Were Māori environmentalists?

A friend who wrote a thesis several years ago on common law solutions to environmentalism asked me this question a few weeks ago, and I've only recently got around to answering (I've paraphrased the question just a little):

Q: How did Maori activists [he asks] attain the apparent status they now possess in the environmental movement? In other words, why do NZ environmentalists bow to Maori prejudices? When I wrote my thesis this absurdity was not evident as it is now. Please can anybody shed some light on this?

So here's my rather belated answer: Read 'Were Māori environmentalists?' 

Science + mysticism = ?

"The issue is how to predict when a now-dormant volcano, Mount Taranaki on New Zealand’s North Island, will erupt again. The ['Herald'] article summarises a five-year study of how to predict not just that but also how to assess the damage from an eruption. The researchers apparently used real science to get the dates of eruptions ... and research from Massey University to calculate possible damage. ...

"None of the references given in the 'Herald' piece ... even mention mātauranga Māori, but it’s still touted as helping ... 'to weave together' ... empirical observation ... [with] indigenous 'ways of knowing' stuff, heavily larded with Māori words. ...

"Bilingual resources, interactive StoryMaps, and wānanga [tribal or traditional knowledge; could also mean an 'indigenous sage'] created spaces for kōrero [conversations] about the mounga’s [mountain's] past and future.

" 'You can’t understand volcanic risk in Taranaki without understanding the whakapapa [genealogy or history] of the mountain, whenua [land] and awa [rivers], the kōrero tuku iho [oral tradition] and mātauranga [knowledge] held by whānau [family groups], hapū [kinship groups or tribes] and iwi [tribes] who hold ancestral connections to the mounga [mountain] and have done so for generations,' said Acushla Dee Sciascia of Mapuna Consultants.

"This research provided a platform for Māori researchers to contribute their voices, leading to richer outputs including monographs, visual exhibitions, and new ways of telling the mounga’s story.

" 'Taranaki mounga [tribal groups near the mountain] provides us with so many learnings [lessons] from its past and how our tūpuna [ancestors] navigated previous volcanic events, and it’s up to us now to prepare our whānau [land] for the future,' Sciascia said.

" 'This programme has laid a foundation. But the real mahi [effort] is in how we carry this forward, and how we embed mātauranga Māori into everyday planning, science, and response.'

"What is missing here is how mātauranga Māori really is woven together with Western science in a productive way. Conspicuously absent is any mention about how mātauranga Māori really does help us assess volcanic risk ... Nor does seeing how earlier inhabitants coped with the damage give us much help in figuring out how to cope with the damage now. In the end, it seems that straight empirical observation and empirical-based prediction is what is needed here, and I can’t for the life of me find out how mātauranga Māori can help with that."

~ Jerry Coyne from his post 'Mātauranga Māori strikes again'

They "aim to change science from an endeavour finding truth about nature to an endeavour that’s a lever for social justice."

"'Nature' magazine published [a] long comment [recently], written by eight indigenous authors from five countries. [It] is a ... surrender to 'progressive' views that aim to change science from an endeavour finding truth about nature to an endeavour that’s a lever for social justice. Surprisingly, though, Nature allowed the authors to use the 'progressive' term of 'decolonisation,' arguing explicitly that the science is the result of colonisation of knowledge by white men from the Global North—a situation that must be rectified, pronto.

"The authors give eight ways to rectify the 'colonisation,' all of them involving sacrificing merit for ethnicity, replacing modern science with 'other ways of knowing,' and demanding both professional, monetary, and territorial reparations, even from those who never oppressed anybody. ...

"[A]s I’ve written about in extenso, 'indigenous knowledge' is never on par with modern science. Yes, indigenous people can contribute empirical truths to science, but indigenous 'science' almost invariably consists of local knowledge helping people to live in their specific environment (in New Zealand, for example, it consists of stuff like knowing how to harvest mussels or where to catch eels), and isn’t generalisable to other places. It does not use the tools of modern science and, as in New Zealand, is often imbued with nonscientific aspects like ethics, morality, unsubstantiated lore, and supernatural trappings like teleology and myth.

"Yes, some aspects of indigenous 'science' can and should be worked into science classes, but most of it should be taught in sociology or anthropology class. ...

"As one of my colleagues said after reading this paper, 'The authors’ decolonisation/indigenisation ideology is not only antithetical to science, it’s also anti-Enlightenment, and as such challenges the whole idea of universities as places where ideas are tested on the basis of reason and evidence without the imposition of cultural authority'.”

~ Jerry Coyne from his post 'The journal Nature calls for “decolonization” of modern science'

"New Zealand was supposed to be a secular democracy...."

"New Zealand was supposed to be a secular democracy. But blink, and suddenly we’re living in a tax-funded theocracy built on ghost stories and cosmic real estate claims. Let’s say it flat-out: this country is being governed, influenced, and guilt-tripped by a belief system that no one’s allowed to call a religion — because it’s labeled 'culture.' ...

"We don’t call it [religion], though — because we’re too polite, too scared, or too indoctrinated. ...

"Try this on for size ... a public holiday based on stellar necromancy ... teaching [children] about invisible energies called wairua and mauri ... legal rights, your property, your voice — they all bend to concepts like mana whenua ...

"We are living in a soft theocracy, where only one faith system is state-approved — the one cloaked in carvings and cultural immunity. Criticise it and you’re not debating — you’re blaspheming. ...

"Let’s be painfully clear: this isn’t about Māori culture. Culture is fine. Culture is beautiful. Culture can be danced, sung, and honored.

"But religion disguised as culture, used as a bludgeon against democracy, enforced through law and funded by your wallet? That’s not beautiful. That’s dangerous. ...

"Let’s rip the spiritual scaffolding out of our lawbooks, drop the theological cosplay, and build a country where no one’s ghost gets to overrule your rights.

"Because freedom doesn’t float in the stars.
"It lives down here — under your feet.
"And it's time we fought for it."

~ John Robertson from his post 'New Zealand’s Holy Empire of Make-Believe'

"Astrology is alive and well in some New Zealand classrooms"

"Astrology is alive and well in some New Zealand classrooms thanks to the Education Ministry’s push to give indigenous knowledge equal standing with scientific knowledge. ... [These include] an array of online resources intended to enlighten teachers and students on the wonders of the Māori Lunar Calendar, or Maramataka [,which suggesting that a particular phase of the Moon can influence human behaviour, health, horticulture or the weather.]

"Unfortunately, most of these resources are woefully uncritical and fail to mention that there is very little science [in] support ...

"[Teachers] fear ... being branded racist or anti-Māori [for bing opposed], but just because something is part of Māori culture should not render it immune from criticism. ...

"[Other] teachers are now consulting the Calendar to plan their lessons around ‘high’ and ‘low’ energy days to determine which phases of the Moon are best to conduct assessments, carry out sporting activities, and even when to go on trips. Some teachers have even taken to scheduling meetings on days deemed less likely to trigger conflict, all under the moniker of ‘ancient Māori wisdom.’ Indoctrination is also starting early.

"In the Far North a group of ECE teachers have been giving lessons on the waxing and waning ‘energy levels’ of the Moon to over 10 early childhood centres. ...

"It is time to get government-sponsored pseudoscience out of our schools and health system. It begins by having the courage to call a spade a spade. If supporters of Māori knowledge want parity with science, then it needs to be subjected to the same rigorous standards that other forms of knowledge undergo. ...

"If people want to teach this ‘folklore’ as a cultural belief – that’s fine, but don’t teach it as a reality and leave out the scientific perspective. That’s educational malpractice and indoctrination."

~ Robert Bartholomew from his post 'The Māori Astrology Craze – Stop Teaching Pseudoscience to Our Kids'

"NZ urgently needs the support of retired individuals or those whose livelihoods are not yet affected by government or iwi control."

"New Zealand is facing a significant freedom of speech crisis. Across the country, people dependent on their business or employment income are being intimidated into silence regarding the influence of the tribal elite over many aspects of our lives. It’s not just about expressing personal opinions but about elected representatives, public servants and private business operators being silenced when it comes to the facts. ... [see for just a few examples: Real Estate agent Janet Dickson's court fight over licensing modules; so-called 'cultural safety' and 'cultural competence' requirements for nursing and teacher registration; 'Mātauranga Māori' being taught as science in schools; proposed 'competency standards' for pharmacists, & creeping tribal control over state assets]    

    "That’s why NZ urgently needs the support of retired individuals or those whose livelihoods are not yet affected by government or iwi control. You have the freedom to speak up for those Kiwis who feel unable to do so themselves. I encourage anyone, who can, to take up this cause, as the consequences for New Zealanders—including Māori who are not part of the leadership elite—will only worsen if this takeover continues."

~ Fiona Mackenzie from her article 'Too Intimidated to Speak Out?'

"Creationism is still bollocks even it is indigenous bollocks."

"The world is full of thousands of creation myths and other colourful legends, any of which might be taught alongside Māori myths. Why choose Māori myths? For no better reason than that Māoris arrived in New Zealand a few centuries before Europeans. That would be a good reason to teach Māori mythology in anthropology classes. Arguably there’s even better reason for Australian schools to teach the myths of their indigenous peoples, who arrived tens of thousands of years before Europeans. Or for British schools to teach Celtic myths. Or Anglo-Saxon myths. But no indigenous myths from anywhere in the world, no matter how poetic or hauntingly beautiful, belong in science classes. Science classes are emphatically not the right place to teach scientific falsehoods alongside true science. Creationism is still bollocks even it is indigenous bollocks.
    "The Royal Society of New Zealand, like the Royal Society of which I have the honour to be a Fellow, is supposed to stand for science. Not 'Western' science, not 'European' science, not 'White' science, not 'Colonialist' science. Just science. Science is science is science, and it doesn’t matter who does it, or where, or what 'tradition' they may have been brought up in."

~ Richard Dawkins from his post 'Myths Do Not Belong in Science Classes: Letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand' [hat tip Ele Ludemann]

"These absurdities are multiplied throughout today’s New Zealand. I cannot say 'modern' New Zealand because we see here a reversion to the prehistoric."

"[T]he Northland Regional Council['s] 'draft blueprint for improving freshwater' tells its readers that .. 'the water cycle is an expression of love between the heavens and earth, and each stage is a critical component. The Atua who control these elements [says the 'blueprint'] are in charge of condensation, evaporation, collection and precipitation.' Atua, according to Williams's 'Dictionary of the Māori Language' ... is 'God, Demon, supernatural being, ghost.'
    "By these words and others, the regional council is indicating that its draft freshwater plan has been informed by ideas that freshwater is a living being deriving from the gods, that it should be respected as an ancestor, and that the plan weaves together those views and 'western world views' so that the well-being of the water cycle is prioritised, respected and protected. ...

"These absurdities are multiplied throughout today’s New Zealand. I cannot say 'modern' New Zealand because we see here a reversion to the prehistoric. The absurdities bring to mind the title of a collection of Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz essays: 'Return of the Primitive: the Anti-Industrial Revolution.' ... In his Introduction ... Peter Schwartz noted that:

'Primitive, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means: "Of or belonging to the first age, period or stage; pertaining to early times…" With respect to human development, primitivism is a pre-rational stage. It is a stage in which man lives in fearful awe of a universe he cannot understand. The primitive man does not grasp the law of causality. He does not comprehend the fact that the world is governed by natural laws and that nature can be ruled by any man who discovers those laws. To a primitive, there is only a mysterious supernatural. Sunshine, darkness, rainfall, drought, the clap of thunder, the hooting of a spotted owl—all are inexplicable, portentous, and sacrosanct to him. To this non-conceptual mentality, man is metaphysically subordinate to nature, which is never to be commanded, only meekly obeyed.'

"This is the world that the Northland Regional Council would return us to. ... that countless councils, other governmental bodies, some political parties and others would return us to ... to which some of our judges and the New Zealand Council of Legal Education would have us return ...

"It has taken centuries for humanity to struggle and claw its way out of a swamp of ignorance and superstition to gain an understanding of the world, of the universe in which we live, and to use that understanding to create better lives for all. Yet, there are those who act as if they wish humanity to reverse course and return to a world of ignorance and superstition, to travel along a pathway to ignorance as I have heard it described. I cannot comprehend how any rational person could honestly desire that to occur."

~ Gary Judd from his post 'Return of the primitive'

Some "practical advice” to “decolonise” a "settler colonial institution" — and to destroy higher learning in the process

Two alleged scholars from the University of Canterbury were invited by London's Times Higher Education Supplement to “provide practical advice” to “decolonise” a settler colonial institution. and to describe “what decolonisation means.”

Noting, naturally, that decolonisation itself is “a very promiscuous term" and thus best avoided (of course), they instead aim to "offer insights into how we, as tauiwi (non-Indigenous) scholars, can work to unsettle the settler colonial university."

Settle back then as these two (one a senior lecturer in educational studies and leadership, the other an associate professor in the School of Teacher Education) help to destroy what little is left of New Zealand's tertiary sector's international reputation. Som highlights:

• "..in a country such as New Zealand [they say] the effects of colonisation are ongoing and ... , in the words of Indigenous climate activist India Logan-Riley, 'land back, oceans back' is yet to be realised. Unless the university is fully engaged in land back, oceans back, decolonisation will be used by the settler colonial university to justify settler occupation of stolen land, water and knowledge ..."
• "... to engage in anticolonial, feminist practice, we must address the systems that produce violence and exploitation"
• "Rather than offer how-to tips for 'decolonising the university,' we suggest a [six-point plan] as a call for collective action to change things that are unjust ­– inside and outside the university:

"We must actively engage in the disruption of oppressive, settler colonial and patriarchal practices. ..."

"....recognising and respecting Indigenous epistemologies and, where possible, engaging these as central to its curriculum while also peripheralising European and settler knowledge ... [noting however that] there is a fine line between incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and cultural appropriation"

"...build collaborative partnerships and alliances with other marginalised communities, acknowledging the intersections of colonialism, racism, sexism, homo-transphobia, ableism and other forms of oppression. ... Adapt feminist and collaborative writing practices; refuse symbolic service requests and instead strategise and work towards systemic change: unionise, organise for a living wage and improve institutional practices ..."

"Anticolonial praxis requires institutional transformation at all levels.... In the institution, we need to critically examine and restructure policies, procedures and practices that perpetuate settler colonial regimes of power. [Whatever that means?] ...Name it; make it explicit.

"Anticolonial and feminist praxis requires constant self-reflection and a commitment to unlearning. ... Connect, resist and organise."

"Finally, we must dare to dream beyond the university. ...'May we find each other…beyond the university, and unite in our irreverent lines of flight'."

Evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne has been watching this nonsense from afar. He observes that, bad as this is for our universities, these teaching institutions "are seen as mere staging areas for society-wide transformation":

When you read something like this, you wonder about not only the philosophy of 'Times Higher Education,' which decided to print what is largely an incoherent (and incorrect) set of assertions and accusations, but you also wonder about what will happen to New Zealand. The authors, after all, are 'settler-colonialists' [themselves], calling for their own decimation.
    What is happening in New Zealand—with all the many official attempts to create equity only serving to provoke tirades like the one above—is the world’s most far-reaching attempt at ideological capture of an entire country by the people who consider themselves entitled to run the whole country: the descendants of the original Polynesian settlers. But the world has moved on, and who can deny that 'settler colonialists,' by bringing with them their knowledge, medicines, free national healthcare, and inventions, have improved the lives of most people in New Zealand. It is not as if colonialism has been an unmitigated evil.
    I think the person who sent me this screed is right: this movement is unstoppable, and it’s going to ruin New Zealand. Apparently the Luxon government is either ignoring this stuff or doesn’t care to stop it. Soon it will be too late, if it isn’t already. I pity New Zealanders who want to get a good college education in the face of people like [these], whose programme will sink New Zealand to the bottom of the academic ranking of comparable countries.

What's 'woke'? Let me explain.

 

You hear it all the time now. 'Woke.' "He's woke." "She's woke." "That's woke." Woke, woke. woke. You hear it all the time.

But awake to what?

James Lindsay likes tweaking 'woke' noses, and he's a fairly knowledgable chap on the subject. "There's a right name for the 'Woke' ideology," he explains, "and it's 'Critical Constructivism.' 

Critical constructivist ideology is what you "wake up" to when you go 'Woke'." He explains in a lengthy Twitter thread:

Reading this book [above], which originally codified it in 2005, is like reading a confession of Woke ideology. Let's talk about it.
    The guy whose name is on the cover of that book is credited with codifying critical constructivism, or as it would be better to call it, critical constructivist ideology (or ideologies). His name is Joe Kincheloe, he was at Magill University, and he was a critical pedagogue.
    Just to remind you, critical pedagogy is a form of brainwashing posing as education — it is the application of critical theory to educational theory and praxis, as well as the teaching and practice of critical theories in schools. ... [C]ritical pedagogy was developed ... to use educational materials as a 'mediator to political knowledge,' i.e., an excuse to brainwash.
    The point of critical pedagogy is to use education as a means not to educate, but to raise a critical consciousness in students instead. That is, its purpose is to make them 'Woke.' What does that entail, though? It means becoming a critical constructivist, as Kincheloe details.

As some people have said, it always starts with teacher mis-education. 

Note what we've already said, though. Yes, Marcuse. Yes, intersectionality. Yes, CRT and Queer Theory et cetera. Yes, yes, yes. That's Woke, BUT Woke was born and bred in education schools. I first recognised this right after [Helen Pluckrose and I] published our 2020 book 'Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.'
    Critical pedagogy, following people like Henry Giroux and Joe Kincheloe, forged together the religious liberationist Marxism of [Paulo] Freire, literally a Liberation Theologian, with the 'European theorists,' including both Critical Marxists like Marcuse and postmodernists like Foucault.
    In other words, when Jordan Peterson identifies what we now call 'Woke' as 'postmodern neo-Marxism,' he was exactly right. ["Yes, no, and sort of," says philosopher Stephen Hicks.] It was a neo-Marxist critique that had taken a postmodern turn away from realism and reality. The right name for that is 'critical constructivism.'

CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM CONTAINS (OR SYNTHESISES) two disparate parts: 'critical,' which refers to Critical Theory (that is, neo-Marxism or Critical Marxism), and 'constructivism,' which refers to the constructivist thinking at the heart of postmodernism and poststructuralism.
Critical Theory we all already generally understand at this point. The idea is pretty simple: 

• ruthless criticism of everything that exists; 

• calling everything you want to control 'oppression' until you control it; 

• finding a new proletariat in 'ghetto populations'; blah blah blah.

    More accurately, Critical Theory means believing the world and the people in it are contoured by systems of social, cultural, and economic power that are effectively inescapable and all serve to reproduce the 'existing society' (status quo) and its capitalist engine.

    Critical Theory is not concerned with the operation of the world, 'epistemic adequacy' (i.e., knowing what you're talking about), or anything else. They're interested in how systemic power shapes and contours all things and how they're experienced, to which they give a (neo)-Marxist critique.
    Constructivism is a bit less familiar for two reasons:
We've done a lot of explaining and criticising Critical Theory already, so people are catching on, and it's a downright alien intellectual landscape that is almost impossible to believe anyone actually believes. 

You're already very familiar with the language of constructivism: 'X is a social construct.' Constructivism fundamentally believes that the world is socially constructed. That's a profound claim. So are people as part of the world. That's another profound claim. So is power. I need you to stop thinking you get it and listen now because you're probably already rejecting the idea that anyone can be a constructivist who believes the world is itself socially constructed. That's because you're fundamentally a realist, but they are not realists at all.
    Constructivists believe, as Kincheloe says explicitly, that nothing exists before perception. That means that, to a constructivist, some objective shared reality doesn't exist. To them, there is no reality except the perception of reality, and the perception of reality is constructed by power.
    I need you to stop again because you probably reject getting it again. They really believe this. There is no reality except perceived reality. Reality is perceived according to one's social and political position with respect to prevailing dominant power. Do you understand?
    Constructivism rejects the idea of an objective shared reality that we can observe and draw consistent conclusions about. Conclusions are the result of perceptions and interpretations, which are colored and shaped by dominant power, mostly in getting people to accept that power.
    In place of an objective shared reality we can draw conclusions about, we all inhabit our own 'lived realities' that are shaped by power dynamics that primarily play out on the group level, hence the need for 'social justice' to make power equitable among and across groups.
    Because (critical) constructivist ideologies believe themselves the only way to truly study the effects of systemic dominant power, they have a monopoly on knowing how it works [despite the contradiction in terms], who benefits, and who suffers oppression because of it. Their interpretation is the only game in town.
    All interpretations that disagree with critical constructivism [they insist] do so for one or more bad reasons, for example:

• not knowing the value of critical constructivism, 
• being motivated to protect one's power on one or more levels, 
• prejudice and hate, or
• having bought the dominant ideology's terms, etc. 

CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IS PARTICULARLY HOSTILE to 'Western' science, favouring what it calls 'subjugated knowledges. This should all feel very familiar right now [hello Mātauranga Māori], and it's worth noting that Kincheloe is largely credited with starting the idea of 'decolonising' knowledge. 

    Kincheloe, in his own words, explains that critical constructivism is a 'weltanshuuang,' that is, a worldview, based on a 'critical hermeneutical' understanding of experienced reality. This means it intends to interpret everything through critical constructivism.
    In other words, critical constructivism is a hermetically-sealed ideological worldview (a cult worldview) that claims a monopoly on interpretation of the world by virtue of its capacity to call anything that challenges it an unjust application of self-serving dominant power.
    When you are "Woke," you are a critical constructivist, or at least suffer ideological contamination by critical constructivism, whether you know it or not. You believe important aspects of the world are socially (politically) constructed, that power is the main variable, etc.
    More importantly, you believe that perception (of unjust power) combined with (that) interpretation of reality is a more faithful description of reality than empirical fact or logical consistency, which are "reductionist" to critical constructivists.
    This wackadoodle (anti-realist) belief is a consequence of the good-ol' Hegelian/Marxist dialectic that critical constructivism imports wholesale. As Kincheloe explains, his worldview is better because it knows knowledge is both subjective and objective at the same time.
    He phrases it that all knowledge requires interpretation, and that means knowledge is constructed from the known (objective) and the knower (subjective) who knows it. It isn't "knowledge" at all until interpretation is added, and critical constructivist interpretation is best.
    Why is critical constructivist interpretation best? Here comes another standard Marxist trick: because it's the only one (self)-aware of the fact that 'positionality' with respect to power matters, so it's allegedly the only one accounting for dominant power systems at all.

WE COULD GO ON AND on about this, but you hopefully get the idea. Critical constructivism is the real name for 'Woke.' It's a cult-ideological view of the world that cannot be challenged from the outside, only concentrated from within, and it's what you 'wake up' to when Woked. [A different name for 'Critical Constructivism': Cognitive Onanism.]
    Critical constructivism is an insane, self-serving, hermetically sealed cult-ideological worldview and belief system, including a demand to put it into praxis (activism) to recreate the world for the possibility of a 'liberation' it cannot describe, by definition. A disaster.
    There is a long, detailed academic history and pedigree to 'Woke,' though, so don't let people gaslight you into believing it's some right-wing bogeyman no one can even define. It's easily comprehensible despite being almost impossible to grok like an insider.
    People who become 'Woke' (critical constructivists) are in a cult that is necessarily destructive. Why is it necessarily destructive? Because it rejects reality, and attempts instead to understand a 'reality' based in the subjective interpretations of power .....
    Furthermore, its objective is to destroy the only thing it regards as being 'real,' which are the power dynamics it identifies so it can hate them and destroy them. Those are 'socially real' because they are imposed by those with dominant power, who must be disempowered. Simple.

To conclude, Woke is a real thing. It can be explained in great detail as exactly what its critics have been saying about it for years, and those details are all available in straightforward black and white from its creators, if you can just read them and believe them.

 

The Greek legacy ...

Image is from Aristarchus, the great Greek astronomer,
from a tenth-century CE copy of his manuscript

"Every civilisation of which we have records has possessed a technology, an art, a religion, a political system, laws, and so on. In many cases those facets of civilisation have been as developed as our own. But only the civilisations that descend from Hellenic Greece have possessed more than the most rudimentary science. The bulk of scientific knowledge is a product of Europe in the last four centuries.”

~ Thomas Kuhn, from his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [hat tip Stephen Hicks]

"The line isn't Left vs Right. It's 'the truth matters' versus 'the truth is what we need it to be'."[UPDATED]

 

"The line isn't Left vs Right. It's 'the truth matters' versus 'the truth is what we need it to be.' That's the epistemological line between good and evil. The Activist Left knows that's the actual line, and they've known it for a long time. ...

    "There are people who reject the dialectical approach. Then there are people broken by it. Finally, ... there are people who know exactly what they're doing and do it to deceive and conquer."

~ James Lindsay

RELATED:

"In universities across the world, humanities departments have, over time, come to reject the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth.
    "This nihilistic outlook was originally promoted by a small group of academics in the mid-20th century, but is now the dominant philosophy in a range of disciplines from literary criticism to gender and cultural studies. And while the doctrine has quietly swallowed the humanities, many thought it would never infiltrate the hard sciences. If one is engineering a bridge, for example, it would be reckless to reject the objective truth of gravity. If one is studying mathematics it would be foolish to deny that 2 + 2 = 4. 

    "And, rather than being a method to discover how the world works, such theorists argue Western science has been used as a tool to subjugate others. Efforts to 'decolonise' science are therefore efforts to undo this subjugation, by bringing into the fold other 'ways of knowing' that exist outside scientific methodology. These might include local knowledge about land management, religious knowledge about cosmology, or traditional ways of healing. Writing at 'The Conversation,' academic Alex Broadbent, of the University of Johannesburg, argues: 'There is African belief, and European belief, and your belief, and mine – but none of us have the right to assert that something is true, is a fact, or works, contrary to anyone else’s belief.' ... 

    "But herein lies the irony – by indulging the de-colonial activist agenda that rejects the existence of objective truths or a hierarchy of knowledge, universities undermine the very premise on which society deems them worthy of public funding. If we accept the de-colonial notion that no form of knowledge can be deemed superior to any other, then what exactly are students paying for? What specialised skills or benefits do university graduates gain that non-graduates lack? Why should the public continue to fund these multibillion-dollar organisations if the knowledge they offer is just as valid as any other 'way of knowing'?"

~ Claire Lehman, from her column 'In maths, truth & knowledge can't be mere matters of opinion'

The world is doubling down on New Zealand's stupidity

"There was a time when you could count on the left to defend science with the sort of zeal that would make a religious fundamentalist blush. However, this staunch commitment to scientific empiricism ... is now increasingly coming into conflict with the new tenets of the ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) agenda.
    "You can see this clearly in the Biden administration’s proposed new guidelines for ... staff working in public-health agencies ... [who] could soon be instructed to consider ‘multiple forms of evidence, such as indigenous knowledge’ when going about their duties.
    "Put simply, advocates of ‘indigenous knowledge’ argue that various cultures throughout history have their own ways of understanding the world. And these alternative, indigenous ‘ways of knowing’, they say, should be utilised alongside more established scientific methods in research and in policymaking. ...

"The Biden administration is not even the first Western government to sacrifice science to the DEI agenda. Last year, the government of New Zealand decided that science classes in schools should teach that Maori ‘ways of knowing’ have equal standing to ‘Western science’. Scientists who objected to this found themselves under investigation by the Royal Society of New Zealand. Three of them, including one of Maori descent, resigned from the society in protest.
    "The claim that science is ‘Western’ is absurd, of course. One of the many wonderful things about science is that it does not discriminate. Science is a universal, cross-cultural concept. It invites anyone and everyone to participate and contribute to our growing understanding of reality. ... This is why there aren’t any ‘indigenous’ ways of flying an airplane that supersede our scientific understanding of aerodynamics. Or why the NHS doesn’t offer exorcisms as part of its mental-health services. A blood test administered in a clinical setting will yield the same results whether it’s carried out in London or Nairobi – because science actually works anywhere you do it. It’s about the ‘how’, not the ‘who.’ ...
    "Science often gets things wrong, of course. But unlike indigenous ways of knowing, science rewards you for catching errors. It incentivises the pursuit of truth over accepting received wisdom. There are no religious commandments or cultural dogmas dictating the scope of scientific investigation. Science simply finds out ‘what is’ – and to hell with any sacred cows that are slaughtered along the way.
    "Standards of objectivity are essential when it comes to science and public health. We should make no apologies for defending them from the encroachment of pseudoscience, whatever form it comes in. ...
    

"We all know that treating indigenous knowledge as akin to scientific evidence is a bit silly. But I suspect that is probably the point. ... We are all essentially being dared to say that relying on indigenous knowledge is a terrible idea. Of course, if you do say this in the wrong circles, you will be accused of racism and you will be silenced.
    "With modern-day anti-racism, the goal is not to address actual inequalities or to improve the material wellbeing of oppressed minorities. The real aim is to tear down anything that is perceived to be ‘white’ or ‘Western’. And the fact that science is now being placed in the firing line, thanks to racial identity politics, should worry us all."

~ Stephen Knight from his op-ed 'The nonsense of ‘indigenous ways of knowing’'

Mātauranga Māori: a mix of “religion, ethics, morality, tradition and superstition"

"It is one of the ironies of this election campaign that Chris Luxon is being painted as a religious zealot who will allegedly force Christian beliefs on the nation even as Chris Hipkins is actually introducing mātauranga Māori into education — and most controversially into science.
    "Last week, Chicago University’s Jerry Coyne, one of the world’s pre-eminent evolutionary biologists, described mātauranga Māori as a mix of “religion, ethics, morality, tradition and superstition” with some 'empirical, trial-and-error based knowledge that can be taken as part of science.'

    'It is not a "way of knowing", the professor said, 'but a "Māori way of living".'

    "Over the past two years, Coyne has regularly dissected proposals to insert mātauranga Māori into New Zealand’s science curriculum, and outlined what he sees as the damaging consequences for students and for the international reputation of the nation’s universities as science teaching 'circles the drain.'
    "He entered the debate after a letter on mātauranga Māori and NCEA science titled 'In Defence of Science,' written by seven Auckland University professors, was published in the 'Listener' in July 2021. Two years later, Coyne says he still gets a stream of emails from New Zealand academics and teachers who feel they can’t speak out publicly about mātauranga Māori for fear of losing their jobs.
    "In discussing the topic in depth, Coyne is doing the job New Zealand mainstream media refuses to do."

~ Graham Adams, from his post 'The PM pushes old-time religion'

I'm not sure it's so covert

Simon O'Neill with Waltraud Meier on stage at Milan's
La Scala, pretty much the pinnacle of the opera world

From Stuff on Thursday morning:

One of New Zealand’s most celebrated opera singers, Simon O’Neill​ has ... accus[ed] the Government of “a racist agenda” against European arts and institutions ... [saying there is a] “concerted effort, between Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori covertly pushing the agenda of the eradication of great art.”... He suggested the increased support for Te Matatini, the national kapa haka organisation, had come at the expense of the likes of the NZSO and NZ Opera ....

"This is what Mātauranga Māori looks like in real life [he said]: The deletion of Western science and culture and the replacement with some sort of post-stone age fake construct ...

"[They] have absolutely no interest in supporting our cultural cause – the works of Beethoven, Bach, Puccini... [these artists] are, literally, completely foreign to their dangerous racist agenda....

"It would be a shame if ‘to rob Peter to pay Paul’ turns out to be the New Zealand Government arts policy."

From Stuff on Thursday afternoon:

[Carmel] Sepuloni said it was “disappointing” to hear O’Neill’s comments, as she had been a fan of his music.... Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi called for O’Neill to apologise, labelling his views “race baiting and racist”....
On Thursday, he issued a written apology to Sepuloni and Waititi... New Zealand Opera ... Chairperson Annabel Holland issued a statement saying she did not share his views.

 Do you?

Should he have apologised ?

"The top-down Māori nationalist revolution is not yet complete – but it has, most certainly, begun."

"New Zealand is currently living through another top-down revolution. Though far from complete, it has already captured control of the commanding heights of the public service, the schools and universities, the funding mechanisms of cultural production, and big chunks of the mainstream news media.
    "The ideology driving this revolution is not neoliberalism, it’s ethno-nationalism. A potent amalgam of indigenous mysticism and neo-tribal capitalism has captured the imagination of the professional and managerial class and is relying on the latter’s administrative power and influence to drive through a revolutionary transformation of New Zealand society under the battle-flags of 'indigenisation' and 'decolonisation.' The glue which holds this alliance of Māori and Non-Māori elites together is Pakeha guilt....
    "The origins of the present ethno-nationalist revolution may be traced back to the early 1980s – specifically the 1981 Springbok Tour.... The [Māori] nationalist activists ... created a movement towards 'Māori Sovereignty' in which revolutionary Māori would lead, and guilty Pakeha would follow.... The Guilty Pakeha’s 'long march through the institutions' had begun.
    "Only one more strategic victory is required to complete the Māori nationalist revolution: Pakeha pride in their past and in their culture has to be undermined. The men and women once celebrated as nation-builders have to be recast as colonial oppressors. The country famed for being 'the social laboratory of the world' has to be re-presented as just another sordid collection of white supremacist, treaty-breaking, killers and thieves.
    "Māori, too, are in need of a complete makeover: from slave-owning warrior-cannibals, to peace-loving caretakers of Te Ao Māori – a world to which they are bound by deep and mystical bonds. Inheritors of a culture that sanctioned genocidal conquest and environmental destruction, how can the Pakeha hope to lead Aotearoa towards a just future? As in the 1980s, the Twenty-First Century journey requires revolutionary Māori to lead, and guilty Pakeha to follow. And those guilty Pakeha in a position to make it happen appear only too happy to oblige.

    "Which is why, in March 2023, New Zealand has an educational curriculum dedicated to condemning colonisation and uplifting the indigenous Māori. Why Māori cultural traditions and ways of knowing are elevated above the achievements of Western culture and science. Why representatives of local iwi and hapu wield decisive influence over private and public development plans, as well as the credo and content of media reporting and university courses.
    "The Māori nationalist revolution is not yet complete – but it has, most certainly, begun."

~ Chris Trotter, from his post 'The Revolution Has Begun'

"STEM, objectivity, rigour and replicability are not products of the West. Postmodernism and its latest incarnation 'Critical Social Justice,' however, are.

"It is absolutely essential that we make more people aware of this aspect of the 'Decolonise movement, in particular [i.e,, 'decolonising' science by 'problematising' rigour, objectivity and replicability]. 

    "I don’t think I have ever seen anything more imperialist than claiming STEM [the study, practice and artefacts of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] to be white & Eurocentric. Complete ahistorical nonsense that can only be written by someone who has never had to try to work with the 'maths' that existed before Europe adopted Arab numerals and maths. As a late medievalist, let me inform you that trying to do maths working in 7s over 20s in Roman numerals as Europeans did before this is a primary reason for so many calculations of anything from that period being wrong.
    "Aside from it being factually wrong to claim STEM to be white & Western, it is an insult to all the doctors, scientists & engineers the Western world needs to recruit from Africa and Asia to keep those fields running. If all the Indian, Nigerian and Pakistani Brits left for their former homelands or that of their parents and grandparents, [Britain's] National Health Service (NHS) would collapse, engineering would struggle and we’d be much diminished in output in science more broadly. As I have had to point out to anybody insisting that my critiques of fields using the approaches of Critical Social Justice are just a way to attack the work of 'people of colour,' if that were actually my motivation, it would be medicine and technology I’d have to critique, not Critical Social Justice, as this is where black and brown Brits are most represented.
   "STEM, objectivity, rigour and replicability are not products of the West. Postmodernism and its latest incarnation 'Critical Social Justice,' however, are. If you want to ‘decolonise’ Western 'ways of knowing,' start by weeding out that one, not the development of science which has been a worldwide project for millennia, although Europe was a relative latecomer to it."

~ Helen Pluckrose, from her comment on Jerry Coyne's post 'Three authors “problematise” rigour, objectivity, replicability, and yes, all the aspects of “colonising and white Eurocentric science”'

"It is surprising how much emphasis the Ministry of Education is giving to race as a key variable in education.

"The biggest problems in New Zealand’s schooling system are poor literacy and numeracy... 
    "Given all this, it is surprising how much emphasis the Ministry of Education (MoE) is giving to race as a key variable in education. MoE seems more focused on promoting Māori racial and cultural identity than, for example, professional identities. 'Māori succeeding as Māori' is a recurring trope. A wisely sardonic Māori kuia once said to me that New Zealand has too few Māori in the professions and too many professional Māoris.... This was decades ago, and she spoke in a whisper. By now the prevailing zeitgeist will have silenced her completely."

~ Peter Winslet, from his post 'Science, mātauranga Māori, and the national curriculum'

$100 million for "Psycho-Astrology"

"The latest effort to 'indigenise' knowledge is the bestowing of a huge pot of money on Māori organisations to use 'ancestral knowledge' to help cure mental health issues among the indigenous people. This is described in the Newshub article ... which you can click to read.
    "The article notes that 'The new Māori Health Authority has a budget of half a billion dollars and CEO Riana Manuel has allocated $100 million of that to support centuries-old treatments.'
    "And there is a need for treatment, for the article also notes this: 'Māori have the highest suicide rates of all ethnic groups in New Zealand....' But ... 100 million dollars for using 'centuries-old treatments' is a lot of money.
    "What are these treatments? It’s not clear, but they’re based on lunar cycles and what can only be called psychoastrology.... practices ... adopted in the absence of clinical trials, and so there is only a “traditional” basis for the therapy. Might Māori be helped more with other practices, like cognitive behavioral therapy, practices that have been tested and shown to be efficacious? Or even medication, which has a significant effect on things like depression. (A combination of talk and drug therapy seems to be the most curative).
    "As a colleague wrote me, this absence of scientific testing of a method that will absorb $100 million is the same issue raised with Matauranga Māori: what is claimed (or assumed) to be 'scientific' has not been vetted using the scientific method....
    "Mental health is a form of health, and this is like treating diseases using astrology and 'traditional methods' that have never been subject to genuine scientific tests. Doesn’t it seem wise, before investing $100 million in mental-health treatment, that the government of New Zealand be sure that those treatments actually work?
    "Sadly, that’s not the way the New Zealand government rolls."

~ American evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, from his post 'Indigenous psychiatry: how valuable is it?'

"...New Zealand, a nation whose science is circling the drain"

"The deep-sixing of modern science in NZ is pretty much a done deal, as the Ardern government has decided that the initial treaty between the “Crown” (settlers) and the Māori—embodied in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (known in Māori as “Te Tiriti”) should be interpreted as meaning that Māori should ultimately get not just equity (since they’re a minority of Kiwis), but extra equity: half of the money and half of the power....
    "This just won’t do, as times have moved on. Matauranga Māori ["a way of knowing"] rarely changes, and most of it cannot be falsified, while science steams its way forward. This is not to say that Māori shouldn’t have more power than they do already (I can’t speak to that), but that the government of New Zealand apparently is so ridden with guilt that it’s ready to hand over its science and its universities—not to mention its dosh—to Māori or to anybody who claims Māori descent....
    "While the University of Auckland touts how wonderful it is and how much of a world-class research institute it will be, it and the NZ government is simultaneously ensuring that the research quality and reputation of the entire country will go into the dumper. And it’s largely done out of guilt, for equity alone simply cannot justify these actions...."

~ evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, from his post 'More from New Zealand, a nation whose science is circling the drain'