I only read white male authors because anything else might include discussions of race/gender, which i find confronting

Some non white authors are worth reading - the Greeks, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Russians and the Irish.

Reading non males is a waste of time.

They should probly try to stay out of the sun

is this a good start if I want to confront my whiteness and understand intersectionality and the plight of marginalized voices?

pats on the head and being told "good goy" just don't cut it for me.
Nobody pleasures me like a white man.

And all are white, kike.

Invisible Man

Sigrid Undset and Willa Cather are not something I would ever miss out on, and you sort of have to read Silvia Plath to namedrop in hipster company

I find them dull more than anything, much of diversity lit has this mass produced feel, ie. when latinx authors drop a few spanish words that are always deducible from context for cheap alterity points. (muh ''abuela'' gets me every time). It's merely a secularized version of victorian moralizing literature imo.

>And all are white, kike.

Irish and Russians might look white, but behavior wise, they are no better than the colored

As for Greeks, Italians and Spaniards being white you should brush up on the history of the Moorish conquests and Turkish rape babies. And maybe get your vision checked while you are at it.

Only southern italians and spaniards have a lot of nigger blood tho

>Behavior wise

Look at this cuck and laugh

Pretty sure the Moor blood is limited to Sicilians and is about 10%.

>>Behavior wise
>Look at this cuck and laugh

Be honest now - if you had Russians or Irish move into your neighborhood, wouldn't you be upset?

Would I get 'good goy' points for reading Borges because he is Latin American?
Or is he considered white because he is from Argentina?

Borges is a POC author and his work must be read in the light of postcolonialism and queer theory

No, why?

Every Latin American author, and most every Latin American with an IQ over 90 generally, has little to no indio blood.

He's white because his ancestry is European. Marquez is mixed, and I think Bolaño is too

They stopped when Turkey took over, but ancient Greeks are white.

Bolano might have been one of those marrano jews from the looks of it

lol

They were mixed at best. Many tribes were of browner/whiter colour that Athenians.
See a modern dna research to find out about Modern Greeks too.

not shelley tho

>tfw never consciously considered what I was choosing to read
>had it pointed out to me in college
>up till then I'd really only read the classics and the "canon"
>give more modern and diverse works a try
>become overwhelmed with a sense of elation knowing I'd avoided this tripe all my life and innately preferred sensible and worthwhile works instead
>finally understand what's meant by self esteem
>tfw no matter what, how much of a failure I am at least I won't be one of those people who mistake the noise of glorifying victimhood for substance
yokatta

the opposite is true for me, for white people, writing is a matter of prose and technicality , for the marginalised, it's a matter of life and death.

Precisely, it's a means to an end. Not art.

>for the marginalised, it's a matter of life and death.
a lot of "PoC literature" is preaching to the choir at best and cashing out at worst

same, but not because i find it confronting. it just doesn't interest me.

>bell hooks
>hell books

half of "ancient greece" was in turkey ya doofus

>Half of Britain was in America therefore Mexicans are British
Ionians took over former Phoenician ports, they were colonizers

maybe the others but
>Irish
no chance

>Be honest now - if you had Russians or Irish move into your neighborhood, wouldn't you be upset?

Just stop, Rabbi.

Recommend me some "good" female and minority authors, I literally cannot think of one.

WE

Well, of course there's . . . no, wait. Never mind.

Edith Hamilton

How many Phoenician ports were there in the Aegean?

Pushkin

>Europeans aren't white

WUZ

>tfw never consciously considered what I was pretending to read
>had it pointed out to me in college
>up till then I'd really only pretended to read the classics and the "canon"
>found Veeky Forums
>become overwhelmed with a sense of elation knowing there were many people who pretended to read only classics
>finally understand what's meant by self esteem
>tfw no matter what, how much of a failure I am at least I won't be one of those people who mistake the noise of glorifying victimhood for substance
yokatta

You're missing out. There's plenty of female writers who aren't writing soap operas centering on issues.

George Eliot
Edith Wharton
Colette
Aninas Nin
Djuna Barnes
Virginia Woolf
Katherine Anne Porter
Jean Rhys
Carson McCullers
Flannery O'Connor
Eudora Welty
Jane Bowles

Best goy ever

>might include discussions of race/gender, which i find confronting

You can only read so many variations on "kill whitey" before it gets tedious.

Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison, Virginia Woolf, Gayl Jones, James Baldwin, Richard Wright, W.E.B. Du Bois, Frantz Fanon, Anna Julia Cooper, Yasunari Kawabata, Osamu Dazai, Natsume Soseki, Martin Delany, Alice Walker, Jane Austen, Charlotte and Emily Bronte, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Julio Cortazar, Zora Neale Hurston, and Arna Bontemps, to name a few

...

George Eliot. Silas Marner is a fun little read.

have you taken your Abilify yet?

I'm white but it'd be silly for me to claim Joyce as my heritage becase I'm not Irish.

I only read white male authors because you need to have at least a 120 IQ to write something that's not insipid fantasy fulfillment and most women and non-whites can't manage that consistently. Also assertiveness and self-regard is necessary to form fictional narratives or to theorize properly, again only white males and jews can do this. Asians can when they try but it seems uniquely male and caucasoid. Recommend me a book by a black or woman that has nothing to do with the struggle of being a black or a woman and I'll read it this year I promise Veeky Forums otherwise fuck yourselves you cucks

Isak Dineson-Seven Gothic Tales

>white
>because he is from Argentina

U wat m8?

Agree except for:
>jews can do this.
Jews cannot do that.

Kafka was a Jew and is one of the greatest writers in human history. Jews have the highest verbal iq and are the language race, dominate linguistics. They're one of the 3 ruler races you would do well to show some respect. The others are born to serve.
ok will check it out user

What is the third?

Frantz Fanon is not even mediocre.
>Kawabata, Dazai, Soseki

Lol those aren't any minority, just Japanese.

>Julio Cortázar

Is he black now? Or a women?

>99% of female literature/movies/etc is about sexual discovery/liberation
hard pass

Jews, Germans, German Jews

Julio Cortazar represents a minority.

Kafka is not a good writer and verbal IQ is only beneficial in a technical sense. Jews are not creative, which is why they're poor writers from a literary perspective.

> . . . which I find confronting.

What did 'he' [the retard] mean by this?

Fuck off, yank. He doesn't in the context he is culturally relevant. Stop thinking everything revolves about your disgusting fat ass

>Everything that is not american is a minority: the post

Kill yourself my friend

underrated

Latinx ppl have been historically marginalized by Eurocentric culture, though

Lmao and I bet you're one of those posters who thinks the entire publishing industry is greedy Jew stereotypes

>I'm white but it'd be silly for me to claim Joyce as my heritage becase I'm not Irish.

t. fagtard who doesn't know shit about linguistics, philosophy, or logic

By your reasoning, the same could be said about pretty much any author. The definition of any given social group is arbitrary. That being said, once we establish such a definition thereof, it's quite likely that whether you belong to such a group is a matter of objective fact. Once you do define such a group, you raise the possibility of further dividing this group into subgroup that may exclude each other (e.g. a group of people may all be white, but then you might be able to divide this group into Russians and Germans). Thus two individual might belong to different, mutually exclusive groups on one level (e.g. Russian or German), but might belong to the same group at a more abstract level (e.g. "white").

Thus, assuming you're white, you can "claim Joyce as [your] heritage [sic]" insofar as you're both white. That being said, you can't "claim him as your heritage" insofar as he is Irish, unless you yourself are Irish. . . But the same can be said for someone of your own ethnicity. For example, assuming you're German, you might lay claim to Goethe as a representative of 'your people', as it were. However, if we further divide the German people into other subroups (e.g Bavarians, Prussians, Austrians, etc.), then you might say, e.g. that you can't lay ancestral claim, so to speak, to his work since you're a Bavarian and he isn't. Or assuming you're both Bavarian, you might then say that he's from a different region of Bavaria, or that he has a different last name, or that you have the same last name, but he isn't closely related enough, since your closest common ancestor lived 5 generations before Goethe (or 4, or 3 , or 2, or etc.).

The point here being that your argument is retarded because given any group to which you and some other individual mutually belong, you can generally further divide that group into distinct subgroups that would serve to separate each of you from each other.

I your case, you can lay claim to Joyce owing to your mutual whiteness, but of course if nationality is what you're looking at, then you can't lay claim to his work since you aren't Irish.

Yes, and? I'm talking about the Spanish speaking cultural context

one race the HUMAN race

GREEKS

You shouldn't lay claim to anyone's work besides your own and, in certain cases, immediate family members (parents or siblings, very occasionally spouse).

Kill yourself frogger. Frogs are not welcome here.

East-Asians

>mediocre white guy goes on spoonfeeding adventure, reaffirms self worth

Confirmed nobooks

>ignores rest of post
At this point you're just making excuses for your own ignorance and plebbiness. You should leave if you're this threatened by the prospect of reading.

Ive never seen more angry sophistry in one post.

>be a dilettante
>assume everyone else is too
Sad!

>Latinx
What the fuck is that? A breed of cat?

I know you are wrong, but whenever I reads this shitpost it reminds me my Jewish friend I work with (we are screenwriters). He is the only person I've ever met with a didactic knowledge of art history, music, politics, history etc greater than my own in breadth. However, he doesn't go as deep as could and seems to act like he's completed his intelligence, its all money making now. Also he has little interest in philosophy besides Judaism. His older brother is the same way: as an artist/writers they both apply great technical artistry but not what I would call emotionally deep, transcendental work.

>Kafka is not a good writer

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, that's the position I myself would take. My point was just that it's sort of unjustifiable or indefensible in a rationalistic sense, to claim that one can't claim something like 'ancestral' or 'hereditary' credit for the work of someone else simply in virtue of belonging to the same race, but in the case of someone of the same ethnicity or nationality, you can. Regardless of whether one believes in the legitimacy of something like what I've called 'ancestral credit' (i.e. identifying with the work of some individual on the basis of some shared cultural and/or biological identity), you must be consistent in the sense that if you believe people can claim ancestral credit on the basis of shared ethnic or national identity, then they're also justified in claiming ancestral credit on the basis of shared racial identity. Conversely, if one denies the legitimacy of claiming ancestral credit in virtue of shared racial identity, then they should also deny the legitimacy of claiming ancestral credit on the basis of shared ethnic or national identity. In short regardless of the empirical legitimacy of 'ancestral credit' (for lack of a better term), one is rationally obligated to acknowledge that ancestral credit can be legitimately applied to racial identity if and only if it can be applied to national or ethnic identity. It would be completely arbitrary and unjustifiable to accept ancestral credit in one case and not the other.

(This has to do with the fact that there is no CLEAR distinction between race and ethnicity. That being said, I'm not claiming that these are the same thing, but rather that there is something like a continuum between ethnicity and race, and no strict and definite distinction can be drawn on purely a priori and definitional grounds.)

I'm not angry. The whole 'fagtard' comment was sort of a joke. I'm not someone who gets angry about comments on the internet or, e.g. when playing video games on xbox live or something (not that I really do that anymore).

That being said, what I said wasn't sophistry. It is, strictly speaking true. My point was simply that if you claim to be justified in claim vicarious credit (or 'ancestral credit' as I called it in a previous post) for the work of another individual on the basis of shared ethnic identity, then you're obligated to recognize the legitimacy of claiming vicarious credit on the basis of shared racial identity as well.

My point was that you can always divide a social group into subgroups so that any two individuals who share identity with respect to the larger group, belong to mutually exclusive groupings with respect to the smaller subgroups.

If shared identity with respect to some social group is sufficient for one to claim vicarious credit, then the fact that we can also rearrange things on the basis of some other principle (e.g. nationality as opposed to race) is not reason enough to claim to undermine our original project, so to speak.

The existence of subcultures does not ontologically undermine the existence of the larger cultural bodies to which they belong. Either we can speak of things like culture or we cannot, but we cannot, e.g. say that "American culture" is a pure fiction simply because within "American culture" we can also identify "Maryland culture" or "New England culture" or "Southern culture", etc.

>tfw patrician by nature

I only read male Latin, European or Jewish Authors. Everyone else please stop trying.

It's a /pol/ ruins another thread episode.
yay

White ppl have a psychotic guilt complex instead. Feels good being a mongrel in a peripheral Latin shithole tbhhz, being able of looking on the great USAmerican circus from the outside as it crashes and burns

Uhh...

And what are the other two races? Aryans and chinamen, I assume?

Yeah, because it's pure sophistry to point out that it's unreasonable and unwarranted to arbitrarily identify with someone on the basis of nationality while refusing to do so on the basis of race.