> > about spelling. when i was in school we said classics is bullshit, and
> > chose to ignore the greeks, etc. and study the literatures and
> > philosophies of Africa, Asia and the indigenous people of the Americas.
>
> Alas. I know about this sort of foolishness--it's the sort of
> identity politics I decry as reactionary.
Yes and no. There was a lot of talk on the list with regard to the BRC employing the term "universalist." (By the way, the Albert or Hahnel piece that said first there was class and then Black liberation came along in the mid-sixties obliterates 500+ years of African liberation struggles. And has anybody read earlier writings often associated with Black nationalism--the class consciousness and analysis is pretty deep in some. Take a look at George Jackson's letters from the 50s again, e.g.) The problem--I know it's a yawner for those who already realize it--was/is that "universal" has often meant white/european/male/hetero. if the curriculum didn't include anything but white, etc. writers/authors/topics it required no modifier--"Economic History" was simply european/american economic history, otherwise it had to require the modifier, like African Economic history (rarely offered, "Africa has no history" "pre-history" etc.). A whole literature class of African writers is "narrow," but all white male euro/american lit is just..."normal." Etc. I know we all know this now (do we?) but some of this basic stuff was food for thought and was the source of real change in students perspectives at one time. It is ideology in a pejorative sense to treat the particular as universal. But, yes, if it means we don't study other worthwhile things, reject valuable stuff, that's too bad. but we didn't start in a vacuum. And also, to the extent it is a mistake to make the turn i described, it is the fault of those who perpetrated the lies. On the other hand, you can read x amount of books and who's to say we were worse off for reading more of the other stuff.
>
> In addition what you will find when you look at traditional Asian
> philosophies is a lot of stuff about why the imperial government is good.
> This is the upshot of a good deal of Chinese philosophy, anyway. It's good
> to know something about Confucius, OK, but as someone to follow, well, Mao
> was right about that.
Yes, definitely went through the stages of idealizing, etc., on the other hand it again was again due to being lied to. But as long as we didn't get stuck there, and were exposed to some great things, and learned the lessons it was important.
> I hate this culture wars stuff too, battles about what courses should be
> required or what goes in the canon, as if it changed anyone's views to
> take a required course or read a required book. Maybe the idea is that it
> is supposed to be sort of gesture of respect towards a culture or a people
> to require classes or books in their tradition even if it doesn't change
> anyone's views, but that sort of culrural politics is pretty remote from
> anything that makes a difference in changing the world. Better to gight
> for giving students and professors the option of studying and reseraching
> in a variety of areas.
Yes and no again. On the one hand, if everything else wasn't already eurocentric, androcentric, etc.--and presented as universal, no modifier--but again we didn't start in a vacuum. That said, I disagree with those who say that when the rest of the curriculum is no longer sexist, racist that Women's Studies and Black Studies will no longer be "necessary" or "needed." But this gets into another whole lengthy and complex area.
Mat