What is the LEAST racist part of the country?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Unfortunately, opebo's maps are incorrect about Minnesota. While the Twin Cities and most of the Democratic rural areas are very non-racist, the suburbs are full of lily white human trash who move there precisely so they don't have to live with the minorities in the Twin Cities, which is why almost everyone moves to the pits of hell that is suburbia. And there are lots of rednecks in certain rural parts who hate Native Americans and have bumper stickers like "Save a Hunter Shoot a Mung" which I saw around here.

[Beet]

Very interesting points Dazzleman. I find that I enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't always agree with the points you make. You often bring up something I hadn't considered.

I agree that observed racism in an area is often tied up with SES status and the proportion of blacks living in the area. As you mentioned, this means observed racism isn't necessarily a good measure of true racism because areas which have low observed racism/black populations like Vermont or an upper middle class neighborhood haven't been/won't be tested in the same way, as, say, the deep south has.

The criteria I set out in my original post were for ceteris paribus. They only apply given that all other factors are equal. That is why you might easily think of counter-examples. Here's a more in-depth explanation of them, based on my admittedly limited experience:

All other things equal, is racism stronger in the east or west?
The east has a more traditional culture, and one's background and roots are generally somewhat more important, so race plays a larger role. The west by contrast has a general inferiority complex and a more open culture.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in small towns or large cities?
Self-segregation is more comprehensive in large cities than small towns of similiar racial makeups, because there is more opportunity to do so, and this leads to stronger racism. Actually, this is the point that I'm the least sure about, as I only know east coast cities such as D.C., Baltimore, Philly, etc.

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.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in economically egalitarian or stratified areas?
Where SES is unequal, blacks' generally lower SES may become tied up in negative stereotypes of blacks as a race, and there would be less interaction between higher and lower SES groupings for many of the factors you mentioned. In SES-equal areas, the sense of division would not be quite as reinforced.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in conservative or liberal areas?
In liberal areas, there is either a conscious effort made to identify and address racism as a problem, or a positive political environment for doing so, whereas this is not the case in conservative areas.

Overall, here is how I would rank the regions, from Least racist to Most
1- pacific northwest
2- southwest
3- the centrist/metropolitan south
4- the northeast/upper midwest
5- the exurban and rural south
6- appalachia, the plains, and the rockies

[bgwah]

[opebo]

And Utah??? I would put them as least racist.

Why?!

Unfortunately, opebo's maps are incorrect about Minnesota.

I stand corrected!  I have no problem believing an American state to be racist.

[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.

[Nation]

DC is racist, it's just the other way around.



Western New York isn't racial harmony central, either.  Buffalo is not the place to be if you wish to avoid even mild forms of racism.

[Lunar]

And Utah??? I would put them as least racist.

Why?!

One thought:

The Mormon religion is inherently a missionary religion.  Many members serve two years working in other countries.  I don't think one fears those who are unlike oneself when one is trying to convert them.

Also, Utah is pretty homogenous.

Remember your 'let them swing' map put Utah at the minimum number of lynchings?  If you buy that map, I don't see why you'd think it was lying about Utah.

[opebo]

And Utah??? I would put them as least racist.

Why?!

One thought:

The Mormon religion is inherently a missionary religion.  Many members serve two years working in other countries.  I don't think one fears those who are unlike oneself when one is trying to convert them.

I see those horrible little sh**ts here in Southeast Asia.  Nothing worse than a missionary.  I always hope someone boils them in a pot!

[bgwah]

And Utah??? I would put them as least racist.

Why?!

One thought:

The Mormon religion is inherently a missionary religion.  Many members serve two years working in other countries.  I don't think one fears those who are unlike oneself when one is trying to convert them.

I see those horrible little sh**ts here in Southeast Asia.  Nothing worse than a missionary.  I always hope someone boils them in a pot!

Okay, but the point is Mormons aren't racist, and therefore Utah is not a racist state.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And Utah??? I would put them as least racist.

Why?!

One thought:

The Mormon religion is inherently a missionary religion.  Many members serve two years working in other countries.  I don't think one fears those who are unlike oneself when one is trying to convert them.

I see those horrible little sh**ts here in Southeast Asia.  Nothing worse than a missionary.  I always hope someone boils them in a pot!

Okay, but the point is Mormons aren't racist, and therefore Utah is not a racist state.

read up on their teachings a bit more.  They claim that black skin is the "mark of Cain" or something.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We have to learn to stop categorizing people by color.

Exactly. I think recent events in the East End might stop white liberals over here from assuming that only whites can be racist bigots.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tend to think it's the catagorisation by colour that causes the problem rather than the other way round, although it'll be hard to get rid of either.

[True Democrat]

I would say the upper midwest, such as Minnesota, is the least racist part, or at least used to be.  This is the state of Hubert Humphrey.  Notice that as soon as the Democrats started opposing civil rights injustices in 1948, Minnesota swung sharply to the Democrats.

[TheWildCard]

I can agree with opebo's map though I think HI needs to be darker. Like someone said early from what I've heard the natives don't like whites much.

[bgwah]

I can agree with opebo's map though I think HI needs to be darker. Like someone said early from what I've heard the natives don't like whites much.

Hey, I'd be pretty pissed if someone stole most of my land too.

[AuH2O]

Hawaiians hate whites. Some of the most hateful looks I've gotten were from Natives when I was in HI.

[FerrisBueller86]

I've heard that African Americans have been making a reverse migration in recent years.  Until the 1970s, there have been more African Americans leaving the South than moving into it.  Since then, more African Americans have been moving into the South than moving out.  I've heard that many African Americans moving into the South say that the South today is actually more integrated.  Indeed, Chicago and Detroit are some of the most segregated cities today.

[bgwah]

I've heard that African Americans have been making a reverse migration in recent years.  Until the 1970s, there have been more African Americans leaving the South than moving into it.  Since then, more African Americans have been moving into the South than moving out.  I've heard that many African Americans moving into the South say that the South today is actually more integrated.  Indeed, Chicago and Detroit are some of the most segregated cities today.

That's why northern states (especially michigan) are darker on my map than in opebo's

[Rob]

Okay, but the point is Mormons aren't racist, and therefore Utah is not a racist state.

They prevented blacks from being ordained as ministers until the late 70's, when it attracted negative publicity.

[Ebowed]

Okay, but the point is Mormons aren't racist, and therefore Utah is not a racist state.

They prevented blacks from being ordained as ministers until the late 70's, when it attracted negative publicity.

Correct.  Mormons have a long history of compromising for public relations, like when the church President in 1890 conveniently had a 'revelation' condemning polygamy, which allowed Utah to be admitted as a state in the Union a few years later.

But I do not think, overall, that Mormons themselves are racist, just extremely conservative.  They are very misguided and their church history is probably censored; no Mormon going to their local LDS church is going to find out histories of bloody massacres, polygamous relationships of their church founders, or the church's racist past.

[Michael Z]

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 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.

Having said that, there is a case in point to that the only way to defeat racism is to stop categorising each other according to superficial differences. I actually think that the rest of your post sums this up beautifully:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MTE, well said.

[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.

[Governor PiT]

I was thinking Hawaii..... I'm not sure about the mainland, though.

No Hawaii is one of the most racist

[phk]

California