Anyway, a little over a year ago there was an
in-depth column in The Spectator about this movement to discredit and undermine serious academic disciplines, especially math. It was written by John Armstrong, who teaches at King’s College London and previously taught at Oxford. He’s an actual mathematician with actual credentials. And he summed up the problem with this whole push to “decolonize” math pretty simply.
The fact is that colonialism is irrelevant to the validity of mathematics. The Mayan civilization was doing sophisticated mathematics in the Americas long before Christopher Colombus arrived on the continent. … The digits 0123456789 we use today were first written in India and inspired by Chinese mathematics. They were popularised by Persian and Arab mathematicians and then made their way to Europe via the Moors’ conquest of Southern Spain. Admittedly the Moors’ conquest of Spain was a form of colonialism, but apparently not the type of colonialism we are meant to be interested in.
So what do these activists mean when they say they want to “decolonize” math, given that the entire idea of de-colonizing math is completely incoherent? The Arabs were colonizers, too. And why are Australians, of all people, so interested in promoting this idea?
One possibility is that by some estimates, as the Twitter account I/o points out, aboriginal Australians happen to have, on average, the second lowest IQ out of any demographic group on the planet. That’s the sort of thing that’s supposed to be unsayable, but it’s impossible to talk about certain groups struggling academically without bringing up the intellectual elephant in the room. There might be a reason why there aren’t many Aboriginals working at NASA. It’s an important point because it means that decolonization, practically speaking, entails dumbing down these subjects or destroying them altogether.
Mainly we see with the “decolonization” agenda the embarrassment that liberal Westerners feel about the fact that their ancestors were far more advanced — in just about every way, and by every available measure — than the native people they conquered. The liberal Westerner is constantly looking for ways to even out the score. And we’re seeing that more and more in this country as well.
The once-respected Nature magazine, for example, recently
published an editorial (with no byline) that reads: “Why we have nothing to fear from the decolonization of mathematics.”
What’s amazing is that, if you read the whole editorial, you won’t actually find a definition of what “decolonization” means in this context. You won’t find anything close to a definition, actually. The most you’ll discover is that according to Nature, decolonization:
…shows that the roots of discovery and invention are shared between many world cultures, which can be particularly empowering for people from historically marginalized groups. Decolonizing science is the antidote to exceptionalism, the idea that any single culture or civilization possessed special abilities in advancing science.
But as we just established, some cultures and civilizations did, indeed, advance science and mathematics more than others. Some of them were colonizers, and some of those colonizers were not white. And regardless, none of this has anything to do with mathematics. Maybe you can argue this belongs in some elective history course somewhere. But it has no place affecting courses on the fundamentals of mathematics, which is exactly what’s happening in this country.
Pittsburgh Public Schools, for example, recently
announced a plan to make mathematics instruction more “equitable.” What does that mean? Watch:
It’s the same thing the Canadian teacher said in her TEDx talk. The goal is for everyone to feel like a mathematician, regardless of ability. None of this has anything to do with actually teaching math, of course, which is the point. Students can fail math courses — and they’ve been doing a lot of that in Pittsburgh. But it’s harder to fail a course that begins with the assumption that every student is gifted in mathematics, no matter what their test scores or actual mathematical aptitude might say.