SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the whatever-happened-to-DEsegregation? dept.
The Washington Times reports a story about protesters on the UC Berkeley campus physically blocking white students from accessing a bridge while police stand by and watch:
Students at the University of California, Berkeley held a day of protest on Friday to demand the creation of additional “safe spaces” for transgender and nonwhite students, during which a human chain was formed on a main campus artery to prevent white students from getting to class.
The demonstrators were caught on video blocking Berkeley’s Sather Gate, holding large banners advocating the creation of physical spaces segregated by race and gender identity, including one that read “Fight 4 Spaces of Color.”
Protesters can be heard shouting “Go around!” to white students who attempt to go through the blockade, while students of color are greeted with calls of “Let him through!”
Students turned away by the mob are later shown filing through trees and ducking under branches in order to cross Strawberry Creek, which runs underneath the bridge.
The protests were a response to a Safe Space being moved from the fifth floor of a building down to the basement.
[Original version of this story had "UCLA"; corrected to: "UC Berkeley" -Ed.]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:47PM
Would it be appropriate for white people to advocate having their own spaces that no one else is allowed go enter?
So why is it fine for others to do this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:02PM
You have some metal wire you want to cut, you bend it right at forth from one extreme to another, till it breaks. Same with society. The same hand promotes hedonism and then austerity, treating minorities as cattle and white privilege theorists.
The objective is to discourage rational people to try and make sense of things.
Besides, a mob without uniform is an irregular army. No geneva convention for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:58PM
> Would it be appropriate for white people to advocate having their own spaces that no one else is allowed go enter?
They don't need to advocate for those spaces because that's pretty much the default.
The list of ways the entire country is a safe-space for whites is practically endless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:29PM
So if there are institutions that practice racism in the dictionary-defined sense, why not just point the light and finger at them directly? Trying to muscle your way into running your own racist racket is a really bad idea when (presumably) you are in the minority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @08:54PM
> why not just point the light and finger at them directly?
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:14PM
Yeah, best to beat that neutral bystanding human to death - THAT'LL learn the elephant not to step on the tails of mice!
Your misdirection was noted, but too tantilizing to let pass without retort. My primary point remains unchallenged: "expose and mock the existing racists; don't try to 'fight racism' by creating still more racism."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:45PM
You're either with us or you're against us, huh? Are you fond of Bush, by chance?
And there are ways of opposing genuine oppressors that don't involve engaging in the same type of behavior they engage in.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:43PM
> You're either with us or you're against us, huh? Are you fond of Bush, by chance?
Nope. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
> And there are ways of opposing genuine oppressors that don't involve engaging in the same type of behavior they engage in.
A section of the white population, perceiving black pressure for change, misconstrues it as a demand for privileges rather than as a desperate quest for existence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2016, @10:17AM
Nope. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
That doesn't make 'with us or against us' any more valid, and certainly not with how you're applying it. It's just a false dichotomy.
rather than as a desperate quest for existence.
Enough with the bullshit hyperbole. You're nuts. I can't believe garbage like this gets modded as insightful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:38PM
The names of streets have nothing to do with safe spaces. Neither do Oscar nominations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:08AM
> The names of streets have nothing to do with safe spaces. Neither do Oscar nominations.
Of course they do. It's about keeping the world safe for white fragility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @02:12AM
Where I live, we also have a Cesar Chavez Blvd. Does that count?
While it is clearly true that Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour of the week, I believe that this cuts both ways. People--black, white, and all the colours of the rainbow in between--are still largely choosing to self-segregate. So, what do you suggest we do about it? Hold a "kneel-in"? That doesn't seem particularly productive to me; most likely the "kneelers" would be invited to join in the worship service. (Well, OK, there may be a few churches where they would be greeted with angry scowls from white leaders with arms crossed...But I would be literally gobsmacked if this were to occur in more than a few white majority churches!) Much more profoundly impactful would be if a cohort of racially diverse worshippers were to start regularly attending a white-majority church; but that would require quite a bit more sustained engagement; somehow, I wonder how many of these protesters would be willing to make that kind of prolonged commitment. What about if a group of white people started regularly attending an historically black church? Would they be still welcomed with open arms after coming for a few weeks or a few months? Or would the regulars start gossiping about the problems of "gentrification"? It seems to me that attitudes will have to change on all sides for real change to occur. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon, much as I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. Just sayin'.
And, how do you propose we change that? Have a "set aside" for an actor of colour? Personally, if I were a minority I think I would be more insulted than honoured to get that prize? Also, we really don't know why there were no non-white nominations for lead or supporting roles the last two years. It's really hard for me to know what the motivations were that lead to that outcome. Do you have any insight on the matter, other than noting that the last two years #OscarsSoWhite?
First of all, I'm a bit confused. Geoge W Bush won re-election to the Presidency in 2004. Perhaps you meant his father, George HW Bush? Now, to address your point, yes, white-only enclaves are a problem. There is no reason for those to even exist. It is especially shocking that they would even exist today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @10:02PM
> Where I live, we also have a Cesar Chavez Blvd. Does that count?
Is he black? No.
One road for the most famous black man in america and one road for the most famous latino man. The point is that all the other roads named for people are named for white people. You want to focus on the 0.1% and ignore the 99.9%.
> are still largely choosing to self-segregate.
Uh, yeah. What, you think the white people are being prevented from joining black churches?
And yes, the fault is at the feet of the white people.
Whites (37 percent) are least likely to say their church should become more diverse.
African Americans (51 percent) and Hispanic Americans (47 percent) were more likely to say their church needs to be more diverse.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/january/sunday-morning-segregation-most-worshipers-church-diversity.html [christianitytoday.com]
> And, how do you propose we change that?
Its not my job to fix. Stay focused. You don't have to be a baker to know when the bread is stale.
The point is that our entire country is set up as a safe-space for white people where confronting non-whiteness is the exception, not the norm for most whites.
> Perhaps you meant his father, George HW Bush?
No. Read the link. Geez.
> Now, to address your point, yes, white-only enclaves are a problem.
That's not actually my point. The really issue is de facto housing segregation. And please don't tell me that's the fault of the brown people for 'self-segregating.'
To repeat. The entry damn country is a safe-space for fragile white people. Complaining that non-whites want an occasional space of their own is hypocritical denialism.