Railing at Greatness: Why Critics, Educators, and Readers are so Touchy These Days

[Perandorrrr]

Very well written, AuntShecky. There were a bunch of things I wanted to say, but I got caught up in the latter sections. I always felt Oroonoko and Othello had over and undertones about immigration and multiculturalism, as of recently Prime Minister David Cameron said 'multicultrialism has failed' (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...602/story.html). Your piece is hardly an "American" piece, it reflects the world at large and as a good essay would never state having all the answers you simply are asking questions based on what you know or see. I do not believe Elliot was anti-Jewish nor anti-semitic (thorough students of history get what I'm saying). I don't think students or critics in general are being lazy all the time with their 'blurbs' I believe it is because most of what we see today does not deserve much deconstructing or attention. Absolutely stated and wonderfully pointed out is students's lack of understanding writing and believe it all as is said to the point of gospel. If you dare say something was an inside joke or mislead, you might have a mutiny in the classroom; It's one of those things I always thought, yet didn't know how to point it out or when. It was lengthy, but deserves attention. Very well done.

[Virgil]

Actually, the French are proud of their colonial history that had beneficial effects for the people living in their colonies, but of course the legacy of Rousseau and the revolution of 1789 is deeply embedded in French culture.
As for the Germans, they are among the least self-righteous people that I have met and whatever guilt they may feel for WW11 is only as a result of the denazification process at the war's end and a massive amount of finger-wagging by the allies over many years.
But whether we refer to the PC brigade as bien pensant, selbstgerecht or do gooders, their unfortunate influence is, as the essay points out, becoming increasingly noticeable in literature, not to mention elsewhere.

That does match my perception of the French but not my experience of the Germans. But I'm pretty sure you've met way more Germans than I have.

Very well written, AuntShecky. There were a bunch of things I wanted to say, but I got caught up in the latter sections. I always felt Oroonoko and Othello had over and undertones about immigration and multiculturalism, as of recently Prime Minister David Cameron said 'multicultrialism has failed' (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...602/story.html). Your piece is hardly an "American" piece, it reflects the world at large and as a good essay would never state having all the answers you simply are asking questions based on what you know or see. I do not believe Elliot was anti-Jewish nor anti-semitic (thorough students of history get what I'm saying). I don't think students or critics in general are being lazy all the time with their 'blurbs' I believe it is because most of what we see today does not deserve much deconstructing or attention. Absolutely stated and wonderfully pointed out is students's lack of understanding writing and believe it all as is said to the point of gospel. If you dare say something was an inside joke or mislead, you might have a mutiny in the classroom; It's one of those things I always thought, yet didn't know how to point it out or when. It was lengthy, but deserves attention. Very well done.

The thought about Merkel, Cameron, and now Sarkozy making their statements of the failure of multiculturalism crossed my mind as well. I'm not European so I can't know how big a problem it is, but where multiculturalism has been tolerated in the US, it has been problematic.

And yes, let's end this Eliot is an anti-semite nonsense once and for all.

[OrphanPip]

I don't know of any French colonies where the original inhabitants have benefited form the French presence. The Natives of Quebec, mostly dead, the natives of French Guiana, mostly dead, Vietnam and Laos, run into the ground by France, Burkino Faso, one of the poorest countries in Africa, Ivory Coast, ridden with war... Where exactly did the French have a positive influence on the people they oppressed and lorded over?

Edit: I can't discuss contemporary politics, but I'm none too fond of Frances' behavior in international politics lately either. As much as people slag off the USA's foreign policy, France has been a little profiteering supporter of oppressive regimes in its own right. (e.g. It did provide the weapons used in the Rwandan genocide, good job France!)

[JBI]

Very well written, AuntShecky. There were a bunch of things I wanted to say, but I got caught up in the latter sections. I always felt Oroonoko and Othello had over and undertones about immigration and multiculturalism, as of recently Prime Minister David Cameron said 'multicultrialism has failed' (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...602/story.html). Your piece is hardly an "American" piece, it reflects the world at large and as a good essay would never state having all the answers you simply are asking questions based on what you know or see. I do not believe Elliot was anti-Jewish nor anti-semitic (thorough students of history get what I'm saying). I don't think students or critics in general are being lazy all the time with their 'blurbs' I believe it is because most of what we see today does not deserve much deconstructing or attention. Absolutely stated and wonderfully pointed out is students's lack of understanding writing and believe it all as is said to the point of gospel. If you dare say something was an inside joke or mislead, you might have a mutiny in the classroom; It's one of those things I always thought, yet didn't know how to point it out or when. It was lengthy, but deserves attention. Very well done.

I do not see how that proves it international - the thread is about literary understanding, not cultural attitude - certainly there is guilt and shame everywhere (or in the American case, pride). The American academia for the most part is, from my understanding, more isolated than the European one, also, it has its own traditions - sure you can point to French theorists for giving the new "theory" a start, but it has gone way beyond that - when you look closely, Derrida was actually an excellent close reader (who even wrote a book on close reading lesbian pornographic images), and Foucault not particularly a literary theorist as much as a historian/philosopher.


The question of the Canonical being in danger though is a good one - I am not so sure about it - English departments have never been bigger. The question though is about now it being possible to get a degree in literature without actually reading classics much, or particularly on historical reading.

That is more true of some institutions than others - for instance, in my university, English students were required to fit categories - 2 year courses from medieval times until 1800, 1 course on American or transnational literature, 1 course on contemporary literature, 1 introduction course (the most of which were historically constructed), one course on Canadian literature, or Aboriginal literature, and then .5 course on theory and criticism.

Within that grid, it is impossible to not be exposed to the Canon really. The question is, do they like what they are reading, and is it presented to them in a manner which encourages appreciation -

Well, my experience says yes, including appreciation of works which I greatly dislike - others say no. The political correctness is brought up, but that did not stop a professor of mine from teaching Thomas Nashe, and talking about how he pretty much created prose fiction in English, despite The Unfortunate Traveler being undoubtedly racist and anti-semitic.

The question of rewriting a prettier history is not universally taught - some Americans try to, by burning anything with a thread of racism, they seek to purge it, whereas the bulk of places tend to just read it as part of an historical narrative.

[OrphanPip]

Duncan Campbell Scott wasn't just a racist, his personal letters reveal that he was borderline genocidal and he ruined the lives of thousands of aboriginal Canadians as director of Indian Affairs, and even with that evidence you'd have quite an uphill battle to try and get him removed from Can. Lit. courses. I took a Can-lit class once, and the impression I got from the prof was that DC Scott's racism was acknowledged, but he was also used as an iconic representation of Canadian Imperialism (A really dominant political ideology of 19th century Canada), and so he was also a vital piece of Canadian 19th century culture.

That's why I've never quite understood the tendency to censor major writers, or to act as if none of the racism is there. I don't understand why admitting racism exists in Twain would entail that Huck Finn can no longer be taught, rather it should be used as a basis for further discussion.

Edit:

"I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that the country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone… Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill."

Although, I think those who think multiculturalism has failed, or shouldn't be supported, could benefit from looking at the similarities of such rhetoric to D. C. Scott's own words.

[qimissung]

Hear, hear!

That reminds me of the old argument abut whether one would or would not listen to Wagner because of his antisemitism; or whether we think that Leni Riefenstahl should be acknowledged for her innovative film work even though she was closely associated with the Nazi party.

I think if the work involved is tainted with an overtly racist viewpoint I would have difficulty enjoying it, but otherwise I don't think it's a problem. Awork of art should stand on it's own merit, should be considered and valued for what beauty and enlightenment it gives us, even if it or it's author is somewhat flawed.

[Perandorrrr]

I do not see how that proves it international - the thread is about literary understanding, not cultural attitude - certainly there is guilt and shame everywhere (or in the American case, pride). The American academia for the most part is, from my understanding, more isolated than the European one, also, it has its own traditions

I don't think American academia is isolated in the general sense. I'm sure there are teachers who prefer to teach students "American" writing, but for what it's worth, most of my high school reading was by European authors. One of my college teachers almost killed me because I found Emerson and other transcendentalist's the biggest bore of my life and that I preferred European writing, but even South American e.g., Borges and De Vega. Money is also the big concept, it's much easier to teach a class a Mickey Spillane or Dan Brown book than even attempt to teach theory and criticism or Derrida as you mentioned. I loved Edgar Allen Poe growing up, I still do in fact, but once I studied Marlowe, Shakespeare, Joyce and the wise Ezra Pound I almost threw away my Stephen King books and looked down on Poe, slightly, along with the plethora of nonsense it accompanied on my book shelf. That is the isolationism I think you're talking about: the threat of discovering joy elsewhere. The teaching has a lot to do with it, if I didn't have agreat teacher in high school I might have slept on some great ideas in Shakespeare's plays. Money is a major factor, if I'm selling Dan Brown books, selling millions, I don't want those readers to discover the complexity found in novels outside the US because my pockets might suffer. Then we question entertainment versus "real" literature, maybe many of these people prefer being entertained -- which is about every contemporary novel I see today. They seem to be writing films within their books rather than create something that will last. If the US publishers couldn't make money on Harry Potter, despite it apparently (never read one) good books for kids I would've never heard of it. My younger brother purchased one, but couldn't get passed the first chapter.

I think some of the bigger concepts to evolve from some of the works metnoned, without a doubt has some connection to multiculturalism. You really think not? Maybe I took my examples too much to the heart. Of course the entire article isn't about that, I picked that piece out since I didn't respond to every point. This is without a doubt an international subject, many countries including the US have been cutting back on teachers and education, especially in my hometown, which already had a lackluster program. This is the perspective I'm coming from, you and others seemed to have had a great educational background, whether teachers were involved or you independently studied, it has paid off. I grew up in a melting pot, and it started out as everyone having their own identity, then sharing and influencing characteristics of one another, then a complete loss of identity as everyone looked outward instead of in to understand themselves. Everyone around me wanted to travel for a number of years to "find" themselves. It was a most common phrase used, in a serious sense. I kept wondering when they lost themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with embracing other cultures, it's the only way we will grow, but it seems now people are wondering if there should be a limit of sorts since multiculturalism on this scale may not have occured in history, except for the giant cities of empires such as Rome or Constantinople.

[AuntShecky]

That's why I've never quite understood the tendency to censor major writers, or to act as if none of the racism is there. I don't understand why admitting racism exists in Twain would entail that Huck Finn can no longer be taught, rather it should be used as a basis for further discussion.

.

Yes, Mark Twain's works should be taught. But I see that I have to say it again: Mark Twain was NOT a racist; in fact there is no other non-minority writer of his time that came down harder on racism and imperialism as Mark Twain.

[Emil Miller]

I don't know of any French colonies where the original inhabitants have benefited form the French presence. The Natives of Quebec, mostly dead, the natives of French Guiana, mostly dead, Vietnam and Laos, run into the ground by France, Burkino Faso, one of the poorest countries in Africa, Ivory Coast, ridden with war... Where exactly did the French have a positive influence on the people they oppressed and lorded over?

Edit: I can't discuss contemporary politics, but I'm none too fond of Frances' behavior in international politics lately either. As much as people slag off the USA's foreign policy, France has been a little profiteering supporter of oppressive regimes in its own right. (e.g. It did provide the weapons used in the Rwandan genocide, good job France!)

In answer to your question I would say practically everywhere. It is a facet of colonialism that an infrastructure is usually laid down to facilitate colonial rule: the benefits of which are indisputable. This is true for France as well as any colonial power. Apart from setting up educational institutions, they were also instrumental in dealing with conditions such as malaria and bubonic plague which were manifest in their colonies.

In 1835, an itinerant medical service of French doctors was created to look after the Arab population. At the beginning, this service was not restricted to areas controlled by the army. The objective was, quite simply, to let the infirmaries precede the army so that the population be controlled not only by military force but also be tied to the benefits of civilization. from: Disease, Medicine, and Empire by Roy McLeod and Milton Lewis.

I don't know about the natives of Quebec and I am unable to find anything that connects the French to the destruction of the indigenous peoples of French Guiana, but it is today a French overseas department and, as such, receives substantial financial aid from the French government.

Wikipedia on French colonial rule in Laos:

Laos was never important to France, except as a buffer state between British-influenced Thailand and the more economically important Annam and Tonkin.
During their rule, the French introduced the corvee, a system where every male Lao were forced to contribute 10 days of manual labour per year to the colonial government. In spite of Laos producing tin, rubber and coffee, it never accounted for more than 1% of French Indochina's exports. By 1940, only 600 French citizens lived in Laos.

Vietnam suffered far more from the USA's 14 year involvement than under 80 years of French colonialism. There were also a substantial number of Vietnamese catholics who didn't want the French to leave

Burkino Faso appears to have been neglected by the French but it's undeniable that since independence the country has gone the way of many other African states with fighting between rival groups for control.

The Ivory Coast was, at the time of independence, one of the richest African states but, 20 years on, took the same route as Burkino Faso and France's legacy of a stable economy has largely been squandered.

As for France selling arms to oppressive regimes, I worked for the British Government in their Defence Export Division and I can tell you from personal experience that the French are far from being alone in this respect.

[Drkshadow03]

I agree with that. "Political Correctness" is too simple a term, but that's what came to mind. The impulse to degrade writers of the past with the racist or anti-Semite label is more insidious, even pernicious, than "P-C".

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with looking at the writing of the past and labeling it anti-Semitic or racist or whatever, if it in fact demonstrates those attributes. Degrade is the wrong word; I prefer describe. As Orphanpip pointed out about Twain, it's something that should be part of the discussion, even if it shouldn't be the only point of the discussion. It only becomes a concern if that is the entire discussion at the expense of all the other wonderful things a text is doing.

A person can recognize that The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play, but still enjoy it. Everyone's terms of what is acceptable for themselves is, of course, going to vary.

[OrphanPip]

In answer to your question I would say practically everywhere. It is a facet of colonialism that an infrastructure is usually laid down to facilitate colonial rule: the benefits of which are indisputable. This is true for France as well as any colonial power. Apart from setting up educational institutions, they were also instrumental in dealing with conditions such as malaria and bubonic plague which were manifest in their colonies.

In 1835, an itinerant medical service of French doctors was created to look after the Arab population. At the beginning, this service was not restricted to areas controlled by the army. The objective was, quite simply, to let the infirmaries precede the army so that the population be controlled not only by military force but also be tied to the benefits of civilization. from: Disease, Medicine, and Empire by Roy McLeod and Milton Lewis.

Except that in reality, the conquering of North Africa involved decades of violent suppression.

http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/algeria

Algeria is probably the most egregious example. Whereas in Morocco the French instituted a pretty much Apartheid system, which was need to keep the Arabs in their place and off the good land for the French settlers!

Oh and those great schools where they were forced to learn French and French culture, and the superiority of their white overlords so that they could be easier to control. But at least they were introduced to "civilization."

I don't know about the natives of Quebec and I am unable to find anything that connects the French to the destruction of the indigenous peoples of French Guiana, but it is today a French overseas department and, as such, receives substantial financial aid from the French government.

In both places the indigenous population is almost entirely dead, and those that are left have been displaced. The remainder are ethnically and culturally French, or recent arrivals.

Laos was never important to France, except as a buffer state between British-influenced Thailand and the more economically important Annam and Tonkin.
During their rule, the French introduced the corvee, a system where every male Lao were forced to contribute 10 days of manual labour per year to the colonial government. In spite of Laos producing tin, rubber and coffee, it never accounted for more than 1% of French Indochina's exports. By 1940, only 600 French citizens lived in Laos.

Vietnam suffered far more from the USA's 14 year involvement than under 80 years of French colonialism. There were also a substantial number of Vietnamese catholics who didn't want the French to leave

French Indochina was nearly as bad as Africa. Once again harsh violent military pacification was the norm. They also had a nice system of forced labour and a switch to a plantation economy so that they could provide valuable trade commodities for France. The money gained from these businesses of course all went into the pockets of the French.

Then they are also pretty much responsible for the political instability that resulted in the Vietnam war, no matter what the Americans later went on to do, the French already had several decades of killing the locals in their own right.

And I'm sure Catholic collaborators with the French regime really didn't want them to leave.

Burkino Faso appears to have been neglected by the French but it's undeniable that since independence the country gone the way of many other African states with fighting between rival groups for control.

The Ivory Coast was, at the time of independence, one of the richest African states but, 20 years on, took the same route as Burkino Faso and France's legacy of a stable economy has largely been squandered.

West Africa was also operated under a forced labour system, most plantations owned by the French, and the large European settler population. And there was once again a use of military pacification of local populations, which involved general murder and slaughter of indigenous people who simply didn't want to be ruled by the French. Also, Burkino Faso's economy was run into the ground by the French until the point where it was partitioned off from the Ivory Coast, to make the Ivory Coast look better.

As for France selling arms to oppressive regimes, I worked for the British Government in their Defence Export Division and I can tell you from personal experience that the French are far from being alone in this respect.

The French are particularly egregious offenders though.

[Emil Miller]

Except that in reality, the conquering of North Africa involved decades of violent suppression.

http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/algeria

Algeria is probably the most egregious example. Whereas in Morocco the French instituted a pretty much Apartheid system, which was need to keep the Arabs in their place and off the good land for the French settlers!

Oh and those great schools where they were forced to learn French and French culture, and the superiority of their white overlords so that they could be easier to control. But at least they were introduced to "civilization."

The trouble with this black and white presentation is that it overlooks the fact that the atrocities were usually committed by Algerian conscripts. Colonies cost as well as make money and the French government refused to increase expenditure for an increase to the relatively few troops sent overseas. Therefore, natives were conscripted in large numbers.

The French Army recruited extensively from the Berber and Arab peoples of Algeria throughout the period of French rule (1830–1962). Most were employed as infantry (Tirailleurs) and cavalry (Spahis). Algerian troops saw extensive service in the Crimean War, Mexico, the Franco-Prussian War, various colonial campaigns in Africa, Tonkin and Syria, both World Wars, and the First Indochina War.

Moreover, they didn't only kill at the behest of the French; here's what happened after the French had left:

Violence in Independent Algeria

After 132 years of colonial subjugation and a bloody seven-year war for independence, Algeria went through a period of relative peace and economic development that lasted almost three decades. However, the country entered into another troubled era in the 1990s. As one of the nationalist leaders, Larbi Ben M'Hidi was quoted as saying to his compatriots in the 1950s: "the easiest part was to regain independence and the toughest one comes after that." The economic and political systems that were established in independent Algeria failed. This led in the early 1990s to a social rebellion headed by Islamist groups, which, after having been denied a legitimate electoral victory in 1991, opted for armed rebellion against the state. However, the war they waged for a decade extended also to the civilian population and foreigners. Between 1992 and 2002, over 150,000 people were killed, entire villages were abandoned, and the economic infrastructure was badly damaged. While most of the violence is attributed to the Islamists, the government also committed repression and reprisals and is responsible for the disappearance of thousands of people. Many also accuse the Algerian security service of using French-style torture and of the summary execution of suspected Islamist rebels or their supporters. Because there has not been a full and independent inquiry of the massacres and other violations committed during this internal war, the whole truth about the ongoing tragedy in Algeria remains unknown.

In both places the indigenous population is almost entirely dead, and those that are left have been displaced. The remainder are ethnically and culturally French, or recent arrivals.

As I said, I have no idea of the truth of this assertion.

French Indochina was nearly as bad as Africa. Once again harsh violent military pacification was the norm. They also had a nice system of forced labour and a switch to a plantation economy so that they could provide valuable trade commodities for France. The money gained from these businesses of course all went into the pockets of the French.

Much of the money was, in all probability, spent on building the infrastructure to maintain French control of the colony. Either way, it proved of great benefit to the Vietnamese following the French occupation.

Then they are also pretty much responsible for the political instability that resulted in the Vietnam war, no matter what the Americans later went on to do, the French already had several decades of killing the locals in their own right.

If you mean killing insurgents, then that's par for the course in all imperial regimes, including that of the UK, but it's pretty obvious that the amount of Vietnamese casualties resulting from US involvement far outweighs those inflicted under French rule.

And I'm sure Catholic collaborators with the French regime really didn't want them to leave.

Catholicism arrived in Vietnam during the 17th century, long before the French occupied the country.

West Africa was also operated under a forced labour system, most plantations owned by the French, and the large European settler population. And there was once again a use of military pacification of local populations, which involved general murder and slaughter of indigenous people who simply didn't want to be ruled by the French. Also, Burkino Faso's economy was run into the ground by the French until the point where it was partitioned off from the Ivory Coast, to make the Ivory Coast look better.

See my comment re insurgents above.

The French are particularly egregious offenders though.

No it's simply that the French have maintained a much closer contact with their former colonies and have a head start when it comes to selling them weapons. They also make reliable equipment which gives them a lead among customers other than their former colonies; much to the chagrin of the British, I might add. I would also point out that much of the killing in Rwanda, as elsewhere since WW11, was via the AK47, which is manufactured mainly in Russia and China.

[AuntShecky]

While the original poster appreciates the time and thought which the latest replies definitely show, please accept my respectful wish that we keep to the topic at hand, which is a discussion of contemporary criticism of literature,
specifically a unfair imposing of today's social mores and conventions of upon works produced in much earlier times, in some cases a century or more before ours. The other issues from the OP were the condescending ways in which literature is being taught on the secondary and college levels as well as-- in Vince Passaro's view-- deep-seated
resentment toward the ambiguity, irony, and complexity offered by (formerly) esteemed authors.

Although a historical discussion about colonialism and its ills is valid, may I respectfully suggest that those interested in continuing this spin-off discussion start a new thread in a different forum, perhaps "Serious Discussions?" Thank you.

[Virgil]

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with looking at the writing of the past and labeling it anti-Semitic or racist or whatever, if it in fact demonstrates those attributes. Degrade is the wrong word; I prefer describe. As Orphanpip pointed out about Twain, it's something that should be part of the discussion, even if it shouldn't be the only point of the discussion. It only becomes a concern if that is the entire discussion at the expense of all the other wonderful things a text is doing.

A person can recognize that The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play, but still enjoy it. Everyone's terms of what is acceptable for themselves is, of course, going to vary.

I agree that if a writer is racist or anti-semitic it should be identified. My point is that it better be clear and distinct or one is slandering another person's reputation. I do not believe that Huck Finn or Heart of Darkness is racist. It may be a little paternalistic but that doesn't make it racist.

Let me put it to the possible writers in this thread. If you were writing about a westerner that ventured into a culture that had women covered from head to foot, stoned children to death for religious violations, or had the death penalty for homosexuality, would you not come off as paternalistic? That paternalism happens every day today here in the western modern relativistic world by the most Liberal of journalists. Either they are paternalistic or they're anti-Semitic toward Islam. Which is it?

[mortalterror]

Let me put it to the possible writers in this thread. If you were writing about a westerner that ventured into a culture that had women covered from head to foot, stoned children to death for religious violations, or had the death penalty for homosexuality, would you not come off as paternalistic? That paternalism happens every day today here in the western modern relativistic world by the most Liberal of journalists. Either they are paternalistic or they're anti-Semitic toward Islam. Which is it?

Dear Diary, today I witnessed my first stoning. Awesome! I totally respect other peoples cultures, in spite of the way that they differ from my own.