Burn All Books Because You're Not A Slave.

[BIAD]

The schoolyard power-grab continues.

Author Forced to Cancel Fantasy Novel About Enslaved Princess: A Black Person Needs to Write This.



“The narrative and history of slavery in the United states is not something I can, would, or intended to write.”

'A young adult novelist on Wednesday agreed to cancel publication of her debut fantasy novel about an enslaved
princess, which critics have deemed racist.

In a tweet pinned to her profile, Amélie Wen Zhao apologised for her work, explaining that as an immigrant from
China, she was not qualified to write about “the narrative and history of slavery in the United States.”
“I am so sorry for the pain this has caused,” she said.

Until recently, Amélie Wen Zhao had looked poised to become a breakout star in the so-called YA literary world.
Last January, she excitedly posted to her website that she had sold the novel, “Blood Heir,” to a major children’s
publishing house in a three-book deal after a bidding-war for the rights.
It was scheduled to be released on June 4, 2019.

“I AM GOING TO BE A PUBLISHED AUTHOR!!!!!!” she wrote.

Delacorte Press, which paid Zhao more than $500,000 in the deal, touted the book as “the hottest fantasy debut
of the summer,” saying it was part of an “epic new series about a princess hiding a dark secret and the conman
she must trust to clear her name for her father’s murder.”

“Blood Heir “takes place in a fictional Cyrilian empire where a group of powerful people called Affinites are feared
and enslaved. Zhoa framed the novel as a call for social justice informed by her own immigrant story.
Born in Paris and raised in a multicultural community in Beijing, she emigrated from China when she was 18 years
old, according to her website.

“As a foreigner in Trump’s America, I’ve been called names and faced unpleasant remarks -and as a non-citizen,
I’ve felt like I have no voice -which is why I’ve channeled my anger, my frustration, and my need for action into the
most powerful weapon I have: my words,” she wrote on her website.

After Delacorte sent out early review copies of the novel, the initial reviews were positive. The book has nearly a four
and half star rating on Goodreads. But starting in January, some readers began denouncing the story as racist for its
depiction on slavery, and a social media campaign was launched.

“How is nobody mentioning the anti-blackness and blatant bigotry in this book?” one reader wrote on Goodreads.
“This book is about slavery, a false oppression narrative that equates having legitimately dangerous magical powers
that kill people with being an oppressed minority, like a person of color. This whole story is absolutely repulsive.”

In her apology tweet, Zhao felt compelled to turn her immigrant story into an excuse for what she suggested was naive
insensitivity on her part. Zhao said she intended to write the novel from her “immediate cultural perspective” and to
address the “epidemic of indentured and human trafficking prevalent in many industries across Asia, including in my
own home country.”

“The narrative and history of slavery in the United States is not something I can, would or intended to write, but I recognize
that I am not writing in merely my own cultural context,” she added.

Reactions to Zhao’s decision to pull “Blood Heir” were mixed. Some insisted that the novel was problematic.
Jamaican author T.A. Riley called it “distasteful” and said even she would not touch the subject of chattel slavery.

But the larger response, at least outside the YA community, was that Zhao had been reduced to public self-flagellation.
Conservative journalist Cathy Young, in an article Thursday for the New York Daily News, compared Zhao’s fate of writers
and intellectuals during Communist China’s Cultural Revolution, who were “terrorized into public ‘self-criticism.'”

“The online mobs, unlike actual mobs in Mao’s China, can’t beat and maim people or trash their possessions,” she said.
“But when they have the social power to coerce self-censorship and groveling apologies, our freedom is diminished.”

Nonfiction writer Michael Deibert tweeted Thursday:
“The internet lynch mob should not get to determine what books get published.”

Zhao was also accused of engaging in racial stereotyping and cultural appropriation in the novel. He linked to an essay by
journalist Kat Rosenfeld published earlier in the day at Vulture, which suggested the woke takedown of “Blood Heir” may
have had something to do with the YA’s community infamous culture of backbiting.

Jesse Singal also wrote an article in Tablet magazine Thursday condemning the YA “Twitter mob” for derailing Zhao’s career
even though “no one could explain exactly what it was about Zhao’s treatment of [slavery] that was offensive.” He dismissed
the response as a self-righteous “pile on” based on “out of context” excerpts or just assumptions about a book “most in the
community haven’t read yet.”

Even Slate culture intern Aja Hoggat saw fit Thursday to debunk the claims against Zhao’s book.

Meanwhile, Delacorte said that while it supported Zhao’s decision not to publish “Blood Heir,” it would also back her if she
changed her mind, and would anyway honor her contract.
“We respect Amelie’s decision, and look forward to continuing our publishing relationship with her,” Random House Children’s
Books, Delacorte’s parent company, said in a statement.Zhao was unavailable for interviews, according to her publisher.

The YA and children’s books communities have in recent years earned a reputation not just for petty politics, but also for
hypersensitivity and political correctness. In its article about Zhao’s ordeal, The Times listed a number of recent controversies
over supposedly racist novels.

“Children’s book publishers have grown increasingly cautious when acquiring books that deal with charged subjects such as
race, gender, sexuality and disability. Many publishers and authors now hire ‘sensitivity readers’ who vet books and identify
harmful stereotypes,” according to the newspaper.

Of course, the issue liberal hypersensitivity in culture goes beyond youth literature.

In Hollywood, activists have pushed studios toward identity-based hiring in the name of “representation” and “inclusion.”
Filmmakers and actors who have tried to portray subjects or characters from supposedly marginalized groups to which they
do not belong have become targets of online campaigns, which have in some prominent cases succeeded.

Even woke comedians have been called out for old politically incorrect jokes, with some prominent stand-ups complaining
that they can no longer be funny. And even depicting certain white people can now be controversial, as evidenced by the
recent uproar over a pair of new films about Ted Bundy.

While supporters of such advocacy hail the forward march of culture, critics warn that freedoms of expression and thought
are being sacrificed on the altar of social justice...'

SOURCE:

Even in fiction... how dare you.

[Mystic Wanderer]

I've been planning on writing a book about my paranormal experiences.  If that topic doesn't get enough ridicule already, now I would have to deal with critics like these? 

Now I'm wondering if it would be worth my time.  Dang crazy liberals ruin everything.  

[Ninurta]

That right there is some funny shit!

I'm kind of torn here - it's amusing that black Americans think they have an exclusive stranglehold on the subject of slavery, especially considering that no living black American has ever experienced slavery, but a number of current populations throughout the world DO have current experience of slavery - mostly, as throughout history, NOT black at all, much less black and American. It's just sort of funny that black Americans think they have a clue here, and would exclude actual slaves from the topic. On the other hand, the author expressly said that she wrote the book as a statement on "social justice", so maybe she got what she had coming to her in the matter.

This part amuses me:

“The online mobs, unlike actual mobs in Mao’s China, can’t beat and maim people or trash their possessions,” she said.

“But when they have the social power to coerce self-censorship and groveling apologies, our freedom is diminished.”

Now, that is the expressed anguish of a weak-willed person. There is no such thing as "social power" when brought to bear against a strong-willed person. One's freedom is ONLY diminished to the extent that he or she allows it to be trodden upon by angry mobs of idjits. In other words, if they CAN "coerce" one through "social power", then that individual HAS NO freedom, and has willingly entered a slave-masters relationship on their own accord.

I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that, and am fully prepared and braced for any "social power" onslaught they can sling at me regarding my thoughts on the matter...

... they can kiss my ass when they are done assaulting.

.

[BIAD]

...This part amuses me:

“The online mobs, unlike actual mobs in Mao’s China, can’t beat and maim people or trash their possessions,” she said.

“But when they have the social power to coerce self-censorship and groveling apologies, our freedom is diminished.”

Now, that is the expressed anguish of a weak-willed person. There is no such thing as "social power" when brought to bear against a strong-willed person. One's freedom is ONLY diminished to the extent that he or she allows it to be trodden upon by angry mobs of idjits. In other words, if they CAN "coerce" one through "social power", then that individual HAS NO freedom, and has willingly entered a slave-masters relationship on their own accord.

I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that, and am fully prepared and braced for any "social power" onslaught they can sling at me regarding my thoughts on the matter...

... they can kiss my ass when they are done assaulting.

I think -in fact, this is another example of displaying victimised women in a powerful situation.
Just as the blood-using thread, the male is omitted from the article and the focus is on the in-house fighting
in the eternal power-grab of the LGBT community.

If you're not a coloured woman, that's fine but then there must be something else they can get you on.
Chinese women might not be white in their crazy world, but they're perceived as not poor and to appease
the inner-racist guilt that some social-warrior females carry, you've got to be a poor black woman to have
the right to try to succeed in anything.

If you're male, then you're a sinister bastard before the gate even opens.

[Ninurta]

Speaking of Chinese women, does anyone realize that the Chinese railway workers imported into California during the last century were treated far and away worse than African slaves were? Where is THEIR generational outrage at the mistreatment?

.

[BIAD]

Speaking of Chinese women, does anyone realize that the Chinese railway workers imported
into California during the last century were treated far and away worse than African slaves
were?
Where is THEIR generational outrage at the mistreatment?

There's only so-much room on the outrage stage and since the basis of the lazy+hatred 'affront'
requires easy-to-see totems, an industrious, quiet group who keeps their culture close, doesn't cut it.
Racism isn't as effective as a tool to a group that has skin-colour that's close to white!

Kiki Dee sang "if something gets in my way, I go 'round it" and that's what the Chinese Rail-road
workers did. They worked around it.

'Being owned' in a modern perception holds more opportunity to align oneself as a pet or property.
It's ideal material to rage about -even if it happened generations ago.

[guohua]

Speaking of Chinese women, does anyone realize that the Chinese railway workers imported into California during the last century were treated far and away worse than African slaves were? Where is THEIR generational outrage at the mistreatment?

.

RIGHT!
I was going to mention that.
@"Ninurta" Thank You.

They were often just left to fend for themselves when the job ended, no transportation back no food or water.
They also could bring their wives and children.
Also there was a ban on the immigration of Chinese women it was called The Page Act of 1875.


I'd like to mention that people fail to mention that some of the Largest Plantation in the South with Slave were owned and operated by Black People.

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black "masters" were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?


The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them — motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people "as an act of exploitation," primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did.

The evidence shows that, unfortunately, both things are true.

The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."  


In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well.

Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
Source

[Ninurta]

Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well.

Source

Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in America, and he was a black man. The reason that they went to court was to obtain the services of their "slave" (and all "slaves" before that court case were "indentured servants", indentured for a period of 7 years, and no more), for life rather than the 7 prescribed years. As I recall, Johnson himself came to America via an indenture.

Anthony Johnson created permanent chattel slavery in America. It didn't apply to blacks only, but could be applied to whites as well, and there are numerous instances of, for example Irishmen who were imported as "indentured servants" who never survived their indenture, and became slaves for life.

The trade in white slaves from indentured servants is a little known, and mostly hidden, fact of slavery in America. It doesn't fit with the Liberal narrative, and gets swept under the rug. Some of my own ancestors came to these mountains as escaped slaves in the Scots-Irish "migration" to the frontiers.

.

[BIAD]

And once again, reality intrudes on a fanciful narrative!

Of course people were used as slaves and the colour of their skin had little merit when it came
to obtaining labour for the work needed. It's just another squabble-trick of the elite classes to
keep those they deem lesser in their place.

[guohua]

Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well.

Source

Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in America, and he was a black man. The reason that they went to court was to obtain the services of their "slave" (and all "slaves" before that court case were "indentured servants", indentured for a period of 7 years, and no more), for life rather than the 7 prescribed years. As I recall, Johnson himself came to America via an indenture.

Anthony Johnson created permanent chattel slavery in America. It didn't apply to blacks only, but could be applied to whites as well, and there are numerous instances of, for example Irishmen who were imported as "indentured servants" who never survived their indenture, and became slaves for life.

The trade in white slaves from indentured servants is a little known, and mostly hidden, fact of slavery in America. It doesn't fit with the Liberal narrative, and gets swept under the rug. Some of my own ancestors came to these mountains as escaped slaves in the Scots-Irish "migration" to the frontiers.

.

That is true, it needs to be know also that A. Johnson was one of the first to put his slaves out in small shacks to live, before that slaves mostly lived in the same home as their White Owners.
It also needs to be known that A. Johnson was a Cruel Slave Owner, it was mentioned at one time he was one of the very first to start Whipping and Chaining his Slaves.

The above information/knowledge as been Sanitized from the internet, VERY hard to find this being mentioned, much like the above fact you yourself mentioned about the 7 year limit.

Like what @"BIAD"  mentioned, that Reality of the Facts hurts the Liberal/Progressive Agenda and Blacks are Victims Agenda that All White People Are Racist and Slave Owners.

People need to be taught also that other Black Africans are the ones who Sold Their Own People The Slavers/Traders.