The class discussion on the historical character of knowing has been easily one of the most fascinating and realistic seminars. I strongly believe that there has been a pattern to “white-wash” history. I mean this in that, the clear historical racial divisions have led scholarship to be dominated by one group of people, white men. So now, we consider, how do we diversify our learning? Are we to diversify it?

Students at Soas want to “decolonize” their learning and with this, I agree.[1] They state that we treat western European thinkers as unquestionable, a through personal experience, I see this.[2] Historical thinkers like Descartes states “I think, therefore I am.” He spent time questioning his being and in academia, we take this. Why do we not challenge Descartes and think, well, what is the worth of doing this? Why can our beings themselves just be accepted? Yes, I agree with the Soas students, we do not question thinkers enough, we learn about their thoughts and then attempt to apply them, but rarely do we challenge.

One author stated, “When people speak, they speak ideas, not identity.”[3] I completely disagree with this. The identity of people shapes their ideas. The writings of W.E.B. DuBois are fundamentally different because he was marginalized and thus has different ideas.  This concerns my future scholarship because I believe it would be worth that for all research to have some section on personal identity. For example, I am studying environmental politics for many reasons. It is a topic that I deeply care about. Why? It could be because I grew up on the beach, where the location served purposes beyond recreation but was a fundamental aspect of people’s livelihoods. The ocean provides fish for food. The beach area itself is a tourist destination which bolsters the small local economy. Maintaining the environment is necessary for economic growth. My identity, who I am, influences my ideas and thoughts.

This all leads me back to one of my original questions: Are we to diversify our learning? Yes. How? By the truth. There is a historical inaccuracy. Something else came alive to be very real for me during the readings specifically regarding W.E.B. DuBois.

“Yet, this is not a question of adding more thinkers to the sociology canon. If Morris is right, there is an argument to made that Du Bois and the Atlanta School should replace the Chicago School, not just be added alongside it. For, with The Scholar Denied, Du Bois can no longer be seen as the “first black sociologist”, the originator of “African-American sociology,” or the one who pioneered the study of African-American communities. He must instead be seen as the first scientific sociologist who is the rightful progenitor of American sociology itself.”[4]

By “diversifying” learning, we do not need to get rid of Plato and Aristotle, rather we need to add the thinkers that were present in their rightful place in history. Furthermore, as stated, history is dominated by white male thinkers, and it would be worth it to take the time to recognize the absence of voices from marginalized groups. Their scholarship is less present in our syllabi because they did not have the same access to sharing their voices.
Go, Julian. The Case for Scholarly Reparations. http://berkeleyjournal.org/2016/01/the-case-for-scholarly-reparations/. 11 January 2016.

Kenan, Malik. Are Soas students right to ‘decolonise’ their minds from western philosophers?. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/19/soas-philosopy-decolonise-our-minds-enlightenment-white-european-kenan-malik.  19 February 2017.

[1] Malik Kenan, Are Soas students right to ‘decolonise’ their minds from western philosophers?, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/19/soas-philosopy-decolonise-our-minds-enlightenment-white-european-kenan-malik,  19 February 2017.

[2] Ibid 2017

[3] Ibid 2017

[4] Julian Go, The Case for Scholarly Reparations, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2016/01/the-case-for-scholarly-reparations/, 11 January 2016.