What percentage of books you own are by white authors?

[garbon]

And I was dismissive as his earlier comments and his most recent completely snarky one (which Oex did an admirable job at answering) didn't seem like someone who was entering this with any actual interest in the subject. As mentioned, he's already said he doesn't give a fuck about race.

Well in doing so, you apparently upset a few people who do give a fuck about race. Collateral damage, as it were.

Oh well.

[Admiral Yi]

On the shelf right now are one Annie Proulx book and one Francis Fukayama book.  Everything else is white male.

[Eddie Teach]

Garbon has always been socially progressive. Seems the main thing that's changed is how much weight he gives those issues vs economic ones.

[garbon]

Garbon has always been socially progressive. Seems the main thing that's changed is how much weight he gives those issues vs economic ones.

I have always been socially progressive. The latter sentence is a bit inaccurate though as it is clear the Republicans don't give two shits about economic concerns. So it isn't that economic concerns are less of a concern to me, there just isn't really a party that seems to pay any focus to that.

[Admiral Yi]

I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.

[garbon]

I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.

No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?

I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).

[Malthus]

I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.

No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?

I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).

I get you. I'm sort of similar - small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part. 

[garbon]

I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.

No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?

I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).

I get you. I'm sort of similar - small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part. 

Yeah, more like who can act, say and do the most evil things. Race to the bottom.

[The Brain]

I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.

No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?

I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).

I get you. I'm sort of similar - small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part. 

Yeah, more like who can act, say and do the most evil things. Race to the bottom.

Does such a thing exist?

[garbon]

Racism to the bottom doesn't sound as good or as encompassing.

[Delirium]

ou are wasting your time Oex, garbon already nailed it - Del can't consider any of that because he is white.

You may be putting words into garbon's mouth there. I mean, yeah - garbon's comment was dismissive as fuck but you're kinda jumping across a few more lanes of traffic to get to that exit.

No he didn't, garbon is a clown and Berkut called it correctly. At least Oexmelin read my post, I'll get back to you. 

[derspiess]

small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part. 

[Eddie Teach]

Rand is pro-life though.

[DGuller]

Yeah, more like who can act, say and do the most evil things. Race to the bottom.

Does such a thing exist?

[Barrister]

Forgive me for being late to the party: I was out camping with sporadic internet - I would have to take the boys to the play park to get a signal, and even if I wanted to post I was inundated with requests to push kids on swings.

I am somewhat surprised at the hostility to the mere asking of the question: Sav is hardly known as a "Social Justice Warrior" around here, and the question is just one of mere fact.  There is no judgment inherent in the question (although it can be implied).  But instead of saying "100% white, and so what?" a few people got there backs up at merely asking.

I knew my library would hew almost entirely white.  It's largely history books (or historical fiction) and most of my interests are towards European history, so fully expected that I had a very white library.

But I will admit that when I got back home today and looked at my library, I was surprised that pretty much all of my non-European history books are also written by what appear to be "white" writers.  For example, I had the book "The Arabs" by Eugene Rogan, sitting on my to read pile for years.  So I took it with me and read it over the last six days.  It is a history of the Arab people from the Ottoman conquest to present (well, to circa 2009 when it was written).  It's a decidedly pro-Arab view of recent history, but what the name highly suspected a brief googling confirms - he's a very white professor of middle eastern history at Oxford.

Or, I had one book I was sure was written by a native fellow "A National Crime" by John S Milloy, detailing the Canadian Indian Residential School system.  The author drew on his work with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from the mid 90s in writing the book.  I was sure he was native, but while little information about Milloy is available online (he's a professor at Trent University) I no longer suspect he's native.

So all in all, my total tally of non-white books is two: the I Ching and The Bible.  For an approximate ratio of 99%+ white.

Now what does that mean?  You tell me.  Is a white person incapable of telling the history of modern Arab history or modern Canadian Aboriginal history?  I don't think so, though I suspect the perspective of non-white would be useful (though in both examples the authors relied heavily on non-white sources, and both books were heavily critical of the "white" figures (though neither book would use such language)).  Am I a flawed person for reading "white" historical narratives so heavily?  Again, I don't think so.

But am I open to reading some interesting history books written by non-white historians?  Sure.  Someone hook me up with some recommendations.