Is it really time to stop reading white male authors Veeky Forums?

You mean ancient African mythology written down by white people because blacks can't into writing?

>black people and women are simply uncapable of writing anything of any worth
black people yes
there were some good women authors

Not him, but an oral tradition is not necessary inferior to a written one. Would you shit on Homer too because he never wrote anything down, leaving the jobs to poets who came hundreds of years after him?

so can anyone refute this? any of you tumblr sjws want to take a crack? im on the fence

I've read mostly white males because they happen to be the most common color and dongle formation of English language lit. Having said that My favorite or one of my favorite Authors in Octavia Butler. I think it's sad that the a lot of topics debated today are dominated by extremist veiws it's either "nigger and bitches aint shit" or "cis-white males are shit" both of those sides are fucking stupid and I can't have a god damn reasonable conversation with anyone without them forcing me to one side or the other of these moronic choices.

Greeks had writing AND oral tradition, blacks are too stupid to develop the former. Also are you trying to claim that Africans produced poetry like Homer? Please. More like whites wrote down the stupid stories told by village elders sitting in mud huts.

And for some reason this makes white males think everything they write is worth reading.

The Homeric written tradition, as I've said, came centuries after his death. Is he an inferior poet due to this fact? And more in general, is the way in which poetry is preserved a good way to tell how good it is?

>Most of Western philosophy considers writing a derivative and parasitic necessity for recording spoken words that can be dangerously misinterpreted
>This dumbass thinks written traditions don't develop just because the people are stupid

Yeah Socrates was too stupid to write anything down too

Stop. There is no black Homer, and yes, never having written it down does indicate they and consequently whatever art they produce is inferior.

Socrates was probably a character invented by Plato, and even if he wasn't you wouldn't know anything about him if his CONTEMPORARY Plato hadn't written about it.

>tfw we've got writings from Plato only because he needed a way to remind himself of prior dialogues with teachers and students of his
>apart from that he thought that writing and as intellectual poison, and that only through oral dialectics one could obtain any philosophical knowledge

Yeah, he is full of shit.

Care to address the point?

I did.

Plato despised the act of writing and reading, dummy.

>Stop. There is no black Homer
Wait, what? Your point is that oral traditions are inherently inferior. I've told you that Homer fully operated in a oral tradition, and that he has never written anything down, and now you tell me that that does not count because he is black.
So what is your criteria here? The skin colour of the author, or wether his tradition is oral or narrative?

You're really going to get the heat this time, Shlomo.

>Wait, what? Your point is that oral traditions are inherently inferior. I've told you that Homer fully operated in a oral tradition, and that he has never written anything down, and now you tell me that that does not count because he is black.
No, this is all in your head. My point was that blacks are so stupid they need other people to write down their shit for them, unlike non-subhuman races which invent their own writing to record oral traditions.

If you think that then you aren't very good at reading. You say written traditions don't develop if the people are stupid, but most of Western philosophy has spoken negatively of writing because it's a derivative imitation at best and dangerous at worst. Just goes to show there may be more reasons for not developing written language other than the people being stupid. There's no real correlation between the two.

So, you're despising them because they are black, and not because they have not written anything down, since you're willing to give a pass to European ancient poets who did the same. Predictable.

>merchants have to organize and ship their products
>they start writing shit down

>a few thousands years later LARPers on Veeky Forums use this as an excuse to feel inherently superior to his fellow man

You are going to Hell, my friend.

>So, you're despising them because they are black,

Yes.

>and not because they have not written anything down,

No.

>since you're willing to give a pass to European ancient poets who did the same

Name one black ancient anything who produced something that can be compared to Homer.

Thanks (((merchants))) for giving us writing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Top literary magazines in the USA in order of size

>Source: everywritersresource.com/top50literarymagazines/

1. New Yorker (Jewish Editor)

2. Ploughshares (White Female Editor)

3. Paris Review (Jewish Editor)

4. Tin House (Jewish Editor)

5. New England Review (Jewish Editor)

6. Granta (Jewish Editor)

7. Harper's (White Male Editor)

8. Kenyon Review (Jewish Editor)

9. Georgia Review (White Male Editor)

10. The Southern Review (Two Jewish Co-Editors)

11. Virginia Quarterly Review (Paul Reyes - Ethnicity Unknown)

12. Threepenny Review (Jewish Editor)

13. American Short Fiction (Two Jewish co-Editors)

14. Yale Review (White Male Editor)

15. Southwest Review (Jewish Editor)

16. McSweeney's (Jewish Editor)

17. Iowa Review (Harry Stecopoulos - ethnicity unknown)

18. Glimmer Train (Jewish co-Editor)

19. American Poetry Review (50% Jewish editorial board)

20. Poetry Magazine (Jewish Editor)

21. Zoetrope (White Male Editor)

22. One Story (Hannah Tinti - unknown ethnicity)

23. Zyzzyva (White Female Editor)

24. Agni (Jewish Editor)

25. Antioch Review (White Male Editor)

Etc.....

Jewish population of the US: 1.7% - 2.6%

I'm not the guy who was promoting black literature. I just called your bullshit on how oral traditions are inferior.
You have to ask this question to someone else, yet notice that you don't know if the answer is "No" either. So far, your only argument is that "black people are stupid", which does not account for the fact that books and poems are written by individuals, for which any of your prejudices might simply not apply.

I'll consider this post your admission of defeat.

Not a surprise from someone who can't think logically.

Those same identities they wish to represent were produced by institutions of oppression. To represent them (for instance, "woman" authors are to be made space for) is to accept as given a contingent and historical category formed by the violence of institutions.

We need another cleanse

you're retarded.

That user is right though

>it's another "self-published, talentless uneducated user is jealous of famous intellectual jews" episode

Nah, that user is just trying to say that only the dominant class can write books. /pol/ shit

This makes no sense. The oppressed shouldn't write books because they bear the signs of oppression, but at the same time I should read oppressors books? By your (uncoherent) logic I should avoid books written my white males, and read books written by oppressed demographics while considering them a lesser evil.

No that isn't what is being said at all

I don't see why there is a debate. European authors eclipse all other ethnicities.

Nice dubs, but read it again. The example he makes: the role of "women" is the product of oppression, therefore we should not let them speak, for that would mean that you are giving and validating said past oppressions.

Have you read non-white authors other than Mishima? Or is this an argument from ignorance?

I've read some ancient African mythology.
>rain no come because rain god angry
What exactly do I gain from these bush people stories that I can't gain from reading Scandinavian and Greek mythology?

I like asian lit.

I've read lots of non-white authors, a lot of important literature has come out of places like Greece and Italy.

>there's this ship, then another one, then another one, this one has oxes in it
So... beautiful.

>tfw this user thinks that Italians and Greeks aren't white
>tfw he is admitting that non-white poetry is better

Checkmate.

>therefore we should not let them speak

The wording doesn't actually say something should or shouldn't happen as a result:
"To represent them (for instance, "woman" authors are to be made space for) is to accept as given a contingent and historical category formed by the violence of institutions."

It says that something -does- happen, which is that when these categories are used it ends up reinforcing those categories. It's not that we shouldn't let women speak but having them speak 'as women' has them identify as a pre-determined, historical category -- the existence of which is predicated on the 'violence' of institutions that being published as 'a woman' is supposed to reverse (but doesn't, or can't by the nature of the category). It's a good point honestly.

Really made me think, thanks.

While I appreciate your defense of black people and do not agree with the point of the poster you are replying to, "black people are too dumb to write good", your first point is beyond asinine. Libraries and libraries of people are here to prove you wrong, including Plato. The often quoted passage from The Phaedrus is very often abused. That spoken word and dialogue can have more power than dead words on paper, and that reliance on canned thoughts processed and packaged by someone else can be a dangerous crutch, is really only a minor point Socrates communicates through his dialogue with Phaedrus. The boring, shallow, meticulous logic of the speech Phaedrus relays to Socrates is meant to pale in comparison to the divine madness Socrates unfolds as he attempts to reveal all in order to reveal anything. It's like comparing a tsunami to a teacup.
The thing is that both are written, by Plato, in the dialogue. I do not believe that Plato heard this entire story from Socrates or from anyone else and managed to regurgitate it onto paper with such grace. Far more likely, him being beyond a master in the art of the dialectic, Plato proved the argument of Socrates in The Phaedrus by demonstration in the dramatic form.
The idea of the dialogues serving only as notes for lectures in the academy is ludicrous, partly because the format of the academy was not lecture, and because the dialogues are clearly dramas, supremely wise stories laid out by a genius, equal parts profound and beautiful.

Have you considered that maybe contemporary non-white-male writers are better?

Answer my question, faggot. What do I gain from ancient African mythology that I haven't already gained from ancient European mythology?

Niggerness

What do you gain from European mythology other than understanding? Clearly you do not wish to expand your understanding to other unlike yourself.

Lecture was the wrong term, but what I've said is still true. Dialogues were a reminder of past thought processes for Plato and his students.
The actual doctrine of Plato was kept secret, although Aristotle and a few others described it, revealing that it was only tangentially related to Plato's dialogues.
The fact that they are masterfully crafted are not a proof of your point, he spent his entire life polishing them from day to day.

I think people on both sides of this stupid argument tend to miss the point. It's great to read books by women, people of color, etc. but there's nothing about this that precludes reading white men or necessitates adopting a negative and hostile view toward white male authors. You should read from both groups. Toni Morrison, for example, is a great writer and also incidentally a WOC. If you sleep on her because of some racist, sexist bias you are bringing to the table, you are simply an idiot. However, it's not like you should read Morrison INSTEAD of William Faulkner, for example, a white male author who is better, more significant and ironically a key influence on Morrison. Skipping Faulkner is AT LEAST as stupid, especially when you consider that many of his books even explore race as a central theme. You should diversity your reading due to a positive desire to gain a wide sampling of perspectives, not because of some petty grudge against white men. This ought to extend beyond more overtly political diversification criteria such as race and gender into other categories i.e. time period, aesthetic mode, etc.

The argument is that politics of representation (identity politics) has the problem of seeking to effect change in society by bringing these categories to the fore, by preparing space for them which was originally the space of an oppressor category. To do this, however, to seek radical change by means of representation, has the problem of accepting as its premise those categories given to it by the oppressors. To want to represent a "woman" (to give a concrete example, by wanting to include more women in films, say) those that seek representation take as the premise of their actions a category shaped by the oppressors. To say, therefore, I am a "woman" is to respond to the institutionally designated attributes which constitute that category. The true radical response is therefore not to approve or disapprove of these categories but to attempt to break them down.

Plato's doctrine is very much clear, especially in the Platonic dialogues. Now what exactly happened in the academy is a mystery, but it's not very bold to assume that is was discussion.
Plato considered Aristotle a failure, they're pretty much diametrically opposed in both form and content.

The joke is that the maker of those lists hasn't read anything in them, including white male authors.

What's your point? Sounds like ad hominem to me, Isaac.

Well, it does make it much more likely that they write something of note

Have you? Why ought I be forced to read non-Europeans?
If the non-Europeans were good authors you'd think they would be heard of, based on merit of their quality.

My point is that someone unironically follows those ideological advices.

Jews are just whites with weird noses.

>assessing the quality of work by the authors skin colour

They pass as white when it suits them.

B-but you haven't heard of them because the white man tried to censor them, user! Don't you know that Shakespeare was a black woman?

Why do people have to be so assmad about this stuff? Telling someone that they SHOULD read something is the best to turn them off it

Reading non-mainstream/white male authors can be a rewarding experience. Do it if you fucking want to

By your logic, I should aspire to have a deep understanding of every culture on the planet. Clearly I should spend the rest of my life reading the mythology of every single Amazonian tribe too, among all the others. But no, you are only telling me to read the mythology of Africa. Why are you privileging African culture above all other non-white cultures? Are you, perhaps, racist?

Wow I didn't realize how bad literary magazines are doing right now if the New Yorker is the best selling, are they still giving away hundreds of thousands of free copies every issue to dentistries?

Bump for jewish nepotism exposure.

How do Jews rationalise this?

Surely they must just think they are intellectually superior, all the way from the Ashekanazis among them down to your average Jew swindler on the street.

well either they are superior because they are THAT smart or they are superior because they've taken over the world. either way they win .

Clearly you don't understand history or how jews think and work. They've never won for any considerable period of time.

but they've been wining for a while now and no one who matters seems to be complaining. is there any end in sight?

Here's jewish history in a nutshell: jews beg to be let into nation by saying they've been persecuted > bribe leaders and pretend to be just like natives so they will be allowed into positions of power > slowly take over institutions and turn them into ethnic cabals > try to use power to exterminate natives > get run out and move onto next country crying about how they've been persecuted.

This is the jewish strategy. Its failure is built into it, which is why jews have never held power anywhere for any extended period of time. They are not fit to rule anything and in the short amount of time they've had considerable control in America, they're already fucking and people are learning to hate them and realize what psychopaths they are at an accelerated rate.

sure, but America hasn’t got control over anyone at the moment and the Jews have cells all across the globe in almost every nation . face it, they run the world and thats clever by anyone standards.

we wish we could do that.

>Black people didn't develop writing because a select few writers thousands of years ago said it might be negative. Therefore Black's are still just as intellectually important as whites.
You're saying that BECAUSE they didn't write down their traditions makes them smart. You're ascribing a trait based on an unknowable motive. This is retarded

> most of Western philosophy has spoken negatively of writing because it's a derivative imitation at best and dangerous at worst.
This is objectively false.

I've always been confused about Borges. Do I get minority points for reading a Hispanic author? Or is he considered just another white male because he is from Argentina?

Yes.

The assault on white-male writers has nothing to do with fighting oppression or being 'more diverse' and everything to do with the systematic destruction of the Western Intellectual tradition.

I don't give a shit if a writer is a faggot, nigger, spic, kike, or anything else. If the work has merit, it will be able to stand on said merits alone, rather than the identity of the writer himself. Diversity of thought is the only diversity anyone should be concerned about when it comes to literature and/or philosophy.

>jews run industries whining about "white privilege"
>use their own nepotism as proof
>but they're not white
>they don't have white privilege
>they don't have jewish privilege either
this absurd

White male authors have contributed nothing to the western literary canon. All of the authors these articles refer to, Shakespeare for example, were black men.

This is simply a Jewish plot to erase the contributions of the black man, and to humiliate him by attributing those contributions to the inferior white male.

Could do that? We did that throughout the 19th and 20th century.

Don't be fooled, we're dealing with a house of cards here. This jewish global empire has only been produced through debt that is mounting and will never be paid back. It was also founded upon an ideology that is faltering. They aren't as powerful as you think, or as they want you to think, and it's mainly in the hands of a few thousand families. You target those and encourage the rest to leave and problem solved. That said, there's a long way to go and things will most definitely get worse.

>We did that throughout the 19th and 20th century
true but i worry we did it under Jewish supervision. especially 19th century they were extremely powerful in much of Europe.

that said i dont think jews would attempt direct extermination now. they would disuse it as some sort of war like conflict . i worry no one would spot this. how do we know Korea and Trump aren’t a jewish plan .

Are Jewish authors white or non white?

I ask /pol/ and they say that they are the worst of the non-whites
But when I talk to the colored they tell me Jews are the worst of the whites.
So which is it?

Partly under jewish supervision ... but I don't think jews were that influential at the time. They had major stakes in the British/Dutch East India Companies but from the research I've done they generally took a back seat to the natives, though this is a subject I would like to know more about and haven't found a lot of definitive information on. I agree that a war would be a good foil as opposed to gulaging whites like they did to Russians, but I find the notion that these people are anything other than opposed to Trump absurd. He's not our guy but these jews hate him because he's consciously or not fucking up their plan.

Jews are not white. They pretend to be white when it suits them, but jewish identity is dependent on viewing themselves in opposition to others, which is how they've stayed in tact bouncing around since Egyptian times. This identification is also the reason they have so much hatred toward others, or the Other. That hatred keeps them together.

Bumping this because shills are bumping the other threads.
Remember, nigger! There may be some unintelligent white people, but there are no intelligent black people. Your race is inherently inferior, and if you want to live in a more advanced country built by a more advanced species, you're going to have to live with that knowledge.

So does this imply that jews are .... conspiring?!?!

I feel like I should get 'reads non-whites' points for Irish and Russians. I realize they look white appearance wise but behavior wise they are no better than a pack of drunken gypsies.

New to this board, has no one heard of Emily Bronte? Harper Lee? Shelley? Etc. etc.

White Males are the general demographic in good writing, but so are they in everything else. /pol/ is just silly. They latch themselves onto a single idea, and yet still can't come to a consensus on the idea they're preaching.

You should probably go back to r*ddit, I don't think this place is for you.

what the fuck

Yes user, you should feel bad about was races you read.

Even the guy who tried ranking all the races by art and science contributions didn't claim this.