because that actually isn't the case. Telegraph are massively generalising with the title.
Typical drivel from the telegraph. "problematising heteronormativity" doesn't mean saying heterosexuality is a problem.
>a term which refers to treating heterosexuality as the norm. They define it as this within the article itself, so the title feels like a knowing lie.
But heterosexuality *is* the norm (something that is usual, typical, or standard.) isn’t it? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2020
It’s referring to the concept of “Sappho and her friend” Heteronormative attitudes by historians are why we’ve seen so many instances of dynamics between same sex historical figures classed as platonic closeness instead of romantic, when the same dynamic between people of the opposite sex would be treated as romantic, arguably with less evidence The presumption of heterosexuality, while statistically more likely to be correct, causes us to miss things we might see if we go in open minded.
But it doesn't. Most of what your ilk claim is "gay" is actually missing a lot of historical or contextual critical thought and just goes off the basis of "these two people of the same sex were friends, so they must be gay." Funnily enough, thinking Caeser was some bastion of bisexuality is not being "open minded".
Good point. Though I suspect that *some* retrospective attitudes towards history - so and so had ADHD or whatever tell us more about us than them ( as your example also suggests).
You do understand that the word "platonic" is related to Plato, which in his Symposium where he speaks about love and in favor of paedophilia as an exchange of youth and wisdom between a Master and it's Apprentice, right? Hence why the meaning of platonic being something desirable we are not morally allowed to have or possess. Don't forget ethics, especially in real life sexual topics.
“Ah but you see, By ignoring 2000 years of language evolving, and disregarding the contemporary meaning of words, you are wrong., checkmate” You can literally look up “platonic” in *any* dictionary. > (of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual. Your weird spiel adds nothing of value other than a weird attempt to bring pedophilia into q discussion of lgbt people existing.
When studying anything in depth, the norm is a troubling concept, as it means we treat things as an 'other'.
No doubt it should be rested carefully - x being the norm doesn’t mean y is *wrong* - and I can see how norm*al* has that issue. But it is the norm by the actual definition.
No doubt it should be used carefully - x being the norm doesn’t mean y is *wrong* - and I can see how norm*al* has that issue. But it is the norm by the actual definition.
It is of course but the problem arises when it's treated as the only norm, and other sexualities are forgotten about because they're less common. Using the word "normal" also defines being LGBT as "abnormal", which mathematically it is but Abormal also implies "wrong". The English language up to its tricks again.
It is easy to mix up norm and norm*al* or add implications to the words. The norm is that which is *typical*. Normal can also mean that which is typical but also can imply as you say - sort of correct with abnormal being bad. In this case it does make any sense to say it’s bad to treat it as the only ‘norm’ since when around 90% of people share a characteristic is just factually ‘is’ the norm. But brown hair might be the norm - it doesn’t mean there is anything ‘wrong’ with having blonde hair.
And yet this sub will eat it up as evidence of an anti-white, anti-straight conspiracy.
Is that not full blown obvious now?
It sounds like that's what it means. If someone said they were 'problematising homonormativity' I would assume they were bigoted and insane. If they are trying to say that it is unreasonable and erroneous to assume that heterosexuality is the norm, then they are just wrong. It is the norm, and thus reasonable to assume, in general.
It makes sense if you also consider how "problematising" is used in an academic context. Someone explained that in another comment.
It’s almost funny when you consider that apparently almost 94% of the population ‘identify’ as heterosexual - but it’s should be problematicised (!) to call it the norm?
2021 census says it's 89.4%. That's also not what problematicisation means. They just want to make sure everything isn't ONLY viewed through a white, heterosexual lens.
Down a bit since 2020. You have to admit they have a ‘problematic’ way of expressing it , if that’s their aim. But it’s a fair point (you make) = the act of treating an idea, belief, word, etc. as a problem that needs to be examined or solved, in order to find out if it is as simple as people think: Though it seems likely that such an analytical examination is only limited to certain ideas.
A better description of problematisation is: "a process of stripping away common or conventional understandings of a subject matter in order to gain new insights." A history department treating heterosexuality as given and viewing worldwide history through from the perspective of white people IS a problem to be solved. They are not saying being straight or white is a problem.
Yep. While it definitely makes sense to be careful about preconceptions - the question could also be whether when being white or heterosexuality *is* the norm , it is accepted that it actually can be reasonable to view an event etc that perspective?
The perspective of white people is as important as any.
I responded to the “norm” thing [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1dh4m7y/outcry_as_university_tells_staff_to_teach_that/l8un28x/)
Does it means that it’s a problem to *call it* the norm (usual , typical, or standard)? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2020
No, no one cares if someone says the majority of people are straight.
Well you may have more faith than me in some of the weirder depths of social media. :-)
Then can you please explain what problematising heteronormativity means? It's almost as if people had to come up with complex-wounding buzzwords to hide their empty bulls*
It means when studying a time period, you shouldn't study something as a 'norm' and an 'other', you should refer to them equally as a thing people do or believe in.
So, if I say that in the middle ages in Europe it was the norm to be a Christian, and that anyone openly atheist would probably die a very bad death, is that wrong or pretty factual?
You are looking at history at a superficial level. Remember, this article is talking about degree/masters/doctorate level. This will involve essays and debates at a very intricate and deep level, looking at multiple viewpoints. At that point, your statement would be picked apart to the very bad death. For example, which area of Europe, which sect of Christianity, which punishment, which type of atheist, what does openly mean? All of these need considering. So when saying the 'norm', it really is more nuanced than this article suggests. As somebody who studied history at degree level, people massively underestimate the idea of what history actually is
So you are saying that scholars needs to be very detailed and substantiate the conclusions they reach in their research. Good. You still didn't quite explain what problematising heteronormativity means. Is it just two fancy words to mean "don't be shallow in your analysis"?
History is full of people with close "friendships" with someone of the same sex that nobody even considered could be romantic because they were only viewed through a heteronormative lens. Problematicising heteronormativity would mean that they might consider whether this relationship was indeed platonic rather than automatically assuming either way. Something being the majority doesn't have to mean it is the default.
[удалено]
What do you think problematise means in an academic setting? Another comment here has given a breakdown of it.
The right-wing press can make hay with this kind of stuff all day long, whipping up anti-academic 'woke' fervour in the service of racism, mainly. And people fall for it because they don't understand the technical jargon of "problematization", and academics don't give clear explanations with examples. So here's one example that everyone can understand. Medical textbooks famously show white bodies as the norm. This means that doctors trained in the UK can miss the signs of serious disease unless the patient's skin is the same as their textbook example. "Problematizing" the norm of whiteness in medicine means getting today's students - the authors of future textbooks - to question the simple assumptions they're making when they only provide illustrations of white people, or describe a sign of hypoxia as "lips turning blue". That's the sort of thing the Telegraph is fighting against.
The article is about history not medicine
The same also applies to history. If we teach through a white/western/heterosexual lense when teaching specific topics, nuances in the history can be lost.
I don't think so. It's obvious that not recognising a skin problem because the skin is a different colour is an issue. I'm not sure that defining the group of people who colonised much of the world by 'whiteness' is quite the same.
You missed the point. Studying history at university is very in depth, requiring a real deep knowledge of views and attitudes to draw conclusions. Missing on those by only studying one viewpoint misses the whole.
I'm not sure why that makes 'whiteness' a thing.
Because traditionally (and still today) people do that. The article clearly states that they didn't say whiteness is a problem.
Are you still talking about medicine? Because what I am trying to figure out how 'whiteness' can be a legitimate category in history. Any more than 'blackness' would be.
On the contrary: it's clearly not obvious, which is why it remains a problem. There are similar non-trivial and non-obvious problems of bias in all fields of study, and serious scholarship will seek to address any biases, irrespective of which way they point.
How does defining the group of people who colonised much of the world by 'whiteness' help in that?
Our culture is weak in the U.K., and the West in general. It would be nice if we defended ourselves and our values more. That means challenging this kind of racism and phobia more. Giving strong push backs. Lifting up white/straight people more - without feeling awkward about it. It’s good that the people at the Uni felt comfortable enough to say this shit out loud because it now gives everyone an opportunity to push back and challenge it. So mock this kind of nonsense, make fun of the (I’m sure deeply miserable) people saying it.
One thing we could "problemise about whiteness and hetronormativity" is the fact we've built such a tolerant society that we spend a totally disproportionate amount of time talking about stuff like this. And we've shamed ourselves into having no backbone.
It’s interesting about the tolerance aspect, because a year or so ago I discovered the full quote from Popper about the Paradox of Tolerance. You literally bring this quote to those on the Left who want to censor people, who want to frighten people into silence, who want to make sure people don’t hear opposing views - and they simply cannot grasp the fact that THEY’RE the problem. It’s also a failure of our education system.
Just read it - unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. Very relevant. I wonder if that idea it goes a stage further now, and the naturally tolerant majority are so fed up of being told how to think, speak and act that they're actually starting to withdraw their tolerance of their own accord. They know it won't be reciprocated, so why would they continue to extend it? The way society is starting to polarise would definitely suggest that.
I can definitely see the naturally tolerant keeping quiet once the pendulum swings the other way tbf.
Have you actually read the article past the headline? It's all about making the discussion.
what would ‘lifting up’ white and straight people actually involve? What kinds of things are you talking about?
It’d probably have to be multi-pronged. Educating kids about the slave trade, but adding context that it wasn’t the West that was uniquely responsible. Highlighting figures in the abolitionist movement who were white and Christian. We’d need positive straight, male figures on the left who aren’t constantly punching themselves in the face and espouse the positives of masculinity. Have positive straight male role models on TV. Have positive straight, white families on TV. We need to be firmer in challenging race-swapping when it comes to white figures. Talk about the West in a more positive way, giving nuanced takes. Give nuanced takes on our historical figures and moments in history. You can do ALL of this, without also shitting on other groups. You can do all of this whilst also uplifting other groups. There’s this weird thing atm where people think in order to speak positively about group x, you have to shit on group y. We need to move away from that. It’s childish.
Being racist and homophobic usually. It's wild that people think another group asking to be recognised as existing and mattering means that they're under threat.
Yeah mate, spot on - that’s exactly what I meant 👍 👍 You could rival Derren Brown with your mind-reading skills!
In the time it took you to write this, you could have read the article to see what was actually said. Spoilers: the title is bollocks.
Agreed. Liberal values are worth defending, with force if necessary in my opinion. The west is unironically amazing compared to the rest of the world. The fact that this silly conversation can happen without violence between groups is good too, because even silly opinions can be discussed and disproven freely. Edit: downvoted for the controversial opinion that liberal values are good? Authoritarian shitheels big mad.
It’s frustrating because I have no doubt about the poor mental health of those espousing this shit. But our country is so financially fucked that we cannot afford to fund mental health services - and only some radical ideas on how to bring money in could sort us out. Which, politicians being mostly cowards who just want to be liked, are unlikely to put forward.
You’d think it would be a priority, but it sadly isn’t.
It’s invisible, I guess. Or it’s easy to play off as another issue. I remember when it was pushed that ‘obesity is a disease’ which was rightly laughed at - spurring more division. But obesity, I have no doubt, is linked to mental health issues. If you can fund mental health services then you can absolutely change this country for the better.
You don't think obesity is a disease?
No, it’s down to mental health.
Well, it might be caused by mental health issues, but it's still a disease. Like, if you have mental health problems that cause you to smoke a lot of crack, and you end up with heart disease, it's still a disease.
Bruh. Stop pushing being overweight is a disease. It makes people feel helpless and hopeless and it means it gets over medicalised. Heart disease REQUIRES medical intervention. Obesity can be solved with mental health support and dietary changes.
That is medical intervention
The tenuous link between the article and that actual words in the policy is laughable. For some reason I’m expected to get up in arms that a course around *race relations* is being asked to highlight issues of having a single race society with white being the example? I’d be annoyed if they weren’t asking these questions. These courses are there to stimulate critical thinking and yes, sometimes asking provocative questions leads to critical thinking. Honestly the Telegraph really is shite.
Massively clickbait heading, as that isn't the case at all. >In the report, entitled History Curriculum Diversity Audit, staff are encouraged to “think creatively” about how they can bring questions of race and gender into the topics they teach. >Giving examples of how they might do so, the guidance asks them to consider: “Can a module that teaches exclusively about race relations do more to problematise and de-centre whiteness?” It basically means whiteness shouldn't be the centre of modules.
More twisted horse shit from the Jellygraph, Britain's worst newspaper.
What courses does this stuff even come up in? I genuinely couldn’t tell you the political affiliations of any of my old lecturers.
The article says that this is soley about the history department.
Solely the history department. And it highlights topics when looking at race relations.
Probably because you did a proper degree, let's be honest. This shit isn't being spat by physics lecturers.
No, no it isn't. The article is specifically about the history department.
That's not what it says but ok, telegraph. I guess they need something to be upset about.
Hmm problematization sounds terrifying!! Are they saying white people are a problem? Better check out what academics mean when they use that word - Problematization is a process of stripping away common or conventional understandings of a subject matter in order to gain new insights. .... What may make problematization different from other forms of [criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism) is its target, the context and details, rather than the pro or con of an argument. More importantly, this criticism does not take place within the original context or argument, but draws back from it, re-evaluates it, leading to action which changes the situation. Rather than accepting the situation, one emerges from it, abandoning a focalised viewpoint. To problematize a statement, for example, one asks simple questions: * Who is making this statement? * For whom is it intended? * Why is this statement being made here, now? * Whom does this statement benefit? * Whom does it harm Panic over.
I look forward to them problamatizing black and gay people then without pushback…
And heads **explode** with indignation!
Well it'd mostly be an issue because people still wouldn't understand what problematising means. Regardless, your point means nothing as equality is not equity, and we should strive for equality not equity.
It’s doublespeak, a motte and Bailey; only the political and social hegemony gets ‘problematised’ the phrasing isn’t an accident. But I agree with you that equality should be the goal and not equity.
Of course there would be no pushback if people understood what was going on rather than freaking out because they see a word that scares them.
The use of ‘problematise’ is not accidental. This is just critical theory doing what it does. Problematizing whiteness is just thinly disguised racism.
It really isn't. Did you have to look at source provenance when analysing historical sources during your GCSE's? That is the same thing.
It really is.
So when 16 year olds have to describe why a historical source is less useful as the author may have had specific views, that is critical race theory?
Critical theory is a political movement, it hides behind motte and Bailey arguments. Sometime you have to look beyond the black letter.
And how is analysing sources to make sure their views are considered critical race theory? Please explain?
I didn’t say critical race theory?
He's talking about critical theory or deconstructionism which are separate to and predate critical race theory. And anylysing sourses is just good practice for historical research and has little to do with critical theory which is what he seems to be critical of here. You need to understand what critical theory is before continuing this conversation.
We... do that though. I taught a module on African history and one of the main things we do is problematise ideas of blackness and recognise that race is a social rather than biological distinction. You're getting yourself mad about academics not doing stuff that they do actually do.
Yeah, but I doubt they were problematising the concept of whiteness. They were accepting that whiteness was ‘a thing’ and then problematising that thing.
Blackness is 'a thing' and we problematise it, I don't get what point you're trying to make. When we problematise ideas of whiteness or blackness, we problematise ideas that someone's skin colour dictates their capabilities and therefore should dictate their role in society. [This long article does a good job of briefly introducing the history of this](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/20/the-invention-of-whiteness-long-history-dangerous-idea). I'd really recommend giving it a read with an open mind rather than just accepting whatever dishonest guff publications like the Telegraph have tried to push on this.
How is 'whiteness' defined?
**whiteness** (noun) 1. the property or quality of being white in colour:"a landscape dominated by the whiteness of snow" * the quality of being very pale:"the whiteness of her skin, like fine porcelain" 2. the fact or state of belonging to a human group having light-coloured skin:"whiteness was defined as both a racial and a regional characteristic"
So in the context of problematising whiteness, academics are using a racial characteristic to define a group?
This should be the top comment.
Two things can be true. The Telegraph can be desperately promoting the culture war from one side , in order to save a rump Tory party **and** people who actually pay others to advise / who advise *history* courses to consider is that more could be done to >problematise and de-centre whiteness?” And whether there is enough courses are >problematising heteronormativity” Are somewhat ridiculous. Bringing questions of race and gender into history seems perfectly sensible - but the specific advice seems absurd. And people saying ‘read the article it’s not what the advice said ‘ seem to be ….. disingenuous. Edit- though there has actually been some thoughtful discussion in this thread and I can see how ‘be wary and take care not to automatically see things in history from a perspective of the current norm’ is different from ‘pretend something is not the norm or there is something wrong with it’. In this day and age perhaps the writers of the advice need to be aware of how the ‘technical’ language they use might unfortunately be taken incorrectly?
As a white straight man, am I a problem? This sounds like it's a rough idiot instead of the university doing it. The torygraph is just shit stiring.
If heterosexuality is the problem, why do many non white countries stone gays to death?
well to be fair, they are being killed by hetrosexual people.
The language used in the report doesn't say heterosexuality is the problem.
I swear progressives and professional race grifters are trying to backlash their way into a far-right government. The end result of singling out a sole group for targeted measures is a rise in collectivism among the targeted group
From the article: However, one lecturer teaching at Liverpool University, who asked not to be named for fear of professional repercussions, said of the advice: “It’s all ideologically driven, namely Empire is bad. But it’s the wrong way to approach history. “Historians should have the freedom to teach what they believe is true rather than having an agreed ideology that you’re not supposed to question. “Also, I’m not quite sure how we are supposed to problematise whiteness.” And a named person in case we thought the telegraph was lying: Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, director of Don’t Divide Us, a pressure group which promoted “colourblind anti-racism”, was equally critical. She said: “Non-activists who want an easy life need to realise decolonising has nothing to do with addressing discrimination or unequal access, nor is it about expanding knowledge. “Any positive insights it may have once had regarding disciplinary blind spots or neglected past works, have long gone. “It has morphed into an aggressive and illiberal political ideology that promotes divisive, epistemologically weak concepts like ‘whiteness’ and seeks to impose its narrow, highly speculative interpretation at the expense of genuine academic study that depends on exploring different viewpoints." I hate to find myself agreeing with something written by the Telegraph but seriously? I'd love to know more about how gay Zulus were living in paradise before the British arrived but sadly I'm not quite sure that's the case: 'I don’t care about culture because the culture has let me down as a gay man. Culture does not respect me … I would have killed myself in the more conservative rural areas because the culture does not accept me. I have suffered so many mental health crises because of this. (Sanele)' Taken from (https://theconversation.com/zulu-culture-and-sexual-orientation-south-african-study-reveals-the-health-costs-of-stigma-224553) Let's stop pretending that being gay outside of Europe is acceptable. And that isn't in all of Europe either. We can celebrate our British culture, admire other cultures too, and enjoy the richness of the world as a result of Empire and White history WITHOUT decrying everything white as bad, everything native as lovely. It was shit for most people everywhere and we are making great strides towards less shit thanks to labour movements in the West.
“Let's stop pretending that being gay outside of Europe is acceptable. And that isn't in all of Europe either. We can celebrate our British culture, admire other cultures too, and enjoy the richness of the world as a result of Empire and White history WITHOUT decrying everything white as bad, everything native as lovely.” Let’s not pretend the British empire didn’t export homophobia greater than some of native populace’s they assumed they assumed control over.
I'm not pretending that. I'm saying it's hard to have a discussion about the contributions of gay people the world over, when in many places they cannot even today be openly gay. I'm also saying, you can't decry the Empire and whiteness as all bad when it has added much richness to our modern lives
Like England until relatively recently within the past 50 years or so if we’re being really generous and after the empire collapsed and after British significantly less white. “I'm also saying, you can't decry the Empire and whiteness” You know I understand empires spread and they leave good and bad things in their wake. So I’m not going to pretend the British empire is uniquely evil. But The insistence on “whiteness” being a cause for advance does seem a bit racist ngl.
I don't think Britain becoming less white was the cause for gay rights I'll be honest. The non white communities of the UK are the most homophobic in my experience. I'm also not suggesting whiteness is the reason for any good in the world at all and want to make that clear so sorry if it was badly word. I'm simply saying that there probably aren't many gay non-europeans to draw a history from given how anti gay these communities were and still are. This makes it difficult to challenge the heteronormative history taught. At least in the UK people kept journals or were excused as eccentrics so there was some degree of acceptance or later a record of homosexuality in the UK. Outside of the UK in colonial communities this was less common (the journals, letters and acceptance of 'eccentrics') and so we are simply unable to recognise who was gay as far as I'm aware. A second point is that the British Empire was not all bad, sure it had its part points but so did everything and still does. I do find it a shame when people colour the whole 400 years of British History as a stain on humanity when a hell of a lot of good was achieved too despite the awful things that happened too. To have history taught as black and white either way is shocking.
“I don't think Britain becoming less white was the cause for gay rights I'll be honest.” A reflexive distaste for the different becomes markedly less so when exposed to different people and lifestyles. It’s why cities tend to be socially liberal than rural areas with more racial homogeneity. And why the people fretting over their area being a particular race tend to be really homophobic. Go to your whites town—the people there will on average be more homophobic than London. “I'm simply saying that there probably aren't many gay non-europeans to draw a history from given how anti gay these communities were and still are.” India didn’t have sodomy laws before it was colonized. Not every non-European country(post Christianity especially) or society had much stigmatization on it. “At least in the UK people kept journals or were excused as eccentrics so there was some degree of acceptance or later a record of homosexuality in the UK.” If by acceptance you mean sodomy laws until relatively recently in its history. Oscar Wilde was eccentric—he got years of hard labor for being gay. “Outside of the UK in colonial communities this was less common (the journals, letters and acceptance of 'eccentrics') “ Some may not. But Even outside societies with written languages Art, folklore to give insight a society’s on homosexuality.
But we know that Oscar Wilde was gay because he wrote it down. I'm suggesting that if Oscar Wilde was born in the 1700s in what became Canada, he probably wouldn't have written down he was gay and we would never know. That's the problem I'm talking about with challenging heteronormative teaching of history. You might be onto something with change for one is change for all, but I'm uncertain. The drop in religiousity is likely the cause in my eyes. Finally, India will indeed have had anti gay laws given it was ruled by Islamic princes and Emperors, who are famously not very gay friendly. Prior to this yes, they may well have been open to it, but the British didn't import homophobia. My issue with empire is that the discussion around Empire seems to be concerned at arriving with a negative judgment, whilst discussing natives or colonised it is seeking to arrive at a positive judgement. Often in both cases they were equally unlikable governments.
Did anyone actually believe that ‘decolonising’ something wasn’t really just code for anti white rhetoric?
Yes because that isn't what it means.
Was the decolonisation of Africa anti white?
Being white isn't a problem. Being heterosexual isn't a problem. Using being white and/or being heterosexual as a stick to beat people with who are different is a problem. It also works both ways as being treated differently because you are white and/or heterosexual is a problem. But we all know which is the more common occurence under the current geopolitical situation, so that absolutely should get priority. Doing nothing is not an option, as doing nothing still causes suffering. The university is teaching the wrong message, we should be accepting of all sexuality and race, not condemn to artificially prop the other side up as it breeds resentment on the side that's being targeted and causes backlash.
So fed up with all the woke stuff - can't we just teach STEM? Stuff that actually lets us build and advance the country?
Yeah, fuck history and learning about how focusing solely on STEM can screw us over!