Shakespeare (and other artists, especially writers,) seem to be criticized quite often these days because of their”racist” attitudes, references, etc. I confess that I just don’t understand this. That’s not to say that I support racism (or other forms of prejudice), but that I would suggest that varieties of this behavior have been a part of our “civilization” for a long time and that it’s probably time that we recognized and acknowledged that fact. That MIGHT give us the incentive to actually DO something about it. I should also note that I have no reason to believe that similar attitudes and behaviors haven’t been common in most (perhaps ALL) human civilizations. It’s just that I know a bit more about what is called Western Civilization, so I can talk about it with some degree of knowledge.
Now, Western Civilization, in most folks’ minds I think, starts with the Greeks, although there ARE any number of civilizations which preceded them. Given what we know about them, it seems reasonable to suggest that they had enough problems to have lots of wars, among themselves, as well as with others. However, I think that it’s fairly accurate to say that they were, essentially, of a fairly common ethnic and religious background, at least among those who counted. Non-Greeks, of course, were just slaves, or other sforeigners, so THEY didn’t really count as “people,” in any case.
Moving forward a bit, we get to the Romans. They were, I think, also of a, more or less, common religion and ethnicity, and they also had a good deal of desire for “stuff” which was actually owned by “others,” who had different gods and (perhaps more obviously) different racial and ethnic characteristics. I don’t believe that I’m really pushing things to suggest that “those” folk were commonly viewed as “inferior,” not quite fully “proper” as “real” people. I mean, Jews, Arabs, Egyptians, etc., weren’t really “people,” but they were useful, so they were tolerated, as long as they didn’t cause any trouble.
Of course, when that sect of weirdos known as “Christians” started causing trouble for the Emperor, something had to be done to “put them in their place.” I suspect that we all have at least heard something about that. What we might not have considered, however, is that this might be said to have set a pattern for the future.
Now, Christianity did, eventually, become the dominant religion in “Western” culture, and that culture, over time, was largely dominated by people of what is (broadly) called Caucasian ethnicity (which was subject to various nationalistic sub-divisions). However, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that that broad, Caucasian/Christian, culture did became the dominating culture of “Western Civilization.”
The overall culture was not especially unified, but there were similarities throughout it. Skin color was, most often, some variation of what came to be called “white,” although it had (and has) a lot of different tints and shades. Basic notions related to religion, were most often mixed in with the dominant governmental/political concept (hereditary aristocracy) and were, more or less, based on ideas reinforced by Christianity.
Of course, there were a good many differences, especially in what being a Christian meant, but it can be said that a fairly dominant culture emerged throughout the “West” and it tried to spread further east until the rise of Islam stopped it. It remained true, however, that Europe, generally, considered itself to be Christian and what we now call “White,” but deep divisions along somewhat nationalistic lines would develop, and these would become even more pronounced as Christianity dissolved into numerous sects, branches, denominations, etc., with each convinced that it was the “right and proper” form. Still, even with these divisions, there WAS a sort of Aristocratic/Caucasian/Euro/Christian culture which dominated the West for a long while and some would suggest is still quite strong.
When this general cultural group felt the need/desire to expand and gain more lands, more wealth, etc., they tended to do it in two, distinct ways: one was to try to take it away from their neighbors; the other was to go out and get it in the rest of the world. Now, while the first method WAS used, the second one had several advantages. European neighbors were, generally, about equally well armed, but the “savages” out there in the “big world” generally were NOT. And, one COULD always take along a few priests, so that you could claim that you were really “spreading the Christian Word,” not just engaging in conquest for the sake of wealth and power.
It IS (I think) worth noting that even before the Muslims ended the Byzantine Empire (after the sputtering Crusades), the Middle East was, largely, left alone for a long time and that European influence in the Far East didn’t amount to much for a long time. Even when they attempted influence there, much later, it was quite weak because the Asians had gunpowder long before the Europeans, and strong armies, and SHORT supply lines, which the Europeans did NOT have in that part of the world.
But, those “heathens” in the Americas and in much of Africa didn’t have much military power (at least against guns, cannons, and European armies), but they had land, mineral wealth and the ability to be put to work. And, of course they didn’t worship the “true” god and, besides, they were funny-looking with their “colored” skin, odd languages, etc. THEREFORE, they didn’t really count, so “REAL people” could do pretty much what they wanted with and to them, taking their lands, property, and even making them slaves. After all, it’s what “people” had been doing to such “creatures” for centuries. Slavery is even discussed in the Bible, so it can’t be against God. Certainly not when it only involves dealing with, essentially, farm animals.
And so, those who were not of European cultural extraction, racially Caucasian, and didn’t lived in the “Christian” tradition, simply weren’t considered to be “people.” They were, at best, just “property.” If they had any legal existence, it was only because they could be bought and sold (even, occasionally, set free!), but they couldn’t possibly be construed as actually being PEOPLE. This attitude, of course, was the pattern of relations with Africans, but also was applied to the indigenous peoples throughout the Americas. The fact that many of these groups had had well-established civilizations in place for a long time had no validity as far as they could see, since they weren’t like “Western” Civilization.
Then, after many years of the exploitation of those lands and peoples, along came what came to be called The Enlightenment, which would (eventually) lead to what is referred to as the Romantic Era. Then, quite abruptly, there were folks suggesting that those “creatures” were supposed to be considered as people(?). You know what I mean, that all that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” stuff might apply to THEM, not just to ”Westerners.” Some even suggested that governments were supposed to come from all of the people, not just from a heredity-based, aristocratic, European, Caucasian, Christian, elite class.
And so, the racial/religious/cultural wars were on. This led to all kinds of trouble. We (in the US) even fought a war about it. Actually, we fought more than one, as the Civil War was, to my way of thinking, largely just a continuation of the earlier one against England. The fact that the slaves were, legally, made free, after the Civil War, however, didn’t really solve much, though. Words on paper don’t really do that, even if we might wish they did. So, we (the United States) have been struggling since 1865 to try to deal with the attitudes which justified, created and maintained slavery, and they are still not resolved. I’d go so far as to suggest that the basics of the problem haven’t even, really, changed. We STILL haven’t more than begun to accept, or actually establish, a racially, religiously, and culturally mixed society.
It shouldn’t really be necessary to point out the fact that every identifiable group of immigrants who came to this country (most of whom were, in fact, Caucasian, European, and Christian in their heritage, were discriminated against by those “Americans” of an earlier group who felt threatened by these “unworthy” newcomers, but most have suppressed that. Too many of us seem to have forgotten the prejudice against Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Asian, Jewish, etc., immigrants, throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and the practice continues, just with other targets. Did you ever wonder why “Hibernian Societies,” “Sons of Italy,” “German-American Societies,” “Hillel Societies, “Anti-Defamation Leagues,” etc. were created? Many of them were formed because of the prejudice against specific groups on the part of earlier immigrant groups as well as a desire to celebrate a specific national heritage. It has continued with Vietnamese “refugees” who came to this country after the Vietnam conflict, folks from Afghanistan after that conflict, and now includes Americans from outside the US (to our south) fleeing various problems, Ukrainians, and so on.
Of course, the solution to this is really quite simple. We just have to grant ALL people the same basic rights and privileges of citizenship and things would probably work out pretty quickly. That’s easy to write, but hard to achieve, as it goes against centuries of practice (discussed above) that “THOSE OTHERS” aren’t really people. They aren’t like “us” and we don’t want to accept what we perceive as the reduction of OUR power which spreading those rights and privileges that much thinner would mean because then WE (The “GOOD,” European/Caucasian/Christian, preferably MALE folks) MIGHTN’T BE THE ONES ON TOP! Over the centuries they’ve gotten used to being the ones who formed the “elite” class (the REAL “citizens”). Of course, the VAST majority of them would NEVER have been a part of the “ruling elite” a couple of hundred years ago, so what is being perpetuated is, in reality, just a variation of Medieval practice.
But that’s not to say that some attempts haven’t been made to create a better society. Personally, I can remember (and/or have studied) a good number of ideas which were going to “solve” these problems along the way. White women were “given” the right to vote, because that wouldn’t really change things too much (especially since it was assumed that they would vote the way their husbands told them to). The all-male) military was racially integrated, which some said was going to destroy it, but that didn’t seem to happen, as things developed, (and we did needed the person power). And, more recently, we allowed females to be actual “members” of it, which doesn’t seem to have caused all that much damage either, in spite of what some say.
Earlier, we (sort of) racially integrated the public schools, which led to a huge increase in non-public ones, which were allowed to continue to discriminate, so the result of that was diminished. Then, we transported school kids across town on busses to make sure the schools were racially integrated, which just tended to break up cohesion within neighborhoods and make it harder for kids to have any real contact outside of school, so they only actually saw each other in a “controlled” setting. Now, some folks want to spend tax monies to support private, even religious-based, schools, to preserve “the right of parental choice,” in direct conflict with the First Amendment.
We claim to have abolished “red-lining,” in real estate, but I’m unconvinced that it’s not still out there (just a bit more undercover), as it seems to still be a fairly common practice. Look around, neighborhoods across the country are still often largely separated along racial, class, religious, and ethnic lines, just not “officially.” Now, many of the same sorts of difficulties have spread to affect the LGBTQ+ community, as well, and we say that we are going to solve those challenges,, but we haven’t yet done so with the older ones.
But to get back to my topic, one of the trends in the last few years has been to ban speech and/or books which use “bad” words, especially in relation to race, gender, and ethnicity. One of my favorite examples is the frequent demand that Huckleberry Finn be removed from library shelves and schools, apparently because one of the characters, who is “African-American” is referred to as “Nigger Jim.” Now, I don’t much approve of the “N-word,” but I’m not afraid of it. The book was published in the mid-1880’s (so it was after the Civil War), but it is clearly set in a time before slavery was abolished, as the character, Jim, is a runaway slave trying to get free and earn enough money to purchase the freedom of his wife and family.
Today, we don’t think that the “N-word” is acceptable in “polite,” conversation, but one doesn’t have to be much of a linguistic historian to know that it was used quite commonly during the period of this book’s historical setting, certainly by less than well educated people (which would include Huck, the narrator). Does the fact that it’s outdated mean that we have to erase it because it isn’t as “polite” as we say it should be? If so, we probably should consider that we might have to eliminate a good deal of the Holy Bible, a lot of Shakespeare’s works (and a GREAT deal of other literature). AND quite a large percentage of the “greatest” art in Western history is at least a bit risqué. Actually, sculpture might not be affected quite so much since various Popes had a lot of MALE statues’ genitalia removed to try to make them more “acceptable.” (Funny how nude FEMALES were Okay, though.)
Shakespeare, as an example of a “great” author, has many, not-always-very-polite, sexual and/or other references in his plays and poetry. His Othello, of course, must be racist since there is much made of that character’s “blackness.” I think that that character’s race may be the key to understanding his “otherness,” of course, and I believe that it is Shakespeare’s major point in this play. It seems obvious to me that Will was pointing out the stupidity of the idea that the leaders of Venice purposely CHOSE this “outsider” as their military commander, but apparently felt that that shouldn’t be taken to suggest that they actually felt he was worthy of being a part of their society. The idea that Desdemona (one of their own) might find HIM to be worthy of her affection, is absurd to them. After all, he’s NOT one of “US.” And similar sorts of comments could be made about the ideas expressed in many works of literature. I won’t belabor my point with additional examples. Certainly anyone who has actually read (and understood) more than a few books can come up with examples which would be meaningful to them.
I would suggest however, that the real problem isn’t limited to the WORDS we use, it’s that we, as a society, have chosen (are choosing) to say one thing, but practice something quite different. We SAY we believe in the ideals of equality, fairness, etc., but far too many wish to maintain their own importance through suppressing anything which expresses the conflict between our ideals and our behaviors. Then they call that “freedom of expression.” You see, words CAN both affect one’s attitude and reflect it. But, if we accept that humans aren’t perfect and that some of us would like to try “… to form a more perfect union….”, I would suggest that we have a greater chance of success by admitting, accepting, and understanding that we have been less than perfect in the past, than by trying to pretend that “it never happened.”
Wouldn’t it make better sense to let the past be the past, understand that we (and our ancestors) weren’t perfect, and resolve to try to do better? By the way, it may be worth pointing out that our collective past was never truly all that Christian (given the actual behavior of many groups), nor truly European (given that we are NOT discussing Europeans, but Americans), and (given the provable facts of DNA) wasn’t, in a great many cases, all that exclusively Caucasian, either.
I really do NOT believe that censoring schools, libraries, museums, books, radio and TV, even the internet, is going to solve ANY of our problems and will probably create more. I do believe that there ARE materials which may not be appropriate for some (especially young children’s) ears and eyes, but trying to just eliminate them from LEGAL human knowledge is not the solution. I doubt that it’s even possible, as you would have to erase ALL knowledge of these ideas existence. (Think about what THAT implies! Has anyone read Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?) WE’ve tried, but legal restrictions didn’t stop alcohol use (and abuse), haven’t eliminated pornography, or prostitution, or “unapproved” religions, races, etc. How many folks remember (probably when they were in Junior High or High School) trading copies of Playboy, swapping raunchy comic books, sneaking “Racy” records into the house, and/or sneaking into “forbidden” movies? Then, I suspect it became playing “naughty" video games, and/or exchanging web sites, etc. which parents might not approve. Given the facts of human history, it seems unlikely that censorship and prohibition are any more likely to work now, than they did then.
Personally, I think that our society would be healthier if we all got over ourselves and actually made some efforts to move in the direction of creating a better, healthier, more equal society. The fact is that we do know a good deal about how to do that. Listening to the people who have actually studied the problem and giving their ideas some honest effort, might well be a productive start.
We aren’t going to get much improvement by venerating past. Taking some simple actions might help. Don’t buy products from companies which don’t support your ideals. (Boycotts DO work.) Get out and meet people of other races, religions, etc. and actually talk WITH them. Pay attention to facts, not what politicians SAY, what they DO. Insist on “justice for ALL.” Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (you ARE a subscriber, aren’t you?) demanding that our “leaders” treat ALL fairly. Write letters to your political representatives expressing your opinions, demonstrate at their offices and public meetings, then use your vote to back up your ideals! Basically, just make some simple efforts to change things for the better, rather than just letting power cluster with the “elite” in the forlorn belief that THEY will “take care of us?” After all, we MIGHT not care for what they end up doing TO us, and I’ve seen little evidence that “trickle-down” ANYTHING has caused any real improvements (and I’ve been watching since the 1980’s).
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
Now, Western Civilization, in most folks’ minds I think, starts with the Greeks, although there ARE any number of civilizations which preceded them. Given what we know about them, it seems reasonable to suggest that they had enough problems to have lots of wars, among themselves, as well as with others. However, I think that it’s fairly accurate to say that they were, essentially, of a fairly common ethnic and religious background, at least among those who counted. Non-Greeks, of course, were just slaves, or other sforeigners, so THEY didn’t really count as “people,” in any case.
Moving forward a bit, we get to the Romans. They were, I think, also of a, more or less, common religion and ethnicity, and they also had a good deal of desire for “stuff” which was actually owned by “others,” who had different gods and (perhaps more obviously) different racial and ethnic characteristics. I don’t believe that I’m really pushing things to suggest that “those” folk were commonly viewed as “inferior,” not quite fully “proper” as “real” people. I mean, Jews, Arabs, Egyptians, etc., weren’t really “people,” but they were useful, so they were tolerated, as long as they didn’t cause any trouble.
Of course, when that sect of weirdos known as “Christians” started causing trouble for the Emperor, something had to be done to “put them in their place.” I suspect that we all have at least heard something about that. What we might not have considered, however, is that this might be said to have set a pattern for the future.
Now, Christianity did, eventually, become the dominant religion in “Western” culture, and that culture, over time, was largely dominated by people of what is (broadly) called Caucasian ethnicity (which was subject to various nationalistic sub-divisions). However, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that that broad, Caucasian/Christian, culture did became the dominating culture of “Western Civilization.”
The overall culture was not especially unified, but there were similarities throughout it. Skin color was, most often, some variation of what came to be called “white,” although it had (and has) a lot of different tints and shades. Basic notions related to religion, were most often mixed in with the dominant governmental/political concept (hereditary aristocracy) and were, more or less, based on ideas reinforced by Christianity.
Of course, there were a good many differences, especially in what being a Christian meant, but it can be said that a fairly dominant culture emerged throughout the “West” and it tried to spread further east until the rise of Islam stopped it. It remained true, however, that Europe, generally, considered itself to be Christian and what we now call “White,” but deep divisions along somewhat nationalistic lines would develop, and these would become even more pronounced as Christianity dissolved into numerous sects, branches, denominations, etc., with each convinced that it was the “right and proper” form. Still, even with these divisions, there WAS a sort of Aristocratic/Caucasian/Euro/Christian culture which dominated the West for a long while and some would suggest is still quite strong.
When this general cultural group felt the need/desire to expand and gain more lands, more wealth, etc., they tended to do it in two, distinct ways: one was to try to take it away from their neighbors; the other was to go out and get it in the rest of the world. Now, while the first method WAS used, the second one had several advantages. European neighbors were, generally, about equally well armed, but the “savages” out there in the “big world” generally were NOT. And, one COULD always take along a few priests, so that you could claim that you were really “spreading the Christian Word,” not just engaging in conquest for the sake of wealth and power.
It IS (I think) worth noting that even before the Muslims ended the Byzantine Empire (after the sputtering Crusades), the Middle East was, largely, left alone for a long time and that European influence in the Far East didn’t amount to much for a long time. Even when they attempted influence there, much later, it was quite weak because the Asians had gunpowder long before the Europeans, and strong armies, and SHORT supply lines, which the Europeans did NOT have in that part of the world.
But, those “heathens” in the Americas and in much of Africa didn’t have much military power (at least against guns, cannons, and European armies), but they had land, mineral wealth and the ability to be put to work. And, of course they didn’t worship the “true” god and, besides, they were funny-looking with their “colored” skin, odd languages, etc. THEREFORE, they didn’t really count, so “REAL people” could do pretty much what they wanted with and to them, taking their lands, property, and even making them slaves. After all, it’s what “people” had been doing to such “creatures” for centuries. Slavery is even discussed in the Bible, so it can’t be against God. Certainly not when it only involves dealing with, essentially, farm animals.
And so, those who were not of European cultural extraction, racially Caucasian, and didn’t lived in the “Christian” tradition, simply weren’t considered to be “people.” They were, at best, just “property.” If they had any legal existence, it was only because they could be bought and sold (even, occasionally, set free!), but they couldn’t possibly be construed as actually being PEOPLE. This attitude, of course, was the pattern of relations with Africans, but also was applied to the indigenous peoples throughout the Americas. The fact that many of these groups had had well-established civilizations in place for a long time had no validity as far as they could see, since they weren’t like “Western” Civilization.
Then, after many years of the exploitation of those lands and peoples, along came what came to be called The Enlightenment, which would (eventually) lead to what is referred to as the Romantic Era. Then, quite abruptly, there were folks suggesting that those “creatures” were supposed to be considered as people(?). You know what I mean, that all that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” stuff might apply to THEM, not just to ”Westerners.” Some even suggested that governments were supposed to come from all of the people, not just from a heredity-based, aristocratic, European, Caucasian, Christian, elite class.
And so, the racial/religious/cultural wars were on. This led to all kinds of trouble. We (in the US) even fought a war about it. Actually, we fought more than one, as the Civil War was, to my way of thinking, largely just a continuation of the earlier one against England. The fact that the slaves were, legally, made free, after the Civil War, however, didn’t really solve much, though. Words on paper don’t really do that, even if we might wish they did. So, we (the United States) have been struggling since 1865 to try to deal with the attitudes which justified, created and maintained slavery, and they are still not resolved. I’d go so far as to suggest that the basics of the problem haven’t even, really, changed. We STILL haven’t more than begun to accept, or actually establish, a racially, religiously, and culturally mixed society.
It shouldn’t really be necessary to point out the fact that every identifiable group of immigrants who came to this country (most of whom were, in fact, Caucasian, European, and Christian in their heritage, were discriminated against by those “Americans” of an earlier group who felt threatened by these “unworthy” newcomers, but most have suppressed that. Too many of us seem to have forgotten the prejudice against Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Asian, Jewish, etc., immigrants, throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and the practice continues, just with other targets. Did you ever wonder why “Hibernian Societies,” “Sons of Italy,” “German-American Societies,” “Hillel Societies, “Anti-Defamation Leagues,” etc. were created? Many of them were formed because of the prejudice against specific groups on the part of earlier immigrant groups as well as a desire to celebrate a specific national heritage. It has continued with Vietnamese “refugees” who came to this country after the Vietnam conflict, folks from Afghanistan after that conflict, and now includes Americans from outside the US (to our south) fleeing various problems, Ukrainians, and so on.
Of course, the solution to this is really quite simple. We just have to grant ALL people the same basic rights and privileges of citizenship and things would probably work out pretty quickly. That’s easy to write, but hard to achieve, as it goes against centuries of practice (discussed above) that “THOSE OTHERS” aren’t really people. They aren’t like “us” and we don’t want to accept what we perceive as the reduction of OUR power which spreading those rights and privileges that much thinner would mean because then WE (The “GOOD,” European/Caucasian/Christian, preferably MALE folks) MIGHTN’T BE THE ONES ON TOP! Over the centuries they’ve gotten used to being the ones who formed the “elite” class (the REAL “citizens”). Of course, the VAST majority of them would NEVER have been a part of the “ruling elite” a couple of hundred years ago, so what is being perpetuated is, in reality, just a variation of Medieval practice.
But that’s not to say that some attempts haven’t been made to create a better society. Personally, I can remember (and/or have studied) a good number of ideas which were going to “solve” these problems along the way. White women were “given” the right to vote, because that wouldn’t really change things too much (especially since it was assumed that they would vote the way their husbands told them to). The all-male) military was racially integrated, which some said was going to destroy it, but that didn’t seem to happen, as things developed, (and we did needed the person power). And, more recently, we allowed females to be actual “members” of it, which doesn’t seem to have caused all that much damage either, in spite of what some say.
Earlier, we (sort of) racially integrated the public schools, which led to a huge increase in non-public ones, which were allowed to continue to discriminate, so the result of that was diminished. Then, we transported school kids across town on busses to make sure the schools were racially integrated, which just tended to break up cohesion within neighborhoods and make it harder for kids to have any real contact outside of school, so they only actually saw each other in a “controlled” setting. Now, some folks want to spend tax monies to support private, even religious-based, schools, to preserve “the right of parental choice,” in direct conflict with the First Amendment.
We claim to have abolished “red-lining,” in real estate, but I’m unconvinced that it’s not still out there (just a bit more undercover), as it seems to still be a fairly common practice. Look around, neighborhoods across the country are still often largely separated along racial, class, religious, and ethnic lines, just not “officially.” Now, many of the same sorts of difficulties have spread to affect the LGBTQ+ community, as well, and we say that we are going to solve those challenges,, but we haven’t yet done so with the older ones.
But to get back to my topic, one of the trends in the last few years has been to ban speech and/or books which use “bad” words, especially in relation to race, gender, and ethnicity. One of my favorite examples is the frequent demand that Huckleberry Finn be removed from library shelves and schools, apparently because one of the characters, who is “African-American” is referred to as “Nigger Jim.” Now, I don’t much approve of the “N-word,” but I’m not afraid of it. The book was published in the mid-1880’s (so it was after the Civil War), but it is clearly set in a time before slavery was abolished, as the character, Jim, is a runaway slave trying to get free and earn enough money to purchase the freedom of his wife and family.
Today, we don’t think that the “N-word” is acceptable in “polite,” conversation, but one doesn’t have to be much of a linguistic historian to know that it was used quite commonly during the period of this book’s historical setting, certainly by less than well educated people (which would include Huck, the narrator). Does the fact that it’s outdated mean that we have to erase it because it isn’t as “polite” as we say it should be? If so, we probably should consider that we might have to eliminate a good deal of the Holy Bible, a lot of Shakespeare’s works (and a GREAT deal of other literature). AND quite a large percentage of the “greatest” art in Western history is at least a bit risqué. Actually, sculpture might not be affected quite so much since various Popes had a lot of MALE statues’ genitalia removed to try to make them more “acceptable.” (Funny how nude FEMALES were Okay, though.)
Shakespeare, as an example of a “great” author, has many, not-always-very-polite, sexual and/or other references in his plays and poetry. His Othello, of course, must be racist since there is much made of that character’s “blackness.” I think that that character’s race may be the key to understanding his “otherness,” of course, and I believe that it is Shakespeare’s major point in this play. It seems obvious to me that Will was pointing out the stupidity of the idea that the leaders of Venice purposely CHOSE this “outsider” as their military commander, but apparently felt that that shouldn’t be taken to suggest that they actually felt he was worthy of being a part of their society. The idea that Desdemona (one of their own) might find HIM to be worthy of her affection, is absurd to them. After all, he’s NOT one of “US.” And similar sorts of comments could be made about the ideas expressed in many works of literature. I won’t belabor my point with additional examples. Certainly anyone who has actually read (and understood) more than a few books can come up with examples which would be meaningful to them.
I would suggest however, that the real problem isn’t limited to the WORDS we use, it’s that we, as a society, have chosen (are choosing) to say one thing, but practice something quite different. We SAY we believe in the ideals of equality, fairness, etc., but far too many wish to maintain their own importance through suppressing anything which expresses the conflict between our ideals and our behaviors. Then they call that “freedom of expression.” You see, words CAN both affect one’s attitude and reflect it. But, if we accept that humans aren’t perfect and that some of us would like to try “… to form a more perfect union….”, I would suggest that we have a greater chance of success by admitting, accepting, and understanding that we have been less than perfect in the past, than by trying to pretend that “it never happened.”
Wouldn’t it make better sense to let the past be the past, understand that we (and our ancestors) weren’t perfect, and resolve to try to do better? By the way, it may be worth pointing out that our collective past was never truly all that Christian (given the actual behavior of many groups), nor truly European (given that we are NOT discussing Europeans, but Americans), and (given the provable facts of DNA) wasn’t, in a great many cases, all that exclusively Caucasian, either.
I really do NOT believe that censoring schools, libraries, museums, books, radio and TV, even the internet, is going to solve ANY of our problems and will probably create more. I do believe that there ARE materials which may not be appropriate for some (especially young children’s) ears and eyes, but trying to just eliminate them from LEGAL human knowledge is not the solution. I doubt that it’s even possible, as you would have to erase ALL knowledge of these ideas existence. (Think about what THAT implies! Has anyone read Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?) WE’ve tried, but legal restrictions didn’t stop alcohol use (and abuse), haven’t eliminated pornography, or prostitution, or “unapproved” religions, races, etc. How many folks remember (probably when they were in Junior High or High School) trading copies of Playboy, swapping raunchy comic books, sneaking “Racy” records into the house, and/or sneaking into “forbidden” movies? Then, I suspect it became playing “naughty" video games, and/or exchanging web sites, etc. which parents might not approve. Given the facts of human history, it seems unlikely that censorship and prohibition are any more likely to work now, than they did then.
Personally, I think that our society would be healthier if we all got over ourselves and actually made some efforts to move in the direction of creating a better, healthier, more equal society. The fact is that we do know a good deal about how to do that. Listening to the people who have actually studied the problem and giving their ideas some honest effort, might well be a productive start.
We aren’t going to get much improvement by venerating past. Taking some simple actions might help. Don’t buy products from companies which don’t support your ideals. (Boycotts DO work.) Get out and meet people of other races, religions, etc. and actually talk WITH them. Pay attention to facts, not what politicians SAY, what they DO. Insist on “justice for ALL.” Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (you ARE a subscriber, aren’t you?) demanding that our “leaders” treat ALL fairly. Write letters to your political representatives expressing your opinions, demonstrate at their offices and public meetings, then use your vote to back up your ideals! Basically, just make some simple efforts to change things for the better, rather than just letting power cluster with the “elite” in the forlorn belief that THEY will “take care of us?” After all, we MIGHT not care for what they end up doing TO us, and I’ve seen little evidence that “trickle-down” ANYTHING has caused any real improvements (and I’ve been watching since the 1980’s).
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
P.S. I just wanted to point out that this is “officially” my three hundredth post on this blog. I don’t wish to suggest that this is of any real IMPORTANCE (it’s not!), but I didn’t expect that I’d still be making fairly regular posts this long when I started in September of 2014. I suppose that I’ll keep on writing them, as I do enjoy it, although I sometimes wonder if anyone but me ever reads my mental meanderings. Mostly, I suppose, I write them because I want to keep my brain working and I keep thinking up stuff to think about. I expect to be back in a couple of weeks.
RSB
RSB
RSS Feed