Students have recently been complaining about the amount of non-transgender individuals in a philosophy course at the University of California, Berkeley, reported Campus Reform. The students claimed “the white male canon is not sufficient for theorizing the lives of marginalized people.”
Martin Luther King is rolling is his grave, as he utters the most Conservative phrase to date. His words at the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” These individuals want to ignore the content of the character and instead focus on genitals and skin colour, and they did it to Socrates.
The students continued to say, “These courses pretend that a minuscule fraction of humanity — economically privileged white males from five imperial countries (England, France, Germany, Italy and the United States) — are the only people to produce valid knowledge about the world,” reported Campus Reform. Are they saying Plato and Aristotle are from any of those countries, and not Greece? Are they saying that France and Germany existed pre-nineteenth century, that they weren’t themselves to be under a genocidal campaign by Rome, subjected to colonialism and enslavement? Except that won’t fit their closed-minded narrative that all whites are evil and oppress people of colour, so it’s ignored.
“The course syllabus employed a standardized canon of theory that began with Plato and Aristotle, then jumped to modern philosophers: Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Marx, Weber and Foucault, all of whom are white men,” wrote the students. “The syllabus did not include a single woman or person of color.” It’s almost as if very few of the ancient philosophers were women, astonishing. Perhaps they can amend that by becoming philosophers themselves. I shouldn’t have to tell adults that the colour of a person’s skin does not matter, it is their works that matter. I would personally love to see Thomas Sowell in every foundations course, but he’s too modern and not as good as Socrates. As such academia chooses philosophers that everyone can agree on is good, not just a few. Those philosophers just happen to be white and male, there is no conspiracy against women or people of colour.
Inside Higher Ed had a brief news article on the subject of too many white people in old textbooks and they quoted John Agresto, past president of St. John’s College in Santa Fe and former deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities: “In the past and at their best, the liberal arts were a gift given to everyone,” Agresto said. “It didn’t matter that Dante and Homer were dead white males,” and keeping Shakespeare alive wasn’t an “ethnocentric act.” He is correct in this, we don’t read Shakespeare and Socrates because academia wants to oppress a minority group, we do it because he’s written so many classical works and also influenced all of the western canon. Let me remind you all, if you’re reading this you likely live in the West, you must know western history and literature first, not any other. It is not as important to western society but there is still a place for it, but it will always be minor. Especially because the western cannon is universal: the Enlightenment and Plato’s forms don’t care about the colour of your skin.
The University of California, Berkeley’s now also has “the problem of whiteness” course. Do you know how they responded to their criticisms of racism because of the course content and title alone? They doubled down on it, a quote from one of their ads which was posted on Facebook: “If you’re upset by the English Department’s Problem of Whiteness course as popularized by the always enlightening FOX & Friends, here’s an opportunity to have a face-to-face discussion about it and get a better understanding of why whiteness really is a problem.” The name of the department that made this course is, Department of Race Traitor Politics, School for the destruction of White Nationalism, I believe this name speaks for itself. I can’t believe somebody allowed this program, or didn’t immediately fire them for racism. This is outright antagonistic to whites. The colour of my skin is apparently a problem, so let’s pull a Socrates Switch™, trigger warning.
If you’re upset by the English Department’s “problem of Jewishness” course as popularized by the always enlightening Daily Show and MSNBC, here’s an opportunity to have a face-to-face discussion about it, and get a better understanding of why Jewishness really is a problem. This course was made from the Department of Aryan Preservation Politics, School for the destruction of Jewish Nationalism.
One of these classes is tolerable to teach, according to these students and professors at Berkeley, the other is not despite the only difference between them being the title of a racial group. According to some people who liked “the problem of whiteness” course, they said it was ok because “Students choose to be there.”
I suppose the anti-Semitic course is also fine, because students would choose to be there as well. Right? Wrong. The correct answer of course, if you have a brain not yet ruined by social justice indoctrination would be that both courses are equally incorrect and unacceptable in academia. There is no problem with Jewish or White nationalism or with either racial group. Yet this course tells students their skin colour is evil. People who preach this deserve to be banished not only from Academia, but from all western countries. If we are evil then don’t live with us, it’s quite simple.
They claim they are for tolerance and equal treatment and yet Socrates is too white. We seem to be creating a new morality, one that is just as intolerant, racist and oppressive as the old one. You need to see this and walk into your classes with both eyes open. Talking about social justice and feminism is one thing, unleashing it upon the western world is another. It doesn’t take a professor to see that our world has problems but it does take several morons in a tiny room to think they can solve all of them with a single ideology.