OK, here’s a piece from the Washington Post on the revival of classic texts – the work of "dead, white men" – in American colleges.  I have become more sympathetic to such endeavors in recent years, given my own experience with turning to and teaching ancient Chinese thought.  But – and this is the obvious point for anyone who has been following along here the last two months – my big question is: why only dead white men? 

     It is certainly true that there are great texts, from which all sorts of learning can  be drawn, in the bibliography of ancient "Western" culture.  But there are equally stimulating and important possibilities in Chinese and other "Eastern" traditions.  Indeed, if there were more emphasis on ancient text from all over the world (I am thinking of India here as well as early Islamic thinkers), then the tenuousness of demarcating "East" from "West" would become much clearer.  Yes, yes, there are key differences between ancient Greece and ancient China (and I think Chuang Tzu is most responsible for the contours of those differences), but there are stunning similarities as well.  I do not want to return to the ancient Western canon for nationalist purposes: to show how "we" have developed "our" superior culture over time, going all the way back to Homer.  Rather, I believe consideration of the ancients, from various traditions, will help us better negotiate the tricky line between difference and similarity, and see a common theme of humanity across cultures.   Cross cultural empathy is something we very much need these days.