======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
On Jul 18, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
This is as totally idiotic as the claim that a "British Empire"
existed in 1590.
(Reminiscent of Sol Yurick's take-down of Shakespeare as ruling
class tool.)
Did Shakespeare set most of his tragedies in foreign countries
because he respected their “cultural differences”? No. He set them
abroad because his audiences considered foreign countries inferior
and either deserving of tragedy or doomed to tragedy.
And the reality is much, much worse. You see, Shakespeare’s
‘tragedies’ are not genuine tragedies designed to make us pity for
foreign kings, princes, commanders, money lenders and so on.
Shakespeare’s wealthy snobbish English patrons were—for the most part
—incapable of feeling pity for foreigners. If this seems harsh,
imagine Hollywood screening movies depicting the humanity of foreign
rulers—especially those who reject the dominant, capitalist culture
and instead support communism or anarchy. Or, imagine Hollywood
producing a movie about the tragic fate of the civilian victims of
NATO’s violence in Libya. No one dares to expect such bravery from
Hollywood, so why do we expect it from a mere court dramatist like
William Shakespeare?
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
