Nigel Biggar: Eurocentricity is justified

Revellers wave Union flags, at Parliament Square in London, U.K., on Friday, Jan. 31, 2020. Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg

Article content

Three years ago, the acting vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, Anthony Freeling, made a confession, widely reported in the British press. He confessed that he was baffled by “decolonization.” The word, he said, “has been misused to such an extent that I don’t think, if I’m honest, I can give an accurate definition.”

Article content

I sympathize — as, I strongly suspect, do millions of others. That’s because “decolonization” can mean a variety of different things, some of which make good sense, but others, very bad sense indeed. And the bad ones have smuggled themselves into schools and university departments under cover of the good.

Article content

Article content

Article content

The original and most natural home of “decolonization” is in former European colonies. There it can mean something entirely reasonable. For example, in 1986 the Kenyan novelist and playwright Ngugi wa Thiong’o published a book with the title, Decolonising the Mind. Here he argued that African literature should be written in African languages, such as his own Gikuyu. Why? So that Africans can recover a sense of self-respect and stop being in thrall to the assumption that whatever comes out of Europe is better. To which the only sensible response is surely, Yes, of course.

Article content

Article content

When translated out of its original, post-colony context and into contemporary Britain or Canada, “decolonization” can still make some good sense. It can mean correcting the neglect in school curricula of the history of immigration and the contribution of immigrants to our country.

Article content

Or it can mean that important texts that have been excluded from reading lists in schools and universities, just because of prejudice against the race of their authors (and not because of their poor quality) should be included.

Article content

Article content

If it is true that the history of immigration and the multicultural reality of Britain and Canada have been neglected, and if it is true that important texts have been excluded just because of the author’s skin colour, then curricula should indeed be “decolonized.” If those things are true — and have been shown to be true.

Article content

Article content

So far, so much good sense.

Article content

Much less reasonable, however, is the opposition of “decolonization” to “Eurocentricity” and its insistence on shifting attention to non-European histories and cultures. On the contrary, a certain Eurocentricity in British and Canadian education is entirely justified.

Article content

Britain is not Anywhere. It is located in North-West Europe, it has a particular history, and it has developed particular institutions and traditions. It is important, therefore, that British primary and secondary education should focus on helping budding citizens understand the immediate cultural and political environment in which they stand and for which they are about to become directly responsible.

Article content

Much the same applies to Canada. Notwithstanding the contribution of Indigenous Canadians and recent immigrants from Asia and Africa, the original builders of the nation-state of Canada were European — predominantly French and British, especially Scottish. Its primary languages, parliamentary institutions, legal system, and liberal traditions are not part of the eternal, cosmic furniture. They didn’t drop from heaven. They aren’t universal. The were created over centuries — sometimes at considerable human cost — in certain parts of Europe. Nascent Canadian citizens need to know that. For, whatever non-European cultural “diversity” Canada contains, Canadians need to remember and appreciate the European particularity of the country’s origins. Otherwise, they risk squandering the rights and liberties that their European heritage has — uniquely — bequeathed them.