Sure, it's a similar story throughout the developed world, but the nature of this particular coverage strikes me more as revealing the current lightning rod topics in America's political landscape.
Immigration and diversity (with diversity becoming a loaded term).
The underlying story of trying to attract workers because of low fertility rates and/or economic growth is pretty straight forward, but the growing partisan divide over identity politics is reflected in this coverage (and a lot of the conversation that goes on here).
That's the point, and that's why this liberal editorial is to blame. They very presumption of its foundation is racist if we put that shoe on the other foot.
After all, nobody can object to a state government acknowledging a general problem indicating a need to attract more workers or increase the birth rate. But why is "diversity" required to achieve that? If minorities are a ripe group to attract, then it is rational and race-blind to pursue them, and diversity will organically follow as the solution to material problems. Pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity is what racializes this.
The argument being forwarded by that racist bitch is that nonwhites find areas with too many whites intolerable. Isn't that precisely the "there goes the neighborhood" white flight phenomenon that liberals so robustly criticized as emblematic of white racism? Liberals are the architects of this philosophy. In that case, blacks wanted to integrate, because they understood the opportunities and advantages of integration, which was the incentive, and many whites responded hysterically by leaving when the foundation for their excuse was that property values went down, but when you inspected many of these neighborhoods, that wasn't true, and more often the opposite was true.
Yes, maybe now you realize why I ride you so hard about asserting a financial basis to justify public political lynchings (as of Alex Jones or Donald Sterling) when that basis doesn't exist. My knowledge and personal experience of this American history has educated me to the dangers of thinking like that, and taking for granted rationales that do not exist; a slippery slope sliding into a confirmation bias swaddled in the comforting warmth of righteous mob consensus. When we are most confident and comforted is when we need to be most on guard.
Now minorities don't want to integrate because #NewHampshireSoWhite? How does that make sense? New Hampshire has plenty to offer. If they see minorities as a potential population to attract, great, but there's no need to assert this lack of diversity is the sickness preventing diversity. Circular logic. That just belies the same racist, tribal mindset the speaker is seeking to condemn. It prescribes a sickness by race rather than a cure. New Hampshire is only so white, her logic entails, because white Americans are so hostile, unwelcoming, unfamiliar, and therefore racist. The lack of diversity has become evidence of racism itself where racism is the disease, and a lack of diversity is merely a symptom.
By that logic, Howard University is more racist than New Hampshire. I'll be waiting on that editorial. Any day now.
