3 ms·

The concrete things you're mentioning don't sound unreasonable. Zero as we know it -- and all our numerals and base-10 system -- were developed in Hindu mathem

The concrete things you're mentioning don't sound unreasonable. Zero as we know it -- and all our numerals and base-10 system -- were developed in Hindu mathematics, used by Arab traders, and carried to Renaissance Italy by an Italian. And its sources were acknowledged at the time. That's quite a compelling story. "The method" of Al Jabbar -- algebra -- is another important thing. And a great deal of mathematics was developed in ancient China, (though Chinese culture has never tended to spread so much). This fact is now remembered in such phrases as the "Chinese Remainder Theorem", but to delve deeper into this history could be good. So there's plenty that could be reasonably included in a curriculum, which would improve that curriculum. There's also no denying that Euler and Gauss were absolute powerhouses, or that a lot of early-modern mathematics was developed in Europe. (As you get into more advanced physics, you start to see more Japanese names, too. Things that developed a little later.) So all that's fine. The problem is this: This phrase "de-colonization" is so hugely and dangerously loaded that it refers to much more than all of the above. Decolonization is Ugandans seizing Indian businesses and threatening to make concentration camps. Decolonization is Partition, with mobs beating Muslims to death. Decolonization is farm-killings in South Africa. It is an ANC that, far from speaking of a harmonious Rainbow Nation any more, is now openly making threats of violence on the campaign trail. Decolonization is -- well what is it? It means: White people leave. It means those who are not "indigenous" leave. It's a word with very strong overtones of ethnic cleansing. It makes a certain amount of logical (if horrific) sense when applied to the Americas or Australia. Presumably all those people could be killed or sent back to Europe. But what could it possibly mean when applied to the UK itself? Conquest? Is it necessary to use such a violent concept to describe the creation of a rich, historically interesting, and cosmopolitan mathematics curriculum? It isn't.

bikenaga 5y ago
I think your point about the choice of words is a good one, and perhaps verified by many of the comments people made about the original article. A poor choice of words can do more harm than good. For instance, it's a bad sign when a slogan or phrase associated with one point of view is used in political ads by people with opposing points of view. This often happens when we get angry about injustice, or when we think someone is making a mistake. The anger leads us to responses amounting to whacking someone upside the head, rather than responses which might make things better. When you teach, you find out that people will not learn things by being shamed, guilted, or insulted. But when you're angry, it can be hard to resist the temptation to vent your anger rather than trying to make things better. (And to be sure, sometimes forceful action is the best thing.) Maybe (to use your words) the Durham statement should have been titled "Creating a Rich, Historically Interesting, and Cosmopolitan Mathematics Curriculum".
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  > it's a bad sign when a slogan or phrase associated with one point of view is used in political ads by people with opposing points of view. This is a great observation that I'm going to remember. Incentives are an issue. Within academia or the arts, say, an individual has every incentive to be "provocative" within their ideological bubble, even if the outcome of this internal status-seeking is a left-politics that is completely unpalatable to anyone outside that bubble. Now right-parties are beating left-parties over the head with the words of their own activist wings. I contend that the academically-trendy "anticolonialist" rhetoric is exactly such an outcome. (In fact, it's more than that; the CCP propagandists love it.) Indeed, you can be sure that the person who posted this article had right-sympathies. Because publicizing this sort of thing benefits the mainstream right, not the mainstream left. I think many people in mainstream political parties do understand this -- for example, in American politics, the word you'll hear from Democrats is "progressive", which (while not completely free of problematic history), is not remotely so violent a phrase. > Maybe (to use your words) the Durham statement should have been titled "Creating a Rich, Historically Interesting, and Cosmopolitan Mathematics Curriculum". Thank you. That's why I offered it!
dang 5y ago
Please don't post flamewar rhetoric like this to HN. We want curious conversation. Those two things are not compatible. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
leephillips 5y ago
This is an insightful observation. Because there’s nothing wrong with trying to correct what might be incorrect or incomplete attributions, and (in my opinion) it can be beneficial to emphasize the contributions of non-“Western” mathematicians. So why is this rhetoric so offensive? It does come down to the use of the “colonization” terminology, and you’ve identified part of the reason.

bikenaga 5y ago

I think your point about the choice of words is a good one, and perhaps verified by many of the comments people made about the original article. A poor choice of words can do more harm than good. For instance, it's a bad sign when a slogan or phrase associated with one point of view is used in political ads by people with opposing points of view. This often happens when we get angry about injustice, or when we think someone is making a mistake. The anger leads us to responses amounting to whacking someone upside the head, rather than responses which might make things better. When you teach, you find out that people will not learn things by being shamed, guilted, or insulted. But when you're angry, it can be hard to resist the temptation to vent your anger rather than trying to make things better. (And to be sure, sometimes forceful action is the best thing.) Maybe (to use your words) the Durham statement should have been titled "Creating a Rich, Historically Interesting, and Cosmopolitan Mathematics Curriculum".

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
> it's a bad sign when a slogan or phrase associated with one point of view is used in political ads by people with opposing points of view. This is a great observation that I'm going to remember. Incentives are an issue. Within academia or the arts, say, an individual has every incentive to be "provocative" within their ideological bubble, even if the outcome of this internal status-seeking is a left-politics that is completely unpalatable to anyone outside that bubble. Now right-parties are beating left-parties over the head with the words of their own activist wings. I contend that the academically-trendy "anticolonialist" rhetoric is exactly such an outcome. (In fact, it's more than that; the CCP propagandists love it.) Indeed, you can be sure that the person who posted this article had right-sympathies. Because publicizing this sort of thing benefits the mainstream right, not the mainstream left. I think many people in mainstream political parties do understand this -- for example, in American politics, the word you'll hear from Democrats is "progressive", which (while not completely free of problematic history), is not remotely so violent a phrase. > Maybe (to use your words) the Durham statement should have been titled "Creating a Rich, Historically Interesting, and Cosmopolitan Mathematics Curriculum". Thank you. That's why I offered it!

dang 5y ago

Please don't post flamewar rhetoric like this to HN. We want curious conversation. Those two things are not compatible. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

leephillips 5y ago

This is an insightful observation. Because there’s nothing wrong with trying to correct what might be incorrect or incomplete attributions, and (in my opinion) it can be beneficial to emphasize the contributions of non-“Western” mathematicians. So why is this rhetoric so offensive? It does come down to the use of the “colonization” terminology, and you’ve identified part of the reason.