Nahymsa I think we are basically in agreement here, on the basic point that kids ought to be exposed to a wide variety of cultural perspectives within their education.

>That's you. That's my point. Other
>people have been effected by
>other authors JUST as much.

I never said he is the only author worthy of being taught. I'm all in favor of exposing kids to a wide variety of literary perspectives. But why shouldn't Shakespeare be one of those? His greatness may be a matter of taste but his influence is indisputable, it looms in the work of countless writers.

>Maybe more would have that
>same feeling about a different
>author if the entire school
>system shoved that author down
>the throats of a generations
>of impressionable children (including stating
>time & time again that
>this is the best english
>author ever).

Well, just cuz they told us 10,000 times that he was important doesn't mean it ain't true. Shakespeare's prominence in Western literature, and the American literature that evolved from it, is not a myth concocted by grade-school propagandists. If you are saying that this European and (white) American literature should not be the sole focus of the curriculum, I'd certainly agree. But they ought not be ignored either.

Anyway, I think the way Shakespeare is "shoved down our throats" only serves to alienate most kids from his work. It is only when I came back to him as an adult, on my own terms, that I really appreciated how dope he is.

If Zora Neale Hurston had that stamp of approval from the Establishment, and was mandatory reading in every grade school, kids would assume she was outdated and corny, just like they do with Shakespeare.

I taught Special Ed for 6 years, and I think young folks are more cynical than you give them credit for. The more teachers tell kids "so-and-so is the greatest", the LESS likely they are to believe it, because kids of ALL colors see teachers as the oppressor.

> part of the reason
>you even know who he
>is is because certain people
>have deemed it necessary for
>you to learn about him.
>Had it not been a
>requirement (while other art isn't)
>perhaps you'd have a different
>perspective.

Yeah, like I said above I'd probably have been more open-minded and receptive.

>The sociopolitical agenda of
>those who set the requirements
>for education may have as
>much to do with why
>children read Shakespeare now as
>the actual art.

Perhaps. But my point was that the politics surrounding Shakespeare's status as required reading do nothing to alter the intrinsic artistic value of the literature itself.

All I'm saying is I think Shakespeare is the bomb, and it'd be a shame if folks don't give him a fair shot cuz he's seen as a Tool of the Oppressor.

Jay Smooth
WBAI 99.5 FM in NY
http://www.hiphopmusic.com

"I don't NEED to be subliminable!" - George W. Bush

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?