Canon-Centric Bigotry and American Culture

Some in psychology and related disciplines refer to anything that is not part of the canon as bias or bigotry. This leads to a bigotry of its own. Christianity and Hinduism are not part of the canon, but both contain vast wisdom and one that can be of great benefit to psychology itself.

We see the same with those in feminism and political correctness who see Western literary and artistic legacy as patriarchial. The Western literary and artistic legacy has had many influences, and many of them are in disagreement with one another. To claim that, just because something is a part of the Western literary and artistic legacy, makes it racist or patriarchial, is ridiculous. The followers of these movements have not come up with anything near the same quality as Shakespeare or Keats. They are a destructive influence, and the avant garde and postmodern rubbish that they have come up with is nowhere close to being as good as the works that they profane.

I do not see for one moment why the Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year, would have better art than America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year. The problem is not lack of talent on the part of the American people. The problem is incorrect values and priorities. If beauty is not valued in society, there will not be demand for beauty. And this will result in there being no room for people who would produce beauty.

The solution to this quandary is to change values and priorities. It is to create a demand for beauty. This has happened in American history before. It was called the 1920s. That period produced magnificent architecture, literature and music; and there is no reason why America today should not be able to do the same.

Indeed it should be able to do the same to a much greater extent. Technologies of today are far more advanced than those of 1920s, and there are more people and more wealth. Donald Trump has commissioned magnificent architecture and beautiful machinery; and it may very well be the case that his administration would be in favor of making America beautiful again.

There is absolutely no contradiction between beauty and practicality. 1920S saw both great economic and technological progress and great cultural accomplishments. It was also the time when America became the undisputed leader of the world. I do not look back to 1960s, although I once did; I look back to 1920s. In 1920s economics and culture existed side by side, and I see no reason why they should not do the same now.

Once again, I see no reason why Renaissance Italy should have better art than America. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The problem has been that political correctness has been poisoning people against beauty; and this has created a completely deleterious effect on America.

So now there is someone in the White House who has the courage to challenge political correctness. He also has an excellent taste. It may very well be possible that this person will do something for culture in America. Maybe America will regain its value for beauty. And maybe the result will be magnificent architecture, machinery and artwork all around.