What percentage of books you own are by white authors?

[Malthus]

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

I answered the actual question asked above, a while ago. No-one cared though. It got not a single comment. 

Experimentally, discussing (or even "whining about") the question is in actual fact more interesting - unlike simply answering the question, it gets a response! Sometimes for many pages! 

Actually, that probably explains the leftist tendency, on display in the OP's quote, to use hectoring and shaming as a rhetorical technique as well - it gets notice. Though it is not far off from justifying trolling over rational discourse though (presumably justified by the importance of the subject).

[Oexmelin]

I see we have reached the exegesis moment of the thread...

Re: book recommendations, I'll see what I can do. I co-teach a class with my colleague who specializes in early-modern China, I'll ask him.

Actually, thinking about that, what the OP made me realize (apart from the blind spots of my own collection), is how few textbook-like / popular history are available from non-white, non-dudes. While I can think of numerous "non-Western", "non-white", "non-male" historians, I had a hard time identifying authors of publications for a more general public, or of a wider scope.

I am assuming that few of you are interested in reading in the history of race, but if you are, I would suggest at least for an orientation in a considerable literature, the "Charleston Syllabus" (University of Georgia Press), which emerged after the shooting, as an answer to investigate and understand collectively the event.

Otherwise, an excellent treatment of many of the issues, through the specific case of Sally Hemings, is the Pullitzer-prize winner book by Annette Gordon-Wood, "The Hemingses of Monticello". It's quite accessible. CLR James' the Black Jacobins is also a great read.

For near-east, military history, susceptible to be of interest to you, my Ottomanist colleague recommends Kahled Fahmy, All the Pasha's Men: Mehmed Ali, His Army, and the Making of Modern Egypt (Cambridge). I'll also ask her about Iran.

For Indigenous history, Michael Witgen's An Infinity of Nations is not the most lively read, but it is good history.

I'll see what I can add, once the craziness of the first weeks has subdued.

[dps]

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.
[

Wouldn't do much good for me right now if it was.  I don't have the time to expand my reading habits.  Get back to me on that after I retire.

[Delirium]

Berkut, you are 100% right about garbon, but I honestly do not see the point on spending energy on him. A lost cause.

[Delirium]

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.

Jacob, how far down the identity left quicksand have you fallen? Do you see my posts as simply whining as well? Or is there still hope for you?

[garbon]

Berkut, you are 100% right about garbon, but I honestly do not see the point on spending energy on him. A lost cause.

Funny, I'd say the same about you.

[The Brain]

Smell the love!

[Jacob]

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.

Jacob, how far down the identity left quicksand have you fallen? Do you see my posts as simply whining as well? Or is there still hope for you?

I thought your initial post was fine. I thought garbon's dismissal of it was rude and snarky (and potentially undeserved) but no more than that. I thought the reaction to garbon's dismissal was over the top straight into ridiculous territory. I think the idea that I've been "defending garbon" is laughable and that this whole episode is a tempest in a tiny teacup.

That about sums up what I think on the topic. You can decide if that's too deep into the quicksand for your sensibilities.

[CountDeMoney]

Goofing on Berkut is not the same as defending garbon.

[DGuller]

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.

Jacob, how far down the identity left quicksand have you fallen? Do you see my posts as simply whining as well? Or is there still hope for you?

I thought your initial post was fine. I thought garbon's dismissal of it was rude and snarky (and potentially undeserved) but no more than that. I thought the reaction to garbon's dismissal was over the top straight into ridiculous territory. I think the idea that I've been "defending garbon" is laughable and that this whole episode is a tempest in a tiny teacup.

That about sums up what I think on the topic. You can decide if that's too deep into the quicksand for your sensibilities.

I'm with Jacob all the way on this one.

[Berkut]

Yes, reacting to overt racism is certainly ridiculous.


Ignoring it is best, as long as it is displayed by our allies (of course).


What does deserve a reaction is any attempt to notice it amongst our allies. At that point hysterical attacks are the only option.


Following them from thread to thread is necessary as well.

[Berkut]

Berkut, you are 100% right about garbon, but I honestly do not see the point on spending energy on him. A lost cause.

I think calling out racism is always worth the effort. It will rarely mean anything to the person belittling someone because of their race, of course, but that generally isn't the point.

Like Jacob says, opposing nazis isn't really about convincing the nazis of anything. Funny how that is so selectively applied, but the basic idea is sound.

[DGuller]

Yes, reacting to overt racism is certainly ridiculous.


Ignoring it is best, as long as it is displayed by our allies (of course).


What does deserve a reaction is any attempt to notice it amongst our allies. At that point hysterical attacks are the only option.


Following them from thread to thread is necessary as well.

I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that people on both sides of the argument are finding your meltdown silly and unwarranted.  Look over my posts here and in other similar threads, ignoring the ones where I directly or indirectly address Berkut v. garbon, and tell me whose ally I am.

[mongers]

Yes, reacting to overt racism is certainly ridiculous.


Ignoring it is best, as long as it is displayed by our allies (of course).


What does deserve a reaction is any attempt to notice it amongst our allies. At that point hysterical attacks are the only option.


Following them from thread to thread is necessary as well.

I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that people on both sides of the argument are finding your meltdown silly and unwarranted.  Look over my posts here and in other similar threads, ignoring the ones where I directly or indirectly address Berkut v. garbon, and tell me whose ally I am.

It's a pity Hurricane Berkut can't be contained by mere teacups.

[grumbler]

I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that people on both sides of the argument are finding your meltdown silly and unwarranted.  Look over my posts here and in other similar threads, ignoring the ones where I directly or indirectly address Berkut v. garbon, and tell me whose ally I am.

I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that you actually cannot speak for the "people on both sides of the argument" and that your position is not, in fact, the only one that is reasonable.

Berkut thinks that pointing out racism as it rears its ugly head is important.  Garbon thinks that he cannot possibly be racist even when he uses racist language.  It is possible that one of them is wrong, but it is unlikely that both are.