Is Shakespeare not taught in DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's probably fine if they no longer teach Shakespeare. People have valid feelings around not wanting to glorify colonial oppression and i don't see the relevance to my personal life.

What connection does Shakespeare have to colonialism? He lived in a time where the only people the English were oppressing where other white people in Wales and Ireland. His writing has nothing to do with colonialism. He's not Kipling.

And only wanting to read writings that have relevance to your personal life is pretty much the definition of a provincial mind.

So you clearly haven't read much Shakespeare, or you would know that plays exploring this theme, like Othello, feature non-English characters living...not in England. Idiot.

Was this directed at the first or second comment?

Anyway, Othello has nothing to do with colonialism.

Okay, that's not totally true. The backdrop of the conflict between Venice and The Ottoman Empire deals with European resistance to Non-European colonialism. Of course, I don't expect the tragically woke to know about that bit of history, since it really messes up their narrative when it comes to things like colonialism and slavery.

The woke pick from the history only what fits their creed. In that view colonialism and slavery are exclusive to white people, throughout the entire human history. Ancient Greek culture is white, Cleopatra was black, race based slavery never existed within the Golden Horde, the Spanish were always invaders.

Oh snort. Everyone on whatever side they pick from history only what fits their creed. Prove me wrong.

History by itself aims for objectivity and scholarship of original sources. You only start sentences with, oh snort when you’re a toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

Care to explain or it should be self evident? From your statement we can be confident that you don’t have a PhD or that you understand anything of substance.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this doesn’t matter to anyone, but I’m watching an episode of Law and Order SVU. The father in the midst of a crisis just told his daughter, Cordelia, that he loves her and forgives her. Absolutely a call back to King Lear, which I would never know if I hadn’t read it in high school.

You can’t appreciate more modern literature and fiction without knowing how brilliant and timeless Shakespeare was. He’s not just any old dead white guy. All schools need to teach it, ideally pairing it with more modern works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this doesn’t matter to anyone, but I’m watching an episode of Law and Order SVU. The father in the midst of a crisis just told his daughter, Cordelia, that he loves her and forgives her. Absolutely a call back to King Lear, which I would never know if I hadn’t read it in high school.

You can’t appreciate more modern literature and fiction without knowing how brilliant and timeless Shakespeare was. He’s not just any old dead white guy. All schools need to teach it, ideally pairing it with more modern works.

This is absolutely relevant, and is described as cultural influence. Great literary works reference each other and the body of knowledge at the time of their creation and are later referenced by other works and so on.

It should be studied because it makes us understand better our own society and humanity.

Realistically throughout high school one can study about 15-20 works, so the question is what should those be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this doesn’t matter to anyone, but I’m watching an episode of Law and Order SVU. The father in the midst of a crisis just told his daughter, Cordelia, that he loves her and forgives her. Absolutely a call back to King Lear, which I would never know if I hadn’t read it in high school.

You can’t appreciate more modern literature and fiction without knowing how brilliant and timeless Shakespeare was. He’s not just any old dead white guy. All schools need to teach it, ideally pairing it with more modern works.

This is absolutely relevant, and is described as cultural influence. Great literary works reference each other and the body of knowledge at the time of their creation and are later referenced by other works and so on.

It should be studied because it makes us understand better our own society and humanity.

Realistically throughout high school one can study about 15-20 works, so the question is what should those be.

Clearly, Law & Order SVU should be one of those 15-20 works.

[Anonymous]

lol, that was too funny. I'll vote Law & Order SVU too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

Care to explain or it should be self evident? From your statement we can be confident that you don’t have a PhD or that you understand anything of substance.

For one, Shakespeare is just not equitable. The wording is highly specific to Anglo culture that not all communities may be familiar with (I know I certainly wasn't). That right there shuts out many kids. For the same reason they stopped making questions on the SAT about country clubs and sailing a long time ago. Why can't we also be more inclusive in our general education?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

Care to explain or it should be self evident? From your statement we can be confident that you don’t have a PhD or that you understand anything of substance.

For one, Shakespeare is just not equitable. The wording is highly specific to Anglo culture that not all communities may be familiar with (I know I certainly wasn't). That right there shuts out many kids. For the same reason they stopped making questions on the SAT about country clubs and sailing a long time ago. Why can't we also be more inclusive in our general education?!

When I read a work in English by an author from a different culture, I learn new words that I am not familiar with. One of the benefits of reading widely is being exposed to new ideas and experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

Care to explain or it should be self evident? From your statement we can be confident that you don’t have a PhD or that you understand anything of substance.

For one, Shakespeare is just not equitable. The wording is highly specific to Anglo culture that not all communities may be familiar with (I know I certainly wasn't). That right there shuts out many kids. For the same reason they stopped making questions on the SAT about country clubs and sailing a long time ago. Why can't we also be more inclusive in our general education?!

late to this thread. are you actually arguing that teaching Shakespeare is racist? I think you’re trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

your efforts to make Shakespeare into just one “particular recommendation” in the study of English literature are totally absurd. Zero credibility. There are of course important questions about broadening the scope of what books are taught as “literature,” but from my vantage point, it’s already been broadened most places. way back in 1992 I was assigned both Native Son and Crime & Punishment for AP summer reading.

[Anonymous]

So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

I don’t think it’s the actual literature that’s racist, as much as the people who think there is a need to ask about Shakespeare and cry if it’s only taught a little or not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

I don’t think it’s the actual literature that’s racist, as much as the people who think there is a need to ask about Shakespeare and cry if it’s only taught a little or not at all.

huh? if English instruction doesn’t go deep into the foundation of texts and classics like Shakespeare, that’s a problem. The canon should be broadened not thrown away. And the idea that we shouldn’t teach Shakespeare because it is “too hard” is it’s own separate concern!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

I don’t think it’s the actual literature that’s racist, as much as the people who think there is a need to ask about Shakespeare and cry if it’s only taught a little or not at all.

huh? if English instruction doesn’t go deep into the foundation of texts and classics like Shakespeare, that’s a problem. The canon should be broadened not thrown away. And the idea that we shouldn’t teach Shakespeare because it is “too hard” is it’s own separate concern!

It seems some of those who rigidly insist on Shakespeare are basically saying that English is really "their" language and therefore "their" authors must be the foundation for everyone else.