Poor #wogs and #wops can’t seem to catch a break #Plato

As is usual with my essays, I need to backtrack a bit before attacking the main point.

I did my schooling in Australia and it wasn’t a happy place for me. There was much name-calling, for instance. I was a “slope”, “brown mongrel” and “black monkey”, while others were wops, wogs and i-ties. I could understand my own names but I was always surprised by the other insults because the “wops, wogs and i-ties” looked white to me. I was stumped. Why were whites calling other whites names?

To this day, I still can’t figure it out. If I see someone from the back, most of the time I can’t tell whether they’re Chinese, Northern Indian or European. They all look white to me. Sure, if someone points it out, I can sometimes see the faintest tint to their skin, the darker tone of hair, but I really have to squint to see it. However such minute differences were as plain as day to my fellow students. Suffice it to say that, to Caucasians, anyone other than a Caucasian–Mediterranean types, Arab types, not to mention Asians and *shock*horror* black Africans–were/are obviously inferior.

So it came as some surprise to find out that students at the University of London want to ban “white philosophers”, which include Plato and, I must imagine, Socrates and Aristotle, too.

And I thought, wow, wogs and wops are “white” now? Poor bastards. At first they’re derided for being, well, wops and wogs, and now they’re derided for being “white”?! They can’t cop a break!

Then–because we’re all about “fake news” now, aren’t we?–it occurred to me to wonder if the report was even correct? Rather than depending on a plethora of alternative sites, I went directly to the University of London and then onto their School of Oriental and African Studies and then onto the “Educational Priorities” statement from the university’s student union. Whew. That’s the first point I need to make. The “news” wasn’t from the University of London but from the student union of the School of Oriental and African Studies. And here’s what I read from their statement, under the heading “Decolonising SOAS”:

Decolonising SOAS: Confronting the White Institution:

Decolonising SOAS is a campaign that aims to address the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism within our university. We believe that SOAS should take a lead on such questions given its unique history within British colonialism. In light of the centenary and SOAS’ aims of curating a vision for itself for the next 100 years, this conversation is pivotal for its future direction.

Our aims are a continuation of the campaign last year:

  1. To hold events that will engage in a wider discussion about expressions of racial and economic inequality at the university, focussing on SOAS.
  2. To address histories of erasure prevalent in the curriculum with a particular focus on SOAS’ colonial origins and present alternative ways of knowing.
  3. To interrogate SOAS’ self-image as progressive and diverse.
  4. To use the centenary year as a point of intervention to discuss how the university must move forward and demand that we, as students of colour, are involved in the curriculum review process.
  5. To review 10 first year courses, working with academics to discuss points of revamp, reform and in some cases overhaul.
  6. To make sure that the majority of the philosophers on our courses are from the Global South or it’s [sic] diaspora. SOAS’s focus is on Asia and Africa and therefore the foundations of its theories should be presented by Asian or African philosophers (or the diaspora).
  7. If white philosophers are required, then to teach their work from a critical standpoint. For example, acknowledging the colonial context in which so called “Enlightenment” philosophers wrote within.

To be honest, I think the aim of decolonisation within the SOAS is laudable. The money statement is here (my emphasis):

SOAS’s focus is on Asia and Africa and therefore the foundations of its theories should be presented by Asian or African philosophers

Sounds completely reasonable to me. If you’re teaching English Literature, it stands to reason that you use, say, the Lake poets for part of the course. If you teach Asian and African thought, then it stands to reason that you use Asian and African philosophers for the course. What’s so difficult to understand about that?

However…

While I can agree about nixing Betrand Russell, Immanuel Kant and René Descartes, I’m not sure I agree with excluding Plato and his ilk. Before we start throwing out philosophers, the question must be asked: where exactly did Greek thought come from?

Let’s put Plato within context. He lived and died in the first half-millennium BCE, born sometime in the 420s BCE and died sometime in the 340s BCE. All right. What was Greece like during that time period?

Firstly, the “Greece” we’re talking about at this time is a later incarnation. First we had the Minoan civilisation that gave rise to the Mycenean-inspired Greek civilisation that fell in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries BCE. We then had the “Greek dark ages”, which lasted till about 800 BCE. Then we’re lead to believe that the uneducated and illiterate usurpers from [yet-to-be-definitively-nailed-down-geographic-region] somehow spontaneously, and in complete and delightful isolation, created their own wonderful civilisation that is the foundation of the Western world. [cue Handel]

To be honest, it beggars logic. These “new Greeks” had to come from somewhere, but our history books lead us to believe that they weren’t inspired by anyone! Really? Nobody? The people they traded with…no influence? The places they travelled through to get to Greece…irrelevant? Exactly how plausible is that picture? Even in Muslim-majority Malaysia, I can buy taco shells and (albeit bottled) salsa, despite the fact that Mexico doesn’t really appear on any major Malaysian culinary or economic horizon. Yet secondary school history books are trying to tell me that the new Greeks created Western civilisation all on their lonesome, without the slightest bit of influence from any of their neighbours? Despite the fact that, by the time of Plato’s birth, active trade and exploration had already exposed the Greeks to the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians and even Indians? Hmmmm. Not even a single roasted lamb recipe changed hands? Does that sound the least bit plausible to you?

What am I trying to say? Don’t listen to me, go look at a map for yourselves.

Original image by Javierfv1212 (Own work (Original text: self-made)) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. Click to enlarge.

Pinpoint Greece. (I’ve already circled it for my North American readers.) Then locate Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and India. Any of those places look “white European” to you?

You may say that it was Socrates (Plato’s teacher, for my North American readers) who came up with the Socratic method, not some swami around Delhi, but how would you know, hobbled as you are by a singular focus on European history? This is exactly the point that the SOAS Student Union is attempting to make, in a hamfisted undergraduate fashion.

Thinking further on it, it could be that “Western civilisation” is nothing more than a farce. If the Japanese, for example, take a foundation of German robotics to create a certain type of wildly popular artificial servant, is the German creator now Japanese? Of course not. Yet we talk about “Western civilisation” as if the founders (Socrates et al.) were somehow “Western” in their thinking when clearly they weren’t.

It’s the same with Christianity. A lot of people seem to be caught up in the idea that Christianity is somehow a “European” concept reflecting “European” values, but it isn’t. As far as I know, with the exception of certain pagan theologies, every major religion in the world is Asian. In fact, let’s check! Wikipedia can give us a good ballpark of popularity and it states the major and major-minor religions as follows:

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, (Asian) folk religion

then

Taoism, Shintoism, Falun Gong, Sikhism, Judaism, Korean shamanism

and so it goes. Did you notice they are all Asian?

In which case, does SOAS’s student manifesto really sound so diabolical?

The white minority of this planet are in current meltdown and I sympathise with them. I personally believe that they are getting unreasonably attacked in certain quarters and maybe I’ll tackle that topic in a later essay, but the words of the SOAS Student Union is not what they should be railing against. Going after a school of Asian and African thought that wants to teach Asian and African thought is stupidly hilarious when there are many more dangerous and destructive campaigns out there. Or maybe that’s the purpose? To keep whites distracted with idiotic thoughts so the divide between the different peoples on this planet widens? Who knows?

To the Greeks, however, I will say this. Embrace your “other”ness. You are the leading example of a “fusion” position between East and West. You helped shape Eastern thought into a model that would permeate and promote civilisation throughout a continent…as screwed as that model has now become. Don’t lie down and accept your great thinkers as “white”! Embrace the racist epithets that were flung at you! Stand up and be counted! A “slope” stands with you. 😉

* If you liked this article, please consider supporting me on Patreon. Even a dollar a month would be gratefully received. If a regular subscription is out of the question (and I understand how that can be) a small donation would nonetheless be greatly appreciated (see the Donation button on the sidebar). I’ll be trying to hit big issues in ways that may not be obvious twice a month, on the first and fifteenth, and every cent helps. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *