When it comes to the insider/outsider debate about authors of multicultural literature I personally feel any individual educated enough to accurately inform and educate individuals about a topic should be considered a reliable source. I feel that simply because an individual is not necessarily a native to the culture or social group does not automatically mean they are inaccurate. This does not mean that I will believe everything I read, however if an individual is for example an anthropologist that studies a specific topic may be educated to the extend to write in an imformed manner about the topic. I also feel that simply becuase an individual is considered part of an ethnic, cultural, or social group does not mean they are an expert and can write accurately.
One idea I would like to examine further in class is an idea presented in the Harris article that we read for class. An idea that really struck me as interesting was the idea that natural coalitions exist. "Anthony ans Stanton did not hesitate in resorting to racism when they argued for the right of white, educated, and native-born women to vote. ...one assuems that natural coallitions exist among the groups placed under the rubric of multiculturalism," (Harris, 10). I found this idea to be very interesting and until now this thought never really crossed my mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I totally agree that if an individual is educated enough to accurately inform and educate individuals about a topic can be a reliable source because an insider could give their personal view instead of the cultures.
I think that most literature can be left open for interpretation and that a reader has to understand that there is some parts that may not be completely factual.
I think this strand of discussion opens up the question of what counts as "educated", "expert", etc.
How are people defining "culture"?
Post a Comment