What percentage of books you own are by white authors?

[Tamas]

I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?

[garbon]

I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?

That is the stance that some people have adopted. I guess they derived that from the blurb in the OP.

[Berkut]

I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?

No, the premise is that you should be aware of the race of the authors you choose to read, and if you don't, then you are probably a privileged white guy who might as well be a racist.

And more importantly, if you don't agree with that position, then you should STFU, again, because you feel that way because you are white. Your views on the matter can be, and ought to be, dismissed out of hand as being motivated by your race rather than reason. The irony of accusing someone of thinking in some particular way about racism based on their supposed race, is apparently of no note.

[Tamas]

I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?

That is the stance that some people have adopted. I guess they derived that from the blurb in the OP.

That's just silly. If you are interested in a book but set it aside when learning the colour of the author's skin, that's when you are racist.

[garbon]

I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?

That is the stance that some people have adopted. I guess they derived that from the blurb in the OP.

That's just silly. If you are interested in a book but set it aside when learning the colour of the author's skin, that's when you are racist.

True. It is good that it is a position that no poster on Languish has actually come out in favor of.

[garbon]

No, the premise is that you should be aware of the race of the authors you choose to read, and if you don't, then you are probably a privileged white guy who might as well be a racist.

And more importantly, if you don't agree with that position, then you should STFU, again, because you feel that way because you are white. Your views on the matter can be, and ought to be, dismissed out of hand as being motivated by your race rather than reason. The irony of accusing someone of thinking in some particular way about racism based on their supposed race, is apparently of no note.

Weird as I don't think any languish posters have said anything like what I've just quoted.

[Berkut]

No, the premise is that you should be aware of the race of the authors you choose to read, and if you don't, then you are probably a privileged white guy who might as well be a racist.

And more importantly, if you don't agree with that position, then you should STFU, again, because you feel that way because you are white. Your views on the matter can be, and ought to be, dismissed out of hand as being motivated by your race rather than reason. The irony of accusing someone of thinking in some particular way about racism based on their supposed race, is apparently of no note.

Weird as I don't think any languish posters have said anything like what I've just quoted.

You absolutely did.

*white whine*

[garbon]

It was. That doesn't mean I meant what you summarised.

[Berkut]

It was. That doesn't mean I meant what you summarised.

Oh?

What did it mean then?

How is calling out his race as a response to his argument somehow something OTHER THAN an attempt to dismiss his argument based on his race?

If this were reversed, and he said something like "black bitching" would you and Jake insist that there is nothing untoward or racist about such a response to your position?

I think your response means *precisely* what I am saying it means, and is exactly the problem with the left (and in this you are most certainly part of the progressive left) and their approach to identity politics. Any dissent is responded to with an accusation of privilege or lack of ability to understand based on race and the demand that the person views be dismissed, if not actively silenced. It is intolerance and bigotry nominally in the service of tolerance and inclusion.

[Malthus]

The OP statement has a bunch of odd assumptions embedded in it.

There are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.

"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.

"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."

Assumption #1: that a significant number of readers actively pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers, and use this as a badge of non-prejudice. I'd say that the actual case is more like 'most people don't know the 'identities' of their authors (aside from guessing from their names) and have never thought about it much one way or another'.

Assumption #2: that not knowing or caring is "self-satisfied" statement that those who don't know or care about author's (racial) identities "don't care enough to look beyond [their] nose". In short, that one ought to care about the racial identity of one's authors, and that failing to do so is a sign of shameful indifference.

Assumption #3: that caring about the racial identity of one's authors either is, or would lead to, making "positive change".

What the ultimate goal of this "positive change" would be isn't actually stated. There we have to enter the realm of speculation. Why, exactly, would knowing specifically the racial identity of one's authors lead to "positive change"?

Presumably, because knowing more from the perspective of Black authors would lead to some knowledge or perspective not otherwise obtainable. 

This isn't stated anywhere, but it is a reasonable assumption, that the author of the blurb wishes to encourage folks to read more Black authors for that reason. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to wish to encourage.

Their method of going about it, though, is odd to say the least.

The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.   

[frunk]

The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.   

Even for those that believe in the rightness of the POV it's unlikely to work well.  Reading for most of us is a leisure activity, one that we enjoy.  If the intent is to shame us for what we read, chances are we'll stop reading because the enjoyment is gone rather than explore new authors we might have missed.  Trying to make people miserable about something that they take pleasure in never ends well.

[Berkut]

The OP statement has a bunch of odd assumptions embedded in it.

There are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.

"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.

"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."

Assumption #1: that a significant number of readers actively pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers, and use this as a badge of non-prejudice. I'd say that the actual case is more like 'most people don't know the 'identities' of their authors (aside from guessing from their names) and have never thought about it much one way or another'.

Assumption #2: that not knowing or caring is "self-satisfied" statement that those who don't know or care about author's (racial) identities "don't care enough to look beyond [their] nose". In short, that one ought to care about the racial identity of one's authors, and that failing to do so is a sign of shameful indifference.

Assumption #3: that caring about the racial identity of one's authors either is, or would lead to, making "positive change".

What the ultimate goal of this "positive change" would be isn't actually stated. There we have to enter the realm of speculation. Why, exactly, would knowing specifically the racial identity of one's authors lead to "positive change"?

Presumably, because knowing more from the perspective of Black authors would lead to some knowledge or perspective not otherwise obtainable. 

This isn't stated anywhere, but it is a reasonable assumption, that the author of the blurb wishes to encourage folks to read more Black authors for that reason. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to wish to encourage.

Their method of going about it, though, is odd to say the least.

The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.   

Only a white person would think that.

[HVC]

garbons microagressions are triggering me.

and since we're asking for book recommendations, Oex do you know a good one on the 100 years war from the French perspective? English language would help hah

[Jacob]

The OP statement has a bunch of odd assumptions embedded in it.

There are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.

"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.

"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."

Assumption #1: that a significant number of readers actively pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers, and use this as a badge of non-prejudice. I'd say that the actual case is more like 'most people don't know the 'identities' of their authors (aside from guessing from their names) and have never thought about it much one way or another'.

Assumption #2: that not knowing or caring is "self-satisfied" statement that those who don't know or care about author's (racial) identities "don't care enough to look beyond [their] nose". In short, that one ought to care about the racial identity of one's authors, and that failing to do so is a sign of shameful indifference.

Assumption #3: that caring about the racial identity of one's authors either is, or would lead to, making "positive change".

What the ultimate goal of this "positive change" would be isn't actually stated. There we have to enter the realm of speculation. Why, exactly, would knowing specifically the racial identity of one's authors lead to "positive change"?

Presumably, because knowing more from the perspective of Black authors would lead to some knowledge or perspective not otherwise obtainable. 

This isn't stated anywhere, but it is a reasonable assumption, that the author of the blurb wishes to encourage folks to read more Black authors for that reason. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to wish to encourage.

Their method of going about it, though, is odd to say the least.

The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.   

Yeah, it's a bit cack handed. Guilting people into looking at things your way is usually pretty tiresome. You could respond to it in a few ways - Sav's approach which is to look at the substance of the question - to what extent are your reading habits in a silo of different kinds, and is there value in pushing yourself out of those silos on occasion? Alternately, you could look at the form - including the smarmy implications of guilt - an whine about how offended you are. We're seeing both approaches in this thread, though personally I think the first one is more interesting.

Each to their own, of course

[Berkut]

There is only one True Social Justice Warrior approved approach though, and Jake surely will tell us what it is - anything else is (white) "whining".