What is the LEAST racist part of the country?

[dazzleman]

In general, I suspect that the west is somewhat less racist than the east, small towns less racist than big cities, racially diverse less than racially homogenous, economically egalitarian less than economically stratified, and yes, liberal less than conservative.

My own experience tells me this is not true.

In the west, I suspect that states like Idaho have a good amount of doctrinaire racism.  I know California has a good deal of racism.  Many western states have almost no black population, so it's hard to make a comparison overall.

As far as small towns vs. big cities, I don't know about this one either.  It may depend on section of the country.  Generally, small towns are not integrated, and it is harder for blacks to move there and live there if there isn't already a significant black presence.  I suspect the only section of the country where there is a significant black presence in small towns is the south, though there is a black presence in inner suburbs in other sections of the country, particularly the northeast, Illinois and California.  In the latter case, even these inner suburbs are essentially segregated, with whites fleeing as blacks move in, so I don't think they'd qualify as less racist.  Small towns in the south may be the least racist of this grouping.

In terms of racially diverse vs. racially homogeneous, there are many areas that are diverse on a broad scale, but are actually largely homogeneous at a neighborhood level, and where the races live side-by-side in great hostility, so I'm not sure I'd agree that racially diverse areas are less racist than racially homogeneous areas.  Since big cities are more diverse than small towns, this conflicts with the idea that small towns are less racist.

Economically egalitarian vs. economically stratified - this is a tough one for me to comment on.  I have always lived in areas with a great degree of economic stratification.  Right now, many areas with a great degree of economic stratification are the most "liberal" in the country, more so than areas that are more economically egalitarian.  So at the very least, this conflicts with the notion that liberal areas are less racist than conservative areas.

As far as liberal vs. conservative, my personal experience is that despite their different approaches to the race issue, there is little to no difference in levels of racism between areas that are liberal and areas that are conservative.  Let's not forget that some of the worst racial violence we have experienced was in Massachusetts, with New York not too far behind.  These places are hardly citadels of right-wing conservatism.  It may be convenient for liberals to believe this, but unfortunately for them, this assumption is not borne out by reality.

At this point, I would say that racism is greatest where blacks are the greatest threat to the well-being of the white population, and vice versa if that applies. 

In areas where working class whites, who can't necessarily afford to flee, live in close proximity with high crime black areas, there is invariably a high degree of raw racism.  Whites in these cases are hell-bent on keeping blacks out of their neighborhood, because they are sure that a black presence will ruin their neighborhood, and force them to deal with crime, decay, bad schools, etc.  Unfortunately, they're often right, and that's the whole problem.  They will resort to "extra-legal" means to keep blacks out, such as threatening neighbors who are selling their homes, threatening real estate brokers who show houses or apartments in the area to blacks, etc.  This is very prevalent in New York, to my direct personal knowledge, and probably other places too.  Brokers steer blacks away from these areas because they fear the consequences of being involved with bringing blacks to these neighborhoods.

Whites in wealthier areas are less outwardly racist, because they know there are more effective barriers to black penetration of their neighborhoods, and they also know that only elite blacks could afford their neighborhood in any case.  So they are not as "racist" in the conventional sense, but make no mistake - they would not welcome blacks to their neighborhood except in the smallest numbers, and only the most elite blacks.  They are not really less racist than working class whites; they just have a greater ability to protect themselves from the threat posed by underclass blacks, and that makes them a little more serene about the issue.  But if push comes to shove, their attitude is basically the same, so they have no right to claim moral superiority.

I find it funny that some people say Vermont is the least racist state.  Vermont has almost no blacks in any case, so what difference does it make?  It's a sad commentary that there are few places where blacks and whites actually live together that don't have high levels of racism.  It means nothing to say that there's no racism in places where blacks don't live anyway.  This is just another case of latte liberals patting themselves on the back for an empty belief whose practical effects remain untested, by their design.

[dazzleman]

Or maybe red is more clear, what do you think?

You could make a case for this map.  Northern New England is portrayed as less racist than the rest of the country, and this is true largely because there are almost no blacks there.  Therefore, their tolerance is untested, and I think that's the common thread through this whole thing.  The tolerance of those who preach it most loudly generally melts away once it's tested.

[dazzleman]

All other things equal, is racism stronger in racially homogenous or diverse areas?
In racially diverse areas, where the diversity is proximate, people at least have had the chance to get to know and to work with people of other races, being a member of a minority is more accepted; and racists are less likely to live in these areas to begin with.

Thanks for the comments, man.  One thing I would say, in reference to the above quote, is that this is one of the larger fallacies of the integrationist movement.  In some cases, close proximity to other races deepens understanding, but in many cases, it deepens hostility.  It depends upon the quality of the people to which you are being exposed.

My own personal experience is that forced integration between middle class whites and blacks from ghetto areas produces hostility, not understanding.  The culture/values gap is too great, and when the two groups collide, they tend to recoil from each other.  However, if blacks and whites of similar values and culture come together, anywhere but among the poor population, there is often an understanding that race is not such an important difference.

That is why I strongly favor putting efforts to narrow the cultural and values gaps between blacks and whites ahead of integration efforts.

I'm not sure it's really possible overall to grade regions based on the amount of racism they have.  I think that in dealing with self-interest racism, as opposed to doctrinaire racism, the level of racism is a result of the experiences with other races that the individuals in that region have had.  If the appearance of other races makes no negative difference in people's lives, the level of racism will be low.  If the appearance of other races has meant decay, crime, violence, etc., as has often been the case, especially in cities, then the level of racism will be high.

[dazzleman]

Most areas have a lot of racists and most areas with diverse populations have a lot of racial tension.
Sad as it may seem, there are no non-racist areas.

And there never will be.  Human nature is to be suspicious of that which is different.  All the politically correct paeans to diversity and multiculturalism will not change that.  And it's not helped by the fact that few people advocating those things actually practice what they preach.

I think the real answer is to re-define what makes us different.  We should simply take skin color out of the list of fundamental differences.  Unfortunately, we have done exactly the opposite with our emphasis on diversity.  We spend so much time talking about where we came from, and how that makes us different, that it creates artificial differences.

The reality is that still, to a significant degree, different skin color is indicative of a very different way of looking at the world.  It is this gap that must be overcome before racism will really be gone.

I had a very liberal history teacher in 7th grade who gave us the best mental exercise I probably ever did in terms of thinking about diversity.  He gave us a list of different animals, and told us to categorize them.  He never said how, but the way he instructed had led us to believe that of course, there was only one way to categorize them.  We were not allowed to consult with other people, and then we had to share our method of categorization with the class.

When we were done, it emerged that there were several different ways to categorize them, rather than one way, which we had all assumed at the outset.  And the big surprise was the way he (the teacher) categorized them -- simply by the first letter of the animal's name.

It was a great lesson that stays with me to this day -- that the way society tells us to categorize people -- and liberals categorize by color no less than conservatives do -- is not the only way to look at the issue.  We have to learn to stop categorizing people by color.  We will always categorize people -- that is part of human nature, and it is foolish to assume that we can stop doing it.  But color should simply be removed, and in order to do this, we must end the accurate perception that a person's color will determine 90% of his/her outlook on the world.

[dazzleman]

I must admit that I'm a bit worried by the way in which progressive political ideas are always dismissed as "politically correct". To suggest that we should simply accept something because it's "human nature" is self-defeatist; it's a bit like saying that we should completely abolish the rule of law and install anarchy because, heck, by "nature" we all have the potential to murder and rape and pillage. I'm sure that wasn't the intended implication of what you said, but that's how it came across, at least to me.

Being progressive is not politically correct.  Asking people to deny basic realities is.  And that is what we ask many people to do on the race issue -- not to take into account, as an example, the fact that the crime rate among blacks is about 10x the white crime rate.  This is simply unrealistic.  People will always look out for number one, and we need to craft policies that will mean that greater acceptance of other races does not mean a significant sacrifice in quality of life.  We have utterly failed to do this so far.