As the most recent Nobel laureate reacted with a “I'm white and American, it doesn't make any sense”, I have to confess that I insist on not understanding this more or less recent hysteria with themes related to racism, gender or (I add ) sexuality.
In fact, in perspective, with regard to the Nobel Prize for Literature, since 1901, 94% are white, 88% men and 69% European. In other words, 12% are women, 3% are black (one woman and two men) and 3% are Asians. The nationality that wins is French, with 15 laureates, and the language that wins the most is English, with 33 of the 117 prizes.
Estes números parecem deixar evidente que a literatura Nobel tem preferência por cor, género e região, no entanto, talvez por ignorância e ingenuidade q.b., não consigo interiorizar de forma directa essa leitura. Quantos autores existem dentro das mesmas “classes”? Tentei pesquisar mas não consegui obter resposta em tempo útil. De qualquer forma, o meu ponto é que falar em preferências sem ter os números globais e sem ter presente a facilidade que a globalização trouxe, pode ser uma falácia.
Of course, next they will say to me “oh and such but women, blacks, Africans and Asians have less opportunities to be published”… Yes, there is history, from which we cannot escape, and there is (natural) evolution to that we watched. Is there still a way to go? There is.
We can't just scream and demand something that has its natural course and that is, happily and undoubtedly, being trodden.
Because shouting and aggression, in my view, have the exact opposite effect. It is not by imposing ideologies that we achieve the objective, which is equal rights and opportunities between human beings. Imposition creates opposition. And I am not really a racist, I am displeased when the Nobel Prize for Literature says that giving the prize to a white author does not make sense. She may actually be critical of the criterion that seems to have been prevalent for many years, but then let her say it explicitly. What doesn't make sense is to say (tout court) such nonsense. What doesn't make sense is to award someone a prize for being black. What does not make sense is the basis for the choice to be something other than the quality of the writing. The criterion must simply be meritocracy.
I once wrote an article whose title was “I'm not a feminist”. I can also write another with the title "I am racist" or another with the title "I am homophobic". Am I racist or homophobic? No. And the text would make that clear. What I mean is that labeling does not serve the purpose, nor does it translate the real intention or thought. When I hear or read Joacine Katar Moreira I feel that she is racist. It attacks whites as if there is no tomorrow. Is this how she intends to end, or even contribute to, (end) racism? Or, on the contrary, will it generate adverse reactions?
If, in the middle of 1792, Mary Wollenstonecraft was a pioneer in launching a book on women's rights, entitled “A Claim for the Rights of Women”, and decisively influenced what would become the English suffragist movement of the early 1955th century or the attitude of Rosa Parks in XNUMX, when she refused to give a white man a seat on the bus, essential to initiate a change of thought and attitude towards whites and blacks, I am convinced that we are now a generation from achieving the equality we aspire to.
When I watch my children's generation in discussions on these topics, their astonishment is the same as that of someone from my generation if I say that it is the earth that revolves around the sun. It is so obvious, so commonly accepted, so evident, that it is no longer a topic.
The author writes according to the old spelling.