The identitarian focus on dividing people into categorical groups, and then basing one's self-concept on the historical achievements (or sins) of such groups, seems doomed to perpetual failure as a tool for creating self-esteem.
One reason is that I've noticed that in cultural comparisons, people tend to (often unconsciously) need equal n…
The identitarian focus on dividing people into categorical groups, and then basing one's self-concept on the historical achievements (or sins) of such groups, seems doomed to perpetual failure as a tool for creating self-esteem.
One reason is that I've noticed that in cultural comparisons, people tend to (often unconsciously) need equal numbers to feel equally respected - not proportional to population. So they feel a need for a similar length list of innovators, leaders, inventions etc - even if the populations are very different. Minorities are in general going to *feel* like they lose the contest, even if they have the same proportionate contributions. (Jews might be a rare exception).
And of course history makes things much worse than this - because of historical unequal opportunities. Blacks and women were (largely) not allowed in the game for much of recorded history.
So making group-based comparisons is a good way to breed permanent (and self-perpetuating) low self-esteem for historically less favored groups, as well as resentments (and guilt on the part of more favored groups).
One response to this is to exaggerate the accomplishments of one's racial or ethnic group, like falsely crediting inventions to such ancestors - a fragile basis for self-esteem, which will either set one up for a fall when the truth comes out, or require one to demonize and discount truth tellers to avoid that fall. And that exaggeration is never enough.
Or there's Aphrocentricism's approach.
Or I hear some who want to believe that African-Americans invented almost everything under the sun, but it was always stolen by their white bosses. It gets a bit weird, but illustrates a coping behavior.
-----
One interesting facet of these approaches to propping up self-esteem is projecting that whites (or males) primarily construct their self-esteem in the same way, feeling OK about themselves because of all the great figures in history who were white. ("My job is dead end and my marriage is falling apart, but at least Euler was a white male, so I can love myself"). I believe this is largely untrue and at most is much exaggerated.
----
I agree with Steve and find far superior the idea of pooling humanity's accomplishments as part of our heritage as homo sapiens, for all to draw upon (no cultural appropriation needed) and all to feel equally proud of. In this "sharing our common legacy" context, it's great to bring up known origins and historical innovators from all historical and current cultures (and races/ethnic groups), both for honestly and to honor individuals who have made great contributions to humanity. It's also good to have awareness of past or present disadvantages which have lessened the ability of people in some groups to contribute. But there is no value in ethnically tagging them and comparing/contrasting/competing such contributions between groups.
One of the places where the socialist ideal of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability" can work is the world of reproducible ideas - very much including mathematics. (So far, by contrast, that slogan has had a problematic history in economics). This is not a zero-sum game (like competition for whose group gets the most credit), in fact just the opposite. The larger the "us" the more total contributions we have to share.
If somebody is teaching math by emphasizing the race or sex or nationality of each historic innovator, they are doing it wrong. Your interlocutor may or may not have something to feel bad about in their pedagogical history, but they should not project their own malfeasance onto mathematics itself. Teach it as the tools that we humans have come up, and shared with each other, with which to understand the universe.
The other approach (tying one's self esteem and self-image to the comparative historical contributions of one's genetic ancestors) is an own-goal, a self-inflicted injury for which there is no need.
The identitarian focus on dividing people into categorical groups, and then basing one's self-concept on the historical achievements (or sins) of such groups, seems doomed to perpetual failure as a tool for creating self-esteem.
One reason is that I've noticed that in cultural comparisons, people tend to (often unconsciously) need equal numbers to feel equally respected - not proportional to population. So they feel a need for a similar length list of innovators, leaders, inventions etc - even if the populations are very different. Minorities are in general going to *feel* like they lose the contest, even if they have the same proportionate contributions. (Jews might be a rare exception).
And of course history makes things much worse than this - because of historical unequal opportunities. Blacks and women were (largely) not allowed in the game for much of recorded history.
So making group-based comparisons is a good way to breed permanent (and self-perpetuating) low self-esteem for historically less favored groups, as well as resentments (and guilt on the part of more favored groups).
One response to this is to exaggerate the accomplishments of one's racial or ethnic group, like falsely crediting inventions to such ancestors - a fragile basis for self-esteem, which will either set one up for a fall when the truth comes out, or require one to demonize and discount truth tellers to avoid that fall. And that exaggeration is never enough.
Or there's Aphrocentricism's approach.
Or I hear some who want to believe that African-Americans invented almost everything under the sun, but it was always stolen by their white bosses. It gets a bit weird, but illustrates a coping behavior.
-----
One interesting facet of these approaches to propping up self-esteem is projecting that whites (or males) primarily construct their self-esteem in the same way, feeling OK about themselves because of all the great figures in history who were white. ("My job is dead end and my marriage is falling apart, but at least Euler was a white male, so I can love myself"). I believe this is largely untrue and at most is much exaggerated.
----
I agree with Steve and find far superior the idea of pooling humanity's accomplishments as part of our heritage as homo sapiens, for all to draw upon (no cultural appropriation needed) and all to feel equally proud of. In this "sharing our common legacy" context, it's great to bring up known origins and historical innovators from all historical and current cultures (and races/ethnic groups), both for honestly and to honor individuals who have made great contributions to humanity. It's also good to have awareness of past or present disadvantages which have lessened the ability of people in some groups to contribute. But there is no value in ethnically tagging them and comparing/contrasting/competing such contributions between groups.
One of the places where the socialist ideal of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability" can work is the world of reproducible ideas - very much including mathematics. (So far, by contrast, that slogan has had a problematic history in economics). This is not a zero-sum game (like competition for whose group gets the most credit), in fact just the opposite. The larger the "us" the more total contributions we have to share.
If somebody is teaching math by emphasizing the race or sex or nationality of each historic innovator, they are doing it wrong. Your interlocutor may or may not have something to feel bad about in their pedagogical history, but they should not project their own malfeasance onto mathematics itself. Teach it as the tools that we humans have come up, and shared with each other, with which to understand the universe.
The other approach (tying one's self esteem and self-image to the comparative historical contributions of one's genetic ancestors) is an own-goal, a self-inflicted injury for which there is no need.