The exercise we did in class with the proposal to make Messiah's English curriculum more cultural focused and Christian focused does put a different spin on Ngugi's proposal for an African Literature department. It does seem a little hypocritical for us to not want a more cultural Christian literature department but support the idea of an African studies department in Ngugi's school.
It kind of reminds me of the movie Spanglish. I was watching it the other evening, and the main character Flor (a Mexican immigrant) becomes upset with the family she works for because Deborah (the wife) interferes with her daughter. Flor doesn't approve of they way her bosses liberally give her daughter money for collecting sea glass on the beach and taking her daughter to interviews at prestigious schools. Flor doesn't like these lavish "gifts" because she doesn't want her daughter thinking these things come easily to people.
On the other hand, Flor has intervened in Deborah's daughter's life as well. Deb bought her daughter clothes that were too small saying that she could work off the weight to fit into them. Flor is horrified by this because the daughter isn't overweight; she just isn't the idolized skinny size. Flor alters the clothes without telling anyone and tells the daughter to "Just try on."
This interference seems like a good one from Flor's perspective and the audience's perspective. Compared to Deborah's seemingly poor parenting skills, Flor's kind actions seem justified. But really she is still interfering with another person's child. But we still see Deborah's intereference as worse because her parenting skills seem to harm her children rather than help them.
In a similar way we seem to approach Ngugi's argument. We see it as the Flor to Deborah's European imperalist influence, valuing British and european studies more than indigenous African studies. We see the Christian cultural studies proposal as kind of Deborah's interference. Too much of a good thing. Of course it is not extreme like Deborah's behavior, but our attitudes approaching it seem to be that way.
Is our attitude toward a Cultural Christian studies department justified? or are we just being hypocritical by justifiying Ngugi's argument but not conceding the point for the other argument?
It kind of reminds me of the movie Spanglish. I was watching it the other evening, and the main character Flor (a Mexican immigrant) becomes upset with the family she works for because Deborah (the wife) interferes with her daughter. Flor doesn't approve of they way her bosses liberally give her daughter money for collecting sea glass on the beach and taking her daughter to interviews at prestigious schools. Flor doesn't like these lavish "gifts" because she doesn't want her daughter thinking these things come easily to people.
On the other hand, Flor has intervened in Deborah's daughter's life as well. Deb bought her daughter clothes that were too small saying that she could work off the weight to fit into them. Flor is horrified by this because the daughter isn't overweight; she just isn't the idolized skinny size. Flor alters the clothes without telling anyone and tells the daughter to "Just try on."
This interference seems like a good one from Flor's perspective and the audience's perspective. Compared to Deborah's seemingly poor parenting skills, Flor's kind actions seem justified. But really she is still interfering with another person's child. But we still see Deborah's intereference as worse because her parenting skills seem to harm her children rather than help them.
In a similar way we seem to approach Ngugi's argument. We see it as the Flor to Deborah's European imperalist influence, valuing British and european studies more than indigenous African studies. We see the Christian cultural studies proposal as kind of Deborah's interference. Too much of a good thing. Of course it is not extreme like Deborah's behavior, but our attitudes approaching it seem to be that way.
Is our attitude toward a Cultural Christian studies department justified? or are we just being hypocritical by justifiying Ngugi's argument but not conceding the point for the other argument?
No comments:
Post a Comment