I’ve just read an article by a prominent scholar, but when it comes to guest speakers at a colonial university, the university needs to ask for permission to see if the man or woman can speak. In his view, the university needs to seek permission from the local indigenous community.
It’s okay if you have permission. If not, the speaker in question should not be on the podium. In other words, we give the power of freedom of speech to the indigenous people. This may seem completely ridiculous to the average Canadian, but our people who saw the great benefits of academic education in places like Western University where this scholar teaches and studies. Should not be surprised.
Still, we are such racists and colonialists, as we are said so often by exceptional people.
As this scholar suggests, we are foreigners, uninvited guests, and foreign residents who live in indigenous lands. How meaningful it must be for this gentleman to erupt. And so many treaties with the United Kingdom, not Canada, provide us with ample evidence of our constant ruthless neglect. As you know, he suggests that he should not think of themselves as intruders, not as Canadians.
Moreover, for some of us who have not yet fully submitted to the idea that what we think and say about the past, or the past, is a terrible colonial lie, freedom of speech is such. You may think that you cannot exist under sacred and arrogant conquest. Nonsense. You need to consider this.
All men and women are free to speak, but some are more free to speak than others. We have largely removed the inventions that whites have suffered to some extent throughout history, abandoning the dreaded notion that personal integrity is important within the framework of compassionate human sexual intercourse, no matter who it is. .. The more epic ideal that is currently prevalent and held up by imitation is that one identity has the right to express suffering more than any other. We have given up the idea that the only thing that makes people equal is the clear soul of a person and the common humanity we share.
But all this seems perfectly fine to me. So, for example, if someone wants to talk about William Faulkner’s “bear” and the university asks the head of the nearest reserve to make his or her decision (but actually invite someone). I don’t think there are many professors to do, but given the story’s relationship to the end of Old South and what was once noble and not so noble about it, I’ll talk about this topic already). The chief may not have read “The Bear” and probably doesn’t want to wake up at night and read it. It’s Falkner’s greatest story and the only Falkner story that Hemingway praised, but it’s heavy and deviates.
Perhaps the chief would be embarrassed that someone required him or her to hold instructions on the speaker because of his or her own innate humanity. Perhaps the chief has the gentle idea that, like the dozens of indigenous men and women I grew up in, the main responsibility of people is to guide themselves.
Still, with some new legislation, we will all have to wait for the chief’s opinion on this issue.
The gentleman who proposed this (and the rent you have to pay to live in Canada now-what is important for a professor like him) co-authored the book “Getting and Maintaining Power in Canadian Politics”. Did.
No historical demigod disagrees with this nasty embarrassment as a good starting point. And there are always enough impersonators in the crowd to applaud.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.