Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
It is a thorny problem. Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe that a white-only publisher was also OK?
|
They aren't equivalent situations.
One is working against discrimination & oppression by giving attention to a marginalized group. The other is supporting a habit of exclusion whose roots are firmly in the notion that some groups of people are inherently better and more worthy than others.
Why would a publisher declare itself White-only?
There are publishers that only publish books by women, or books by people of color, or books by queer authors, or books by Muslims. They do so because these voices have traditionally been excluded from publication, and while some progress has been made, we've not reached anything resembling equal representation.
What *possible* logic could explain a publisher refusing books from all non-White authors? Does the public lack access to White voices? Are they being marginalized and ignored? How could a policy of "Whites only" be anything other than racist?
The argument, "they can do it so I should be allowed to, too!" is suitable for children on a playground--who meet as peers. In publishing, different groups don't all meet as peers; some are more excluded from every stage of the process. Attempting to compensate for the disadvantages inflicted on some groups is not the same as discrimination against the privileged group.