Does Literature need “decolonisation”?

Most university faculties of English have long since started talking of "post-colonial English" of "African" or "Indian" authors etc. Some go the whole hog and talk of "Scottish" authors, by which they mean anyone who regarded his or herself as Scottish and not only poets like Rabbie Burns who wrote in a Scots form of the language that most Englishmen and women do not fathom a word of! All talk of women authors, some of feminist authors.

I have read English myself and am not certain that even at university level these distinctions are necessary, wise or helpful. All can be seen as patronising or rude, if we are that way inclined.

I agree that books should be read for enjoyment, but it is sometimes necessary to know a little of the context the author lived in. Today some people find Kipling unbearably racist or imperialist, where I personally still read him for pleasure, although both Kipling, Saki, and Dornford Yates do use expressions, as did Agatha Christie, which we find offensive today.

The whole use of the word 'decolonisation' is bad English and only used to because it is a red rag to the media bill.

What these protesters want to do is study literature written in English rather than just English literature. That seems a perfectly reasonable ask. But what the heck has that got to do withe decolonisation. On the contrary what they actually want is colonisation, in other words draw into the empire of English literature all literature written in English.

Not very well educated are they?

When books are chosen purely because of the race of the author or the 'message' then it is wrong to progress this train of thought in universities or schools. This seems to be increasingly the case though. Most universities and schools (certainly at A level) used to encourage 'reading around the subject' or reading other texts on a theme so any 'restrictions' put in place by a syllabus were surmountable.

I'm not sure I agree that it's a shame. It's just reality. We can't always judge a situation while it's happening because we don't know all the ins and outs. There's something to be said for letting things simmer down before making judgments. I've seen that argument applied to what's going on at Westminster right now with regard to sexual harassment. Certainly, due process for the accused should not be abandoned in the heat of the moment.

I've also seen arguments being made now that colonialism wasn't all bad.

True, but it can only be done a long time after the event, which is a shame.

History needs to be written from a lot of perspectives. I think good historians genuinely try to do this.

It has to be remembered that all countries go in for some airbrushing when it comes to their own history / wars etc.
But that eventually, the whole rounded story does come out.

So, you are saying there are two sides to every story, well I think we all know that!
The Native Americans did do sone gruesome things, and so did the American soldiers , the Mau Mau did do barbaric things and the British Army were also savage in retaliation to it.
That’s why I point out that it takes a long time for the truth, i.e both sides of the story to come out and be considered.
At the time it happens, it will always be told from the point of view of the country actually telling the story.
That’s also why I ask who’s perspective would you like to show ( just after the event) history, or accounts of recent history would not be any more correct by showing only, say the Mau Mau uprising.

I don't think jura was giving a "lecture" - she was just giving an example of how events can be seen very differently when viewed from different perspectives and with the passing of time.

I thought the cowboys and indians example demonstrated this very well. It doesn't matter that it occurred in a different country - similar simplistic and misleading portrayals of events have occurred throughout the world, including here. I don't suppose it is possible to arrive at one simple "truth" but a diversity of opinion and perspective is essential to at least acknowledge that there may be a different way of looking at things.

I remember quite clearly as a child hearing on the news reports about the Mau Mau and, from those reports, forming the view that they must be the most wicked and frightening savages. Recent reparations made by the British government to members of the Mau Mau who were systematically tortured by soldiers in the British Army indicated the "bad guys" were on our "side" too.

Thank you for the lecture jura2 but we were talking about the literature/ history of the UK or I certainly thought we were.
History is always written by the winners and it takes a long long time for an opposing view to be heard.

Whose perspective Lemongrove?

Well, let's go back to those already mentionned 'Cowboys' and 'Indians' - as children we were told the goodies were the former, and the baddies the lattrer. Now most of us would agree- perhaps not Trump and his supporters, that it was not the case. So history should be re-written to be less biased, and look at the truth of what happened and how- as neutrally as can be.

How do you think history was taught in Hitler's Germany- and how do you think it is being taught now. And through literature too, like 'Anne Frank' or 'The Book Thief', 'The Boy in Pyjamas' and so on.

History is being rewritten all the time - some of ours is due for a good rethink as so much has been airbrushed and so many less powerful/ powerless groups have been ignored. I don’t think anyone is arguing for translated books to be part of an English Lit syllabus are they?

From who’s perspective would you like history to be rewritten?
Each country in the world already does this in regard to their own past history, especially where wars are concerned.
As regards the University ( Cambridge in this case) it depends what the majority want and what fits into the category of English literature, but surely the basic criteria for that is that the book is written in English ( not translated).

Yyyyyyy to the rewriting of history

And yes, history does need rewriting.

As the mother and MiL of English teachers I was shocked to find how much the curriculum is being restricted and narrowed in this regard at GCSE and A level.

Just catching up with this thread an have skipped on from the OP ...
I think it is a good thing to encourage awareness and discourse of significant 'Eastern' as well as 'Western' literature and to raise awareness of different cultural viewpoints. This should mean broadening the curriculum, not 'ditching' ... a good reading list should encompass a breadth of significant texts from different cultures and a good tutor should also be able to point students towards further enriching reading.

Funny that the owners of the DT care so much about keeping our Eng Lit courses full of proper English books ( you know the sort written by white English men) but care not a fig about paying their fair share of taxes to support England to be the sort of society they want it to be ( and yes I do know about the myth of editorial independence)

What is wrong with widening the curriculum to include writers that reflect different cultures or a different world view from that which is generally presented?

And maybe not maryeliza

The only appalling thing about this issue is that the Telegraph published a story that was full of lies, put a large photograph of one of the young women involved ( who then received sexist and racist abuse) and then when their lies were revealed published a tiny retraction on page 2. The Telegraph is on its way to becoming as much of a rag as the DM and I’m surprised that educated GNers believe its rubbish so quickly and easily - maybe because they wanted it to be true so they could have a go?

Glaswegian and Lallans are very different things.

www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/lallan

Perhaps I have misunderstood Baggs but I would strongly dispute that all Scots Literature is/was written in English, and that “dialect”refers only to the spoken language, unlike the position of Schwyzerdeutsch and German in Switzerland.
Lallans is quite unique.

Who says MawBroon finds Scots dialect unacceptable?*trisher*?
Such calumnies!
I used to win prizes for verse-speaking at the Borders Muical Festival for Scottish AND English poetry.
Twasnae me said that!

Oh and Paw who had a French primary education was taught that the French won the battle of Agincourt.