http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/24/yale_students_want_to_remake_the_english_major_requirements_but_there_s.html
>the current year
>still forced to read dead straight white males
I mean C'MON, it's TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN. I thought we were more progressive than this.
But a lot of the canon is overrated and not applicable to our student's lives. Nor do we try to make it that way. A skilled professional could, but mostly it boils down to empty talking about symbolism and making kids hate books
>>8084710
>>8084701
Oy veeey
>>8084724
From another article of hers:
>This is a song about the tragedy of Teddy, Zac Efron’s omniendearing post–frat bro in Neighbors 2. He is a post–frat bro in multiple senses: He’s graduated from college. His brothers are getting married (to each other) and regretfully sexiling him from their shared house for the last time. More broadly, he is the god of a vanished or at least vanishing world, in which fraternities weren’t widely despised as bastions of misogyny and anti-intellectualism. In which thousands of campus conversations about rape culture hadn’t yet flowered like nightshade in the collegiate garden of Eden. Teddy’s post–frat bro is sweet and lost, newly woke to the fact that mainstream liberal discourse hates frat bros (even as interest in Greek life has surged over the past 10 years). But the saddest thing about him is that he never even existed in the first place.
they claim that it's shortsighted and limiting to read the 'canon'
but isn't it more short sighted to only read modern fiction by english speaking, mainly Western authors of certain races and genders?
Did anybody actually read the article? It's actually pretty good. Basically telling these stupid SJWs that the Canon is worth reading whether they like it or not.
>But even if you disagree, there’s no getting around the facts. Although you’ve written that the English department “actively contributes to the erasure of history,” what it really does is accurately reflect the tainted history we have—one in which straight white cis-men dominated art-making for centuries—rather than the woke history we want and fantasize about. There are few (arguably no) female poets writing in Chaucer’s time who rival Chaucer in wit, transgressiveness, texture, or psychological insight. The lack of equal opportunity was a tremendous injustice stemming from oppressive social norms, but we can’t reverse it by willing brilliant female wordsmiths into the past. Same goes for people of color in Wordsworth’s day, or openly queer people in Pope’s, or …
Who fucking cares. Go shill that shit on reddit.
>"Dindu Nuffins: The memoirs of Tyrone Jackson" by Tyrone Jackson, edited and translated from the ebonics by Mort Goldstein and Harold Jewberg
>"Educate Yourself Shitlords" by Gertrude Rothstein
>"Me, my Wife, my Wife's son, Jamal, and the Sublime Pleasures of Voyeurism" by Sven Rundquist
>"Just Fuck My Shit Up" by Alistair J. Berkshires
Modern Ivy League """"education""""
>>8084701
>straight
>>8084739
>he didn't get into Princeton
>>8084701
Personally, I think it's a great thing when students are coddled and live in this delusional hugbox where nothing challenging happens to them. It makes it much easier to dominate them in the real world. Thanks, higher education.
>>8084710
b9 m9
>>8084733
this.
Also, I graduated a few years ago and now that I'm working as an educator outside of the states and studying a new language as well exploring other endeavors, I've come to realize the amount of resources that were available to me in college that I took for granted.
There's probably a handful of target reasons to support an increased integration of non-white male works into the canon, but if it's the matter of learning, which is the most important, there's plenty of opprotunity to learn about, read, and study works from other contributors.
Anyone at Yale can go to their library and learn for free. And that's not to mention the amount of information freely available on the world wide web.
This open letter(?) is spot on in many ways
>>8084701
It's kinda strange that a major would only have 1 mandatory class. Most majors at Universities have multiple mandatory credit requirements to make sure their student comes out of the program well rounded, but also with enough electives to form their graduate studies focus.
Also the amount of backpedaling in that article is pretty amateur.
>>8084701
Lmao did you even read the article? It's absolutely reasonable, although I'd caution against applying modern racial attitudes to Othello.
The dynamic of a black North African commander in Venice isn't that similar to an African American living in the US.
>>8084701
>slate.com
Double You E Double You, lad.
>>8084701
I think the SJWs don't go far enough in their deconstruction of the cannon. Abolish university system. Hierarchical text distribution is inherently oppressive. Information anarchy. All text content is equally worthy of study. Contemplate a single Arcane Glyph and you shall discern the universe.
>>8084798
Lots of majors only require a couple of specific courses, but have categories of courses you need to take one each of or something like that. I reckon that's how Yale is.
>>8084724
She's defending the canon you fatty slab of human garbage
>I want to gently push back, too, against the idea that the major English poets have nothing to say to students who aren’t straight, male, and white. For all the ways in which their particular identities shaped their work, these writers tried to represent the entire human condition, not just their clan. A great artist possesses both empathy and imagination: Many of Shakespeare’s female characters are as complexly nuanced as any in circulation today,Othellotakes on racial prejudice directly, andTwelfth Nightcontains enough gender-bending identity shenanigans to fuel multiple drag shows and occupy legions of queer scholars. The “stay in your lane” mentality that seems to undergird so much progressive discourse—only polyamorous green people really “get” the “polyamorous green experience,” and therefore only polyamorous greens should read and write about polyamorous greens, say—ignores our common humanity.
i'm confused as to how students feel as if they are an authority on the material versus the professors, and on why you would want to be educated then on subjects you already have knowledge for there of. it's as if people are using these words, sexist, racist, colonialist, but they're losing the context of what these actually mean.
>>8084854
>i'm confused as to how students feel as if they are an authority on the material versus the professors
they are the customers :^)
>>8084701
BUILD THAT WALL BABY
>>8084733
>the woke history
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
Niggerspeak is academic jargon now?
>>8084842
>SEXIST
>RAYCISS
>COLONIALIST
>Shakespeare's okay
>>8084957
You dumb shit, she's saying that modern social concerns are NOT valid reasons to eschew 2500 years of literary tradition
Kind of a shame it takes this much for people to recognize common fucking sense.
>>8084854
>i'm confused as to how students feel as if they are an authority on the material versus the professors
this is what happens when you have a country founded on the delusion that everyone's equal and there no such thing as a stupid opinion
>>8084733
Yep
ITT: People discussing something they haven't read
Welcome to /lit/
>>8084701
American Academia has been turned into a mere business, they serve their customers their students
Do the math on how this is going to turn out in another ten years
>>8084733
She's partially right and I guess it's good for SJWs to read, but I still fucking hate that people can't get their heads out of their asses and stop framing literally everything through their political views.
>>8086251
>framing literally everything through their political views
While I agree it's tiresome to address, everything, not least of all education, is political and has political implications. Simply ignoring the political implications of education is the privilege of someone who isn't being slighted or shafted in today's state.
>>8084842
If this is a defense I'm an astronaut.
>omg they're totes terrible monsters and icky white men, but they were influential so you have to read them anyway
A real defense would begin by attacking the premises.
>>8086275
And a real argument doesn't misrepresent and distort the author's views, fuckboy.
>>8086272
>everything, not least of all education, is political and has political implications
So let those who understand politics talk about it. In other words definitely not people who study literature. "being shafted" affords you no insight whatsoever.
>>8084733
>There are few (arguably no) female poets writing in Chaucer’s time who rival Chaucer in wit, transgressiveness, texture, or psychological insight.
>transgressiveness
>texture
>psychological insight
Is this how we judge literature now?
>>8086272
Yeah seriously. You can't possibly have gone through further education as a white man without noticing how many people question your right to self determination
In Europe until 30 years ago people used universities to form left-wing guerrilas, but I don't think anyone didn't want to study Ovid because it's sexist.
Americans are weird.
I'm not really arguing through the lens of the left/right dichotomy or individual political views. I'm saying education is political in that those who control it consequently control what information is given to students, and in what light that information is presented. It's broad and comprehensible enough that I don't think it's helpful to silence or put down people in this discussion solely due to their alleged political inexperience/ignorance.
>>8086328
that's pretty obvious, but they won't accept.
To use an example, my roomate, who studies Political Sciences, is writing his post-graduate thesis on Carl Schmitt and he's doing it mostly just because he never even heard of him during lectures.
>>8086355
Well, your roommate sounds like a wad
>>8086231
welcome to the 2010s
Do they have an argument for why it's bad for people of straight white cishet male-gendered men to have dominated in the past centuries? I don't see why these little details matter at all. I'm not white; I'm a human being. Why would I care what tiny biological differences these authors have? This is ad hominem at best.
>>8086363
nah he's cool
he started with concept of enmity in international relationship and found out that Schmitt offered an alternative take to liberal establishment of Internationl Right
>>8084701
What is the alternative to the Western canon? Most of the arguments against it presuppose that there is culturally significant literature to study from. Who are these authors?
I'm genuinely curious. I'm mostly uninformed on this argument.
>>8086369
To add, I wouldn't care if all these authors were literally chimpanzees despite myself being a human.
Can someone explain how the canon is "Sexist, Racist, Colonialist, and Totally Gross"?
>>8086369
>I don't see why these little details matter at all
I groan whenever I see this argument. You're right, these little details shouldn't matter. The problem is, the "dominant whites" were the ones who made these "little details" matter in the first place by building and reifying systems and institutions founded on serial and racial difference, traces of which continue to exist in today's society. White people who call out race-baiting and "making everything about race" fail to acknowledge that white people were the first ones to "make everything about race" in the first place.
>>8086397
>serial
*sexual
>>8086280
>those who understand politics
>in other words definitely not people who study literature
if you think literature isn't political you're a fucking retard
it's like saying authors should never discuss philosophy, which would make everyone from Dostoyevsky to Pynchon the equivalent of John Green
>>8086386
The argument is basically twofold.
1) The writers themselves were socialized with sexist, racist, and colonialism views, part and parcel of their respective eras. See Plato's Republic for an exaggerated example.
2) The act of drawing up and forcing upon students such a curriculum conveys the message that our society only values or finds value in the intellectual work of white men.
>>8086386
Because many, possibly a majority, of the authors in the canon would be considered those things by the author of this article and her audience if they were resurrected today. She's making a case that the makeup and purpose of the canon is none of those things if you intend to learn about literature as an academic field, and even if it were you would need to read it to study literature academically.
The students she's addressing have forgotten that a literature department is not just a place where you read books together.
>>8084729
what the fuck is that quote fuck her fucking dumb ass bitch
>>8086397
>I groan whenever I see this argument.
Are you "literally shaking" too, by any chance?
>>8086397
>the "dominant whites" were the ones who made these "little details" matter in the first place by building and reifying systems and institutions founded on serial and racial difference, traces of which continue to exist in today's society. White people who call out race-baiting and "making everything about race" fail to acknowledge that white people were the first ones to "make everything about race" in the first place.
Projection, conspiracy theory. Call it what you will, guys; and don't forget to pay those reparations.
>>8086448
Slavery
Lynching
Jim Crow
DOMA
Chinese Exclusion Act
Private prisons
I don't understand how pointing out blatant sexism and racism amounts to conspiracy theory
>>8086442
Did you have something to actually say vis-a-vis my point, or nah
>>8086466
>Using 'White People' unironically
>Implying we are responsible for any of that
>Implying this alleged 'White Conspiracy' did not naturally arise as a consequence of superiority
>>8086469
Your 'point'?
Don't fucking kid yourself. Be sure not to miss your Sociology lecture too.
>>8086469
If you think the history of the west being dominated by one group that relatively recently was pretty much the enemy of everyone else on earth is a "little detail" then you might need to get your eyes checked.
>>8086477
>our fault
We're not in the western canon either
>naturally as a result of superiority
No I don't think that going out of ine's way to keep minority groups in check is evidence of the superiority of the majority. There are other cases for that, but this one doesn't make any sense.
>>8086477
>>Implying we are responsible for any of that
No one is implying that a white person in 2k16 is responsible for slavery, you mong. The argument is that racism didn't magically vanish with the abolition of slavery, or the Chinese Exclusion Act, or [insert historical racist practice here]. Which is true. But the discussion never goes beyond that because of people like you who feel wrongly attacked for past transgressions, while failing to understand the present state of affairs.
>>8086479
>I have no argument so I'll just sound superior and derisive instead
Beautifully executed
>come back to /lit/ after some time
>this is the first thread I see
Goodbye.
>>8086489
>We're not in the western canon either
So what are you crying about?
>No I don't think that going out of ine's way to keep minority groups in check is evidence of the superiority of the majority.
Actually, having so successfully kept them in check is a pretty clear piece of evidence concerning the superiority.
>>8086497
>But the discussion never goes beyond that because of people like you who feel wrongly attacked for past transgressions, while failing to understand the present state of affairs.
Which it shouldn't, unless you believe in the 'sins of the fathers' passing down to the children.
>>8086501
Thanks, and not in any way mistaken.
>>8086397
Couldn't be more delusional. The "racist, sexist, colonialist" attitudes come directly from existing in a premodern world that lacked literacy, lacked communication between groups, lacked modern science that tells us that race isn't a meaningful way to categorize people, lacked life extending technology, and existed in a brutal violent world where might makes right. White people didn't invent racism, or sexism, or even colionalism; all those things arise logically and naturally from a world that incentivizes and promotes that behavior. To take your first world, 21st century understanding of the world and impress upon older generations some moral failure is the dumbest, most millennial thing you could possibly do
>>8086480
??? The fuck are you saying? Are you replying to the right person?
>>8086466
All of that has happened and continues to happen in non-white countries but western liberals seem inordinately focused on "muh white men"
The US, Canada, Aus/NZ and Western Europe are some of the most tolerant and liberal places on earth. On the others side of the racial barrier I think it was Mauritania that didn't outlaw slavery until 2009.
>>8086290
That happens to every group. Stop whining and suck it up.
Fucking nu-males balking at adversity.
>>8086516
>b-but come on, we're more tolerant than these other guys!
kewl
>>8086411
Authors can do whatever they want. I'm talking about the people in English departments. They should stay as far away from philosophy as from politics.
>>8086520
>B-But I thought da ebul white man was da worst?!
Heh.
>>8086510
>To take your first world, 21st century understanding of the world and impress upon older generations some moral failure is the dumbest, most millennial thing you could possibly do
I don't disagree. But to bring these works into the 21st century, especially in order to understand how they both reflect and shape Western culture to the present, requires a critical analysis of how they contributed to (or themselves criticized) such institutions.
>>8086533
If you're ridiculing my viewpoint for being limited to America, then sure, correct.
>>8086516
slavery was the best thing that ever happened to black americans desu. if it weren't for slavery they'd be back home in africa getting stabbed to death by liberian cannibals and having their organs harvested for food and ooga booga black magic rituals. welfare, foo stams and free SAT points don't seem so bad by comparison.
>>8086510
>To take your first world, 21st century understanding of the world and impress upon older generations some moral failure is the dumbest, most millennial thing you could possibly do
Fucking preach it man.
This progressive moral universalism is the poison of the age.
>>8086563
Gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8 etc
>>8086558
Yeah, that's not what these kinds of students want.
>>8086522
>authors should go to school to learn about literature and how to write
>English professors should completely omit the political and philosophical aspects of literature from the curriculum
>>8086510
I'd say the problem with this sort of liberal attempts at redressing historical wrongs its they are ultimately too limiting, presentist and ironically western focused. There's little interest in non-western traditions in their own right, it's mostly all about current western notions of identity and morality. Everything gets read through that lens. In the end, it merely amounts to a new and more insidious form of moral imposition.
>>8086583
...Granted.
>>8086558
>requires a critical analysis of how they contributed to (or themselves criticized) such institutions.
Some sort of...critical theory?
>>8086386
Don't play coy. Many authors from the past did not share our views.
Even works which are radically progressive for their time (ie, Heart of Darkness) often contain language that would be considered very bigoted today.
>>8086375
There's quite a lot of valuable non-Western literature (particularly from India and China) that's largely ignored by universities simply because it's not very relevant to the Western canon. Most philosophy courses are Eurocentric by design, and people fear this could lead to racism and alienation.
The anti-canon argument suggests that the presence of non-white authors in a curriculum would be more appealing to non-white students and fight Eurocentricism.
>>8086709
>Many authors from the past did not share our views.
>often contain language that would be considered very bigoted today.
Oh my Gooood, no way!
>>8084701
>(Yes, you have to read it anyway)
WHY DOES EVERY WOMAN'S PROSE SOUND LIKE A CLICKBAIT ARTICLE TITLE
I HATE THAT SMARMY ADD ON THEY DO EVERY SINGLE TIME IT REEKS OF PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE FEMINITY IM GONNA KILL MYSELF
>>8086734
>reeee don't give opinions on stuff I've adopted to define my identity
>>8086750
>Using 'bigoted' unironically
You are seriously spooked, my friend.
>>8086741
Maybe time to up your Zoloft dosage?
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Here's Justinian in 529, the law that closed the Platonic Academy in Athens:
>We wish to widen the law once made by us and by our father of blessed memory against all remaining heresies (we call heresies those faiths which hold and believe things otherwise than the catholic and apostolic orthodox church), so that it ought to apply not only to them but also to Samaritans and pagans. Thus, since they have had such an ill effect, they should have no influence nor enjoy any dignity, nor acting as teachers of any subjects, should they drag the minds of the simple to their errors and, in this way, turn the more ignorant of them against the pure and true orthodox faith; so we permit only those who are of the orthodox faith to teach and accept a public stipend.
Then later you had scholasticism, which is basically the stage this article is at. Those pagans sure are icky and going to hell, but we have to study them cause they were important!
I fucking hate the smug bitches who pretend like they're above fucking Aristotle just because they were born into the 21st century.
Like wow, so sorry the white man built your entire civilization and enabled you to get an education and invented the internet so that you could post about how you hate white men.
>>8086900
Read the fucking article you dumb cunt
>>8086914
I did. She's acting as if she's above all these people.
"eww cis-hets, I mean I guess they were smart or whatever, but wow gross"
Yeah, great article.
>>8086397
May I mention nothing was stopping the africans, asians or even the peoples of the new world from creating their own works.
They just never properly focused on philosophy and literature which is why their culture wasn't based around it, hence why their canon is not as widely studied.
>>8086945
Their canon isn't widely studied in the west because it's not culturally relevant. Just because you're an ignorant white nignog doesn't mean there's nothing there.
>>8086781
Both the Medieval Christians and Muslims loved Aristotle because he provides an argument for monotheism. Aristotle was one of the most translated and discussed pagans in monastic and scholastic discourse. So even the scholastics were above this article.
>>8086952
The African canon literally doesn't exist because they didn't have anything to write on.
>>8086958
>Jews and Christians only write down their oral traditions centuries later
>Africans can't do the same thing
but you're right, African literature didn't really hit it off until Achebe
>>8084732
It seems kind of ridiculous to label as "limiting" what we largely consider to be the encapsulation of human thought. By definition not everything can be contained in a list which doesn't include every book ever written, but the point is to form a core understanding, and branch out to more niche interests on your own. It's silly to restructure the canon for the unique perspective of every race, gender, and generation of people.
>>8086952
That's false.
Asians just dont study their own canon so its irrelevant even to them.
>>8084729
>In which thousands of campus conversations about rape culture hadn’t yet flowered like nightshade in the collegiate garden of Eden.
I'm glad she recognizes that these conversations have been poisonous.
>>8086972
Yeah, I was just providing a defence of medieval Aristotelianism against a comparison to this horrendous article.
>>8086980
Most Asians don't study their canon, but then again, neither do most Westerners.
>>8087036
At higher levels, westerners do.
If an asian wants to study the canon at uni he can't sustain his family, so can't.
Western canon is kept relevant by its scholars and intellectuals, that the eastern canon has instead put into STEM.
>>8085940
>ad hom
>ad hom
>not reading between the lines
You're as bad as she 2bh
>>8087043
This. Arguments about ' the cannon' and whether or not it's 'diverse' or whatever are a waste of time. Yall should be learning something useful, like coding
>>8084782
The resources being the library and the internet? If you could tell your freshmen self what to do, what would you tell him/her?
>>8084733
wtf is "woke history"
>>8086929
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that she is acknowledging the Yale students' complaints, and saying that ultimately, it doesn't matter, because these authors are foundational and necessary
>>8087293
"we wuz kangs" and other associated Black Twitter memes
>>8086510
>lacked modern science that tells us that race isn't a meaningful way to categorize people
>you have to read the canon because history is sexist and imperialist
What happened to reading for aesthetic insight and pleasure?
>>8086510
>science that tells us that race isn't a meaningful way to categorize people
Biologist here. Science doesn't tell us this at all. Enjoy your fucked up Hapas due to outbreeding depression.
>>8084940
>niggerspeak
I think the word you're looking for is colloquial. It's pretty common. Do you even go outside? Also, it's hardly academic. This is just an opinions peice you fucking mong.
>>8087178
My freshmen self doesn't apply here. I didn't thirst for knowledge. Simply, I was just trying to get my degree and get the fuck out. I can only say what I said in hindsight. No matter what I would have told myself, I wouldn't have been as motivated to access those resources.
>>8086709
nigger
>some nobody is arrogant enough to call three thousand years of writing 'totally gross'
>lit thinks this opinion is worth discussing
Whats going on guys?
115 replies and 11 images omitted.
>>8088459
>What's going on guys?
You didn't read the article.
Who cares. The only reason why you would ever need to bring out this argument is if a pol/ack keeps harping on about "MUH HERTIAGE"
Who the fuck even reads Plato and Aristotle? I mean its the Post-Enlightenment, come on. Their political theories and ideas of the soul are miserably outdated.
Greeks are non white and gay, triggering these white women and half white hispanic/blacks would oppress them with censorship
>>8088486
A lot of people say to start with the stuff the Greeks wrote, but you're kind of right, it's not particularly necessary to do so for philosophical purposes, and it's only really useful if you want to get absolutely every allusion in every text you read from later eras. But you'd have to read everything in chronological order then, which would be an insurmountable task, and result in you having a huge amount of knowledge of outdated shit.
That's not to say there's absolutely no use, and knowing the history of something can help you understand it better, it's just not really necessary to, hence why history of philosophy isn't mandatory in every philosophy degree.
>>8088459
>>8088577
How about you actually read the article before you espouse opinions on it? For a literature board, you guys sure struggle with actually reading shit.
The Greek plays are fun though.
>>8086397
>>8086288
What point are you trying to make? That it's not a complete list of qualities of literature?
>>8088769
No literature is about identity politics and today's standards should be enforced on literature of another time
xd
>>8086251
Remember friend, you are a label, and you need to be it all the time. Anytime you talk to me I'm gonna talk about how Christmas/black people are under attack and how the gubmint is gonna take our guns/Mexicans away.
>>8086945
Asians made their own shit, but we live in a post-industrial society. Guess who made all of the lit and philosophy during both the industrial and post-industrial periods? Western Europeans.
I suppose you could read Chinese philosophy for virtue ethics and metaphysics (Tao) but really, even Asians never made it past pre-Middle Ages philosophy.
Who goes to Yale to have a real education nowadays, anyway? You go there to network and have your name printed on a diploma. It's stupid to expect leaving Yale well-read.
>>8084701
I saw this on reddit too anon.
This article brings up an idea that was always in the back of mind in regards to literature.
In my not yet fully formed opinion literature is vastly different from other forms of popular media like films and music in that is is far more objective.
What I mean by this is that if we consider the Classics (i.e the Canon) these have been around for hundreds of years in some cases thousands.These books have been read by almost all notable authors and have played at the very least an indirect role in influencing their opinions and the state of the culture around them.
More scholarship has occurred because of the books than any other art form in known history. The greatest mind of each generation has read and reread these books, analysing every minute detail, studying their impact on the proceeding generations and almost all have attested to their significance.
This begs the question, how vain and naive must a person be to look back on all of this and say things like, Shakespeare is a bad writer, or say the quality of the literature is diminished because they don't hold current day political views.
Now im not swinging in the opposite extreme as I still think there is room to have valid reasoning for not liking a certain book or fair arguments to be made against them, but to come out and say classics are bad literature is mind-boggingly dense.
>>8084799
>black
Moors aren't black.
>>8088606
>>8088474
Why are you pretending? The article is literally what the title says it is. You can't just meet every criticism with "HURR BET YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT".
She doesn't dismiss the stupid identity and race politics that the idiots are trying to enforce upon ancient writers. She agrees with them, but basically says "try and read them anyway, because even though they're white (which is inherently bad now) they say good stuff".
She doesn't get credit for acknowledging the Western Canon if she's going to agree with the SJWs tendency to try and change and/or hate on the past
>>8089108
Die faggot. Some books and writers obviously should be burned.
>>8089146
DUDE ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM LMAO
>>8089162
Explain how it is moral to let ideas that lead people away from God and Virtue be propagated.
>>8086723
A few years ago it was pretty fashionable to make out like eastern philosophy was like this totally unknowable thing impossible for a westerner to truly understand. So things have gotten better imo.
>>8084701
>Sexism
>Racism
>Colonialism
How can progressive cucks use those nonsense buzzwords and expect anyone to take them seriously?
>>8087721
No non-black person has ever unironically said woke
>>8086929
No she isn't, she's simply walking on egg-shells to avoid being misinterpreted by the sensitive college liberals she's speaking to.
>>8089139
Because those things are true. By modern standards ancient writers were racist, sexist, all of those things. Those are undeniable facts.
What she claims is that this doesn't actually change their importance to western literature, and that they're still incredibly talented writers who were the best of their times. Shakespeare being a white male who was obviously influenced by the current institutions (which tended towards more sexist and racist views) doesn't change his ability to write deep, believable characters of all genders and ethnicities.
>She doesn't get credit for acknowledging the Western Canon if she's going to agree with the SJWs tendency to try and change and/or hate on the past
This sort of shit is why I really hope that you just didn't read it, because if you did, you should really go get some lessons on reading comprehension instead of posting on a literature board.
She completely disagrees with the SJW tendency to change the past, and I'll support that with a quote.
>The lack of equal opportunity was a tremendous injustice stemming from oppressive social norms, but we can’t reverse it by willing brilliant female wordsmiths into the past. Same goes for people of color in Wordsworth’s day, or openly queer people in Pope’s,
This is true. Sure, there might have been more talented female authors in the past if they were given the opportunities for education and ability to write and be scholars that men were, but the fact is that they weren't, and as such, these people are the best of their time by far. She flat out says you can't change that by just pretending there were great women writers back then too.
Saying the past was subject to different moral standards is hardly what I'd call hating on it either. As she says here
>For all the ways in which their particular identities shaped their work, these writers tried to represent the entire human condition, not just their clan. A great artist possesses both empathy and imagination: Many of Shakespeare’s female characters are as complexly nuanced as any in circulation today, Othello takes on racial prejudice directly, and Twelfth Night contains enough gender-bending identity shenanigans to fuel multiple drag shows and occupy legions of queer scholars.
She's saying "Yes, these authors had different influences and morals to us, but they still could empathise with, and accurately represent other groups".
You seem to have difficulties separating the content of an article from it's name. The name is a very basic outline of it designed to get those very liberal students to read it, but it's not an accurate description of what it says in it, and maybe if you stopped looking for some SJW boogieman everywhere, you'd be able to see that.
Really anon, you're right that people who just go "You haven't read it" to everything are stupid, sure, but in this case, it's clear that at best you've drastically misunderstood the article at hand, or simply just skimmed it.
>>8086945
>asians
>never properly focused on philosophy and literature
anon, I...
>>8089146
Like Marx and every other red work.
>>8089139
This person never said "being white is inherently bad". Don't be a dipshit.
The western canon is absolutely dominated by white dudes, due to the circumstances of Western history. In addition, some authors within the canon had views that we now find unacceptable.
When people on the left critique the canon, they critique two phenomena. First, that celebrating the work of writers who had illiberal views may endorse these views. Second, that mostly studying white dudes will alienate students who aren't white or dudes.
While I believe that first criticism is bullshit, because a writer can absolutely be taught without condoning their political beliefs, women and minorities kind of are at a deficit in literature classes. If 95% of the writers you studied were black women, you would probably feel somewhat left-out, and be less interested in entering the field of literature.
I'm a canonist who defends the ancients at every opportunity, but you can't boil down this criticism to "I hate whitey."
>>8089434
Unless you also want to burn the New Testament, there's no reason to burn the works of Marx.
>>8089146
And we could start with the complete works of Michel Foucault and anyone he's ever influenced.
>>8089485
>muh jesus was socialist meme
You're a retard.
>>8089423
>By modern standards ancient writers were racist, sexist, all of those things. Those are undeniable facts
There's your problem; 'modern standards' are pathetic and wrong.
Let's be honest only the germans need to go.
>>8089851
>There's your problem; 'modern standards' are pathetic and wrong.
I fucking knew someone would ignore my whole post to focus on that sentence, so let me rephrase. By modern progressive standards ancient writers were racist and sexist.
Whether or not you agree with those points doesn't change the fact that there's a big difference between what was considered acceptable then, and what's considered acceptable now.
Do you really think "Yeah well those people are pathetic and wrong" is a good argument against an entire field of thinking? Actually explain why those thoughts are pathetic and wrong without relying on strawmen about immigrants and white genocide if you're focusing on that particular argument.
>>8089870
>By modern progressive standards ancient writers were racist and sexist.
And what's the point in saying that?
You either subscribe to 'modern progressive standards', in which case you're fine with that analysis; or you don't, in which case it holds no weight whatsoever.
It's an intellectually vapid point to make, if only for how obvious it is.
>there's a big difference between what was considered acceptable then, and what's considered acceptable now.
And?
This whole spiel essentially argues, "They were wrong, but read them anyway!"
What could possibly be more interesting than to examine if they were really wrong? But that's not what the author of the article is argued; she is both arguing to the converted, and giving her 'modern progressive standards' precedence over whatever standards might otherwise be held.
It is intellectually embarrassing to assume that "racist/sexist/colonialist" authors are wrong by default, and *then* advocate reading them. Read them first, then let students draw their own conclusions; even if (shock horror!) they do not adhere to the status quo.
>Do you really think "Yeah well those people are pathetic and wrong" is a good argument against an entire field of thinking?
The people I'm arguing against seem to think so. "These old white dudes are pathetic and wrong, but read them anyway!"
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
>Actually explain why those thoughts are pathetic and wrong without relying on strawmen about immigrants and white genocide if you're focusing on that particular argument.
>without relying on strawmen about immigrants and white genocide if you're focusing on that particular argument
>Implying this is anything other than an ad hominem strawman in itself
Link me your Tumblr and I'll do just that.
>>8089868
Muh modernity, muh decline, muh scientific racism, muh christianity, muh Greeks.
Truly toxic.
>>8089889
>And what's the point in saying that?
Very little, which was the whole point of the article at hand. These things are true, but don't change their importance as writers.
>It is intellectually embarrassing to assume that "racist/sexist/colonialist" authors are wrong by default, and *then* advocate reading them. Read them first, then let students draw their own conclusions; even if (shock horror!) they do not adhere to the status quo.
Why are you creating arguments that aren't in the article anywhere, and then attacking them? Nowhere does she claim that them being those things makes them wrong or bad or shitty authors, it's simply a fact of the time from how she sees it, not a criticism, and is using that, as well as their influence on later authors of other ethnicities, sexualities and genders to refute the idea that they shouldn't be in the curriculum.
>The people I'm arguing against seem to think so. "These old white dudes are pathetic and wrong, but read them anyway!"
Once again, you're putting words in peoples mouths and then shitting on them for saying it. You're the only one attributing negative features to the fact that by modern standards the authors were very old fashioned. The article doesn't ever call them pathetic or wrong, and as I've said about half a dozen times now, explicitly states that their views and the institutions they were influenced by doesn't change their quality as authors, nor the importance of their influence on later authors, hence their position in the canon. Paraphrasing her, but she essentially says that sure, it sucks that women weren't given the opportunity to become great authors back then, but that doesn't take away from what the people who were great authors back then actually did.
>Implying this is anything other than an ad hominem strawman in itself
What? How is me asking you to please explain your points without using a few cliched arguments that commonly get thrown about in debates like this without any particular relevancy, but just to create a "Look how bad those people are, they're going to ruin your lives!" image without having to explain why those beliefs in particular would do that, an ad hominem, let alone a strawman? I didn't attack your character, nor did I create an obviously misinterpreted or flat out made up version of your argument to attack.
>Link me your Tumblr and I'll do just that.
I don't have a tumblr, and is what you're saying just that you can't actually defend your opinion that every progressive opinion is pathetic and wrong? Because it seems to be like you're just trying to discredit me by making allusions to who I am in real life than actually explaining anything, and that's what an ad hom is.
the fuck does the author mean by colonist? Do these authors espouse a doctrine of colonialism?
>>8089927
>Paraphrasing her, but she essentially says that sure, it sucks that women weren't given the opportunity to become great authors back then, but that doesn't take away from what the people who were great authors back then actually did.
Which proves my point. Why did it suck? Why were things not better at that time?
Like the author of the article, you assume too much; take too much for granted.
That is why you're only going to get this comparatively small response to your paragraphs of hubris.
>>8089939
>Which proves my point. Why did it suck? Why were things not better at that time?
Because it effectively halved the pool of potentially great authors that were available, and that sucks, because we were deprived of what was potentially really great literature. That's not a fault on the authors who were great in their time though.
>Like the author of the article, you assume too much; take too much for granted.
Yet you're the one who keeps claiming what people really mean, without being able to actually support what you're saying with quotes, or even explain why your point of view has any merit. As I said, when I asked you to explain why progressives were in your words, "pathetic and wrong", you just made an attempt to discredit my character.
>That is why you're only going to get this comparatively small response to your paragraphs of hubris.
Seems more like you're just choosing to ignore any point you can't just deflect by insulting me anon, or whenever I call you out on attacking arguments no-one actually made. But yeah, I don't really see the point of talking about this with you, you're either not willing or not capable of backing up why you're right, and are way more interested in just insulting me than actually discussing the topic.
>paragraphs of hubris.
Thanks for confirming what I've been saying anon, I don't really think asking you to explain your points, or supporting mine with quotes is exactly hubris. Maybe next time instead of asking me for my tumblr when I ask you to explain you're reasoning, you could just ask if I was kidding you?
>>8090012
>Because it effectively halved the pool of potentially great authors that were available
Well since 'Women's Liberation', I can't think of any notable female authors; or at least, any who are not easily eclipsed by at least ten male equivalents.
Seems as though we weren't missing out on much :^)
>>8090012
>even explain why your point of view has any merit
They take the merit of their 'modern progressive standards' as a given; the author and most likely you, that is. I'm just returning the favour.
>>8090028
>Well since 'Women's Liberation', I can't think of any notable female authors; or at least, any who are not easily eclipsed by at least ten male equivalents.
Maybe you should read the article then, because there's a substantial list of female authors in there. You should also realise that someone being better at something doesn't mean you aren't good. Especially when literature isn't a "You are objectively good thing", and the themes a writer addresses, and the style they do it in is heavily subjective when it comes to enjoyment and personal connection to the text. Even in more objective measures, why does someone being better make you bad?
>They take the merit of their 'modern progressive standards' as a given; the author and most likely you, that is. I'm just returning the favour.
Sure, those people belief in their beliefs, and haven't really tried to explain why they're good, because it's not in the scope of the article. She hasn't actually said anything beyond "The canon was sexist, racist and colonialist" either, which as I've said, is true by modern standards. She never claimed "our beliefs are so much better than those stupid old dead people", at most she said they were different.
But you see, in this case, you have made a statement about their quality, calling them pathetic and wrong. So, seeing as you made the claim there, the burden of proof is on you to explain why that's the case, which you've displayed a complete inability to do, instead trying to act like you're somehow taking the intellectual high ground by resorting to first insulting me, then just flat out going "No".
It's clear you're not going to debate anything though, and aren't even slightly interested or capable, I'm not sure which in even discussing it, and I'm not really interested in talking about this to you as such, no more than I'd discuss politics with the "Are you kidding me?" guy from the Trump rally that gets posted around here so much.
Feel free to actually explain the reasoning behind your views, and to read the article without assuming she and everyone else who disagrees with you is a rabid SJW stereotype though. Until then, best of luck I guess.
>>8089460
>women and minorities are at a deficit in literature classes
Nigger what? I'm doing an English degree right now. Of the 50-ish undergraduates in my year, there are literally 10 straight white dudes. The other 40 are either gay, racial minorities, or women.
I think you know literally nothing about what you're saying.
>>8084749
>implying
I'm at Princeton now and we have a "Black Justice League" and earlier this year had a "Apartheid Wall" and changed "masters of college" because it was offensive
>>8084701
I've never met any college graduate who has read anything close to the canon, besides professors/PhD's in the humanities, and most of them even haven't.
>>8090371
What most people don't seem to realize is that civilization has already collapsed and we are the barbarians living in the ruins.
Test
>>8090075
>You should also realise that someone being better at something doesn't mean you aren't good.
Considering how much great lit there is, why bother with anything less?
>>8084816
facts
>>8090676
Because you should read for enjoyment, not based on how good other people consider the author to be. Having alternatives that might be almost equally as good is always a positive factor, because sometimes the people who are considered best just aren't so for you. It's the same with any other form of art really, music's the easy comparison. Do you exclusively listen to the best bands ever in whatever genre you like? Or do you also listen to less acclaimed bands, or perhaps even exclusively less acclaimed bands because you prefer something about how they make music compared to someone like (just picking the obvious choice here, pls no memes) the Beatles? It's the same with literature.
If you exclusively read literature because other people consider it good though, then you're probably just reading for social status because you want to seem a certain way to others, unless it's set reading for some course.
>>8086520
My point is why do western liberals give white people the brunt of their ire? We're doing better than anyone else and we have been for a long time. Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807, solely because of muh feels. They dedicated 1/6 of the Royal Navy to enforcing the ban on everyone, not just British ships. The first country to allow women to vote was the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1907, if you ignore various British colonies that granted it a few years earlier. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia makes history by finally allowing women to vote in 2015 AD. Lets set aside the fact that democracy itself was literally invented by white people.
This kind of liberalism is largely absent from the histories and cultures of colored people, but the mean old white male gets pilloried in the press and in "social media." Well how about brown males who literally think women should be slaves? Why do they get a free pass because they're not white?
It makes zero sense that the same ardent feminists are in favor of mass immigration from the brown zone.
>>8091544
It's become the only way to sustain a broken system that has descended into complete absurdity. Corporations, Universities, government are obsolete and inherently unjust systems. We are seeing a moral whitewash under the cover of 'diversity'/'inclusion' whatever. Trying to revitalize the old ideal of corporate success by equating it with 'Woman Epowerment'. I read an article about SJW-type activists in an elite liberal arts institution and it's pretty much a product of the general absurdity of the system. The very idea of elite universities is a spook. Identity has become a highly marketable commodity. ie. American society is one giant mental illness factory.
Also, keep in mind that the Middle East might be home to medieval theocratic regimes, but also to experiments in direct democracy and radical gender equality, far beyond anything going on in the liberal west.
>>8091626
>this is more progressive party line memeing
Too bad it won't work on me. I'm well aware that our whole society is under the grasp of the Marxist Cathedral. Despite what Radical Marxists like Hillary Clinton might want, people are waking up.
Ah yes, the School of Resentment.
>>8091677
>Radical Marxists like Hillary Clinton
O I am laffin
>>8084701
Imagine if schooled forced you to read Kenko.
>>8084733
>woke
Fuck politics, let's have l'art pour l'art again
Got to pay the troll toll to get into this boys hole
>>8088486
>outdated
>>8088606
>>8087705
>Enjoy your fucked up Hapas
Okay, I will :^)
Halfie girls are objectively the most attractive race and we should secure the existence of their people and a future for qt Eurasians.
>>8091803
fuck futurism is so bad
It's people pushing these identity politics barrows that have enabled Trump to happen as a counterreaction. I hope they're happy with what they've created.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/15/08/white-men-talking
>>8092600
Is there any parallel in history for the way every European people is currently willingly and eagerly subjecting itself to slavery at the hands of migrating barbarians? What causes a people to develop this longing for submission and death?
