If you’re online, you have options.
…”But when you speak of such gentility as is descended from ancient wealth–so that you knights should therefore would be gentlemen of breeding–such arrogance is not worth a hen. Look who is always most virtuous, openly and secretly, and most inclines to do what gentle deeds he can; take him for the gentlest man….
For though all their heritage of our ancestors, by reason of which we claim high rank, may descend to us, yet they cannot at all bequeath to any of us their virtuous living, which made them to be called gentle men and to bid us follow to them and do in like manner….
“Here you may well see how nobility hangs not from ancient possessions, since people do not always perform its works, as does the fire, according to its nature. For, God knows, one may often see a lord’s son do vicious and shameful deeds; and he who wishes to be esteemed for his gentility because he was born of a noble house and had virtuous and noble ancestors, and yet himselfwill not perform the deeds of gentility nor follow after his gentle ancestor who is dead, he is not gentle, even if he is a duke or an earl; for base and sinful deeds make a commoner. For gentility then would be nothing but renown of your ancestors for their high worthiness, which is something that has nothing to do with you….
“Think how noble was that Tullius Hostilius, as Valerius tells, who rose out of poverty to high nobility. Read Seneca, and Boethius as well; there you shall see expressly that he who does noble deeds is noble. And therefore, dear husband, I conclude in this way: albeit my ancestors were untutored, yet may the high God–and so I hope–grant me grace to live virtuously. Then I am noble, when I begin to live virtuously and to abandon evil….
Whoever keeps himself content with his poverty, I count as rich, even if he does not have not a shirt! He who covets is a poor creature, for he wishes to have that which is not within his power. But he who has nothing, nor covets things, is rich, albeit you count him as only a serving-lad…
“Now you say I am old and foul: then have no fear that you will be a cuckold. For ugliness and age, upon my life, are great wardens over chastity. But nevertheless, since I know your delight, I shall fulfill your appetite….
“Choose,” she said, “one of these two things: to have me foul and old until I die, and to you a true, humble wife, never in all my days displeasing you; or else to have me young and beautiful, and take your chance on how many visits there will be to your house–or perhaps to some other place–which will be for my sake. Now choose yourself which one you will have.”….
Love. Or, don’t.
The Washington Post has published a guest article by a California teacher arguing that American high school students shouldn’t read Shakespeare because he’s a dead, white man.
Dana Dusbiber, who teaches English in Sacramento, says she avoids Hamlet and all the rest because her minority students shouldn’t be expected to study a ”a long-dead, British guy” (Dusbiber herself is white). And while Shakespeare is widely regarded as the premier writer of the English language, able to timelessly portray themes central to the human experience, Dusbiber says he only is regarded that way because “some white people” ordained it and he can easily be replaced.
“Why not teach the oral tradition out of Africa, which includes an equally relevant commentary on human behavior?” She suggests. “Why not teach translations of early writings or oral storytelling from Latin America or Southeast Asia other parts of the world? Many, many of our students come from these languages and traditions … perhaps we no longer have the time to study the Western canon that so many of us know and hold dear.”
To bolster her case for dumping the Bard, Dusbiber says that minority students, like those who dominate her own classroom, deserve to study their own cultures rather than being exposed to “Eurocentrism.”
get the full experience of poverty and no plumbing, sitting in your own shit, by living there!
But at the same time, she takes the exact opposite position for whites, saying school should be a place for them to explore cultures other than their own.
White Guilt = Gub’mint handouts
“If we only teach white students, it is our imperative duty to open them up to a world of diversity through literature that they may never encounter anywhere else in their lives,” she says. “I admit that this proposal, that we leave Shakespeare out of the English curriculum entirely, will offend many.”
There is no other literature. We invented culture. We invented the concept of literature.
Despite holding an English degree and describing herself as voracious reader, Dusbiber’s desire to purge the dusty old Bard from her classroom is partly based on her own difficulties reading him. She confesses that she has a “personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate.”
Shakespeare is MODERN ENGLISH. The same one you’re speaking, bitch.
While Post education reporter Valerie Strauss, who published the article, notes that Dusbiber’s view “is shared by a lot of people in and out of education,” the piece has stirred a fiery and mostly hostile response, and later on Saturday Strauss published a rebuttal from another English teacher, who argues that it’s absurd to throw Shakespeare into the trash simply because he’s very dead and very white.
“Ethnically diverse students don’t foolishly fall in love … ?” The rebuttal asks rhetorically. “Or feel jealousy or rage? Or fall victim to discrimination? Or act desperately out of passion? To dismiss Shakespeare on the grounds that life 450 years ago has no relation to life today is to dismiss every religious text, every piece of ancient mythology (Greek, African, Native American, etc.), and for that matter, everything that wasn’t written in whatever time defined as ‘NOW.’”
Read Dusbiber’s full argument here.
As Anonymous Conservative has pointed out, these people are not fully human. They have no empathy, much like a sociopath, and hence, cannot imagine the profound feelings of others, let alone teach them. There is nothing behind the eyes.
Isn’t losing objective standards unscientific?
Multiculturalism has many friends and a few passionate critics. In this post, I’m not going to criticize the conspiratorial Frankfurt School or similar high-level machinations intended to undermine European culture.
The main practice that I’m going to critique is that of attempting to gain exposure to many minor or superfluous works in many different foreign cultures as a substitute for learning deeply about one’s own culture.
It may be bad art, but at least it’s politically correct
The most absurd example of this is the genre of “world music,” which was especially popular during the 1990s as a way to show yourself as a tolerant, upwardly mobile person. You can still see this sort of approach to culture in the home decoration choices of upper middle class people in more liberal American suburbs and cities. You’ll see modern paintings and African fetishes. If…
View original post 1,169 more words