12 ms·

I mean Oregon was founded as a white only state it's right in there constitution. > No free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of the adop

I mean Oregon was founded as a white only state it's right in there constitution. > No free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws So it's not surprising so much of the state is like this. People give the south crap but the Pacific Northwest was literally founded on these ideals and it still very much persists to this day.

cafard 5y ago
There were exclusion laws in a fair bit of the Midwest back in the day. I don't know that those states are any more or any less racist than the rest of the US.
dumbfoundded 5y ago
The current racism in Oregon is certainly not something I want to understate but it's unfair to compare Oregon now to the deep South now. The whole of the United States was founded on slavery but a lot has changed. Not nearly as much as has changed in the South. For example, President Obama lost the national white vote 43% to 55% in 2008 (1). In 2008, more than 89% of the voters in Oregon were white and voted for Obama by 59% to 41% (2). I think it's fair to say at least recently, the white people in Oregon think very differently than the white people in the South. Of course, issues around race continue to exist in significant and meaningful ways in Oregon. But saying it's all the same is deceitfully misleading. (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (2) https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpolls/oregon.html https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpo...
- smaryjerry 5y ago
  This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences. Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3). (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 (2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
    - generalizations 5y ago
      You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference. You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
      - dumbfoundded 5y ago
        I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help. It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.

cafard 5y ago

There were exclusion laws in a fair bit of the Midwest back in the day. I don't know that those states are any more or any less racist than the rest of the US.

dumbfoundded 5y ago

The current racism in Oregon is certainly not something I want to understate but it's unfair to compare Oregon now to the deep South now. The whole of the United States was founded on slavery but a lot has changed. Not nearly as much as has changed in the South. For example, President Obama lost the national white vote 43% to 55% in 2008 (1). In 2008, more than 89% of the voters in Oregon were white and voted for Obama by 59% to 41% (2). I think it's fair to say at least recently, the white people in Oregon think very differently than the white people in the South. Of course, issues around race continue to exist in significant and meaningful ways in Oregon. But saying it's all the same is deceitfully misleading. (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (2) https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpolls/oregon.html https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpo...

smaryjerry 5y ago
This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences. Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3). (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 (2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
  - generalizations 5y ago
    You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference. You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help. It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.