Respectfully, I find this hottake offensive to colonized peoples. They were able to “critique” colonial violence without Shakespeare.https://twitter.com/DrJeffreyWilson/status/1091126751604994055 …
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DrDadabhoy
I find that the logic of your exclusion of Shakespeare from th arsenal of critique of colonialism may lead to racist conclusions. People under colonial rule used Shakespeare as a tool of critique bc as intelligent & conscious critics they found meaning in his well-formed artworks
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @xion_smith
I never said that they didn’t use Shakespeare. I said that Shakespeare wasn’t the center of their critique and that they didn’t NEED Shakespeare to mount them. How is that racist?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DrDadabhoy
i’m reading an exclusion in your first comment, and that can lead to a position that people under colonialism did not use all the intellectual resources available, esp resources as good as Shakespeare. plus let’s keep in mind how Shakes was used in critical adaptations.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
You are misreading because my point is that colonized people were more than intellectually capable to articulate their struggles without Shakespeare. He is a value added he does not legitimize them. It’s more than clear in my original post.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.