Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
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.
|
Ah, freedom fighters rather than terrorists.
The difference being that we agree with them.
Quote:
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?
|
How about a publisher in somewhere like Zimbabwe, where whites are a minority, and actively discriminated against, marginalised and ignored. Would it be ok to have a white-only publisher there? Isn't it the same situation as a black-only publisher in a majority white country?
Quote:
|
Attempting to compensate for the disadvantages inflicted on some groups is not the same as discrimination against the privileged group.
|
Well logically it is.
Where there are limited resources, discriminating in favour of A is the same as discriminating against not-A.
We might decide it is the right thing to do, but that doesn't change what it is.
In the UK, political parties are discussing having women-only shortlists to select candidates for elections. That
does mean that they are discriminating against men.