Taking place at the University of Sheffield, researchers “will take an unflinching look at the white-centricity of folk music repertory, performers and audience by conducting fieldwork to shed light on long-standing vernacular singing practices of ethnic minority cultures in England”.
They then hope to “increase accessibility to the folk club scene and take the first step in a process of decolonisation within the folk music canon”.
The project has been awarded £1,485,400 from the taxpayer-funded UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), under its “future leaders fellowship’’. It has also been granted extra funds on top of this from bodies such as Research England (which also falls under the remit of UKRI).
Prof Dennis Hayes, director of Academics for Academic Freedom, told The Telegraph: “Journalists will be pleased to know that there will be an endless supply of stories about disciplines being told by universities to ‘decolonise’ and of money being spent on studies of ‘whiteness’ in any and every conceivable subject.
A new toolkit for ‘decolonising’ philosophy in universities dismisses canonical western philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein as ‘dead white males’ who engaged in “armchair theorising” and must now make way for voices from the ‘Global South’.https://t.co/wOsgdTPYa7
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) June 20, 2024
“The reason for this is institutional groupthink in universities. Universities have adopted the need for decolonisation, and the victim hierarchy of intersectional theory, as essential to upholding their inclusive values. This groupthink is a threat to academic freedom. It silences almost all opposition as academics fear being charged with racism if they speak up against being told what to think.
Fay Hield, professor of music at the University of Sheffield, said: “The term decolonisation is often misinterpreted. Our research highlights the different under-recognised communities who have helped to establish cultural life in England. Folk music is a constantly evolving genre, which has taken influences from a diverse range of people over centuries. It is part of the UK’s cultural heritage and should be celebrated. Our aim is to break down the barriers for people to get involved in folk music. Opening up the genre to different audiences will help to sustain the nation’s folk music for decades to come.”
History lecturers at Liverpool University are being urged to "problematise" whiteness and heterosexuality in their teaching — the Russell Group institution's new 'diversity' guidance also proposes compulsory inclusivity training for academic staff.https://t.co/W8SHRj1N9r
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) June 18, 2024
Rainbow symbology comes from the Queer Revolutionary Movement, which derives from Queer Theory, which originates from the French Intellectual movement. Almost the entire thing originates among only a handful of Frenchmen.
"Can't help who you love' is a point of rhetorical warfare by the Queer Revolutionary Movement, in order to get around the claim that sexual attraction was inherent, and was therefore unfair to regulate, in order to do an end-run around anti-sodomy laws using 'Equal Protection" doctrine, specifically within the US.
"Miscegination" is a completely different concept, and had different arguments against it. Particularly was the fact that 'miscegination' was not the abnormal position, particularly in the US (or soon to be American territories). Marriage laws were typically religiously set, rather than legally set, and most marriages allow different race marriages, but set stricter guidelines along religious differences. Conversion may be required, or the children may have to be raised under the religion to recognize it. This is why American pioneers, French settlers, and Spanish conquerors had effectively no demand to restrict marriages outside of race. It was actually an importation of Anglo Supremacism and Anglicanization doctrines that were adapted into the US. Segregationism was the imposition, not the default.
As such, the argument for why inter-racial marriage should exist has been a counter-argument: "Why should it not?". It's not "you can't help who you love", that was never really part of any argument leading up to Loving v. Virginia. That argument resides within the Queer Revolutionary movement. The primary argument for marriage integration was that there wasn't any valid justification to forbid it, let alone imprison people for it, and further harm children for it by imprisoning their parents and destroying families.