Anonymous wrote:I don't know why whites are "racist" if they want to live among other whites. Given the fact that demographics other than whites or Asians are far more likely to commit violent crime and property crime, it seems reasonable. Even the most shrill liberal won't endanger their children by moving to an ethnic neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why whites are "racist" if they want to live among other whites. Given the fact that demographics other than whites or Asians are far more likely to commit violent crime and property crime, it seems reasonable. Even the most shrill liberal won't endanger their children by moving to an ethnic neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But of course Illinois and esp Indiana are not seen as progressive as Oregon is (despite Oregon not having such a reputation prior to the last few decades)

Oregon and Wash and Calif have few blacks because they did not have huge industries developing at the time of the great migration of blacks from the South. Their black pops are decreasing as white pops are decreasing - with the in migration of asians and hispanics.[i]

This may be true, but I wonder if there is not a white elephant in this discussion. Could it be that the Latino American and Asian American immigrants and the U.S.-born descendants of those immigrants, who have settled in states like California, also bring with them, and pass along to their families some biases against certain groups? I think that no one wants to discuss or explore the question because, let us face it, some political groups in this country - and particularly in California - thrive and prosper on a political alliance of Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and African Americans; when in fact those groups often have very different needs and interests.

For example, I believe it was a Latino American legislator in California who just last year proposed getting rid of, or curbing, the California law which prohibits the use of affirmative action (yes, California unbelievably passed such a law some time ago) in admissions decisions to California state universities and colleges. There was so much blowback and concern among California's Asian American legislators, driven by a firestorm from their constituents, that the Latino American legislator agreed -- after discussion with his party -- that it would be in the better interest of political party alliances and unity to drop that proposed measure. I also, again only by second-hand anecdote, recall reading another comment to an article on California's African American diaspora, wherein a self-indentified African American business owner, said that as enthusiastic as a potential Asian American customer might be to work with him and his business as the discussion takes place on the phone, they almost never hire him for the job once he shows up in person. And you can google many stories about African American families made to feel unwelcome, or worse, in California's Latino American neighborhoods.

Truly terrible, and though I feel that we rightly hear about Caucasian American discrimination against African Americans and Latino Americans, I feel that no one wants to discuss the discrimination, bias, or animosity which these minority groups can exhibit towards one another.

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

Anonymous wrote:But of course Illinois and esp Indiana are not seen as progressive as Oregon is (despite Oregon not having such a reputation prior to the last few decades)

Oregon and Wash and Calif have few blacks because they did not have huge industries developing at the time of the great migration of blacks from the South. Their black pops are decreasing as white pops are decreasing - with the in migration of asians and hispanics.[i]

Anonymous wrote:gizmodo

I spoke over the phone with Walidah Imarisha, an educator and expert on black history in Oregon and she was quick to explain that the state is only really exceptional in that it bothered to proclaim its goals of white supremacy so openly.

"What's useful about Oregon as a case study is that Oregon was bold enough to write it down,"

but see

http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).

All these werre "written down" Gizmodo is quoting someone who appears less than fully informed.

I spoke over the phone with Walidah Imarisha, an educator and expert on black history in Oregon and she was quick to explain that the state is only really exceptional in that it bothered to proclaim its goals of white supremacy so openly.

"What's useful about Oregon as a case study is that Oregon was bold enough to write it down,"