Another issue that Krupat goes into is the underrepresentation of minority writers in the literary canon. He says that "the cultural expression of red, white, and black people seems to me to have a historically urgent claim to primary attention" (54). I was a little unnerved by the fact that he used the terms "red," "white," and "black" to describe ethnicities, but I suppose his intention was not to offend. This section confused me somewhat because he calls for more representation of minority writers in the canon (or at least as candidates for the canon), but doesn't propose to create a proportionate representation for these groups. He simply wants the texts of minority writers to be read and studied as much as "Euramerican" literature. It seems fair enough to me, and makes sense since the groups he mentioned are a large part of the "Western" history and literature. I'm not sure exactly how one would go about making the recognition of these texts happen, though.
The concept of the canon is so abstract (at least to me), and so is the idea of including more minorities into the canon. It requires a lot of questions to be answered concretely: Which texts are in the current canon(s)? Who decides on what goes in a canon? How do readers (serious and casual ones) know what is in the canon? How does one decide which non-Euramerican texts are worth including in the canon? Are they chosen because of their merit/"greatness" or just because they are from a minority perspective? It seems to me that for quite a long time the canon has been considered a body of "classic" texts that have been representative of particular cultures and histories, but has been excluding certain groups, either intentionally or unintentionally. From what I've gathered in Krupat's article, though, the traditional view of having "classics" (typically written by white males) in the canon is constantly being challenged by other views.