I think that is where a lot of resistance comes from. The idea, right or wrong, justified or not, that trying to make things more equal and fair will result in me (not the literal me) losing their advantage. Except it won’t necessarily be thought of as an advantage but just inverse unfairness (reverse racism, or whatever). And I think this is highly related to wokeness. Being woke means understanding the origins of my resistance. And this isn’t to say that all resistance is based on this. I think there can be some disagreement that is based on facts outside of advantage, but it is important to keep it in mind.
Of course, it is ideal to bring everyone up than knock anyone down. In gaming, obviously this is expressed as “buff things that are weak, don’t nerf things that are strong.” And I think it is understandable that just like in games people do not like the “nerf hammer”, people in real-world do not like “nerf hammers” either, and again not always for reasons related to advantage.
I do like how, something put out as an example meant to give perspective is heralded as a posited solution, even though it was not even close to being meant as such.
But, it does very well demonstrate that the example hits home pretty hard, as English speakers go to the lengths of spinning straw in order to insist that it would be intolerable that they should have to learn a different language than their native one in order to participate in international concerns.
That was my take on it too. Strikes me as a label not worth even thinking about outside of some branch of academia nobody knows exists. I’ve yet to see a protest sign that says, “Post-Modernists UNITE!”. These “schools of thought” are so outside mainstream awareness that it’s difficult to even reasonably connect them to an actual social movement. I suppose that’s why some equally irrelevant right wing activists like Lindsay and Peterson choose to attack them as they do. Obscure targets for mediocre minds.
ok. I was only asking because while I can see the unfairness, calling it “racist” is a little complicated. If you look at List of countries and territories where English is an official language - Wikipedia there are many non-white-majority countries for whom English is their primary language. And sure America and UK and Australia have a lot white English speakers, but to all the rest of Europe English is a second language. That’s a lot of white people.
(That growing up speaking English is a legacy of the empire, and rooted in historical racism as you mentioned earlier, I grant.)
But having such a language… whatever language it is, as long as it is suitable as a language … is a net benefit to everyone in science. So even if it is racist, what does it matter? I call it out here because “racist” generally means “necessarily bad”, yet here it really isnt bad.
Errm, do you think that’s by accident? Or that those people loved English so much because it’s so awesome?
No, we (as I’m one of those people) have English because English colonialism (fundamentally racist) imposed it on us, and it’s too much trouble to get rid of now.
Has anyone done that here? Do you think the reason I bristle at calling the use of English as the international language of science “racist” is because I am native English speaker?
See this is the essence of Woke as seen by the outsider… dismissing arguments and reasons because the speaker is X. (white/male/straight/… native English speaker)
Sorry, only replied to the first bit, but now I’m puzzled… why do you say ‘calling it “racist” is a little complicated.’ when you then say ‘speaking English is […] rooted in historical racism’?
I’m not sure it is - people had no problem doing science when, to be a working scientist, you had to be fluent in at least 2, probably 3 or 4 languages. And it’s just possible that the multiple languages fostered a different way of thinking.
As it is, now, non-English scientists are marginalized. And that’s bad for science. So it’s not a net benefit now.
Why do I get the impression you’ve already made up your mind about what Woke is, and the wide-eyed questioning attitude represented in your OP is sooooo much bullshit?
Did you read his reply where that was his answer to the question “what would be completely equal”, and does not represent something he believes should be done?
Here is a very interesting video I stumbled on that’s about ethnomathematics. Please let me know how “woke” it is. I posit that the videomaker’s use of ethnomathematics as an example of “wokeness” demonstrates his malicious intent.
But it is good for English speakers who are happy to enjoy an advantage and don’t want to lose it.
This really reminds me of some of some of the arguments against equal rights and even freeing the slaves. No where near as vile, but following the same logic. If we let Blacks get educated and give them access to all the jobs, they will take them away from some deserving white person. Or worse, if we stop oppressing them, they will start oppressing us, and that of course is bad.
Since some took my Esperanto example as so offensive, I have an alternative proposal to consider:
I have an all powerful genie at my disposal. I am going to make the following wish:
Every major international journal will instantaneously change to Spanish. All editors, international journalists, conferences, etc will become fluent in Spanish and work in Spanish. Spanish will take the exact same position in science that English now holds. I could even throw in air traffic controllers and other travel related tasks now defaulting to Spanish. Anyone who speaks English as a second language will automatically know Spanish instead.
Is this a good change, a bad change or neutral change? Remember, this instantaneous and at no cost thanks to my magical genie. The only real effect is on two groups: Native Spanish speakers will find their lives significantly easier, and native English speakers will find their lives significantly harder.
Obviously this is not a serious proposal for action in the real world. The point is that it is important to recognize that systemic structures are not neutral. Keep this in mind and working for ways to compensate is what most people are referring to when the talk about being woke.
And please note, that calling something or someone woke has been cringe inducing in many circles. Not because of the intent but because calling yourself woke is a big statement that is making a lot of claims. It implies that you are done, you did itl your journey is complete and no one should be questioning you. I prefer to think of it as journey. We all have biases. The goal is to acknowledge this and examine them. To listen with an open mind and consider why an idea makes you uncomfortable. I never expect to be fully “woke”, just keep trying to do my best.
I’m curious about this. To the people saying the use of English as scientific lingua franca is systemic racism: does that mean it’s a bad thing? Should we change it? Or can something be systemically racist but not actually bad?
Possibly because the group that currently benefits, ie ‘people who speak English’, isn’t a race?
Obviously it’s a good change for Spanish speakers, a bad change for English speakers, and marginally better for everyone else as they can now spell in their second language. But you don’t have a genie. I doubt anyone thinks the current situation is fair as such, but it’s not obvious that any change would be an improvement.
Agree, and one has to notice here that “woke” is used in right wing circles in a disparaging way. With a meaning far away of the meaning that promoters of racial justice gave it originally.
