Individualism = Racism?

Wow ... bad, BAD definition.

In one swoop fell (wink) it implies:

-Only whites can be racist
-Simply refering to someone by their racial group is racist
-Crayola is evil
-Planning = bad (I don't see where they get this at all, am I missing something?)
-Only whites emphasize individualism (which may or may not be bad, but racist?)
-Speaking proper English is bad?

The worst aspect of this is the implied characterization of nonwhites. Are these people really that blind to what they are saying?

While I agree the definition as a whole is absurd (what is a future time orientation, and why should it be racist to have one?) "speaking the language correctly" and "defining one form of English as standard" are not the same thing. And I say that as a spelling and grammar pedant. You can speak Ebonics or Urban Amerian English or any other dialect incorrectly, just as you can speak "the Queen's English" incorrectly. Both have (mostly unwritten) rules which one can comply with or break. While I wouldn't say it's racist to define one language as standard (standardisation has benefits in some contexts, eg law), it is in most cases racist or at least bigoted to give a blanket statement that one dialect is better than another. Different dialects are differently expressive.

identifying only Whites as great writers or composers

Not "only", but most of great writers and composers where whites. Pretendting it isn't so is plain stupid.

These are legitimate concerns for educators: Assuming that everyone shares these attitudes and responds to them in the same way can and does alientate students who do not share these values. The problem is, these are _cultural_ norms, and while the concept of race is cultural ('cause it ain't biological) calling them "racist" is causing a furor that obscures and devalues the legitimate issues.

it is in most cases racist or at least bigoted to give a blanket statement that one dialect is better than another

I don't buy this. It's a school system. If their mission is to communicate with children to help them learn not only English but other subjects as well, they must accept a standard dialect. If they don't want to actually communicate and instead choose to simply embrace each other's cultural diversity, then that's a different story. But, c'mon... even if you're from the 'hood or have the world's worst southern drawl, you should still be able to write standard American (assuming you're in Seattle) English with some minimal competence. Enabling effective communnication between people is hardly racism.

I don't personally find that finding one form of English as standard is racist per say, elitist perhaps, but not racist. I have to admit that when I hear a southern accent, I knock a few IQ points off immediately. It's a personal failing that I admit and combat whenever I catch myself doing it, but it isn't racist. You have a number of regional dialects, up nort (h is silent), der hey, yous dasn't do dat, etc. etc. etc. None of them English standard, all of them generally frowned upon by those who advocate English standard, none of them happen to be race specific.

I think the assumption that non-standard English (implied here somewhat) is ebonics, etc., is actually the racist element of this situation.

I think the assumption that non-standard English (implied here somewhat) is ebonics, etc., is actually the racist element of this situation.

Indeed. This is a great example of linguistics being coopted by a bunch of idiots. Of course, as social scientists we don't make normative judgments about the way people should speak, but that doesn't make standardization negative at all. No one, no one, no one, speaks standard English (or American, as the case may be) as their first dialect. But everyone (and I mean everyone) speaks in more than one register. You don't say things the same way to your grandmother as you do to your friends; you don't speak the same way with your boss as you do with your children. And you don't write emails the same way you write a peer-reviewed paper. It's all about communicating effectively with your intended audience, and this is clearly a necessity for everyone. If your audience is wider than the people who speak your dialect, well, you're going to have to speak something else.

So this implies not only that non-standard English is only spoken by oppressed groups, but also that these groups somehow don't have the ability to communicate in more than one dialect the way privileged groups do.

We could use a little Reading for Comprehension practice here. The definition does NOT say individualism or planning ahead or any of the other things are per se racist. It says that the expectation that the typical behavior of the dominant culture (a term I prefer to "white") is "normal" and the assumption that other modes of behavior are suboptimal or "abnormal" consitutes cultural racism. I would probably have substituted the work intolerance for racism because as others have pointed out, these are not racial characteristics.

A quick and dirty theoretical example would be a school that disciplined a Sikh boy for not removing his turban while saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

That should be "word" not "work".

justawriter wrote:

The definition does NOT say individualism or planning ahead or any of the other things are per se racist. It says that the expectation that the typical behavior of the dominant culture (a term I prefer to "white") is "normal" and the assumption that other modes of behavior are suboptimal or "abnormal" consitutes cultural racism. I would probably have substituted the work intolerance for racism because as others have pointed out, these are not racial characteristics.

A quick and dirty theoretical example would be a school that disciplined a Sikh boy for not removing his turban while saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

The example you cite is of course a good example of cultural intolerance, but that has precisely nothing to do with the definition cited above. Yes, it does say that "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" is a "norm" that engenders cultural racism. That is utter nonsense. First of all, the notion that individualism is part of the "dominant culture" in this country is patently false. Most people may use the rhetoric of "rugged individualism", but Americans are anything but individualistic. Groupthink is far, far more dominant in terms of actual behavior, empty rhetoric notwithstanding. Second of all, it is patently absurd to stand up for diversity but against individualism - and yes, this is another example of the kind of groupthink I'm referring to. Individualism is the opposite of what they think it is. It is the opposite of the groupthink they reject, as well as the opposite of the groupthink they are engaging in.

don't buy this. It's a school system. If their mission is to communicate with children to help them learn not only English but other subjects as well, they must accept a standard dialect.

Like I say, there are good reasons to promote a standard English. But that doesn't make said standard English objectively "better" or more "normal" than any other dialect. It just makes it more useful for communicating between geographically or socially distant groups. A lot of people, however, do think that what they perceive as standard English is superior and that other dialects and the people who speak them are inferior. That is bigotry.

Well of course it is utter nonsense. Individualism is a philosophical concept that is perhaps most pragmatic in western countries but it is nontheless a philosophical concept and can be adopted by anyone.

But some of the others I think are arguably racist. the idea that one dialect is the correct english is utter nonsense and at least ethnocentrism. Historically most people have been multilingual, but we are so obsessed with our monolingualism that we even refuse to learn other dialects of our own language.

All together:
"We are all individuals!"

ma3rk:...the concept of race is cultural ('cause it ain't biological)...

While much of what usually passes for a "concept of race" is indeed cultural, it should not be thought (political correctness aside) that there isn't a legitimate biological concept of race (which carries none of the stereotypical baggage of the cultural concept).

Surely you wouldn't suggest that culture is the cause of the numerous minor physical differences between the various human populations around the planet?

interesting, I'm a white supremacist. I thought only guys like PZ would call me that.

I've just wrapped up teaching 2 sections of 400-level "Grammar and Language for Teachers," so I have to weigh in on this one. First, objectively, a number of dialects exist in English (as in every language), and each and every one of them is COMPLETELY rule-bound and FULLY functional. The fact that one dialect has become a prestige dialect is an accident of history, not a foregone linguistic outcome. (History is written by the winners; grammar books are, too.) Second, like it or not, the prestige dialect allows entry into the 'winner's circle'. My advice to prospective teachers: (A) never denigrate the dialects students arrive with and (B) teach them the prestige dialect for the express purpose of achieving financial, political, and social success. We all naturally vary our speech and writing, anyway, and, believe me, our students can handle one more dialect--particularly if we are nonjudgemental and honest about our reasons for asking this of them.

Dear Roman Werpachowski,

I have been teaching World Literature for many years, and it comes as a great surprise to me to learn that "most of great writers...where [sic] whites." I suppose I shall now have to drop such writers as Arundhati Roy, Naguib Mafouz, and Chinua Achebe from my syllabus. Perhaps, however, I can be allowed to keep Gabriel Garcia Marquez, even though he IS Hispanic. And may I keep the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was composed in what is now Iraq? But perhaps you were looking only at literature written in Europe and North America (including or excluding Mexico?). If those were the only regions you were considering, then, yes, once upon a time most of the great writers there were 'white', as most of the population there was 'white' and therefore most of the writers, great or not, were 'white' (also male, but that's another story). But if you look at the great writers in, say, Africa, they tend to be, well, um, African, and the great writers in, oh, India, tend to be South Asians.

The numerous surface physical differences are, according to what I read, the onlydifferences in the races. "Race" has no more biological meaning than "breed" in the dog world.

Indeed. This is a great example of linguistics being coopted by a bunch of idiots. Of course, as social scientists we don't make normative judgments about the way people should speak, but that doesn't make standardization negative at all. No one, no one, no one, speaks standard English (or American, as the case may be) as their first dialect. But everyone (and I mean everyone) speaks in more than one register. You don't say things the same way to your grandmother as you do to your friends; you don't speak the same way with your boss as you do with your children. And you don't write emails the same way you write a peer-reviewed paper. It's all about communicating effectively with your intended audience, and this is clearly a necessity for everyone. If your audience is wider than the people who speak your dialect, well, you're going to have to speak something else.

Tell this to students. Then give them an example (extending for more than a few seconds) of how you yourself speak to siblings, spouse, or the like, to prove that you really don't speak standard English when you're at home, either. After that, they get it--and you'll never get a complaint about asking for standard written English gramar in the work they turn in.

He explicitly said "most", Elf Eye, not "all".

Perhaps you need to study up on the English language, since you have such difficulty comprehending it.

Ginger Yellow

Like I say, there are good reasons to promote a standard English. But that doesn't make said standard English objectively "better" or more "normal" than any other dialect.

Not to quibble, but if there is a standard to which most or all adhere, and a group of variants on it, I would certainly describe the standard as more "normal" than the variants. Now the question is, is normal "better"?
Personally, I have never felt that way, which caused my younger sister much trouble in high school. She used to beg me to just be more "normal". She matured some, and is "better" now :)

Troy Britain

Surely you wouldn't suggest that culture is the cause of the numerous minor physical differences between the various human populations around the planet?

No, I would suggest that environment is the cause of the numerous minor physical differences between the various human populations around the planet. I suppose it depends on how strong you want "race" to be. In the limited anthropology I took, human variations were refered to as klines, IIRC. The thought was that the word race was more on a level with species, which requires far more difference than any two groups of humans.

er, exibit. that was any two groups of humans exibit, really.

"Not to quibble, but if there is a standard to which most or all adhere, and a group of variants on it, I would certainly describe the standard as more "normal" than the variants."

Most people do not adhere to the standard. Arguably most people adhere or at least try to adhere to the standard in a formal, written context.

A. I agree that at best the author of the definition was at best inarticulate and was possibly seeking to be purposely inflammatory with use of the terms racism and white. What the author is describing is cultural bias which can be used as a rhetorical tool by racists but is not exclusive to them.

B. I agree that "rugged individualism" is largly mythical but is so beloved of those who have their lips most tightly attached to the federal teat and is so much a part of the American mythos (like Washington's cherry tree) that it is just easier to "print the legend".

C. There is not one word in that definition that condemns individualism. It is just trying to point out (badly, as I admit above) that it is a dominant (in rhetoric if not reality) theme of social organization in this country and that other views have a hard time being heard.

D. To reiterate, what the author of the definition is describing is not racism but what is described is a real phenomenon that can (but not necessarily) contribute to negative stereotypes.

I don't expect people to conform to the standard in order to acknowledge it. Do you really think most people don't understand that their dialect is not standard?

"Do you really think most people don't understand that their dialect is not standard?"

Of course I don't. But that doesn't make standard dialect more "normal" than their dialect. Standard dialect is, if anything, the most artificial of dialects - the vast majority of people who use it have to be taught it.

Caledonian:

Yes, he said 'most', and that is the statement that I am explicitly challenging. 'Most' great writers are white only if you confine yourself to looking at the literature of Europeans, who happen to be mainly Caucasian--and a very small percentage of the world's population. If you look at the poetry and narratives composed by all the folk who hale from the rest of the globe, then most great writers are NOT white. Far from it! There IS a world outside of Europe and the USA, and there ARE literary traditions other than the western one. Or is literature only great if it is given a European or American stamp of approval? If WE don't read it, it can't possibly be great, eh?

justawriter wrote:

C. There is not one word in that definition that condemns individualism. It is just trying to point out (badly, as I admit above) that it is a dominant (in rhetoric if not reality) theme of social organization in this country and that other views have a hard time being heard.

Of course it condemns individualism. It includes individualism as an example of a norm that embodies "cultural racism". The fact that it's dominant - in rhetoric, of course, not in reality - has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's racist, bigoted or, most importanly, true. The fact that some ideas are more popular than other ideas and that therefore those fringe ideas are in the minority has nothing to do with whether they are valid, much less whether they are racist. This definition is based on the absolutely absurd idea that any idea accepted by a majority must be wrong or falsely imposed on those who disagree.

"having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology"

Although I can't be sure, I suspect these criteria have to do with characteristics of dominant versus subjected groups. "Having a future time orientation" may refer to whites' tendency to insist that everyone look to the future, instead of dwelling on the past. Also, historic treatment of blacks may still be affecting their status today, looking to the future may seem rather futile to them. Whites, who don't have a history of oppression in the U.S., have the luxury of looking toward the future, rather than the past. Also, as the dominant group, whites don't tend to worry about a distinctive "white" culture, instead acknowledging the various white cultures. After all, dominant cultures tend to express themselves naturally, without standing out, while oppressed peoples' cultures tend to be noticeable when they're expressed. Blacks, therefore, may need to present a unified culture, due to their oppression and smaller numbers. Also, the fact that their separate ethnicities were effectively eliminated makes it more difficult for them to express those ethnicities. However, I think the choice to present one "black" culture is based more on oppression and minority status. The statement is poorly worded, and I may just be giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, this appears to be a plausible interpretation.

It's heart-breaking to find "defining one form of English as standard" as one of the items condemned. There is a Standard American English whether anyone likes it or not, and it has absolutely nothing to do with one dialect being "better" than another. To tell whether this Standard dialect exists one has only to read the comments at the various Science blogs to find what a negative response is received by people who fail to use that Standard correctly. To argue we should neglect using the Standard in public discourse would be something like saying that traffic signs ought to vary according to local notions and symbols.

This denial of a Standard was a big issue in the South in the sixties and seventies when schools found it much easier to say "You don't need to learn any form of English other than your local dialect" than to teach American Standard English to black students who had been the victims of very poor schooling. The failure to do the hard work of such teaching undermined the efforts of Blacks to take their rightful place in the economy, and it's one of the (numerous) root causes of continued Southern Black poverty today.

Many of my Black students then spoke sea-island Gullah, an expressive and melodic dialect that non-locals, both Black and white, found difficult to understand. I used to invite to class native Gullah speakers who had mastered the Standard dialect to help the students realize that they need not give up their beautiful home speech, but that to succeed in the work force, they had to become expert in the dialect of politics and business.

Years later, in teaching technical report writing at a government marine research lab, I found an intelligent, capable young Southern Black man in danger of being let go because others had so much difficulty in understanding his reports. He insisted that his dialect was as good as the Standard. I pointed out to him that one of his co-workers was French, and asked if it were OK with him for her to write all her reports in French. "Of course not!" he exclaimed. "I wouldn't understand them; I know Spanish, but I don't have time to learn French for her and Arabic for one of my other co-workers and . . . . Oh."

Yes, oh. We cannot all learn in detail every language and every dialect, but we can all learn one in addition to our home language. In the abstract, it doesn't matter which, but the fact is that choice has long since been made in this country. As for the rest of the world, French for diplomacy has been largely replaced with British Standard English, and the internet has been going the way of American Standard English. There are very mixed indications as to whether these will continue.

But whatever languages/dialects emerge as standards, we need to make sure that every child in an American school has a firm grasp of them. To permit otherwise is to repeat the brutal neglect of Southern Black children's education, a neglect that was easy and sounded somehow very liberal and high-minded but which has cost those children dearly.

I'm sorry for the long post, but this issue is close to my heart.

Jim Ruwaldt wrote:

Although I can't be sure, I suspect these criteria have to do with characteristics of dominant versus subjected groups. "Having a future time orientation" may refer to whites' tendency to insist that everyone look to the future, instead of dwelling on the past.

I have two responses to this. First, I see no evidence at all that "whites" tend to have a future time orientation any more than any other group. Indeed, I see no evidence that "whites" tend to hold any idea or set of ideas in common. Remember that "whites" includes both Adolf Hitler and Anne Frank. Which represents "whiteness"? Second, there is the implicit assumption in this interpretation that if a group viewed as dominant tends to believe idea X, then idea X must be wrong; that idea is, of course, patently illogical. Like any generalized idea, focusing on the past or focusing on the future has no right or wrong, it has only applicability or lack of applicability in different circumstances.

Also, as the dominant group, whites don't tend to worry about a distinctive "white" culture, instead acknowledging the various white cultures. After all, dominant cultures tend to express themselves naturally, without standing out, while oppressed peoples' cultures tend to be noticeable when they're expressed. Blacks, therefore, may need to present a unified culture, due to their oppression and smaller numbers. Also, the fact that their separate ethnicities were effectively eliminated makes it more difficult for them to express those ethnicities.

I guess I have a problem with the whole idea of a "white culture" and a "black culture"; there are of course numerous variations on both, not to mention permutations and often shared experiences and permutations. Jazz, for example, is a part of American culture, whether black, white or anything else. But it grew almost exclusively out of black American culture (as opposed to "black culture", which simply doesn't exist). I would argue that it's not only absurd but damaging to insist that there be a single "black culture". The black American culture is far closer to white American culture than it is to, say, black African culture or black Jamaican culture. Culture is a result of interaction with ourselves and each other, not by shared skin color. The fact that two people may share a common skin color - but never meet or interact or share any common frame of references - does not give them a common culture.

You may well be interpreting the intent of the passage correctly, but I think that only magnifies how utterly ridiculous and ill thought out it is.

Why do I think that most great writers and composers were white: because I do not know about any tradition of written music and literature which existed outside Asia, Europe, North America or white man's colonies before quite recently (last two ages). I should've said "white or Asian" to be more precise.

Given enough time, the other places of the world will catch up.

Julia -- wonderful post. Thanks and please don't feel it was too long. A long time ago I taught "composition" in an adult ed center in a big city and was repeatedly challenged by people who suggested that I wasn't qualified to teach them to write in their own dialect. I agreed that I wasn't fluent in their dialect but pointed out that Standard Written English isn't *anyone's* spoken dialect anyhow, and the stated aim of the course was to help people improve their writing for work, college, etc., i.e. it wasn't a creative writing course. I would love to have thought up your questions; my aim was the same, but I wasn't as imaginative. I was maybe a little defensive (I was young.....)......

Black vs wite culture is an interesting idea. I think in the southern US, black sand whites have cultures (if you will) that are more similar to each other than to the cultures of either whites or blacks in some other parts of the US. But on the whole, TV and other media are homogenizing culture in many ways. Except in Alabama.

By the way, standard language changes, and the changes are almost invariably caused by regional dialects' becoming desseminated into the rest of the population. "Black" language has its own influence, although it might not have reached the boardroom - yet.

Roman:

Ah, I see. Allow me to make the following observations, then: some of the greatest early narratives were composed and recited orally long before they were written down. Included amongst their numbers: Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyssey, Genesis and other Hebrew scriptures. The WRITING of these narratives per se is not what made them great. Similarly, a narrative such as The Epic of Sundiata was great long before it was transcribed into print, as it now has been (although it is still being passed down orally as well!). Great poems are great poems and great stories are great stories, regardless of how they are transmitted. (Of course, some indigenous poems and stories that WERE recorded were lost, as, for example, when the Spanish burned codices written in the unique Mayan system of writing. We can only guess at what may have been lost from surviving evidence such as the Popol Vuh.) Last point: You suggest that the rest of the world will "catch up." Well, to borrow a cliche: "Don't look now, but I think they're gaining on us!" Areas with a longstanding tradition of literacy (e.g., Arabia, North Africa, Iran, India, China) already had an impressive corpus of written masterpieces. Areas to which alphabets have been more recently introduced (e.g., Latin America and Southern Africa) now have their own impressive bodies of written literature. To make a long story short (impossible for an English professor!) when I am selecting masterpieces to assign each semester, the list that results doesn't feature anything remotely like a preponderance of 'white' writers. There is simply too much out there, both ancient and contemporary, that comes 'out of Africa'--and India and Iran and Iraq....

Cordially,

Elf Eye

Anuminous: No, I would suggest that environment is the cause of the numerous minor physical differences between the various human populations around the planet.

I assume you mean that different human populations have evolved (via natural selection) some of their differences in order to adapt to local environmental condition, and I'm sure that is the case for some characteristics. Others are probably due to sexual selection (a special instance of natural selection) and others just chance (genetic drift).

I suppose it depends on how strong you want "race" to be. In the limited anthropology I took, human variations were refered to as klines, IIRC. The thought was that the word race was more on a level with species, which requires far more difference than any two groups of humans.

Clines, varieties, sub-types, populations, subspecies, races, etc. I think much of this is just semantics. To be clear when I refer to race I am not talking about the simplistic typological folk groupings of the "traditional" races (with their concurrent stereotypes).

Actual races are complex and overlapping groups and of course there are no inherently superior or inferior races (that is shear nonsense). If we were talking about any other animal besides Homo sapiens there would be little or no controversy.

But then no one has ever declared that some particular subspecies of moth is inherently superior (they have two spots on their wings!) to all other moths within its species (those have one or three spots on their wings!) and that all the other subspecies of moths must either be made subservient to the superior moths or eliminated altogether to preserve the purity of the superior moths.

How insane would that be...

Yes, he said 'most', and that is the statement that I am explicitly challenging. 'Most' great writers are white only if you confine yourself to looking at the literature of Europeans, who happen to be mainly Caucasian--and a very small percentage of the world's population. If you look at the poetry and narratives composed by all the folk who hale from the rest of the globe, then most great writers are NOT white. Far from it! There IS a world outside of Europe and the USA, and there ARE literary traditions other than the western one. Or is literature only great if it is given a European or American stamp of approval? If WE don't read it, it can't possibly be great, eh?

Um, it's Western societies that developed both the printing press and the novel as a widely accepted literary form. As a result, there are far more writers of European descent than there are from any other cultural or ethnic background.

Caledonian:

You are introducing two qualification that were not present in Roman's original comment, and you are abandoning one qualification that was. First, what does the printing press have to do with the question of 'great' writing? Were there no great writers before printing was finally adopted in Europe after its lengthy history in China and Korea (a history which encompassed the first widespread use of movable type)? (For more on that subject, see "Les premiers livres imprimés en Corée" at the Typographie & Civilisation site [http://www.typographie.org/gutenberg/coree/coree_0.html] and "L'Asie orientale et l'imprimerie" at the Histoire de l'imprimerie portion of the Imprimerie Faguier site [http://www.imprimerie-faguier.com/orient.htm].) May I also point out that printing allows the mechanical dissemination of books, but until the creation of the typewriter, the actual texts still had to be composed in the traditional manner: either by pen or by dictation. Second, Roman did not specify a genre. Is 'great' writing only to found in the novel? Since the novel has only become prominent relatively recently, much of European literature, let alone literature of other regions, is suddenly out of the running for 'great'! As to the qualification that you omit, it is, of course, the term 'great'. If there are in fact "more writers of European descent," does it follow that there are more 'great' writers of European descent? The printing press has allowed the cheap and rapid dissemination of a great deal of writing that doesn't arise to the level of mediocre, let alone 'great'.

Until fairly recently, people of European descent studied texts composed by Europeans, but the fact that western students were not exposed to the masterpieces of other regions does not allow us to conclude that those masterpieces do not exist. I think that is the crux of the problem here.

Cordially,
Elf Eye

A little interesting tid-bit for those discussing the "great white writers" issue. Try Googling for "world's first novel".

I personally believe that there must have been prior works that would've been considered "novels" by us if only they had survived time. But the novel from the above query is a good read (if a bit too long).

(Sorry, accidentally posted too soon.)

But the novel from the above query is a good read (if a bit too long) despite it being written way back in the 11th Century.

In frustrating fashion I wrote a longer comment but it did not take.

Roman and Caledonian seem to be of the impression that White's adn Asians are the harbingers of everything grand in literature. Specificaly Caledonian provides the supposition that;

Um, it's Western societies that developed both the printing press and the novel as a widely accepted literary form. As a result, there are far more writers of European descent than there are from any other cultural or ethnic background.

First, the concept of printing came from Asia unless I am mistaken. Secondly the idea that the novel is what makes a writer great is just plain ignorant. Poetry and prose were (and are) widely accepted as writing - in fact for millenia they were the primary forms literature took, even in "the west" as it were.

Then we get to Roman;

Why do I think that most great writers and composers were white: because I do not know about any tradition of written music and literature which existed outside Asia, Europe, North America or white man's colonies before quite recently (last two ages). I should've said "white or Asian" to be more precise.

Given enough time, the other places of the world will catch up.

You make the point right off the bat, no you obviously don't know about traditions of written music or literature outside of the narow parameters you provide. Funny thing is while most "western" cultures were stuck hard to oral tradition (many of whom put religious force against the idea of writing) the Egyptians, Phoenetians and much of the Middle East were happily committing words to page adn tablet. In fact the foundations or much of our contemporary political and philochical thought come directly from the Middle East. The fact is that "great" literature was coming from the Middle East and Northern Africa centuries before superstitious, ignorant "Europeans" thought about writing. And contrary to the impression many ignorant Americans have, the Mid East still produces mountains of literature, music and movies. So do those in South and Central America - another place that was early into the idea of putting ideas and words to tablets and later "paper." The problem I imagine you have in discovering all of this is that they don't market all of their work where you would take notice.

You both seem to be opperating under the supposition that because we don't see it, it doesn't exist. I hate to burst your bubble but the world does not revolve around America. Just because you don't see it does not mean it does not exist.

First, the concept of printing came from Asia unless I am mistaken.

Indeed it was. As the languages in the region did not have a strong emphasis on alphabets, the invention was not developed, rather in the same way that gunpowder was invented in the East but developed into a weapon in the West.

Poetry does not favor sustained literary efforts unless one attempts to create an epic. Um, novels are prose.

You seem to be operating under the impression that because the West has indulged in a smug, self-satisfied sense of superiority, the rest of the world must necessarily be its equal in all things. Permit me to correct you: the Western world has accomplished things other parts of the world never dreamed of. The reasons for this are many, and have little to do with "innate superiority".

I suggest you learn to cope.

Until fairly recently, people of European descent studied texts composed by Europeans, but the fact that western students were not exposed to the masterpieces of other regions does not allow us to conclude that those masterpieces do not exist. I think that is the crux of the problem here.

I think that's partially true. I for one was blown away the first time i read kalidasa but i'm pretty sure its not taught in any university aside from those who happen to have an indian studies program. I think he's on par with chaucer or shakespear or any other english writer who get entire classes dedicated to them. There's also an issue of some types of writing not translating particularly well.

But more than that I think we are really just starting out with prior biases. We are talking about novels instead of poetry because westerners don't care about poetry much any more. We are talking about written music as superior to folk music (though i'd disagree it that strongly, even among western music) because that's how our musicians typically do it. We're not talking about pottery are we? No. It seems that we want to prove our position in art by only talking about the art that we like -- and don't get me wrong I love Sinatra and cubism and noir and all of that -- but we're going about this in a sort of begging the question fashion.

Caledonian:

Did you consult the two sources on the history of printing that I directed you to? If you did, I am puzzled as to how you can say that printing was only "developed" once it arrived in the west. Isn't such an assertion contrary to fact? May I also say that I am puzzled by your emphasis on (a) prose and (b) the novel, for such an emphasis seems to imply that an enormous swath of what has traditionally been viewed as not only 'literature' but 'great literature' someone became inconsequential once the west finally got around to concentrating on the 'novel'. I am also intrigued by your emphasis on the phrase "sustained literary efforts." What do you encompass under that heading? Are you implying, for example, that a poet who composes a series of lyric poems, each short and non-narrative, has created something of little or no literary value? Similarly, are you suggesting that drama is of little or no value? The lengthy prose narrative is of course an important genre, but why give it priority over poetry and drama? Not to be too cynical here, but are you focusing on the novel because it is a genre that is currently in vogue with western readers? Again, returning to Roman's notion of 'great' literature, he did not suggest that a text had to be either lengthy or written in prose to be great. I am curious, then, as to why you would impose either of these two as benchmarks against which to measure the value of literature. As to your overall point: please do remember that the seeming importance of Europe, especially northern Europe, is very recent and may well be ephemeral. It is also an ascendancy based on liberal borrowing from other cultures. It is in fact ironic that we have been focusing on literature, as the alphabet itself, the basis of written 'literature', is of Middle Eastern origin.

I now face the choice of ending either with "Cordially" or with the sentence "I suggest you learn to cope." Which should it be?

Indeed it was. As the languages in the region did not have a strong emphasis on alphabets, the invention was not developed, rather in the same way that gunpowder was invented in the East but developed into a weapon in the West.

I see, so the fact that most Asian countries do not in fact, primarily use an alphabet as we know it, precludes their literature from consideration? Do you understand that these languages achieve a degree precision, in the expression of thought, that takes a lot more words, a lot more writing, to produce in english? If you can, in your obviously limited world, find an Asian who speaks and writes both English and their nativ language - ask them to tranlate a paragraph of your words into their own language. I think the results would surprise you.

The alphabet as we know it, comes not from the west, but from the Middle East, as I mentioned before and Elf Eye also points out - off topic, but they also developed our numeric expressions as well.

Poetry does not favor sustained literary efforts unless one attempts to create an epic.

Oh really, so poetry is not literature? The only literature that counts is the Novel? Gosh, I missed the bit that said we were focused on "The Novel" and no other literature. Poetry and (non-novelic)prose are often times a far more refined expression of the writers expierience. Whilst there are, in fact, mountains of very bad poetry and prose (again, non-novelic) in the world, their are far more good poems than good novels. Though I am sure many would disagree with my last statement.

Um, novels are prose.

Why yes, they are. Where you yet again miss the boat is that not all prose are novels - but golly, thank for edumacatin' me.

You seem to be operating under the impression that because the West has indulged in a smug, self-satisfied sense of superiority, the rest of the world must necessarily be its equal in all things. Permit me to correct you: the Western world has accomplished things other parts of the world never dreamed of. The reasons for this are many, and have little to do with "innate superiority".

What a collosaly ignorant statement.

First, I was under the impression this was a discussion about literature. In literature many, many other parts of the world are in fact our equals. Whilst you may languish under the illusion that because something isn't marketed to you, it doesn't exist, people all over the world do in fact write and produce literature.

Second, the reason that the "west" has accomplished so many things, is that people all over the world - have dreamed of them. Then many of them came here, worked with other brilliant people and made those dreams reality.

Third, I do in fact believe the west has reason for smugness. We foster the environment to make those dreams a reality. In this case I think Roman's earlier statement that the rest will catch up is apt - they likely will. But the truth is that very few places, outside the west, have created an environment that supports creative expression resulting in inovation, on a scale with the west.

I do not face any dilema or choice, such as Elf Eye faces. Caledonian, you are rude, pretentious and semanticly challenged - I can be rude too. I am not usually so rude as I was in this comment but you went from the mildly snide attitude of your earlier comments to being downright rude in your latest. I do not address you cordially nor do I suggest you learn to cope, I suggest you bloody well grow up, you obnoxious little git.