Politically Incorrect Literature

At a time when fewer and fewer English professors can actually answer questions about literature, college students in search of America’s literary tradition are more likely to find it in books such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature than they are, say, at the Modern Language Association annual convention.

“Culture is actually more important than politics,” is the philosophy of Elizabeth Kantor, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. At the Eagle Forum Collegiate conference on June 22, Kantor recognized the small political and literary battles that Americans face today as “merely the tip of the iceberg” of gradual cultural and moral erosion. Warped teachings of English and American literature in college campuses across the country contribute to the growing apathy and misconceptions toward the American heritage.

Kantor went on to illustrate what students should be reaping from great literary works:

• The understanding that Christianity is intellectually respectable (C.S. Lewis, John Milton)

• Chivalry, which is a uniquely Western arrangement between sexes (Chaucer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

• The moral lesson that the ends don’t justify the means (A Tale of Two Cities)

“Culture must be taught and transferred; we are not born into it,” said Kantor, and some teachers undermine literary merit, as they “politicize it and draw unbased conclusions.”

• Is human history essentially a story of liberation and freedom from oppression?

The author expressed concern that very many American scholars may say yes to these questions. “Students are too often not educated by solid tradition, but only by the leftist critics of them,” Kantor explained. “Fiction shows you noble deeds in their initial attractiveness.”

However, the speaker advised those entering the literary or education sphere to remain optimistic and proactive. “We can’t let ourselves become a defensive minority. We need to spend more time with the great men and women of the past who loved what we essentially love,” was the resounding conclusion to her lecture.

Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, please e-mail mal.kline@academia.org

Letter to an atheist friend:

Who gets to define what is good, moral, charitable, evil, etc.? You? Me? MTV? A Saddam? A Stalin?

To ancient Aztecs - cutting out the still beating heart of a human sacrifices (including children) was the highest order of good.
To a large percent of Muslims - killing, raping and enslaving infidels is the highest order of good in Islam.
To Hindus - Attacking, ignoring, prejudicing against and letting die for people in lower order castes is perfectly alright.
To certain Pacific Tribes - eating your enemy was the highest form of good.

And I could go on for pages...

The works you mentioned are good works from a Christian viewpoint:

Matthew 22:37-40 — Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

And Jesus also said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27 (affirming of Moses) and Matthew 7:12)

But by no means has this “philosophy” been accepted the world over as “good or moral.” Not by a long shot.

What makes murder inherently wrong (to Christians) is not that it feels wrong, but that a transcendent Creator to whom we are answerable commands: “Thou shalt not murder.” What makes kindness to others inherently right (to Christians) is not that human reason says so, but that God does: “Love thy neighbor as thyself; I am the Lord.”

What is “good or evil” without God? Without any footing for moral actions - anything can be rationalized as good or evil. You can just make it up as you go along. Good actions can be whatever society thinks it is with the popular culture at the time. If that be in Nazi Germany or Pol Pot’s Cambodia or North Korea - that means doing “good” is slaughtering millions of people and sending millions more into misery. But, by their own human standards at the time in history, they were all doing good.

You grew up and live in a country founded in Judeo-Christian values, so it may seem obvious to you what is “good.” But that is due to the Judeo-Christian influences on you (even if you don’t believe in God). To others without that kind of influence, doing “good” can be radically different.

For instance, we are also a country that for all intents and purposes, allows abortion, for any reason, at any time, including up to 1 sec before birth (partial birth abortions). I can send you transcripts of debates in the house and senate on this. I have no doubt that 200 years from now, future Americans will wonder how we could have let such evil go on and did nothing to stop it for so long (a lot like we look back on slavery).

But all the “cool” people are pro-choice - so it is good.

Regards,

2banana

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.