Victoria’s oldest independent bookshop has apologised after its owner called for more picture books with “just white kids on the cover” and claimed that the chain would stop stocking “woke agenda” content that divided people.

Susanne Horman, the owner of Robinsons Bookshop chain, posted a series of tweets in December where she called for an “substantial shift” in Australian publishing, arguing the focus should be in line with public opinion, requests for books and “for what is good”.

“What’s missing from our bookshelves in store?” Horman wrote in one tweet, before the account was deleted. “Positive male lead characters of any age, any traditional nuclear white family stories, kids picture books with just white kids on the cover, and no wheelchair, rainbow or indigenous art, non indig [sic] aus history.”

Another post read: “Books we don’t need: hate against white Australians, socialist agenda, equity over equality, diversity and inclusion (READ AS anti-white exclusion), left wing govt propaganda. Basically the woke agenda that divides people. Not stocking any of these in 2024.”

In a Facebook post on Sunday night, Robinsons Bookshop said the comments had been “taken out of context” and “misrepresented the views” of the company.

  • Lath@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    The context where there was a reasonable study without political bias made that proved there was an “anti-white” movement or intentional pandering for profit.
    Hard to find one though it seems, else it would already be in the news.

    • rainynight65@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      There is no such study because there is no ‘anti-white movement’. Diversity, equity and inclusivity are not zero-sum games, even if reactionaries like to pretend they are.

      • fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Diversity, equity and inclusivity are not zero-sum games

        In the sense of individuals treating each other humanely day-to-day, sure. But when viewed through an employer lens, it’s a collection of strategies whose purpose is to maintain poor conditions for the coalescence of labor solidarity. There’s nothing non-zero-sum about that.

      • Lath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        But they seem to be for you. You aren’t willing to settle for anything less.

          • Lath@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            I proud to say I have no idea. But it sounds like it has something to do with a sum of things that equal zero.
            Nobody likes those things which is why we invent more money when there aren’t any left.

            • rainynight65@feddit.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              Let me give you a hint: not wanting to settle for less has exactly nothing to do with zero-sum games. Nothing whatsoever.

                • rainynight65@feddit.deOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Since you proudly professed to have no idea what a zero-sum game is, and I have at least somewhat of an idea what a zero-sum game is - yes, I’m sure.

                  • Lath@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    But because you only have somewhat of an idea is why you can’t be sure. The rest of the idea you don’t have might hold it instead.
                    So merely because you know some part of a subject, it doesn’t mean you are correct about the entire thing.