>>24645328
White authors don't write about anything but 'whiteness' either, for the most part.

If it doesn't seem that way, then it must be because 'whiteness' is simply broader and more self-defining than the narrow weltanschauung of African American 'blackness' (which, for the most part, only exists in relation to whiteness).

Not only do good writers write what they know, but in general one can only create what is an extension of oneself. The very idea that there is a kind of 'correct and neutral universal experience' just smacks of bad Anglo philosophy. As a rule, minorities are less rooted in the place they come from; their roots are shallower; their world smaller, in the sense that it is more specific. (I speak from first-hand experience as a writer, not from prejudice).

That's the actual reason for this effect that black literature produces. So, yes, your instinct to not want to read black authors is accurate, given that you aren't interested in the fruits of that conception of 'blackness.'

I don't see why everyone has to read everything anyway; that's a very modern kind of barbarism. For instance, it's common to see women giving hate reviews to works intended for a primarily male readership, not considering that their opinion cannot be the sole arbiter of something so beyond their scope unless approached with a degree of reverence and liberality.