“Paul Little and Sarah Frost express concerns that Shakespeare is unduly prominent in our draft English Curriculum (The Listener, 7 June). However, Shakespeare is mentioned only once there, and developers are obliged to prescribe what they consider the best readings for every subject.
Why such a negative reaction to the inclusion of one work of Shakespeare, when the works of many others will be prescribed, including Māori and Pacific authors?
Little says that calling English “the language of Shakespeare” represents a “monocular” focus, limiting our notions of great literature. However, the Curriculum makes no such claim. It says that by exploring selected texts from around the world, students gain insights into themselves and others. Prescribed works will include kupu Māori, stories from the Pacific and other countries, and diverse prose, poetry, plays and novels.
The Curriculum is neither discriminatory nor Eurocentric, but seeks to ensure world class education for all. The Supplementary List of titles remains under development, will include both prescribed and suggested readings, and the public can make submissions on literature that should be required.
Shakespeare is a white male from four centuries ago, and critics across many countries do question whether he represents the diverse societies of today. Of course, he presents an easy target, as symbolic of colonization. But his works are about the timeless human emotions of love, passion, kindness and selflessness, but also greed, ambition, hatred and deceit. Germany took him to heart, and also pre-Soviet Russia, the Soviet Union and the former Communist Bloc, China and Japan. Why?
Critics may perceive Shakespeare ill-posed as the only pinnacle of excellence. However, the Curriculum embraces many forms of excellent literature, and numerous literary and political figures over several centuries have judged the works of William Shakespeare as enduring masterpieces from a towering genius of world literature.”
Comment
I guess that our media editors and managers have the right to publish whatever they please and, of course, everyone who writes letters to editors knows in advance that his or her letters or opinion pieces may be declined.
However, our mainstream media does publish a great deal of left-leaning material, but very rarely the opposite perspective. Worse, they publish scientifically-incorrect pieces, such as advice on farming by the lunar cycle. A related theme has to do with marketing folk remedies as equal to “Western Medicine”, when most certainly they are not! See:
https://www.acc.co.nz/newsroom/stories/rongoa-maori-a-traditional-healing-choice-for-all
and
https://www.acc.co.nz/about-us/rongoa-maori-services
This is very dangerous advice, and some people may be taken in by it. I meet and talk on a regular basis to cancer patients in Wellington and I know that the last thing that they need is unverified folk therapy.
However, I and other scientists known to me have submitted several letters to editors that attempt to correct such factual errors, but not one has been published.
What has happened to our mainstream media?
David Lillis
Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.
No comments:
Post a Comment