From the same sort of mentality that created Agenda 21,
the notion of thought crime and the concept that black people cannot be guilty
of racism, that fertile jihadi breeding ground known as the University of
London’s School of Oriental and African Studies strikes again. They specialise in
awarding the kind of degree essential to otherwise unemployable zealots seeking
funding from the burgeoning grievance industry, in particular that sector of
the trade which slavishly seeks reparation for the sins of our hideously white
ancestors. To that effect they are attempting to airbrush whites from history
apparently oblivious to the fact that this would, ipso facto, render their highly honed victim status their own,
damned fault.
“Entitled
‘Decolonising SOAS: Confronting The White Institution’, the union’s statement
of ‘educational priorities’ warns ‘white philosophers’ should be studied only
‘if required’, and even then their work should be taught solely from ‘a
critical standpoint’”
Naturally, as philosophy and the history of thought are overwhelmingly products of white origin, removing such philosophers from the syllabus would be akin to removing Newton from Physics, Michelangelo from Art, Lindbergh from Aviation... and Rhodes from Rhodesia, one experiment which has actually been tried with murderous effect. But students at SOAS are impervious to such logic, a state which can far more readily be attained if your study of thought is unencumbered by considering the people who did all the heavy lifting in that arena. Who needs to dither with the dialectic when black-lives-matter is all you need to power your pain? And who wants to ponder pure reason when the obvious conclusion to the black man’s burden is that it is all the fault of whitey?
Future innovations may involve black trainee doctors refusing
to study anatomy on white corpses. Black and Asian mechanics may have to avoid
working on white cars for fear of cultural association and being branded Uncle
Toms. And be sure to eschew all technology created by white men which, in
effect, means eschewing all technology. Way to go, you deep, dark thinkers,
you. It’s hard to conceive of a more successful route to the exclusion from
participation in society which you fondly imagine you are already experiencing.
I’ve never worked in an environment where people of
different hues were not accepted as individuals. The British have worked bloody
hard to make everybody welcome, so long as they observe the few rules we
have... or had. Before the doctrine of multiculturalism, Britain used to
actually be a successful multicultural society. All the constant pandering to
difference does is exacerbate the difference. All the title BME does is mark out
the malcontents. Don’t you know that the prejudice is in the perception; as
long as you perceive that you are victims you will never break free from the shackles
of your own making.
In the meantime, equalities legislation is harming the
potential of companies that can’t afford to hire to quotas and doing nothing to
improve the performance of those that can. In the constant crisis that is the
NHS the hiring of £57k p.a. Assistant Directors of Equality and Diversity only
creates more division and antipathy. I have a more than sneaking suspicion that
these positions create more trouble than they solve; will hospitals in the future operate a strict colour quota system for treatment? I wonder what the students of SOAS think?
