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.

  • rainynight65@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I love how the response to backlash against comments like this is almost always along the lines of ‘sorry if you’re offended’ and ‘the comments were taken out of context’.

    These comments by Horman are very clear, they have plenty of context on their own, and they give me a pretty good picture of what kind of person the owner is. It’s enough for me to make sure I don’t set foot into their shops if I am ever in Melbourne.

    • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The first tweet is almost satirical, so if it had stopped there I might have bought it being “taken out of context”.

      I’m curious to know what possible context would make those tweets okay.

      • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The context where the person reading them is also a bigot?

        I agree, it was incredibly clear that no one should support “Victoria’s favourite bookshop” anymore. The one that really got me was the line about children’s books needing to have more white people, nuclear families and less indigenous art on the covers. Sure, white kids don’t have any media to look to for role models except for 95 fucking percent of media out there.

        I really hope this business crashes and burns and we stop seeing cultivation of this kind of hate in this country.

      • Lath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 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
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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
            ·
            5 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
                ·
                5 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
                  ·
                  5 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.