Last year a journal I have contributed to quite a lot over the years published an article entitled The Case for Colonialism (attached).
Then many of the editors (many of whom I know) began to complain to the Editor (whom I also know well).
This ended with the following statement from the publishers
This Viewpoint essay has been withdrawn at the request of the academic journal editor, and in agreement with the author of the essay. Following a number of complaints, Taylor & Francis conducted a thorough investigation into the peer review process on this article. Whilst this clearly demonstrated the essay had undergone double-blind peer review, in line with the journal's editorial policy, the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence. These threats are linked to the publication of this essay. As the publisher, we must take this seriously. Taylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay.
I would be very interested in what you think of this whole issue especially from a global South perspective.
For the whole story see
http://aidnography.blogspot.ie/2017/12/third-world-quarterly-case-for-colonialism-curated-overview-debate-critique.html
You are right on all points I think
On the issue of threats of violence, knowing the editor and the editorial board members who complained I am very doubtful that this actually happened
But it creates more confusion
So, is it about creating Fake news on colonialism or about freedom of speech?
Good questions and certainly not a goo thing. If we think of Nazi research in the experimentation on people, and if we as scientists discover that the work of Nazi scientists did yield interesting insight into contemporary research, should use it, we ought not to i would assert. It brings an ethical dimension in context. The benefits can never justify the means that led to it.
"Hitler also did good for the youth in Germany. Shall we claim Hitler was good? Come on! The act was violent! The effects were bad, but had good elements"
I think the issue was particularly controversial knowing that the journal Third World Quarterly has been for a long time a platform for 1) voicing the collective frustration of formerly colonized peoples and nations, the Global South and 2) discussing and analyzing at an epistemological level how to move forward in regards to issues such as unfreedom, inequality, national bourgeoisies, etc.
The fact that such a reputable academic journal published what is nothing more than a defense of colonialism is absolutely abhorrent. The putative "case for colonialism" is also poorly grounded, full of hyperboles and historical inaccuracies.
Adding to this already problematic framework is the background and positionality of the author (Bruce Gilley), who is Anglo and white. He clearly is poorly acquainted with the enduring effects of the colonial enterprise in formerly colonized peoples today. I have no doubt he had his own agenda in writing such atrocious article.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals