Following up on this post:

Racism is a system. What Bloomsbury did was engage in a system of racism and it is possible to engage in that system while still being pretty liberal, and being anti-racist, and being an advocate for diversity. I think what's going to get lost here is that they engaged in this system, and people will call them on it, and others are going to defend them with sweet and cuddly anecdotes.

They shouldn't.

Why? Because the defenders are going to make engaging in the racist system and the entire debate about who they are instead of about what they did. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to pick on Sara Zarr. I just don't want to open my feedreader to see this entire debate made worthless because we've stopped having the "what they did" conversation because some well-meaning white folks just wanted to make sure we all knew that these are people, not monsters. Yes, we know. Monsters eat people and are imaginary. People do racist crap that destroys hopes and dreams. Example:

There is a lot of outrage, and I think for good reason. Though, some of the comments floating around the o’sphere indicate a belief that the publisher is evil, bad, calculating, etc. Here’s what I think: it’s not like editors and marketing people are monsters. I have met a lot of people in children’s publishing over the last few years, and almost to a (wo)man, they are great, smart, hardworking, passionate people who wants to get books into readers’ hands and to be able to keep doing that by staying in business. I think this was simply a bad decision symptomatic of a larger, mostly hidden problem that we need to talk about and it’s good we are doing so.

This claim that there are conversations about how Bloomsbury is evil and making calculated, racist decisions isn't cited, and it should be, number one so we make sure to tell people to cut that shit out because it's wrong (I will even volunteer), and number two because in the very next moment there's a nice example of derailment taking place, when we bring in the fluffy stuff about how the people in children's publishing work so hard, and they're this trait and that trait and it was just a bad decision, and did I mention they're hard workers?

I spoke out to bring light to this issue and I only ask my white cohorts one thing: don't derail the conversation. It poisons the discourse and can eventually create an environment in which the people who are angry and trying to hold someone or a group accountable for what they did are being shouted down by the people going "but I've met them! They're nice!"

I'm sure they are. I'm a pretty easygoing person, but I spent the first 19 years of my life as a racist douchebag white person and if I make a racist douchebag comment I don't want people to defend me by saying "But she's a great person!" as loud as possible to cover up the noise people I offended are making. I want to be held accountable for the racist comment I made so I can learn because being held accountable is the only way to do so. Bloomsbury screwed the pooch, you know, like white people will do. It's not the first time and it most certainly won't be the last. People who are racist will take the "who they are" tactic and run with it, as far and fast as they can and there goes our useful debate. That's why we need to leave the "who they are" out of this conversation. It doesn't belong. If what happened to the cover of Liar ticks you off, say so, but avoid derailing. Bloomsbury should have to own their decision and face their white privilege if they're ever going to stop white-washing covers for the sake of marketability—if they're ever going to stop assuming white is better.