What percentage of books you own are by white authors?

[Berkut]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

[Barrister]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

I didn't see much scanning through this thread on my phone, though it was sunny so I guess I could have overlooked some.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

I frequently disagree with garbon, and my whiteness (despite a good tan after a week in the woods) is pretty overwhelming, so I tend to think not.

[CountDeMoney]

So all in all, my total tally of non-white books is two: the I Ching and The Bible.

[Ed Anger]

Okay, that gif made my day.

[Jacob]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

Could you point me to the post(s) with the outright racism?

[Oexmelin]

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

What are you looking for? Which area? / time period and how "general public" do you want it to be?

[sbr]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

Could you point me to the post(s) with the outright racism?

I am curious about this too.  I have read the OP at least 5 times and don't see it.

[Barrister]

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

What are you looking for? Which area? / time period and how "general public" do you want it to be?

As "general public" as appropriate for a guy who has maybe 100 history books all of which could probably be described as "general public", if that makes any sense.

Other than saying 'eh, I'm probably full up on WWII' I'm pretty open to time period or region.

Most of my books are from cruising the local Chapters store and picking up a book that "looks interesting", rather than seeking out any particular text online.  It's the advantage of being a fully amateur historian.   I tend to look for large areas of history I know nothing about, rather than to drill down to the minute detail of topics I am well familiar with (though topics of particular interest which I have gone deeper are the Yukon gold rush and 19th century arctic exploration).

[Jacob]

Hey if we are asking for recommendations, I'd love some on the following topics:

- South East Asia, pre European conquest - both general overviews and works focusing on specific areas.
- Sub-Saharan Africa, especially the Eastern seaboard and its connections across and along the Indian Ocean, again pre-European contact.
- Good social histories of both Persia and the Caliphate.
- Anything on non-Han polities in what is now China.

Popular is probably the easiest, but academic is fine if the writing is still not too inaccessible.

[garbon]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

#notallwhitemen

[Delirium]

Okay, since people had momentarily stopped with the snide one-liners against anyone who, like Berkut says, has a different opinion than the predominant one, I will try a serious post, of course expecting little but accusations of ignorance in return.

1. On the idea that only the text matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

New Critics believed the structure and meaning of the text were intimately connected and should not be analyzed separately. In order to bring the focus of literary studies back to analysis of the texts, they aimed to exclude the reader's response, the author's intention, historical and cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from their analysis. These goals were articulated in Ransom's "Criticism, Inc." and Allen Tate's "Miss Emily and the Bibliographers".

Back in university this was the part of literary studies class that I most enjoyed and it made sense to me. Like it or not, this is an established theory. You can argue that this theory has little value outside fiction but the original post did not make that distinction.

2. On being against identity politics (you have probably read it):

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?action=click&contentCollection=Book%20Review&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and "celebrate" our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism's message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

and the debate that follows: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/23/is-criticism-of-identity-politics-racist-or-long-overdue

3. Let us talk about what BB says:

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.

I think this sums up a genuine problem, since quite a number of people would say that you indeed HAVE to be a member of those groups in order to tell their history. But there are more variables to it than that. Someone born in Japan but whose family moved to California 50 years ago certainly looks like he knows a lot about Japan to some people. But then we have a French teacher who has lived in Tokyo almost all her adult life. Common sense dictates that it is not the colour of their skin that determines how qualified they are to speak on contemporary Japanese culture, yet that is exactly what a lot of people would have you believe.

Individuals have to be measured, one by one, by the merits of their knowledge, skill, eloquence, degree of research and what they have accomplished, in short by what they actually SAY, and not which group they belong to.

4. Again, I'm white, so my opinions cannot possibly matter, I am always teh priviliged. Right?

[garbon]

4. Again, I'm white, so my opinions cannot possibly matter, I am always teh priviliged. Right?

Well I guess you said you were only going to try at a serious post.

I really can't get over though that we've posters who got butt hurt because there's a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view. And then they turn around acting as though they are being victimized. WTF.

[Berkut]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

Could you point me to the post(s) with the outright racism?

Garbon claiming that Del's position on the matter was because he was white.

[Berkut]

I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".

Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.

You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?

#notallwhitemen

Of course  - you can just dismiss the views of white men who don't agree with you. They don't agree because they are white, not because they might just disagree for perfectly rational reasons other than their race.

[Berkut]

4. Again, I'm white, so my opinions cannot possibly matter, I am always teh priviliged. Right?

Well I guess you said you were only going to try at a serious post.

I really can't get over though that we've posters who got butt hurt because there's a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view. And then they turn around acting as though they are being victimized. WTF.

This is about as dishonest and contemptible a post as there has been on Languish.

I think the only that is butt hurt is you - simply noting that choosing what books to read without even knowing the race of the author is NOT racism has resulted in you making overtly racist responses.

This is precisely the problem with identity politics and discourse today.

You are trying to deny those who disagree with you a fair voice in the discussion by *immediately* claiming that their position is the result of their race and intolerance, rather than even attempt to respond to their points.

*This* attitude, this intolerance for differing viewpoints, is vastly more problematic and repulsive than the fact that most people don't think seriously about the race of the authors on their bookshelf.

a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view.

This is a straight out lie about what this thread is about, and what those who object to it are saying.
Nobody, NOBODY, has said that additional points of view are not desirable (well, except for you - you said white points of view were safely dismissed).

You cannot find one single person in this thread who would agree with that characterization of their opinion.