They "aim to change science from an endeavour finding truth about nature to an endeavour that’s a lever for social justice."

"'Nature' magazine published [a] long comment [recently], written by eight indigenous authors from five countries. [It] is a ... surrender to 'progressive' views that aim to change science from an endeavour finding truth about nature to an endeavour that’s a lever for social justice. Surprisingly, though, Nature allowed the authors to use the 'progressive' term of 'decolonisation,' arguing explicitly that the science is the result of colonisation of knowledge by white men from the Global North—a situation that must be rectified, pronto.

"The authors give eight ways to rectify the 'colonisation,' all of them involving sacrificing merit for ethnicity, replacing modern science with 'other ways of knowing,' and demanding both professional, monetary, and territorial reparations, even from those who never oppressed anybody. ...

"[A]s I’ve written about in extenso, 'indigenous knowledge' is never on par with modern science. Yes, indigenous people can contribute empirical truths to science, but indigenous 'science' almost invariably consists of local knowledge helping people to live in their specific environment (in New Zealand, for example, it consists of stuff like knowing how to harvest mussels or where to catch eels), and isn’t generalisable to other places. It does not use the tools of modern science and, as in New Zealand, is often imbued with nonscientific aspects like ethics, morality, unsubstantiated lore, and supernatural trappings like teleology and myth.

"Yes, some aspects of indigenous 'science' can and should be worked into science classes, but most of it should be taught in sociology or anthropology class. ...

"As one of my colleagues said after reading this paper, 'The authors’ decolonisation/indigenisation ideology is not only antithetical to science, it’s also anti-Enlightenment, and as such challenges the whole idea of universities as places where ideas are tested on the basis of reason and evidence without the imposition of cultural authority'.”

~ Jerry Coyne from his post 'The journal Nature calls for “decolonization” of modern science'

Perhaps if MPs did have an actual argument, they would use it?

"When did it become permissible for Members of Parliament to treat select committee submitters with condescension, disdain or thinly disguised contempt? ... for men and women with impeccable professional reputations and years of service to the New Zealand community to expect their appearance before a parliamentary select committee to serve as an excuse for MPs to hector and insult them, and to ignore completely the content of their submissions?
    "Sadly, the answer to those questions would appear to be ‘right here, right now’. ...
    "All the evidence required to construct the case is readily accessible in the official video recordings of the Justice Select Committee’s hearings on the Treaty Principles Bill, particularly in the reception given to retired District Court Judge, David Harvey, by MPs representing Labour and Te Pāti Māori. ...
    "Why submit oneself, or one’s ideas, to such dismissive treatment? ...
    "Some have written-off [a 2021] incident [involving Deborah Russell] as just one more example of covid-induced madness.
    "But, if that is the explanation, then how is the extraordinary rudeness towards David Harvey and other submitters in support of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to be accounted for?
    "Why would Labour’s Willie Jackson feel free to chide a former District Court judge, whose career is as distinguished as it is free of professional and/or personal blemish, as if he were some errant legal backwoodsman, unaware of the intellectual powerhouses ranged against his unsophisticated opinions?
    "Why would Te Pāti Māori’s Rawiri Waititi imply that the submissions of a judicial officer backing Seymour’s bill largely explain the ongoing legal oppression of his people?
    "Why would the Labour MP for Christchurch Central, Duncan Webb, a former law professor, show no interest in addressing the legal arguments contained in Harvey’s submission? ...
    "The kindest construction one could put upon the conduct of the three MPs in question is that they are unshakeably convinced that the “European colonialist” ideology contained in the Treaty Principles Bill poses such an existential threat to the future of Māori in Aotearoa that any serious consideration of arguments submitted in support of it cannot be countenanced. Those offering such support do not deserve to be taken seriously and should not expect to be. ...
    "To rule out even the possibility of compromise can only hasten the transformation of select committee hearings into the 21st century equivalent of Soviet-era show trials, the sole purpose of which would be to demonstrate publicly the adverse consequences of wrong-think."

~ Chris Trotter from his post ' When parliamentary hearings on controversial bills become hostile echo chambers'

'Decolonisation' is about embracing 'original sin'

 

"Settler colonialism is ... the idea that countries founded by European colonialism—primarily countries like the United States, Canada, [New Zealand] and Australia, and then often by extension, Israel—are sort of permanently shaped by the original sin of colonisation. So that the countries, even hundreds of years after the original settlement, remain shaped by this settler colonial experience. And that a lot of the injustices and problems, as critics see it, with those countries can be explained by reference to that European settlement. ...
    "[A] settler colony would [originally] be a colony like Algeria or Rhodesia where Europeans had come to settle but had not displaced or replaced the native population. ... But, in the 1990s, settler colonialism came to be applied to countries with a very different history and situation, [like NZ,] Australia and ... North America. ... And, thinking about those countries as settler colonial societies means something very different. ... you can't decolonise the United States in the same way that you could decolonise Algeria by getting rid of the settlers. ... instead it means that you want to acknowledge that the country was sort of founded on the 'crime' of colonialism, of settlement, and change things about it that are directly related to that. And, it lines up with a lot of Progressive critique of the United States and other societies. So, people talk about the environment, about capitalism and inequality, about gender relations--but framing them as the results of settler colonialism. ....
    "[It] is such a flexible term that it can be applied to almost anything that one wants to criticise; and it puts social critics in a powerful position because you can say, 'Anything that's wrong with our country, it's a settler way of being. That's how we explain it, and we have to do penance for it.' ...
    "[T]here's an odd similarity with evangelical Christianity ... acknowledging that one is sinful, of saying: I've inherited this original sin, just as in the Christian doctrine of original sin. It's not something that I personally did. I personally didn't settle this country, but I've inherited it. I'm a settler by inheritance, and that the first step to curing yourself of this condition or purging the sin is to acknowledge that you are a sinner, to acknowledge that you're 'fallen.' ..."

~ Adam Kirsch in his interview with Russ Roberts on the EconTalk podcast episode: 'Understanding the Settler Colonialism Movement (with Adam Kirsch)'

"Does denying human equality and rejecting the principles of colour-blind citizenship place you among the baddies? Yes, I’m afraid it does."

"[T]he period of roughly five months between the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in November 1860, and his inauguration in March 1861 ... were the months in which, one after the other, the slaveholding states of the South voted to secede from the Union. ...
    "The most disconcerting feature ... are the many parallels between the America of then, and the New Zealand of now. ... 

"From a strictly ideological standpoint, it is the Decolonisers who match most closely the racially-obsessed identarian radicals who rampaged through the streets of the South in 1860-61, demanding secession and violently admonishing all those suspected of harbouring Northern sympathies. Likewise, it is the Indigenisers who preach a racially-bifurcated state in which the ethnic origin of the citizen is the most crucial determinant of his or her political rights and duties.
    "Certainly, in this country, the loudest clamour and the direst threats are directed at those who argue that New Zealand must remain a democratic state in which all citizens enjoy equal rights, irrespective of wealth, gender, or ethnic origin, and in which the property rights of all citizens are safeguarded by the Rule of Law.
    "These threats escalated alarmingly following the election of what soon became the National-Act-NZ First Coalition Government. ... The profoundly undemocratic nature of the fire-eaters’ opposition was illustrated by their vehement objections to the ACT Party’s policy of holding a binding referendum to entrench, or not, the 'principles' of the Treaty of Waitangi. Like the citizens of South Carolina, the first state to secede, the only votes they are willing to recognise are their own. ...

"Those New Zealanders who believe unquestioningly in the desirability of decolonisation and indigenisation argue passionately that they are part of the same great progressive tradition that inspired the American Abolitionists of 160 years ago. But are they?
    "Did the Black Abolitionist, and former slave, Frederick Douglass, embrace the racial essentialism of Moana Jackson? Or did he, rather, wage an unceasing struggle against those who insisted, to the point of unleashing a devastating civil war, that all human-beings are not created equal?
    "What is there that in any way advances the progressive cause about the casual repudiation of Dr Martin Luther King Jnr’s dream that: 'one day my four little children will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character'? ...

"Does denying human equality and rejecting the principles of colour-blind citizenship place you among the baddies? Yes, I’m afraid it does."

~ Chris Trotter from his post 'Are We The Baddies?'

Some "practical advice” to “decolonise” a "settler colonial institution" — and to destroy higher learning in the process

Two alleged scholars from the University of Canterbury were invited by London's Times Higher Education Supplement to “provide practical advice” to “decolonise” a settler colonial institution. and to describe “what decolonisation means.”

Noting, naturally, that decolonisation itself is “a very promiscuous term" and thus best avoided (of course), they instead aim to "offer insights into how we, as tauiwi (non-Indigenous) scholars, can work to unsettle the settler colonial university."

Settle back then as these two (one a senior lecturer in educational studies and leadership, the other an associate professor in the School of Teacher Education) help to destroy what little is left of New Zealand's tertiary sector's international reputation. Som highlights:

• "..in a country such as New Zealand [they say] the effects of colonisation are ongoing and ... , in the words of Indigenous climate activist India Logan-Riley, 'land back, oceans back' is yet to be realised. Unless the university is fully engaged in land back, oceans back, decolonisation will be used by the settler colonial university to justify settler occupation of stolen land, water and knowledge ..."
• "... to engage in anticolonial, feminist practice, we must address the systems that produce violence and exploitation"
• "Rather than offer how-to tips for 'decolonising the university,' we suggest a [six-point plan] as a call for collective action to change things that are unjust ­– inside and outside the university:

"We must actively engage in the disruption of oppressive, settler colonial and patriarchal practices. ..."

"....recognising and respecting Indigenous epistemologies and, where possible, engaging these as central to its curriculum while also peripheralising European and settler knowledge ... [noting however that] there is a fine line between incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and cultural appropriation"

"...build collaborative partnerships and alliances with other marginalised communities, acknowledging the intersections of colonialism, racism, sexism, homo-transphobia, ableism and other forms of oppression. ... Adapt feminist and collaborative writing practices; refuse symbolic service requests and instead strategise and work towards systemic change: unionise, organise for a living wage and improve institutional practices ..."

"Anticolonial praxis requires institutional transformation at all levels.... In the institution, we need to critically examine and restructure policies, procedures and practices that perpetuate settler colonial regimes of power. [Whatever that means?] ...Name it; make it explicit.

"Anticolonial and feminist praxis requires constant self-reflection and a commitment to unlearning. ... Connect, resist and organise."

"Finally, we must dare to dream beyond the university. ...'May we find each other…beyond the university, and unite in our irreverent lines of flight'."

Evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne has been watching this nonsense from afar. He observes that, bad as this is for our universities, these teaching institutions "are seen as mere staging areas for society-wide transformation":

When you read something like this, you wonder about not only the philosophy of 'Times Higher Education,' which decided to print what is largely an incoherent (and incorrect) set of assertions and accusations, but you also wonder about what will happen to New Zealand. The authors, after all, are 'settler-colonialists' [themselves], calling for their own decimation.
    What is happening in New Zealand—with all the many official attempts to create equity only serving to provoke tirades like the one above—is the world’s most far-reaching attempt at ideological capture of an entire country by the people who consider themselves entitled to run the whole country: the descendants of the original Polynesian settlers. But the world has moved on, and who can deny that 'settler colonialists,' by bringing with them their knowledge, medicines, free national healthcare, and inventions, have improved the lives of most people in New Zealand. It is not as if colonialism has been an unmitigated evil.
    I think the person who sent me this screed is right: this movement is unstoppable, and it’s going to ruin New Zealand. Apparently the Luxon government is either ignoring this stuff or doesn’t care to stop it. Soon it will be too late, if it isn’t already. I pity New Zealanders who want to get a good college education in the face of people like [these], whose programme will sink New Zealand to the bottom of the academic ranking of comparable countries.