(Original post by mojojojo101)
Correcting a historical injustice and predominance of authors who write from a particular socio-economic point of view is not the same as being racist to white people.
The question is more would such notions be supported in reverse, if I for example said (note the stats are made up) that black people are 5% of the population yet feature in 17% of studied books we must therefore reduce the number of books by or containing black people in order to be more accurately representative of our society - it would be met with cries of 'racist' and 'marginalisation' etc etc however when done on behalf of a minority it is not. That is a social hypocrisy.
Further what is the reason to reject primarily white authors from a country which is, and always has been, predominantly white? The history of the nation was built on the writings of said people and therefore they are more relevant and thus more discussed - for example we briefly looked at different cultural interpretations of the individual for my law course, and then it never came up again because the British legal tradition relies on the rational autonomous individual and therefore all the other interpretations are as useful as a nuns tits.
Most literature is built on white writers and canon due to historical factors therefore it's entirely reasonable to study them in vast majority. There is a greater case to ensure more contemporary black writers (although I am against any kind of race based decision making as it always has a whiff of discrimination when you do something because of someone's race) - but it is not a good idea to put a 20th C black writer against say Shakespeare and show how different they are - er yeah no sh!t. Not only does this create a false comparison it is also a totally pointless way to analyse anything - it's like if 50 years in the future countries become a brutal autocracy and they look back and say 'look at how quaint democracy was'. From their citizens perspective this will be true, because what they know resonates with them, but we would say the opposite. It's using social placing to teach badly if it applies such methods.
(Original post by ByEeek)
That is what is proposed. The journalist starts using the word "replace", then goes on to say that there must be a "presence" before saying that the university deny white authors will be replaced by black.
Not that this will stop some suggesting that white culture is being eroded away etc etc blah blah
I'll wait and see what they actually do - I don't trust a 'promise' from anyone doing anything for political reasons more than I would a politician.
To answer the OP; I think it's stupid. Colonisation happened, it's important, and it forms a fundamental part of history so it will be in the curriculum - get over it. This whole 'decolonising' is such a load of rubbish. History happened as it happened and influences writings and cultures, learning about that is critical. We can learn about black authors too (although why we don't just use the most appropriate without caring about their skin colour I have no idea) but this whole deliberate attempted ignorance of history is frankly dangerous in academic terms. I also don't believe they are being genuine in that this is more to serve their goal of more BAME than it has anything to do with colonisation which is why I am suspicious of the idea.