That happens both ways. Be a teacher in a disadvantaged area. See and hear experience the stereotypes come your way, in your own country and state, if you're culturally different from your student body.

It would even happen to a Georgian in NYC or vice versa. This is quite common.

Things like curtness, impatient, bad driver, accent, Mafiosi, rude, etc. Or uneducated, rednecks, eat odd critters, are racists, intermarry, uncouth, unintelligent, etc. Transplants experience these things in country by their same ethnicities.

These people can retreat to different, but still pleasant places. In America, when black people concentrate, services are withdrawn from that area by a majority white voting base.

Notice your second sentence. Even your hypothetical assumes that the place where white people are considered alien is a disadvantaged place, and that the white person is arriving to educate the locals.

Yes, people can retreat. But they should not have to. Just like the blogger should not have to retreat to somewhere, some other industry, etc. That said, personally, when I've worked abroad and experienced some of what I've related, I simply don't care enough to bother about it --it bothers others sometimes. [As a foreigner you can also be ignorant of the lurking dangers you walk into]

The second sentence isn't hypothetical. I've been in the middle of those convos.

I've also worked with lots of working class people from all the major racial groups while in HS and uni. From my personal experience, there are two which are unafraid to speak their mind and express unreserved stereotypes of the others --even of their own. So, I can tell you from my experience working with working class people, upper middle class people are not especially problematic. Every ethnicity and class has this tendency, some expressed more then others. Some more freely than others.

I appreciate a good "should not have to" argument with a lot of things, but it's becoming such a common refrain left to stand on its own with no argument more rigid to support the uncomfortable objective weight of "what should be" against "What is", I wonder, when looking at all the overwhelming evidence and indicators happening with such frequency and intensity of what factually takes place if "should" has any real weight as a counterpoint anymore.

There's probably a much less loaded way to phrase this question, it's escaping me right now-I'm afraid.

edit: This wasn't an attack on your argument specifically, it just conjured an idle thought to mind.

In an idealized mind of an 18 year old, yes, the world would be simple. People would not poke fun at each other, wouldn't be mean, would treat each other well, care for each other, not see flaws and hold no prejudice.

However, we live in a varied society which was pushed to live together in many ways forcibly. (This kind of conflict can be seen in Northern Ireland, historical Middle East, Rwanda, Sudan, India, etc. where disparate/different peoples are made to live together because by history they did not emerge homogenous-ish like Japan, Korea, Sweden (Suomi not withstanding), Estonia, etc. In these places people comingle but they retain their own identities and vie for dominance, justice, etc. Should we have conflict like this? Ideally no. Does it happen? It does. Can we avoid it? With lots and lots of effort --maybe and it could fall apart in one fell swoop.

So, yes, it should not be like that. A countrywoman should not be treated like an ignorant oaf who is out of her league in the big city --but there will be cityfolk who try to take advantage of the "bumpkin" -even in China. People may do this out of fear, bonding ritual, insecurity, ignorance, maybe outright malice, etc.