Writing Conference Canceled Because Of Too Many White People

a reply to: IAMTAT

So, their conference wasn't about what they claimed at all. If they truly wanted it to be about writing, they'd have moved forward with the authors who agreed to attend. That they made a point of inviting authors "of color", and cancelling when they didn't accept, shows the real goal was to promote even more anti-white racism.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TonyS

Yes, I understand that. But I do not see it as a ''PC'' crowd. Basically it is the essence of the market place. You develop product to suit the various whims of the potential buyers. We all know by now that the balance of American demographic is changing. More and more children are being born that do not reflect the white demographic. As the white demographic has already been saturated as I pointed out, and kiddie books that reflect that demographic are on sale in flea markets for a nickel apiece, in order to continue the profit incentive of the book industry, it needs to look to a larger demographic for sales. And what demographic has been under developed? Children of color.

It's capitalism that rules and the book companies are looking for new and wider markets. Simple. If that's what you see as racism, then I guess that is your prerogative though I see it as only catering to the wishes of the emerging market place.

So, basically, you are saying that people want to change the demographics of the nation, eliminate white people, and promote books that don't include white people to children?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I said noting of the sort. I did not say that people want to change the demographics, I said the demographics are changing.
I never said people want to eliminate white people. I never said they want to promote books that don''t include white people.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ketsuko
I don't doubt those statistics Ket. It may be that there is concern that certain actions are needed to bring a better balance, to foster more interest on the part of racially specific children. I find no fault with that other than I think it a fruitless endeavor by people who are still living with the social conceptions of a couple of decades ago. An old folk song I used to love had one line in it that goes, '' your heart is in the right place but head is up your ass''.

Im pretty much of a mind that getting excited about engeneering social and cultural change is as ineffective and futile as the whole Maga dream. Neither is going to work from what I see.

Using the example provided by Ketsuko, I think that's like saying we need to make black kids swim. Why don't we all just butt out of their business and let them do what they want? If they want to swim, they can. If they choose not to swim, they don't have to. This symptom of the left wing poking its nose into everyone's business is what causes the animosity.

I mean there's nothing wrong with a social initiative, funded by government. But what if that happens for every teeny, tiny little thing that all these SJW think requires attention? Costs too much and pisses everyone off. Its just easier and cheaper to butt out of people's business.

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing
Yeah, but I think that that is not a leftist problem, but rather a problem of all rulers, back to the kings and and all, every thing was theirs ,they could come and go and take what ever they wanted. I'ts systemic. Hell, one of the liberal chants from the sixties and seventies was 'quit poking your nose into everyones bed room. It was what business does any government have telling any of us where and how we can or can't do it.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You've hit the nail on the head! Things have come so full circle that the left is exactly what it used to despise and the right are the 'alternatives'.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I said noting of the sort. I did not say that people want to change the demographics, I said the demographics are changing.
I never said people want to eliminate white people. I never said they want to promote books that don''t include white people.

The same people who push those things are pushing to change the demographics. There are college courses these days on "combating whiteness". There are idiots running around claiming white people should will their property to black and brown people, just because. Where is your stance on those issues?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I said noting of the sort. I did not say that people want to change the demographics, I said the demographics are changing.
I never said people want to eliminate white people. I never said they want to promote books that don''t include white people.

The same people who push those things are pushing to change the demographics. There are college courses these days on "combating whiteness". There are idiots running around claiming white people should will their property to black and brown people, just because. Where is your stance on those issues?

The demographics I refer to is the changing racial proportion in the overall population. As I see it, as the balances of race change, so do the attitudes of the people.

One of the main failures of the race that dominated American society for the last two hundred years was ti's failure to fully accept other races on an equal footing. The race that dominated, dominated in all political spheres and all economic spheres. They dominated in all entertainment spheres until recently. Radio, broadway, motion pictures, TV all were heavily slanted portraying that dominate race as the norm while at the same time often demeaning others. They dominated the national sports scene until it became prudent for the owners to employ people of other races in order to increase their bottom line.

Now, the simple advantage that race held, due to at least it's majority status is changing. The demographics are changing because of it. And it is not surprising that some of those people who were so dominated had children who are now pushing back against that old domination.

And where do I come down on the issues you mention above? To me they are moot. They don't matter. From what I can see, we are all going down sooner rather than later. So people can squabble over these issues and debate who is right and who is wrong and who is racist and who not, but it dosen't matter I don't think.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Yes, well, when you import huge amount of people that think they way you want them to or alternative to those who don't like you then that's generally what happens.

It isn't a group think changing, it's the fact that a population is being replaced.

a reply to: IAMTAT


Reminds me off the day when black folks in large numbers would close down the store.

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Yes, well, when you import huge amount of people that think they way you want them to or alternative to those who don't like you then that's generally what happens.

It isn't a group think changing, it's the fact that a population is being replaced.

I can see that Gus. The old population is being replaced, but what is the motor for that. Simple economics. Import poor people from wherever and get them to work for less and with less complaining. This goes way back. In ''The Jungle'' written in 1906, it is laid out how the meat packing industry in Chicago sent over seas to promote the vast jobs available to immigrants and that they could get rich following the American Dream. From what happened after the Vietnam Conflict it was the same. Displaced Vietnamese people flocked here to start their own little businesses and hence help support the tax base.

While to a degree I agree that liberals long insisted that we hold to the old adage of ''bring me your tired'', I think the main cause of this coloring up is that the corporations needed people to fill their low wage jobs. It was just part of the capitalist system.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I said noting of the sort. I did not say that people want to change the demographics, I said the demographics are changing.
I never said people want to eliminate white people. I never said they want to promote books that don''t include white people.

The same people who push those things are pushing to change the demographics. There are college courses these days on "combating whiteness". There are idiots running around claiming white people should will their property to black and brown people, just because. Where is your stance on those issues?

The demographics I refer to is the changing racial proportion in the overall population. As I see it, as the balances of race change, so do the attitudes of the people.

The demographics are still predominantly white in this country. From the official U.S. Census website - Quick Facts

76.9% of the nation is white. Even if some group increases, that isn't justification for racism against white people.

One of the main failures of the race that dominated American society for the last two hundred years was ti's failure to fully accept other races on an equal footing. The race that dominated, dominated in all political spheres and all economic spheres. They dominated in all entertainment spheres until recently. Radio, broadway, motion pictures, TV all were heavily slanted portraying that dominate race as the norm while at the same time often demeaning others. They dominated the national sports scene until it became prudent for the owners to employ people of other races in order to increase their bottom line.

Two hundred years? Really? Try starting post-civil-rights. Since that's been all fixed, for many decades now, your "two hundred years" business doesn't hold water. These days, certain groups do dominate sports, commercials are geared toward making whites look foolish, various minorities are over-represented in various media, and so forth. That's the reality.

Now, the simple advantage that race held, due to at least it's majority status is changing. The demographics are changing because of it. And it is not surprising that some of those people who were so dominated had children who are now pushing back against that old domination.

The "single advantage"? Oh, really? Gee, that doesn't fit the narrative of being totally advantaged in every way because of skin color!! You can't have it both ways. Plus, it is NOT racism too represent the majority in things, as the majority. It's simple common sense.

And where do I come down on the issues you mention above? To me they are moot. They don't matter. From what I can see, we are all going down sooner rather than later. So people can squabble over these issues and debate who is right and who is wrong and who is racist and who not, but it dosen't matter I don't think.

They certainly matter to the people stating those things. They matter to a lot of other people, as well, who are being told they don't deserve to decide for themselves what to do with their own property. They matter to writers who had an event cancelled because they were not the "right color" to please some racists. Nice dodge there.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Even if some group increases, that isn't justification for racism against white people.

Yes, the Caucasion race is still the largest subgroup of people in this country. And even though some groups are increasing it still is not justification for racism against white people. I agree completely . But I can also ''understand'' why.

The "single advantage"? Oh, really? Gee, that doesn't fit the narrative of being totally advantaged in every way because of skin color!!

Whose narrative, mine? Well if you want to ignore the fact of slavery and jim crow and segregation then feel free to do so.

Two hundred years? Really? Try starting post-civil-rights. Since that's been all fixed, for many decades now, your "two hundred years" business doesn't hold water.

Fixed? Seriously? I just can't understand that just because the vote was finally universalized and that descrimination was outlawed only a few decades ago and the segregation in the work place and other centers of congregation in recent years have come about, that so many people think that everything has been ''fixed''.

commercials are geared toward making whites look foolish, various minorities are over-represented in various media, and so forth. That's the reality.

Yeah, what is with that? White men do seem to be portrayed as bumbling morons in commercials. It is disgustng.

But as to minorities being over represented in various media, sure, there are now shows that cater to peopole of color, just as there are and have been shows that cater to white people. That is ''targeting'' a consumer demographic. The sales gods of America to that all the time.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Even if some group increases, that isn't justification for racism against white people.

Yes, the Caucasion race is still the largest subgroup of people in this country. And even though some groups are increasing it still is not justification for racism against white people. I agree completely . But I can also ''understand'' why.

Well I can't. There is NO excuse for racism, and that means when it's against white people, too. None of these people were ever slaves, and most were never [subject to any discrimination based on their race, either. Shame white peple can't all say the same, eh?

The "single advantage"? Oh, really? Gee, that doesn't fit the narrative of being totally advantaged in every way because of skin color!!

Whose narrative, mine? Well if you want to ignore the fact of slavery and jim crow and segregation then feel free to do so.

The current narrative that "whiteness" is to blame for all the woes of the world, so that anyone else doesn't have to be responsible for their own actions, their own failures, etc. Slavery has been gone for more than a century, and Jim Crow laws are a thing of the distant past as well. We are talking about the present. What's that term tossed around? Oh, yeah, move on.

Two hundred years? Really? Try starting post-civil-rights. Since that's been all fixed, for many decades now, your "two hundred years" business doesn't hold water.

Fixed? Seriously? I just can't understand that just because the vote was finally universalized and that descrimination was outlawed only a few decades ago and the segregation in the work place and other centers of congregation in recent years have come about, that so many people think that everything has been ''fixed''.

Yes, fixed. There are no Jon Crow laws on the books. Discrimination based on race is illegal. There is no legal slavery. None of that came about in "recent years". Been that way for many decades now. You do know it's 2017, right??

commercials are geared toward making whites look foolish, various minorities are over-represented in various media, and so forth. That's the reality.

Yeah, what is with that? White men do seem to be portrayed as bumbling morons in commercials. It is disgustng.

But as to minorities being over represented in various media, sure, there are now shows that cater to people of color, just as there are and have been shows that cater to white people. That is ''targeting'' a consumer demographic. The sales gods of America to that all the time.

I agree; quite disgusting. No excuse for that. As for shows "for people of color", what's wrong with a show that is balanced like the current population, with the races seen as we see them in real life? If there are "mostly white" shows, it's called racist, but a mostly black show somehow isn't? Why does a show need to cater to any race? I prefer shows that don't make race an issue at all. If it's entertaining in some fashion, and NOT pushing some political or social point of view, great. Anything pushing an agenda, not really interested. I don't care if there are shows I don't watch, of course; to each his own, but we need to be fair, and not call one example racism, while the same thing from another group gets a pass. Equal treatment is supposedly the goal, and that's what I'd like to see. Where are the shows catering to white people only? How about to Christians? Heck, I want a show that's for blondes, and no more blonde jokes. Not really, but see the point?

How can we get past skin color if we have to be told about it all the time? When it's like hair color, a physical trait, and nothing else, we might be there.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Are you trying to convince me of something here? What, that black people can be racist?
Sure they can, all people can and do. Don't you think I understand this?

How can we get past skin color if we have to be told about it all the time? When it's like hair color, a physical trait, and nothing else, we might be there.

What is to not agree with here. Yet if you recall from my earliest posts in this thread, my points were that these books were not so much about race as the desire of the capitalist market place to exploit emerging markets. To find a niche that they believed was vulnerable to manipulation and then going about it. It was the nature of the market place that I was attempting to address yet it was you that has kept coming back to an old thread and pressing the issue of race, not me.
So whaddaya say we hold with your point above and just drop it because your experience and understanding of the racial issues is far different from mine and vice versa'.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Are you trying to convince me of something here? What, that black people can be racist?
Sure they can, all people can and do. Don't you think I understand this?

How can we get past skin color if we have to be told about it all the time? When it's like hair color, a physical trait, and nothing else, we might be there.

What is to not agree with here. Yet if you recall from my earliest posts in this thread, my points were that these books were not so much about race as the desire of the capitalist market place to exploit emerging markets. To find a niche that they believed was vulnerable to manipulation and then going about it. It was the nature of the market place that I was attempting to address yet it was you that has kept coming back to an old thread and pressing the issue of race, not me.
So whaddaya say we hold with your point above and just drop it because your experience and understanding of the racial issues is far different from mine and vice versa'.

So, now that it is shown that they were, in fact, racist, you want to claim it was a marketing decision?? What a crock!! They decided that white authors weren't good enough, though these authors sell plenty of books, and are clearly appreciated in the market.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What? You are back again? A week after my last reply, three weeks since this thread was begun. Bored are you?
And to boot, somehow after only a short while you have managed to get two others to just ''happen across this ancient thread to give you a couple of stars? You must have quite a following here on ATS.. I should have been more respectful to you.

So, as I am bored myself I will ask you to point to me where it was proven that they were ''in fact'' racist. I said that they might be, not ''in fact'' that they were. Oh right, you're bored and so need to make stuff up.

You claim that now that it is shown that they were racist, which of course it was not, that I claim it was a marketing decision. Have you had the honesty in this thread to even check out my earlier words in this thread??
From page one of this thread this is what my position was.

Yes, I understand that. But I do not see it as a ''PC'' crowd. Basically it is the essence of the market place. You develop product to suit the various whims of the potential buyers. We all know by now that the balance of American demographic is changing. More and more children are being born that do not reflect the white demographic. As the white demographic has already been saturated as I pointed out, and kiddie books that reflect that demographic are on sale in flea markets for a nickel apiece, in order to continue the profit incentive of the book industry, it needs to look to a larger demographic for sales. And what demographic has been under developed? Children of color.

It's capitalism that rules and the book companies are looking for new and wider markets. Simple. If that's what you see as racism, then I guess that is your prerogative though I see it as only catering to the wishes of the emerging market place.

So, there you have it. You claimed that :
So, now that it is shown that they were, in fact, racist, you want to claim it was a marketing decision?? What a crock!!''

And as I made that claim well before you seem to have come to the conclusion that that reply was only in response to whatever proof you think was shown later in the thread and that I agreed to, it should be obvious that your assumption is incorrect.

So as I have suggested before I will put my end of this silliness to rest.
You, however, just keep on posting in dead threads if that is your adrenaline fix for a dull afternoon. And don't forget to let your followers know so you can continue your star accumulation.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If it were a dead thread then you wouldn't still have it in your follow list and you'd also not feel the desperate need to reply to anything in it.

Aside from that I think it's good to revive interest quieter threads which have an important message.

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If it were a dead thread then you wouldn't still have it in your follow list and you'd also not feel the desperate need to reply to anything in it.

Aside from that I think it's good to revive interest quieter threads which have an important message.

Sorry you couldn't translate my use of the term '' dead threads''. My bad. I of course meant ''old'' and nearly finished threads.

You speak to my ''desperate need'' to respond. Well, desperate, I don't know. But need, maybe yes. As I pointed out in that last reply, I was also bored and wanted to see just how far that poster was willing to push his dead( old and nearly finished ) twisting of my previous remarks. But thanks any way for pointing out to me your concerns about my desperation.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Your use of 'dead thread' was merely incorrectly applied, no need to apologize though.