So on top of widespread contempt for “dead white males”, Shakespeare is replaced by someone who happens to be black, female, and lesbian.
And it has nothing to do with race or politics …
They need to find more walls so they can put up paintings of people of every race, creed and religion. Just leave Shakespeare where he was.
You think Shakespeare’s canonization has nothing to do with race or politics? You think the absence of black, female, lesbian writers from the canon is apolitical? YOU MUST BE COLORBLIND! WHEN WILL SOMEONE THINK OF TEH DEAD WHYTE MENZ?!
http://rippedjeansandbifocals.com/do-you-claim-to-be-colorblind-i-call-b-s/
Man, you folks must have been livid when Lawrence Welk was cancelled.
I am confident that there is no black, female, lesbian in the history of the world who is or was as great a writer as Shakespeare.
Sometimes the dead white guy is Numero Uno, much as it may pain you.
- There's no reasonable way for you to be know that. 1a. Even *if* it were true, it behooves you to then wonder why that's the case--and if you can't connect any dots to unequal and oppressive power relationships, colonialism, sexism, racism, homophobia, then (consciously or not) you're complicit with oppression, colonialism, sexism, racism, and homophobia.
- Art isn't a competition, and the fact that the placement of a single Shakespeare portrait gets you so wound up says a lot more about you and your allegiences than it does about either Shakespeare or Lorde.
- DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THAT HIPPITY HOPPITY MUSIC AND THOSE TEENAGERS WITH THEIR PANTS HANGING DOWN!!11!!ELEVENTY-ONE!!11!
Well, let’s take the case of Sappho, who was probably not black, but qualifies for two of your categories. The story is that her poems were trashed by the Church and all but lost to history until they were found in an Egyptian dump: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/16/girl-interrupted
http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6045
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/04-frag-nf.html
Some might use her as a means to argue that white men are canonized through a series of political tricks, omissions, destruction and usurping of other’s Art (Picasso on African Art?), etc. I am not particularly interested in that argument in this case.
In this case we are dealing with home decorating. Really, just home decorating. I wish our department would redecorate. About 5 years ago we put up book covers by our alum. Some books are good. Some not so good. But it is time for a change.
- If only overt violence is racism, then there is no racism in the United States except for a few limited instances. Those of us who fight for equality for EVERYONE can call it a day and go home. There's no need to keep up the struggle to change attitudes, improve schools for people of color, improve access to jobs and housing, etc.
That’s what you’re saying, and of course that’s preposterous.
- When a bunch of Donald Trump supporters take down portraits of President Obama or Martin Luther King and replace them with portraits of small-town white Trump supporters who are not well-known, that's not racism.
That’s what you’re saying, and of course that’s preposterous.
YOU need to understand that if we want to eliminate racism, we must stand up against ALL racist acts, even if the people perpetrating the acts are people we like (in your case, liberal students) and the people who are the victims of acts are people we don’t like (dead white men).
Marvin, everyone except in this thread seems quite chill except you, you really wound up with the illogical accusations, yelling caps and odd ‘eleventy one’.
That aside a very large number of now deceased white men had time and place to write in English. The population of black lesbians must be very small in comparison. So it is statistically reasonable for a white guy to come up with something good.
The literary canon is more open than you seem to think, certainly dead white gay males in abundance, and historically plenty non white authors.
There is a competition of sorts ~ who is the greatest author ever? That can certainly be discussed. Shakespeare is a candidate, Lorde isn’t.
^from the original article.
Nowhere in the article do I read anything suggesting “no more Shakespeare”
It doesn’t read to me as though they are discussing “greatest author ever” and I doubt that would ever be a discussion in English departments. I am happy to be corrected by English professors.
It looks to me like the discussion here is about defending the status quo – or not – and how symbols matter in that context.
It would be interesting to me to know how many, distressed by the removal of the Shakespeare portrait, studied Shakespeare in college, or read him for pleasure. I took several courses, which covered all the plays and sonnets. I’ve read all his work. I’ve seen the Royal Shakespeare company numerous times. I’ve been at the Globe. I’ve seen interesting local productions. And wretched ones. I’ve watched all the film adaptations. I taught Shakespeare to my kids. I’ve given them the tee shirts and mugs. I’m not bothered by this.
I also had read some Lorde before this thread. The fact so many well read individuals on this thread hadn’t heard of her makes me think the decision was correct.
@alh, I’ve studied and read Shakespeare extensively.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/12/14/students-penn-remove-portrait-shakespeare
Very different interpretations of the same events.
The Federalist is not an objective paper; it’s a right-wing or maybe even an “alt-right” one.
For everyone saying, “it’s totally fine to take down Shakespeare and there is no racism here”:
When the Donald Trump supporters take down portraits of President Obama and rename buildings from “President Obama Building” to something else, you may not say that their actions are racism.
When I’m interested in a topic, I try to read all the reporting. (I have a lot of time on my hands). After finding the Federalist, several years ago now, when doing google searches on phrases used by some posters on this board, I try to read it pretty regularly to see their reaction to current events.
Assuming this is true which, of course, I don’t without more knowledge, this is pretty interesting to me. A lot of authors are taught in courses not totally devoted to their works. Still, I kind of like that list. It is making me smile.
The post link is the first place I’ve found Etsy’s complete email.
Esty
Jed Esty
apologies to Prof Esty - easy to guess where the rest of my on-line time is spent
UPenn English department voted to take Shakespeare’s portrait down?
I am lost, I no longer know…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi21XHWV0D4#t=2h7m40s
(turn subtitles on)
English departments are under tremendous pressure to change in response to digital literacy and declining students interested in literature degrees. Undergraduate English majors are down as much as 50% (Take That Shakespeare!)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/can-the-english-major-be-saved/2015/04/02/1e350ec2-ca53-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html?utm_term=.b7344625233e
Given the lack of interest in studying literature for $250,000, departments are looking for alternatives. Single author courses tend to enroll only as required courses. Same can be said of most literary period courses. Increasingly English departments are acknowledging their origins as departments of rhetoric and offering more writing, communication, and pre-professional (literature and the law) courses.
This has been going on since the Great Recession, at least. The only upside to the slide of the humanities is that starting salaries for English majors have recently risen (supply and demand).
@HappyAlumnus – Sorry, I don’t buy your argument that it was racism that prompted the taking down a graphic of Shakespeare and replacing it with a photo of a little-known black writer. I just don’t.
I think a professor in this (actually rather renown) department wanted to put something different, something unique on his/her department wall. So down went Shakespeare, who’s taught in this country even at the elementary school-level and whose image is fairly ubiquitous, and up went a woman who this professor feels had things to say, but who hasn’t had much exposure. So he/she is exposing passers by to this writer, probably because he/she also teaches that writer. The way professors do in English departments: it’s not just Shakespeare and Dickens but also Mary Wallstonecraft and Zora Neale Hurston.
As for the rest of your comment… hmmm…
Please show me where I came anywhere close to saying we shouldn’t be improving schools for people of color.
Who’s being preposterous here?
^from Esty’s email linked in the Washington Post article
I’m trying to find statements from Penn, especially English faculty and students about what they actually were thinking and doing. I don’t have to believe what they say, but I am interested in their interpretation of their own actions. Probably I will take them at their word, but who knows?
@katliamom, if you don’t see racism beyond overt acts of violence, you’re just blind to the realities of racism. I feel badly for you. The rest of us will work to fight wrongs.