Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
It really kind of disturbs me when people imply that an arbitrary list of authors in an article needs to conform to some Politically Correct distribution model that equally highlights gender and/or nationality/religion/culture.
Roger Ebert is an older, English-speaking, male reader. What classic authors did you think he would mention?
It seems that every time something like this comes up, it invariably gets examined with an Affirmative Action microscope.
Sorry faithbw, I wasn't singling you out, my post just happened to follow yours.  |
No, it's fine.
I disagree with your assertion though.
I understand that Ebert is an older white man but I don't think that lets him off the hook so easily. I'm an African American female but in my high school English courses, especially the AP courses, I was still expected to read Dickens, Shakespeare, Wharton, Chaucer, Hardy, even Tolkien. We did read some women and minority writers (Margaret Atwood, Sandra Cisneros, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright) but they were the exceptions and not the rule. Minorities taking English courses still are expected to read the classics like everyone else and we're still held to the same standards when it comes to being "well read".
I don't think it's about being politically correct. I think it's about acknowledging that great works and works of culture are not primarily limited to Western male artists. To be fair, Ebert did mention that he left out "many nations". So I think he is aware of this. When someone points out that writers from other cultures seem to be lacking in our cannon of great literature, I think it shows just how arbitrary our cannon really is. This isn't say that I hate white male writers (I love many of them). I just hate that being "well read" depends on your exposure to certain writers and not others. In fact, the idea of being "well read" carries undertones of elitism that I find troubling.