White liberals are the true racists

[The Grand Nudger]

Sometimes you find out about places after you move there.  The state of Oregon as a whole is 88% non-Hispanic white -- but I had no idea about that when I moved here.  I just went were the grad school was.  If you wanted to change it, what could you do?  Forcibly relocate 2-4 million people to East LA?

I grew up in a city in the northeast that was 1/3 black, in a neighborhood in which at least 9 languages were spoken regularly.  I didn't think anything about it when I was there.  It was just "home".  It was only after I'd been away for a while that I began to realize what  unique environment it was, and to miss the diversity.  By then, though, it was a matter of staying where the job was.

If it were just a single person I'd say you are right. But white people, and white liberals are no exception, tend to move where there are tons of white people. I don't think hundreds of thousands of white liberals who moved to Portland or Boulder or whatever all didn't know that it was just white people there.

---

It's a great city with good employers such as Intel... my parents lived in Portland for 14 years and were pretty well assimilated with white people, although they're both fiercely proud of their south asian culture and heritage too. It's not like white liberals can't be racist, but I don't think that choosing to live in Portland has a whole lot to do with that.

I don't think it's entirely a coincidence either. This seems like a double standard for me. If a conservative wants live around just white people it's going to be called racist but when liberals do it it's just some sort of coincidence. That doesn't seem right to me. Especially when it's so in mass. The other city I have a lot of experience with is Seattle. Now I lived in the hispanic part of town, and there was narry a white person in site. All the white liberals pretty much lived with other white liberals. I don't know if there has been any research done on it, but it's more than just Portland.

Self segregation and white flight are self segregation and white flight, doesn't really matter who does it.  The gentry are notorious for it, as well as being notoriously liberal.

[pgrimes15]

Donald Trump fucking literally defended White Supremcaists.

So shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt and go back to sucking your orange messiah's tiny mushroom cock and licking his shit off the toilet seat.

Anyone else get a semi after reading this post ?

[CarveTheFive]

Donald Trump fucking literally defended White Supremcaists.

So shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt and go back to sucking your orange messiah's tiny mushroom cock and licking his shit off the toilet seat.

Anyone else get a semi after reading this post ?

I jizzed in my klan robe

[Dr H]

Self segregation and white flight are self segregation and white flight, doesn't really matter who does it.  The gentry are notorious for it, as well as being notoriously liberal.

For some definitions of "liberal".

[CapnAwesome]

Self segregation and white flight are self segregation and white flight, doesn't really matter who does it.  The gentry are notorious for it, as well as being notoriously liberal.

For some definitions of "liberal".

Are you going to explain what you mean or just leave it at that?

[Dr H]

For some definitions of "liberal".

Are you going to explain what you mean or just leave it at that?

If it requires explanation, sure.

70-90 years ago or so, there were liberal and conservative democrats and liberal and conservative republicans.  Liberals in the 1930s & 1940s tended to be associated with labor movements, and consequently with Marxists.  By the 1950s and the "red scare", though, they have started to become more of the "soft" left; having a nodding acquaintance with Marxist theory, but avoiding direct association with communism.  Revolutionary ideas were gradually replaced with the idea of manipulating the system from within, and not so much by subversion, as through regular participation.   "Liberal" essentially came to mean a kind of low-key theoretical socialism, achieved through legal channels, and it attracted a lot of the younger generation of heirs to the old "robber baron" families of American wealth.  For the most part, they tended to play within the existing political system.

In the 1960s the next generation of many of these families (along with a lot of other people) got frustrated with what they saw as the laissez-faire attitude of their liberal parents, and attempts to change a system mired in its own inertia from within.  Many freely identified with communism and Marxist ideas, but also rejected the ivory tower theoretical Marxism of what they saw as the old left; they emerged as the "New Left".  Their hallmarks were direct action -- standing on picket lines; marching in the streets; and generally opposing the status quo of the government/corporate/military "establishment".   These were the people who drove much of the radical change and turmoil of the 60s and 70s, and this was around the time when the old guard liberals -- their parents -- started being referred to a "white liberals".   For a while though, "liberal" generally meant the old guard, where as the new generation of liberals were called anything from "radicals" to "communists" to "anarchists" to a bunch of other things.

By the late 80s, "liberal" had shifted to the left, applied to the new generation, while "white liberal" had become something of a pejorative:  a term of contempt used to refer to a group of -- often wealthy; often older -- individuals who talked a good game as far as labor and minority rights, and power to the oppressed, and such -- but basically did nothing effective to bring about those ends.  At best they were considered impotent; at worst, hypocrites secretly working with the system they publicly professed to detest.  

Somewhat ironically, it was the emerging far right that muddied the waters here, in the person of Rush Limbaugh and other right wing flapping lips on talk radio.   Thanks to a combination of rabble-rousing, widespread audiences, and daily repetition, "liberal" was transformed into a description of pretty much anything left of the far right, including moderates, all democrats, both the old and new left, etc.  At the same time "conservative" got equated with "republican" and points right.

By rights, people should have actively resisted this reclassification.  But few in the late 80s foresaw the kind of political power that would come to be wielded by ignorant, loud-mouthed self-professed pundits, until it was too late.  By that time "liberalism" in the minds of much of the public has shifted significantly to the right -- even though they still called it "the left", and a great number of newcomers to "liberalism" went with the flow.  The true left, at least in the US, all but disappeared -- not so you'd notice if you listen to Limbaugh, et al, though.

I think a lot of people with social reformist ideas -- who would have been liberals back in the 1950s -- went through crises of conscience in the 1990s and 2000s.   They still associated teh term "liberal" with "the left", but also realized that the concept of "liberal" had somehow shifted to the right of their positions.  They continued to practice direct activism and pursue matters of social reform, but as a shotgun spray of splintered movements -- Black rights; Hispanic rights; Native rights; women's rights; gay rights; wage reform; healthcare; etc., etc., etc. -- and not as a cohesive movement or political philosophy.  This has undermined the impetus towards social progress.  Progress has still been made, but it's been two steps forward; one step back for a long time, now.  I see some effort made in the last ten years to recognize and deal with this problem, viz.  a lot of people who once would have been "liberal" now calling themselves "progressive".  How effective that's going to be remains to be seen.

Personally, I don't like the term "progressive", because it's already been used -- back in the 19-teens & 1920s -- and it picked up some pejorative baggage along the way (enforced population control; eugenics; etc.).  A better move, IMO, would have been to reclaim the term "liberal" and make it mean something positive.  A second choice would have been to coin a new term.  But it looks like we may be stuck with "progressive" for a while.

Anyway, if one is going to cast either praise or aspersion on "liberals", these days it behooves one to identify to what particular group of "liberals" one is referring; they're not all of a feather anymore, and haven't been for some time now.

HTH.