From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
Summary: Remaining calm
Keywords: race canon
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:01:40 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.books
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.

In article <BtLF0C.EGy@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.waterloo.edu (Mike Morris) writes:
>
>                               Wednesday, the 26th of August, 1992
>
>Some responses to Michael Rooney's responses to Clayton (I should know
>better than to get involved in this, but I'm away for two weeks in a
>couple of days, so I can duck the consequences shamelessly). 

I'll try to beat the clock.

 
>Michael writes: 
>  	When was the last time you saw Herodotos in the flesh, eh,
>  Clayton?  Did he seem "indisputably white"?  There's little ethno-      
>  archaeological evidence as to the "color" of the ancient Hellenes.
>  They were probably about as "white" as similar east Mediterranean
>  peoples, i.e., definitely non-Germano-Scandinavian.  Or were they
>  mixed?  Perhaps "colored"?  Those from Asia Minor, "Asian"?  How
>  indisputable, whiteness? 
>  
>  	Take your Afrikaaner logic elsewhere, Clayton.
>
>Your own is what I'm concerned about, Michael. The whole idea of
>making these classifications in the first place irks me no end, but
>I think Clayton was quite right. In terms of any *functional* definition
>in North American society right now (i.e. whether you count as a visible
>minority for purposes of affirmative action goals), modern Greeks are white

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  Are the modern Turks "indisputably
white"?  I don't think so, by the "functional definitions" North Americans
(e.g., Clayton Cramer) use today.  In my experience, there's little *on
a purely visual basis* that distinguishes modern Greeks from modern
Turks (not surprising given centuries of Ottoman rule).  Likewise, there's
really no way in hell anybody can pronounce judgment (as Cramer did) on
the "indisputable whiteness" of the classical Greeks.


>Clayton didn't say ancient Greeks were Germano-Scandinavian. He only
>pointed out that it was a little bizarre for Michelle to complain
>about the absence of minorities and women in the Great Books set, and
>then use the apparently quite arbitrary notion of race that she did
>to turn around and assert that the classical Greeks were non-white.
>I mean, besides the Greeks, there're Dante and Machiavelli in the set,
>and Cervantes, and the Roman authors, all as Mediterranean as the Greeks.
>In fact, you'd end up with the assertion that a large fraction of
>canonical authors is non-white.

We actually seem to closer to agreement than you think.  I responded
because Clatyon made the ridiculous claim that the Greeks were somehow
"indisputably white" -- a completely unprovable assertion.  I absolutely
agree that drawing classifications about "whiteness" is silly -- who
can say how white an ancient Mediterranean? or Dante? or a product of
the mongrelization of the races, like myself?  However, the marginalization 
of other cultures (which is what Michelle was trying to get at, I think)
is another matter (see below).

>  
>Clayton said what I think is a perfectly reasonable thing: 
>  Maybe I'm just a narrow-minded sort, but unless a writer makes a point
>  of telling me his race or gender, and that it has some significance to 
>  what he is writing about (e.g., Shelby Steele's _The Content of our 
>  Character_), I don't see much point to classifying the author by race 
>  or gender.
>  
>Michael responded:
>  	So the fact that women and minorities make up a marginal,     
>  highly disproportionate fraction of the U.S. Congress is irrelevant?
>
>I thought Clayton was talking about books.


I was making an analogy.

>
>Besides, irrelevant to what? To sociological studs? To
>social-engineering notions of what would constitute
>societal perfection?


Clayton is of the Ronald Reagan school of color-blind greatness.  I.e.,
if there aren't very many blacks or women in Congress then they must not
be trying hard enough.  This negative freedom-thinking (equal and free
on paper = equal and free in actuality) conveniently ignores indirect
(e.g., socio-economic) repression/racism/etc.

>
>  You miss the intention of the original posters.  They were attempting
>  to detect the disproportionately small numbers of minorities in the
>  traditional canon of so-called great literature.  Do you get the point?
>
>I get it. In fact, I think I tried to make the point that this
>is in fact true.
>
>  Or have non-whites simply not produced any "great works" worthy of the
>  canon?
>
>I think they haven't (warning: be damn sure of yourself before getting
>self-righteous about this one---I have already laid down a lot of
>qualification for what this statement *should* mean) That
>was also my point.


Well, there's the heart of our disagreement -- Mike, you believe that
there is such a thing as indisputably "great" works, and that said
greatness can be apprehended by all persons in all times in all places.
I don't.  

I also think that the Tale of Genji is a "great" work of art, as well as
the Qu'ran and hundreds of other "non-white" (i.e., non-European/American)
works.  Yet, by and large, these works (as well as stuff like Phil Dick)
aren't in the canon.  What gives?

>
>Why do you want it both ways? That is, why are you both defending that
>the canon is inclusive (that the Greeks were non-white) and then
>claiming that the canon is a conspiracy of whites to exclude non-whites?
>Since, if anything is worthy of canonization, the classical Greeks are,
>it would seem this conspiracy has been quite the miserable failure, hasn't
>it?

I hope that I've clarified my position on this to make it clear that
I don't subscribe to said contrary views.

>
>As far as the Great Books set goes (which is, after all,
>what Michelle posted about) I think that there's a
>better case for St. Augustine of Hippo being counted non-white
>than anybody else in the set.


Sure.  But the very notion of "non-white" or "indisputably white" is
quackish.  That's what I meant by "afrikaaner logic".

>
>  Cordially,
>
>Equally as cordially,
>                Mike Morris
>          (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
>
>

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney

    
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books