Keep city as white 'as much as possible,' council candidate says, stunning forum in Michigan

[SummerMadness]

Keep city as white 'as much as possible,' council candidate says, stunning forum in Michigan

A city council candidate in Marysville stunned an election forum Thursday night with racist comments that she later doubled down on when answering a question about diversity.

Much of the night focused on city development and park improvements, but that thread was momentarily marred with shock following a racist statement from political newcomer Jean Cramer.

"Keep Marysville a white community as much as possible," said Cramer, one of five candidates vying for three open council seats in November.

Women like these demonstrate how attitudes and practices that propped up housing discrimination (and the wealth gap) are still alive today. Kudos to those who spoke out against her; Cramer realizes her time is up, so we'll see more of this flailing as their power and numbers dwindle.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why is it wrong to seek to keep a city's homogeneity intact?

 

[SkyWriting]

Keep city as white 'as much as possible,' council candidate says, stunning forum in Michigan


Women like these demonstrate how attitudes and practices that propped up housing discrimination (and the wealth gap) are still alive today. Kudos to those who spoke out against her; Cramer realizes her time is up, so we'll see more of this flailing as their power and numbers dwindle.

People find that if they have jobs, they can live most anywhere they can afford, regardless of skin color.

 

[Jonaitis]

Why is it wrong to seek to keep a city's homogeneity intact?

Judenfrei rings a bell...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Judenfrei rings a bell...

Is this what you advocate?

 

[Jonaitis]

Is this what you advocate?

Most certainly not.

 

[Cimorene]

Keep city as white 'as much as possible,' council candidate says, stunning forum in Michigan


Women like these demonstrate how attitudes and practices that propped up housing discrimination (and the wealth gap) are still alive today. Kudos to those who spoke out against her; Cramer realizes her time is up, so we'll see more of this flailing as their power and numbers dwindle.

Smh! The #greenshirtguy needs to go up to Michigan.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why is it wrong to seek to keep a city's homogeneity intact?

Tell me you aren't serious?

• Seeking homogeneity implies that the non-homogenous group is less deserving
• Controlling the level of homogeneity would require action/law discriminating against the unwanted group.
• You are implying that homogeneity is a somehow a better state than non-homogeneity
• Demanding homogeneity reinforces racial sterotyping
• Does the word 'apartheid' ring any bells?

I could go on.
OB

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Tell me you aren't serious?

• Seeking homogeneity implies that the non-homogenous group is less deserving
• Controlling the level of homogeneity would require action/law discriminating against the unwanted group.
• You are implying that homogeneity is a somehow a better state than non-homogeneity
• Demanding homogeneity reinforces racial sterotyping
• Does the word 'apartheid' ring any bells?

I could go on.
OB

I'm totally serious.

Why is it in principle wrong to keep a city or locale's homogeneity intact? Does Detroit need to become less black for instance because it is a majority black city? I don't think so.

I agree there are problems with the points you listed and how this could be done without violating those principles, but it doesn't follow that homogeneity or seeking to preserve it in what ways you can, is wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why is it in principle wrong to keep a city or locale's homogeneity intact? Does Detroit need to become less black for instance because it is a majority black city? I don't think so.

The issue is about intentionally seeking homogeneity. If Detroit becomes more or less black or white as a result of an unforced process then the points I mentioned broadly don't apply.

I agree there are problems with the points you listed and how this could be done without violating those principles, but it doesn't follow that homogeneity or seeking to preserve it in what ways you can, is wrong.

If you are going to force homogeneity there is no choice but to create the problems I've mentioned. Apartheid and segregation in the southern states of the US are stunning examples of what happens when you force homogeneity.

Are you really comfortable with the idea of "Whites Only" signage?
OB

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The issue is about intentionally seeking homogeneity. If Detroit becomes more or less black or white as a result of an unforced process then the points I mentioned broadly don't apply.

If you are going to force homogeneity there is no choice but to create the problems I've mentioned. Apartheid and segregation in the southern states of the US are stunning examples of what happens when you force homogeneity.

Are you really comfortable with the idea of "Whites Only" signage?
OB

No I'm not comfortable with that, yet I'm not sure any politician in the modern era would dare suggest the types of things you are talking about without being immediately removed or subject to intense public scrutiny.

Also it doesn't necessarily require force to maintain a certain level of sameness, at least in the way you're talking about. Either way I am not as outraged at someone wanting to keep their local community the same as apparently a lot of people here are.

It will depend on how this woman wants to go about it though, to which I admit I unsure how that could be done in the modern United states from a local level. I would think such things could be done only on a broader national way, by limiting immigration.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm totally serious.

Why is it in principle wrong to keep a city or locale's homogeneity intact?

Because that's racial discrimination. There's no valid racial reason to keep non-whites out.

Does Detroit need to become less black for instance because it is a majority black city?

Absolutely not. It would be wrong to keep non-blacks out though, if they wanted to move there.

I know that can get confusing when people complain about "gentrification" (aka an influx of whites) but those arguments are just as racist. Same goes for basically every discussion of "white flight".

 

[Occams Barber]

Also it doesn't necessarily require force to maintain a certain level of sameness, at least in the way you're talking about.

No - it can be done, and is done, with subtle discrimination - which is still discrimination. Anything, subtle or otherwise, which limits the options of one group as opposed to another, is discrimination. This is how we get Ghettos.

Either way I am not as outraged at someone wanting to keep their local community the same as apparently a lot of people here are.

Why are you so concerned about a little colour variation in your neighbourhood? Coming from a New Zealander your attitude has really surprised me.

I would think such things could be done only on a broader national way, by limiting immigration.

At the very extreme end, with massive immigration, there is always some danger that the culture (not colour) of the incoming population will swamp the native culture. In real terms this is highly unlikely given the sheer numbers required and the likelihood that incoming people will take up the native culture.
OB

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Because that's racial discrimination. There's no valid racial reason to keep non-whites out.

Just a few weeks ago, India repealed Article 370 of its constitution, which granted special rights to Kashmir, India's only Muslim majority state. Among other things, it prohibited non-Kashmiris from buying property there. Much of the US media are wringing their hands over this move, saying that it will result in an influx of Hindus into Kashmir and eroding Kashmir's ethnic homogeneity. It this criticism justified, or is India doing the right thing here?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just a few weeks ago, India repealed Article 370 of its constitution, which granted special rights to Kashmir, India's only Muslim majority state. Among other things, it prohibited non-Kashmiris from buying property there. Much of the US media are wringing their hands over this move, saying that it will result in an influx of Hindus into Kashmir and eroding Kashmir's ethnic homogeneity. It this criticism justified, or is India doing the right thing here?

Well that all goes back to India's independence from colonial Britain. As I remember it, the muslims wanted their own piece of India and were willing to resist the British alongside the Hindus so long as they got it. It was fiercely debated at the time, but I think the Hindus eventually agreed because they didn't want to have India fighting internally so soon after winning their independence.

It was pretty ugly when it happened too....and I think it's fair to debate whether or not that was a valid decision. If they agreed to leave it to the muslims....well, they should honor that agreement. There could be valid reasons to reconsider it though....I simply don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I know that can get confusing when people complain about "gentrification" (aka an influx of whites) but those arguments are just as racist. Same goes for basically every discussion of "white flight".

??? White flight was an actual thing.

This book does a pretty decent job of describing some of that phenomenon as it occurred in Baltimore:
https://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Neighborhood-Bigotry-American/dp/1566638437

I’m having trouble finding links that cover the issue before about the 1960’s (it started here decades earlier), but this one gets at it a bit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ite-flight-began-a-lot-earlier-than-we-think/

At least in some places, the rapid pace of evacuation was stunning. Blocks that had been previously stable would, as soon as a single black person moved in, turn over almost entirely within a decade.

 

[variant]

I know that can get confusing when people complain about "gentrification" (aka an influx of whites) but those arguments are just as racist. Same goes for basically every discussion of "white flight".

Not really no. Anti gentrification arguments I have heard tend to focus on how the people who already live there can no longer afford to do so after the process is complete. It is usually an economic complaint.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why is it wrong to seek to keep a city's homogeneity intact?

If she was actually talking about maintaining homogeneity instead of skin color then probably nothing all that much. A community would most likely thrive if its citizens all have similar POVs on how things should be done , what sort of appearance the community should present to the outside world etc. Though too much homogeneity of thought is possibly worse than too little, homogeneity in their goals, what they value and what they wish to accomplish is probably a good thing. Everyone working together striving to go in the same direction. That is not what this woman is proposing though is it? She seems only interested in skin color.

 

[SummerMadness]

Not really no. Anti gentrification arguments I have heard tend to focus on how the people who already live there can no longer afford to do so after the process is complete. It is usually an economic complaint.

Trying to compare housing segregation to anti-gentrification is completely ridiculous. The problem with gentrification is not only economic, it has a lot to do with people moving into the community, but not becoming part of the community and instead creating exclusive enclaves that bar the older residents of the community. While in Philadelphia, one tactic I saw was some new residents formed an association who would then target local businesses for harassment, via calling police, health inspectors, etc. This was done to get the business to close; and then you get a business that is closer to what you want in the area, usually some hipster-style establishment. The main issue besides causing rents in the area to jump is the attitude of replacing what's there as opposed to becoming part of the community (something you don't see with immigrants, they become part of the community and add more flavor to the surroundings).

 

[variant]

Trying to compare housing segregation to anti-gentrification is completely ridiculous. The problem with gentrification is not only economic, it has a lot to do with people moving into the community, but not becoming part of the community and instead creating exclusive enclaves that bar the older residents of the community. While in Philadelphia, one tactic I saw was some new residents formed an association who would then target local businesses for harassment, via calling police, health inspectors, etc. This was done to get the business to close; and then you get a business that is closer to what you want in the area, usually some hipster-style establishment. The main issue besides causing rents in the area to jump is the attitude of replacing what's there as opposed to becoming part of the community (something you don't see with immigrants, they become part of the community and add more flavor to the surroundings).

Is this always the case? Or just a shady practice some might do?

You'll have to forgive me, I live in a smaller city that has always had a mixed community so these things wouldn't occur to me.