"Diverse" Suburbs (transfer, income, income tax)

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

I just wonder how that information gets processed.

[Camden Northsider]

At my organization, it goes directly to HR and stays with HR- I, as a hiring manager, never see the AA forms, and most HR depts are familiar with laws preventing everyone from making selection decisions based on an applicant's race.

Regarding the college applications, in addition to the privilege whites have enjoyed regarding college access for hundreds of years in this country, white people still disproportionately benefit from "legacy" preferences in place at many institutions today.

[City Data Guy]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

But you're clearly not politically correct and have no aspirations to be, so what's your point?

I love how up in arms 'non-PC people' (how's that for a term?) can get about these matters and I'm always entertained by their efforts to invent a reverse-racist "struggle" and equate it to the plight of any number of groups that actually experienced oppression and continue to be discriminated against in our country.

My point is clearly stated; the purpose of political correctness is to avoid offending people, yet if they disregard whites from "the people that they cannot offend" group, they are hypocrites.

What the heck is a "reverse racist"? There is no such things as reverse racism, or reverse discrimination for that matter. Racism is racism; discrimination is discrimination. When will everyone know this?

[uptown_urbanist]

But... who here in the context of discussing neighborhoods suggested that having white people in them was a bad thing? Wasn't that how this got started? Because someone took offense because other posters appreciated having communities that had more diversity than in years past? If that's the case, I don't think there's anything offensive to anyone about that. I don't know how anyone could think that there was, and I don't know how a white person could take any offense to that.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

My point is clearly stated; the purpose of political correctness is to avoid offending people, yet if they disregard whites from "the people that they cannot offend" group, they are hypocrites.

What the heck is a "reverse racist"? There is no such things as reverse racism, or reverse discrimination for that matter. Racism is racism; discrimination is discrimination. When will everyone know this?

I agree that there's no such thing as reverse racism, thanks for backing me up on that. And I'm really sorry to hear that as a white Christian in MN you've had to experience such hateful, racist discrimination at the hands of your oppressors (now...who again exactly would those oppressors be?).

[jeffredo]

Originally Posted by tropolis

id like the non white numbers to be higher. im getting a little tired of the lily white mr. beaver stuff i see in the outer suburbs which are over 90 percent white. hopefully those numbers will change as well.

This is absolutely a racist statement. There's no way to sugar coat it. If it were said in an opposite fashion (would like to see the white numbers higher for example), as in gentrification of mostly minority neighborhoods in my city or Oakland the poop would hit the fan, and rightly so. Especially if you tossed in some "I'm a little tired of chocolate town ghetto gansta stuff..." stereotyping. See how sounds? Not good.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by jeffredo

This is absolutely a racist statement. There's no way to sugar coat it. If it were said in an opposite statement (would like to see the white numbers higher for example), as in gentrification of mostly minority neighborhoods in my city or Oakland for example the poop would hit the fan, and rightly so.

I didn't read it like that; if my neighborhood were 90+% people of one specific race, whatever race that would be, I'd want more diversity, too.

Maybe the difference is the gentrification card. The Twin Cities don't have any neighborhoods that are so heavily of one other race, so I don't know that race alone signifies (or sparks concerns of) impending gentrification. I think if this area had a greater presence of historical and continuing ethnic or racial neighborhoods that would be a hotter topic, but we don't.

To be clear, I don't think that people who live in very majority white neighborhoods are racist or don't want diversity. On the contrary, I'm sure many would be very happy to have more diverse neighborhoods. (well, ethnically and racially; economically is a different subject.) I know that I certainly do. I don't think that's what the poster was getting at, though; I read it to be an expression of frustration that in years past some of these neighborhoods were so predominately one race (especially in today's more diverse society), and are pleased that, like the rest of society, even our whitest-of-white suburbs are slowly changing to reflect the broader demographics of society. It wasn't the most elegantly worded of statements, but I didn't read animosity towards white people in it, just segregated communities.

For what it's worth, I'm currently in a vastly majority white census tract. I'm white myself and like my majority white neighbors, but I can wholeheartedly say that I'd prefer to see the neighborhood grow more racially diverse. I don't think that's racist of me. I just think racially integrated neighborhoods make for a healthier community. That wasn't so possible not that many years ago as the numbers just weren't there -- this is, after all, a heavily white state. As that changes, so will our neighborhoods. And I think that's a good thing.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

Originally Posted by jeffredo

This is absolutely a racist statement. There's no way to sugar coat it. If it were said in an opposite fashion (would like to see the white numbers higher for example), as in gentrification of mostly minority neighborhoods in my city or Oakland the poop would hit the fan, and rightly so. Especially if you tossed in some "I'm a little tired of chocolate town ghetto gansta stuff..." stereotyping. See how sounds? Not good.

Like Uptown said, the gentrification thing isn't really relevant to the Twin Cities. The closest thing to gentrification that happens in Minneapolis probably happens in white neighborhoods - I know some people in the mostly white Northeast section of Minneapolis who are none-too-happy about the artists settling there.

Unfortunately for a lot of cities where serious gentrification is happening, perhaps like Oakland (never been there), there is serious displacement of black people - and while I think the people moving in have the best intentions, the consequences (not the subtleties of the language used) can be racist. It's also coupled with the unbearable truth that a lot of cities need more successful people, and a lot of those people are white people - as politically incorrect as it is to say. It's something that cities are going to have to deal with, to make sure the rebuilding of cities is more socially just than the dismantling of them were. But that conversation is one that has more to do with social realities than perceived linguistics - something that a lot of the people who claim to be anti-pc are overly concerned with to the point of ridiculousness and irrelevancy.

[City Data Guy]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

I agree that there's no such thing as reverse racism, thanks for backing me up on that. And I'm really sorry to hear that as a white Christian in MN you've had to experience such hateful, racist discrimination at the hands of your oppressors (now...who again exactly would those oppressors be?).

I never said that I was oppressed. Work on your reading comprehension and then get back to me.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

I never said that I was oppressed.

And therein lies the difference (it's almost as if you're begging me to get on my soapbox). The groups that "political correctness" was brought about to try and protect in this country experienced (and in some cases still experience) REAL oppression and discrimination for many decades/centuries in America (read: genocide, slavery, de jure/de facto segregation and discrimination). In fact- the treatment of persons of color as second-class citizens was so widespread in America, and for so very many years, that the very act of opression itself was viewed by many if not most white Americans as just a common "way of life" that didn't need 'correcting'. Fortunately, a number of concerned groups realized not only the inhumanity in this, but also that the great democratic principles that America was built on were a total sham if all of its white citizenry, the historically 'dominant' group, continued to carry on in the usual fashion, whether that be not allowing a minority person to eat at their establishments or go to school with white kids, or just continuing to act very openly hostile towards persons of color through extremely offensive/ethnocentric actions and words. But this "way of life" was so pervasive and institutional in our country, that a few "movements" needed to be born. I assume you're familiar with the Civil Rights movement so I'll spare you the details- it turned out that even after all the work of that movement, the people and institutions of this country still didn't know how to treat everyone with a basic level of decency and respect in interactions- which is why a movement occurred to work to 'correct' the historically racist practices and idealogies of our institutions that chipped away at America's democratic principles.

I can respect someone that says they don't like disparaging statements made towards any group, but the thing is, I've only heard white people complain about this issue (e.g. perceived disparagement of white people) while simultaneously complaining about "PC" people or policies (with the classic, "if that was said about any other group, just imagine how upset you would be")- the implication here being that they themselves wouldn't be upset, and they similarly find PC people to be highly annoying. If, however, someone were to say they fully understand, recognize, and appreciate the need for political correctness in our country given the historical context it was borne out of, and then say they similarly think it's wrong to think it's OK to make fun of/disparage white people- although I might personally think that they need to lighten up a bit or learn some historical context, I would at least respect their opinions a LOT more than what I generally ALWAYS hear from people making the 'reverse-racism' argument (that they hate PC people/practice but suddenly find morality on anything they perceive to be 'anti-white').

It's kind of like how I feel about aspects of political conservativism and Catholicism. Many political conservatives are pro-life when it comes to abortion but simultaneously love the death penalty. Catholics, on the other hand, are pro-life when it comes to both abortion and the death penalty. I may not agree with them, but I can respect the consistency of the Catholic view much more than the average political conservative's.

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

Work on your reading comprehension and then get back to me.

OK, I'll do that just as soon as you start working on your American History 101.