The story is somewhat focused on the economic complaints of State of Jefferson advocates, including the fact that many young people have left the region because they cannot find work. Indeed, the one young woman featured in the story, Kayla Brown, bargained with her husband to stay in Redding for five years when he had been looking for work out of state; she was gambling that they could make the proposed State of Jefferson secession happen within that time, a shift she thinks will bring more and better jobs. No, however, that five-year stint is nearly up, and the now expanded family (two young children) is again considering leaving the state, for better economic opportunities in Idaho.
Older State of Jefferson agitators mentioned the economy directly or indirectly, including in relation to the population loss the region has experienced. Here's one excerpt about Mark Baird, the leader of the State of Jefferson movement:
Baird believes the best way to improve the economic prospects is through opening more land to mining and timber. This, he says, would revive the extractive economies that have declined across the region in recent decades, in part due to federal environmental policies but also in response to market trends.Later, we learn this about Baird:
Baird also bristled at the decline in security and economics around him. “Crime in my county is going through the ceiling,” he said during a Jefferson town hall in Williams. “We have no police protection whatsoever between midnight and 7 a.m. because my sheriff can’t afford people.” Baird and others have indeed seen crime rates increase. In Siskiyou County, for example, the Public Policy Institute of California found that between 2015 and 2016 the overall crime rate went up 14 percent between 2015 to 2016. The county’s timber production, once an economic engine, has declined dramatically since the 1970s. The town of Montague, a small community not far from Yreka where Baird once patrolled as a deputy sheriff, was vibrant in his youth, with five gas stations and three grocery stores. “Now it is a crackhead wasteland.”Discerning readers will have observed that Baird has linked the economic decline of the place he loves with crime. Crime, of course, is often a "dog whistle" for race. I note that Siskyou County's population is 84.7% white and right at 10% Hispanic or Latino of any any race. I wonder what its racial make up was a few decades ago.
I also wonder if Wiles is intending to signal the whiteness of would-be Jefferson in a couple of ways. First, her opening vignette mentions Civil War enactments and Kayla Brown's involvement in them, including this quote from her:
Brown, who is 27 and sprightly, with a blonde ponytail and blue eyes, was holding court on 19th century American history and the run-up to the Civil War. A lot of Californians “actually sympathized with the Confederates,” she said.Note also the description of Brown's Aryan features. A gratuitous detail? A signal? Elsewhere Wiles writes:
The region is largely rural and white (though the Latino population has risen in recent years and there are several Native American tribes), and its politics are mostly red (only four counties went for Hillary Clinton in 2016).This leaves me wondering: Is the State of Jefferson movement a racist movement? Is the question answered by this information, which comes late in the story:
Jeffersonians say the sanctuary state concept is an affront to the rule of law. In one newsletter, they also described it as a financial threat to rural counties, which earn much-needed income renting jail space to ICE. “California continues to exuberantly boast its progressive bad policies, laws and regulations in a celebratory manner while the rest of the state feels dark, helpless and abandoned,” a Jefferson newsletter from last October said.Is it always racist to oppose immigration? Current political rhetoric in academia suggests that it is.
It is also interesting to know that would-be Jefferson counties are balancing their budgets by housing detained persons for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Read more on that and related practices here and here.
This related paragraph from a NYT Magazine story about rural Oregon (also part of the would-be State of Jefferson) and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge seizure, two years on, also seems relevant to the race question:
The history of Oregon is filled with stories of violent and racist groups. Communes, cults, alternative religious communities, militias: The state has been home to nearly 300 of them since 1856, including the Christian Identity movement, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and the Roy Masters’ Foundation of Human Understanding. African-Americans were legally barred from residence in Oregon until 1926; the state, according to some historians, was essentially founded as a kind of white utopia.Interestingly, the author of the NYT Magazine story, who grew up in the area when her parents moved there seeking an alternative life style, then commented:
No one in my family, three generations of Oregonians, had ever heard about that.Not sure what to make of that comment; not sure what the author is getting at regarding the relevance of her family's lack of knowledge. Is it exculpating or ????
This comment on an earlier Legal Ruralism post about the would-be State of Jefferson takes up the issue of racial demographics of the region:
Your post made me think about how race is (or is not) addressed by the State of Jefferson supporters and what the racial demographics of this proposed state would be. While California as a whole currently has the largest minority population in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California), this would not be the case for Jefferson. Currently, it looks like if Jefferson managed to succeed, it would be made up of the Oregon counties of Coos (90% White), Douglas (90%) and Lake (86% White) as well as the California counties of Humboldt (82% White), Trinity (89% White), Shasta (87% White), Lassen (70% White), Mendocino (82% White), Lake (84% White), Tehama (85% White), Plumas (91% White), Glenn (78% White), Butte (83% White), Colusa (68% White), Sierra (92% White), Sutter (65% White), Yuba (69% White), Nevada (92% White), Placer (84% White)and El Dorado (87% White)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state). So, while the supporters of the State of Jefferson do not currently feel represented in the California or Oregon governments, if they were successful in succeeding, their state would likely severely underrepresent the people of color who lived there.I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on whether this story--or more precisely the State of Jefferson movement--is fundamentally about race (and therefore racial bias?) or not.
To me, the State of Jefferson has always been about whiteness. I see a lot of signs advocating Jefferson where I'm from. This area is all things that the rest of California is mostly not: Republican and homogenous. In fact, my home is almost entirely white.
ReplyDeleteThe Jefferson movement is an example of a group of people who see the power their political worldview holds in other places, and yet they truly feel powerless in a state where the rest of it is so much unlike them. Sure, whiteness dominates everywhere, unfortunately... Even in areas where the idea of the State of Jefferson is considered laughable. But this movement is peak whiteness in that it's an almost entirely white group calling for redrawing of boundaries to achieve the domination they feel they deserve.
I don't agree that the State of Jefferson movement as a whole is fundamentally about race. Perhaps it is true that those who wish to live in a State of Jefferson wish so because their white privilege is being threatened by the Other. But, I'm not convinced that all State of Jefferson supporters realize that is what they are feeling, or recognize the racial biases in the movement. Admittedly, I'm not totally educated on the platform, but I too see a lot of signs advocating Jefferson where I'm from (also an area that is almost entirely white, republican, and homogenous). I think the problem is that because the area is such, the people who support the movement see only how the current state of things is affecting them, and they feel cheated. I think they are probably looking out for their best interests and the interests of those close to them, and are not totally aware of the effect this has on other groups.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that there may a faction of supporters who liken the movement to others in history, and for them, it may fundamentally be about race.
Like most people I initially thought the state of Jefferson movement was about race. But in talking with friends about the idea and whether they would support such a secessionist movement, I now believe that race may only be one part of the movement. Some individuals simply support the state of Jefferson because it is an exciting revolutionary movement that challenges the status quo. They do not necessarily believe in conservative ideology or oppose immigration. Rather they want to be rebels and challenge the current system and all its perceived flaws.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of the State of Jefferson prior to enrolling in this course. I found it interesting that so many of you had previously encountered the movement. Is the State of Jefferson a well known idea in this part of the state? How did you all come to learn of the movement?
ReplyDeleteI find it disconcerting that the current political rhetoric amongst academics is that it is racist to oppose immigration regardless of one’s reasons. This mandates two conclusions. First, many opponents of immigration oppose it on racist grounds. Second, those who oppose immigration based on a genuine belief that it negatively effects their economic opportunities or increases poverty, are also racist.
Branding the second group of immigration opponents as racist is troubling because it attaches racist intent to a belief contrary to liberal orthodoxy. According to these scholars, ignorance is no longer bliss. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into the academic majority’s conclusion that immigration is good for America, and your community specifically, you are apparently a racist.
Looking at the State of Jefferson movement, I think you get some of both groups. There are certainly those who support the movement because of racism. However, there are others who support the movement for economic or other non-discriminatory reasons.
No one accused the Catalan independence movement in Spain of racism. Much like the Spanish campaign, the State of Jefferson encompasses more than just ethnicity or race. The regions involved in the movement have cultural and historical ties. California is probably the most diverse state in the nation. Not just ethnically but also regionally. The coasts of San Francisco, and Los Angeles have history and culture distinct from that of the the state’s rural interior. It would not be unreasonable to want to split up the nation’s most populated state for reasons other than racism.