 Thanks very much. I guess this is quite a wide topic. Decolonizing global hub. But can I just maybe start by asking, how many philosophers do we have? Okay, good, so I said, okay, that's fine. Because sometimes when I listen to presentations, especially in the scientist, I struggle to follow all the concepts and I say, well, I should have learned more Greek just to be able to follow. But this presentation is going to be a little bit, sort of like high level philosophical concepts. So let's see whether we can get through it quickly and then if there are questions, we can take a look at them. Okay, so I started by saying decolonization is now becoming buzzword everywhere in academia, especially in the high income countries. There are many networks of people trying to decolonize. So decolonization is becoming one of the inwards from time to time in academia. Some words become very fashionable and they become almost like a movement. And I think this is the moment of decolonization. But then decolonization, in my opinion, is a bit of a mongrel concept. And I borrowed the concept, mongrel concept from philosophy of mind, where we talk about mongrel concepts as something that brings together a series of experiences. And there isn't one single one that is actually the essence or I mean, that is like a pure bread concept of decolonization. Because people experience colonization in different ways in different places and from different positions. But then if we're going to talk about decolonization, at least there must be something wrong with colonization in order to decolonize. There might be something wrong with it. Let's see, what is the specific moral of colonization? What is wrong with colonization anyway? Why should we decolonize? Any answers? It wasn't co-produced. Well, what if we say some of the indigenous people actually participated in colonizing their own people? Let's co-production. Sorry, I don't mean that. Something really provocative, sorry. Autonomous. Autonomous, right? Giving laws to yourself. So that's what was taken away by colonization. That's possible. But it's taking away autonomy. Does it happen only in colonization? I mean through colonization. So when we call that a specific evil of colonization. Yes, sorry. Somebody else's norms and standards. Imposing somebody else's standards. All the things that have been said, just to be brief, they're all right. But that's why it's a mongrel concept. Because there are so many. Mongrels are the breeds that bring in different species. So all these things are there. You can have the extraction of natural resources, imposing forms of government racism. All these things are within this mix of colonization. But there is a specific moral problem which we need to identify in order to be able to decolonize. So let me ask the second question. Is it possible to have a good colonization or a good colonizer in Denmark's guide? Imagine by English. I don't think there's good colonization, but in the colonization process may bring in some improvements in the setting that are necessary. So for example, any set of a health system for colonization. I don't think there's good colonization. I don't think there's good colonization, but in the colonization process, for example, any set of a health system for colonization, which ends up being a health system. There can be activities that improve people's well-being, but colonization in itself cannot be a good thing. So what I'm going to try to do is to see whether we can talk about what I consider to be the specific moral problem with colonization. When colonization subtracts, it's the act of subtraction of the self-determining agency of communities and peoples. Even if we go back to the Roman times, the colonists of the Romans was basically an idea of sending Roman citizens to occupy territories outside of Rome and transform those territories into areas that serve the interests of Rome. In doing so, what you do is that you actually subtract the agency of a people to self-determine a political agency of self-determination. But it's not only the subtraction. If it were the subtraction, that would be one step. But along with the subtraction comes a substitution. And the substitution becomes a way of creating structures that ensure that the agency of those people becomes an agency that serves the interests of the colonizer. Therefore, you create a structure, a system. And you have a center and a periphery. And the periphery is always, to some extent, working towards the interests of the center. And that is how you build a system that is today we call it coloniality, which doesn't really need the former colonizers. But it's only in the centers and peripheries. And those centers, which were London, Paris, today can be Abuja, Nairobi, Accra, Lagos. And it's coloniality that is continuing. Now, these structures operate along three lines. One is epistemicide, which is the intentional misrecognition of certain forms of knowledge. And therefore, only certain centers and certain types of knowledge are legitimate. I'll give you an example. Two weeks ago, we were in Lisbon, with the National Ethics Committees of 90 different countries meeting under the UNESCO. So we decided to have a regional meeting. And I called all the African National Ethics Committees that works with the standards boards and the FDAs. And we sat down and I asked them a question. I said, gentlemen, when a traditional medicine is brought to you to test, what is the first test that you do? They all responded a toxicology test. And I said, okay, let's stop and take one step back. It's medicine poison. Why do you start with a toxicology test? That is already a way of altering that form of knowledge. Because you already started with the assumption that this is impure and therefore the first thing you have to test for is if it is poisonous. Why don't you test for what it can do first? These are forms of epistemicide. And anyway, I couldn't. How many more minutes? I just wanted to make sure. And then, of course, along with epistemicide, and centers like the University of Oxford are also centers that promote this form of epistemicide. Because, like I said, I mean, I said this once in the conference, my philosophy students in Ghana know more about English than European philosophies than philosophies in Oxford know about African philosophies. But that's systemic. Now, we also have ecocide. I'm not going to go into how we've transformed the former colonies or even these colonies into extractive countries that live on extracting resources. After now, many African countries are 50 years from independence. And what we do is how to sell our natural resources. So we just have to sell the environment. And that's how we believe we can develop. Because as a model, we can jump by genocide linked with race and the whole history of racism. Racism is actually a way to justify the system historically. So this now leads to these systems of coloniality. Since then, I was asked to talk about decolonization in Oxford, but about decolonization and global health. Now, let's just take this definition that is often used, one of the most cited definitions of global health from Kotlin, which says that it is an area of study, research, and practice that places priority on improving health and achieving equity in health for all people worldwide. You see, this is a beautiful idea. And the problem is, how are we going to go about this? On which structures are we going to rely to achieve this equity for everybody? If we rely on the existing structures, then we are actually reinforcing colonization or coloniality. And that is why in the process of actually trying to achieve the goals of global health, we need to decolonize. Global health can actually become available to consolidate these structures that exist. And yeah, time is running out. There are different obligations that arise from different obligations in decolonization, depending on where we sit. But I just want to talk about these two, and maybe we'll stop there. This is this idea of de-imperialization. De-imperialization simply means that, and this is the oldest that is on the former colonizers. You don't have to solve the world's problems and where to solve them yourself. Allow the principle of subsidiarity to work. There are existing structures in places. Allow them to work. And this is what calls for forms of abolitionism. And abolitionism is to stop doing what you've always done. I could give many examples. I'm going to leave it at that for now. Then we have the epistemic and practical pluriversality. Pluriversality is borrowed from the Zapatista movement in Chabas. Un mundo no negue pan muchos mundos, a world in which many worlds can fit together. One of the problems of colonization is universalization. So it's just one way. But it's possible to have pluriversalization. However, pluriversalization means we have to learn how to live in a world of reason disagreements. Reason disagreements mean we do not have to agree conceptually on everything, but we can agree on shared goals. I think I've used my time so I'll just stop here. There is a decolonization network, even within the department of, the nothing department of this, led by Sasi. She just, I mean, had satisfied, and some of us are part of it, and some colleagues in Australia, Kenya, and other parts. And if you want to read more about it, there's some stuff that we've written. And then of course, there are the classes that go back to Phanon, Krumah, Walter Rodney, that's really, if you're really interested in this literature. Thank you.