Segregation: A Modest Proposal

[Iamwhomiam]

Bullshit! I don't believe you've ever heard a liberal lament any such thing. Nor do I believe any self-proclaimed liberal is contemptuous of rural whites who do feel contemptuous of liberals.

He's basically describing my entire childhood growing up in Vermont, so I'd vouch for it. The gulf is huge and the laments, they happen.

Indeed, the totality of your phrasing makes me suspect I'm failing to grasp your sarcasm.

In fact, liberal Thomas Frank wrote an entire motherfucking book called "What's the Matter With Kansas?" back in the middle of the Bush Administration about that precise subject.

General Patton wrote,
By far my favorite lament is from liberals who can't understand why rural whites despise liberals when it's fairly obvious that they are held in complete contempt by them. Relationships go both ways.

Honestly? You've heard liberals boo-hooing 'cause those mean ol' rednecks don't like them? I've never heard any such thing spoken by a liberal - not ever. I think upon hearing this at most one might expect an eye-roll. I very much doubt "liberals" care much about anything wild-thinking rednecks feel. I find most people rather self-centered with limited exposure to different cultures and even to certain aspects of their own.

There is more than one possible interpretation of the General's quoted statement depending on who the last written "they" pertains to. The use of 'former' and 'latter' would have been more definitive and avoid this confusion.

"...obvious that they are held in complete contempt by them."

Reading 'they' as I had when commenting earlier, I had taken its meaning to be the latter, or liberals - that the liberals were confused because the rural people hated them, while the liberals hated the rural people.

Or you could have meant that the rural white folk are so contemptuous of liberals, that it should be obvious to the liberals that they are so hated by the rural white folk that they, the liberals shouldn't even wonder why that is.

Whatever.

Oh, before I forget... this, "Relationships go both ways."

That's another thing I forgot to mention. Since the movie Deliverance, lots of liberals seem prefer living in metropolitan areas and have developed phobic delusions about areas beyond the streetlights. Where there be bugs. And the sources of horror fiction.

Take the town I live in. Something like 80% of the people are related. And our town has reflected dimwitted leadership for generations. Most of my neighbors never interact. I have a new neighbor who I've been building up the courage to go up and meet. He works for the FBI. I'd rather wait for him to come knocking than to go up and jump in his lap.

When I was a public figure in town, I socialized quite a bit and conducted many educational session relating important issues for our rural residents to be concerned with. I think I have a good sense of the barely beating pulse of the community.

I have indeed noted a disparity exists between "Flatlanders" and "Hill folk." These rural white people often play out their differences weekend evenings in one of our two twelve-miles apart bars.

Many of the rural white people I know keep their opinions to themselves unless specifically asked directly. Or until someone mentions the SAFE Act or gun control.
This is the makeup of my town:

http://www.city-data.com/zips/12143.html

Honestly Wrex, do you really think I could ever become interested in reading a book entitled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Not a high priority of mine, Kansas.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Honestly Wrex, do you really think I could ever become interested in reading a book entitled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Not a high priority of mine, Kansas.

God, don't fucking read the book, whatever you do, that's the worst possible outcome here ... I'm just bringing it up as a data point to gently suggest the phenomenon you're insisting to be fictional is actually a long-running conversation with many thousands of participants smeared across space-time.

Edit: Not sarcasm - don't read the book, it's not especially good.

[General Patton]

http://www.examiner.com/article/white-c ... collective
Two white students at Ryerson University in Toronto were barred last week from a meeting of the Racialized Students’ Collective , a group that, according to its Facebook page, is dedicated to "building an anti-racism community on campus." The student newspaper, the Ryersonian, reports that Trevor Hewitt and Julia Knope, both first-year journalism students, claim they were told that because they were not victims of racialization, they were not allowed to attend the meeting and report on the event.

"Hewitt and Knope said they made eye contact with an unidentified woman who appeared to be setting up for the event. She approached Hewitt and Knope and asked if they had ever been racialized.

"Hewitt said he then told the woman he wanted to cover the meeting for an assignment. He said the woman told him that because he was not a racialized student, he could not sit in on the meeting. Hewitt and Knope then left the room."

[JackRiddler]

By far my favorite lament is from liberals who can't understand why rural whites despise liberals when it's fairly obvious that they are held in complete contempt by them. Relationships go both ways.

Wow. So many assumptions and false definitions going on here. I thought you were proudly empirical, taking courses online and the like. One would think that attitude includes more thought about the categories, as well as an attempt to view (if possible) whole pictures rather than collections of anecdotes. Come on out to New York any time - you'll find yourself surprisingly welcome. The problem here is rent much more than the alleged hipster smarm.

[JackRiddler]

...a group that, according to its Facebook page

"Hewitt and Knope said they made eye contact with an unidentified woman who appeared to be setting up for the event...

That is intense investigative reporting going on!

Toronto, I tell you. Cities. Oh boy.

[Elvis]

k thx

[General Patton]

...a group that, according to its Facebook page

"Hewitt and Knope said they made eye contact with an unidentified woman who appeared to be setting up for the event...

That is intense investigative reporting going on!

Toronto, I tell you. Cities. Oh boy.

So back to the original point, does this particular example stand as segregation, or is this something new and fun?

[JackRiddler]

Sorry Elvis! Fixed it! Forgive me! (Also, now that it's fixed, maybe you want to delete/change your justified complaint to prevent confusion for posterity...)

So back to the original point, does this particular example stand as segregation, or is this something new and fun?

No, sorry. There is no "original point" in the absence of establishing to what degree "this particular example" is anything other than either (1) a fabrication or construct populating the imaginary of a right-wing culture war site; or (2) someone who apparently makes eye contact with angry white people looking for a cause, but isn't necessarily representative of anything much worth discussing here.

[General Patton]

Sorry Elvis! Fixed it! Forgive me! (Also, now that it's fixed, maybe you want to delete/change your justified complaint to prevent confusion for posterity...)

So back to the original point, does this particular example stand as segregation, or is this something new and fun?

No, sorry. There is no "original point" in the absence of establishing to what degree "this particular example" is anything other than either (1) a fabrication or construct populating the imaginary of a right-wing culture war site; or (2) someone who apparently makes eye contact with angry white people looking for a cause, but isn't necessarily representative of anything much worth discussing here.

LOL

I linked that because I'm a lazy fuck. It's far from a fabrication, though that you would think that is interesting.

http://www.ryersonian.ca/white-students ... oup-event/
Hewitt said he then told the person he wanted to cover the meeting for an assignment. He said the person told him that because he was not a racialized student, he could not sit in on the meeting. Hewitt and Knope then left the room.

http://www.ryersonian.ca/rsc-safe-space ... om-public/
The Racialized Students’ Collective (RSC) at Ryerson “may have had the right” to prevent two white, first-year journalism students from attending their event, according to a constitutional lawyer.

He says their exclusion from the meeting — which led to a firestorm of comments across the spectrum as the story went viral — might have been justified because the right to privacy of those in the meeting would trump the students’ right to report the event.

When asked about it, RSU president Rajean Hoilett stood firm and said the advertisement for the event was clear and intended for racialized students only.

“I think we are talking about semantics. The fact that this space was advertised for racialized students should paint a picture of who should be at the event and have access to that space,” said Hoilett.

Hoilett also confirmed that “the two students were not allowed to attend because they identified as white and not victims of racialization, that and because they identified themselves as reporters.”

The RSU president said that the Racialised Students’ Collective isn’t the only group that holds safe-space meetings on campus.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Can anyone explain to me what it means to be "racialised," though?

Does it involve drugs? Good drugs?

Also, this brought me to actual tears:

I thought you were proudly empirical, taking courses online and the like.

No real reason why; the phrasing was just so evocative.

[tapitsbo]

It's an allegation that race is a construct of whites and other groups as victims have no agency in regards to this unless whites are removed.

Also lumping together groups that outperform whites and enjoy greater wealth and less stigma in contemporary society with groups that are legitimately targeted and brutalised by the government (see: missing and murdered indigenous women).

So basically a way of turning whites into a much more cohesive, in-group oriented, hostile minority?

How much of this stuff arises organically and how much is deliberate divide and conquer sneakily inserted by anxious think-tanks? I guess it's a dynamic process, rather than any given proportion of one or the other.

[JackRiddler]

Something can be real and yet still a construct in the sense that it gets blown into monstrous proportions for political consumption. How long did the Examiner search to find this example in Toronto? How widespread is this phenomenon? Who cares if some "racialized students" in Toronto want to meet on their own? Why do the two white "journalist" kids think this is an important story to pursue? Why does it matter to you? Are the racialized students going to kill anyone at traffic stops, or in a Walmart, or in a playground, or in a prison cell, and then get away with it even if the murder is recorded on camera? If they kill anyone, will white people be dismissed as jurors when they are tried? Are they going to aggressively advertise loans in your neighborhood at higher interest rates than they would offer in their own? Are they going to arrest you for possession and give you a longer sentence than others get? What is their significance to you, other than giving you a sense of false equivalence you can act smug about?

[tapitsbo]

Equivalence has nothing to do with it.

I'd imagine the journalists are pursuing it because it's an important discursive shift that doesn't receive a lot of discussion in the public sphere.

This phenomenon is widespread well beyond the borders of Canada.

What makes it so important for you to question discussion of it happening at all?

The cops getting let off for murder is a bit like Syrian "moderate rebels" getting off for the same, IMHO. Yes racism against blacks is real (the idea that race is a European construct is real too, up to a point) but then again the proportionately more frequent black-on-white violence is subject to a media blackout lately.

The cops are getting off because they're on the side of a system that fucks over people regardless of their background. Just being white isn't a license to kill people and get off scot-free.

Telling people they're not allowed to blow things up for political consumption has a sneaky way of making them want to do it more while they still have the ability to.

[JackRiddler]

What makes it so important for you to question discussion of it happening at all?

Hey, it's page 14 of this thread. Have it as long as you like.

[General Patton]

How widespread is this phenomenon?

An on-going question of interest, of which other examples have been cited in this thread.

Who cares if some "racialized students" in Toronto want to meet on their own?

Beyond the hilarious irony involved, I'm wondering if it actually accomplishes any of their goals. Or if they even have clear goals.

Why do the two white "journalist" kids think this is an important story to pursue?

There wouldn't be a story if they hadn't been turned away, allegedly for being white. This does play into the larger concept of "safe spaces".

Why does it matter to you?

Again, irony of the left potentially fomenting racial divisions because of identity politics.

Are the racialized students going to kill anyone at traffic stops, or in a Walmart, or in a playground, or in a prison cell, and then get away with it even if the murder is recorded on camera?

Well now, we're setting the bar pretty high aren't we? So as long as they aren't actively murdering whites then getting away with it, it's all good?

OK.

If they kill anyone, will white people be dismissed as jurors when they are tried?

Getting rid of jurors is a fine art, I'd consult a lawyer on that.

Are they going to arrest you for possession and give you a longer sentence than others get? What is their significance to you, other than giving you a sense of false equivalence you can act smug about?

Depends on if they become police, lel