Very interesting thought, that colleges' purpose is to acculturate one into a certain culture. That would explain why collegiate athletics are so important: because people of a particular college's culture place importance on chasing after balls on grassy fields, it's important for colleges to acculturate their students to watching people chase after balls on grassy fields. I'm not saying that sarcastically — as much as I personally have never understood the point collegiate athletics, it makes a lot of sense in this context.
I take issue with her desire to leave race out of the discussion. That's precisely the problem with race in America: race is a decent first-order approximation of class, with all the bad that entails. If we could address that head-on, if people didn't automatically assume that others of the same race are 'like them' and others of a different race are 'unlike them,' and not have those things be true, then racism would be a thing of the past — or, at least, no worse than the silliness one sees about redheads/gingers. The colour of one's skin has no more effect on one's worth as a human being than the colour of one's hair: the day that it's seen as no more important is the day racism is dead. But as long as race and class are conflated, that day won't come.
> The ban on smoking in restaurants – which, let me be clear, I am wildly in favor of, being someone who can't patronize a business with cigarette smoking in it
Can't? Given that tobacco smoke contains no allergens, methinks the mot juste would be 'won't.'
> I empathize when social classes not mine find themselves on the short end of the stick, such as in the above account of smoking regulations, but that doesn't mean I'd do anything to change that outcome. Like, "Wow, it must suck to have your class' norms so disrespected by a change in the law like that. Welp, I'm off to buy a burger in this now refreshingly smoke-free burger joint, and discuss with my class-peers how else we can change public policy to make it more support my class' norms – even, if necessary, at your class' norms' expense."
What was wrong with the previous policy, which meant that some places catered to the author's class and some places catered to other classes?
> That's precisely the problem with race in America: race is a decent first-order approximation of class, with all the bad that entails.
Not really. I mean in my state (WA), 48% of people below the poverty line are white, 18% are hispanic, 14% are asian, 14% are black. Sure some approximations of some classes are heavily involved with race, but if you're discussing class dynamics in general race isn't a necessary distinction.
> If we could address that head-on, if people didn't automatically assume that others of the same race are 'like them' and others of a different race are 'unlike them,' and not have those things be true, then racism would be a thing of the past...
Except that humans can't ignore race. The feel-good stories we tell each other about how we are naturally colorblind and taught to be racist, about how racism is an unnatural malignant artifact in our culture, are just that; stories. In reality children will show a strong preference for members of their own race by age 3, and it's not something we can just disappear.
> I mean in my state (WA), 48% of people below the poverty line are white, 18% are hispanic, 14% are asian, 14% are black.
You may just be getting numbers back based on the ethnicity that predominantly lives in your state.
Look at relative poverty numbers. i.e., of the number of people who are of ethnicity X, how many are poor? I think you'll surely find a correlation that OP describes as a decent first-order approximation.
For example: white 9%, hispanic 18%, black 37%. That's 2x and 4x more likely to be poor vs white depending on if you're hispanic or black.
> > The ban on smoking in restaurants – which, let me be clear, I am wildly in favor of, being someone who can't patronize a business with cigarette smoking in it
> Can't? Given that tobacco smoke contains no allergens, methinks the mot juste would be 'won't.'
I cannot speak for the author, but my asthma is severe enough that indoor cigarette smoke (or being in the home of a smoker) is sufficient to cause discomfort.
while your points are true, its kind of the whole point of the article is 'economic' (and of course race) are first-order approximations of 'social' class but they are NOT the same thing, only approximately overlapping. Pretty much the whole point of the article.
Which is why it's so odd that she doesn't want to discuss race, which like economic class is merely a first-order approximation of social class.
In general, of course, I find the idea of announcing 'derailing' topics to be ridiculous, meaning something like, 'here are my thoughts on a topic: you are free to talk about your thoughts in these related areas, but not those related areas, because I don't want you to, and will consider you rude.' It feels childish to me.
So why not elucidate on the themes of the essay, explaining how they play out racially? This will nicely illustrate that it is a mistake to announce derailing topics.
All you've done is complain about it (i.e., derail).
Personally, I think racial issues are too often far closer to the social class issues mentioned in the article, than economic ones... or even genuine full blown racial hatred. A lot of times, it is more mannerisms -- how someone speaks, how someone dresses -- that seem to be a huge amount of what is described as "racist".
So many times, when you hear racism of any kind, it's more complaints about mannerisms. Stuff like: That black person, dressing up in "gangster" (read: hip-hop fashionable) clothing, playing "gangster" music (also read: general hip-hop), well, to the racist, he must be a "thug". Regardless of how rich or poor that person is, regardless of the actual lack of "thuggery", etc.
Put a similar black person in a business suit, adjust the mannerisms to be more "professional" for a lack of a better term, and the person becomes more acceptable to the "professional" type classes. (However, he might be an "Uncle Tom" to some of his black peers, and he probably won't impress the "blue collar" social class either.)
You can go on from there. I do think there are general "I hate everyone who is xyz race" people out there as well, but I almost would be willing to say that a lot of racism is more the sort of social class issues identified in the article. The race is almost more of a side note as a way people over-generalize, kind of like the "Southern accent = hicks" over-generalization mentioned above.
> > The ban on smoking in restaurants – which, let me be clear, I am wildly in favor of, being someone who can't patronize a business with cigarette smoking in it
> Can't? Given that tobacco smoke contains no allergens, methinks the mot juste would be 'won't.'
Those of us who have had to put up with reactions to cigarette smoke do not particularly care that those reactions are due to cigarette smoke being an irritant rather than an allergen. Won't is the operative word (except if you define "won't" as "won't because I might have to go spend some quality time in the local hospital").
I take issue with her desire to leave race out of the discussion. That's precisely the problem with race in America: race is a decent first-order approximation of class, with all the bad that entails. If we could address that head-on, if people didn't automatically assume that others of the same race are 'like them' and others of a different race are 'unlike them,' and not have those things be true, then racism would be a thing of the past — or, at least, no worse than the silliness one sees about redheads/gingers. The colour of one's skin has no more effect on one's worth as a human being than the colour of one's hair: the day that it's seen as no more important is the day racism is dead. But as long as race and class are conflated, that day won't come.
> The ban on smoking in restaurants – which, let me be clear, I am wildly in favor of, being someone who can't patronize a business with cigarette smoking in it
Can't? Given that tobacco smoke contains no allergens, methinks the mot juste would be 'won't.'
> I empathize when social classes not mine find themselves on the short end of the stick, such as in the above account of smoking regulations, but that doesn't mean I'd do anything to change that outcome. Like, "Wow, it must suck to have your class' norms so disrespected by a change in the law like that. Welp, I'm off to buy a burger in this now refreshingly smoke-free burger joint, and discuss with my class-peers how else we can change public policy to make it more support my class' norms – even, if necessary, at your class' norms' expense."
What was wrong with the previous policy, which meant that some places catered to the author's class and some places catered to other classes?