Is the South racist?

[Samuraikoku]

I have seen very little prejudism down here in South Carolina except when it comes to homosexuality. Yes, South Carolina is still prejudice, but only when it comes to homosexuals.

The fuck is prejudism?

Fusion between prejudice and racism?

[Socialdemokraterne]

The fuck is prejudism?

Fusion between prejudice and racism?

No. It is worship of Prejud, a moon goddess who enjoyed a sizable cult in the middle fifth century BCE. The cult's primary focus was in central Europe.

[Rexzich City]

No it isn't.I've lived here my whole life and generally there are very few racist.Racist in the south are maybe as common as gang members in major cities(probably less though).Obviously we have a history of that but it's changed majorly since then.

[Elwher]

Not so much racist as unduly prejudiced against those from the North and the UK's Celtic nations.

I would have to disagree with the latter contention - it's only the Irish they despise, because of their being Catholic. The Scots form an integral part of their racial heritage

[Socialdemokraterne]

No it isn't.I've lived here my whole life and generally there are very few racist.Racist in the south are maybe as common as gang members in major cities(probably less though).Obviously we have a history of that but it's changed majorly since then.

That's not what the data I analyzed indicate. Do you have contrary data, or maybe you noticed a flaw in my method of analysis?

[Christian Democrats]

California is not part of the South. This is the South:

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia

[Mavorpen]

California is not part of the South. This is the South:

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Socialdemokraterne]

California is not part of the South. This is the South:

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia

You raise an important question: how shall we define "the South"? I defined it as being all states which seceded during the Civil War, and analyzed them accordingly. That means I treated states such as Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri as part of "the North".

[Zevassa]

I'm from the North, and I have traveled to the South quite a bit. It is my experience that it breaks down like this:
1. City racism is the same wherever you are in the USA. Nashville and Chicago might have different culture and different history, but the people are relatively like-minded. The type of racism you get in cities is mostly toward whichever local minority is performing cheap labor. Examples include Mexicans/Hispanics, Chinese and Polish/Ex-Soviet puppets.
2. Rural racism tends to differ in the sense that it's more about outside culture threatening the unity of smaller communities. Rural communities tend to be much more tightly knit and as such tend to have a much more unified identity than larger urban areas, and it's mostly when the community's image starts to become threatened or challenged that racism spouts.
3. Then there's the general racism layered on behind that, just as you'd get anywhere else.

I don't think that there's any one area in the country that doesn't have its share of racism, whether it's literal discrimination/hate of a particular race, or it's more abstract such as hating a group based off of localized actions (businesses hiring immigrant labor on the cheap, for example).

Having said all of that, what a stupid OP. Nordengrund's dad (the authority on such matters) pretty much turned the OP on its head for us. With that solved, moving on.

[Christian Democrats]

http://hate-crime-state.findthedata.org/

Hate crimes per 100,000 people:

1. New Jersey . . . 6.31 crimes
2. District of Colombia . . . 6.00 crimes
3. Minnesota . . . 5.97 crimes
4. South Dakota . . . 5.79 crimes
5. Connecticut . . . 5.63 crimes

. . .

47. Louisiana . . . 0.50 crimes
48. Pennsylvania . . . 0.37 crimes
49. Alabama . . . 0.28 crimes
50. Mississippi . . . 0.24 crimes
51. Georgia . . . 0.14 crimes

This includes crimes based on disability, ethnicity, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

[Rexzich City]

You raise an important question: how shall we define "the South"? I defined it as being all states which seceded during the Civil War, and analyzed them accordingly. That means I treated states such as Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri as part of "the North".

I agree with your definition of it being the former confederate states.

As for conflicting data,i don't have any.It's just from expiriance(i hadn't read any of the comments before posting).And i can't remember who was saying that arkansas and south carolina had less than 21 groups each.I'm not sure if it would be relevant to racism,but arkansas actually wanted to be a member of the USA but i belive it was mississippi that sent their troops into little rock and forced arkansas into the CSA(as i recall).

[Christian Democrats]

California is not part of the South. This is the South:

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia

You raise an important question: how shall we define "the South"? I defined it as being all states which seceded during the Civil War, and analyzed them accordingly. That means I treated states such as Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri as part of "the North".

The South = slave states in 1861 + Oklahoma

Oklahoma (the Indian Territory) had slavery. The South laid claim to it during the Civil War. The Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Nations sided with the Confederate States during the Civil War; and these Native American nations were represented in the House of Representatives of the Confederate Congress.

[Socialdemokraterne]

http://hate-crime-state.findthedata.org/

Hate crimes per 100,000 people:

1. New Jersey . . . 6.31 crimes
2. District of Colombia . . . 6.00 crimes
3. Minnesota . . . 5.97 crimes
4. South Dakota . . . 5.79 crimes
5. Connecticut . . . 5.63 crimes

. . .

47. Louisiana . . . 0.50 crimes
48. Pennsylvania . . . 0.37 crimes
49. Alabama . . . 0.28 crimes
50. Mississippi . . . 0.24 crimes
51. Georgia . . . 0.14 crimes

This includes crimes based on disability, ethnicity, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

There are several problems with your presentation:

(a) As you've pointed out, the data include every single sort of hate crime on the books collectively. Don't you have anything on race-driven and ethnically-driven hate crime exclusively?
(b) You haven't separated the states by geographical region (i.e. "North" and "South"), you've just listed the top and bottom five. That in and of itself can be misleading, by the way.
(c) There's cause to believe that many hate crimes may go unreported, so these data are actually estimates of the overall levels of hate crime.
(d) You need to give the entire name for the units, not just part of it. Those numbers are "crimes per 100,000", not just "crimes". [Ignore this nonsense.]
(e) A lot of the agencies participating in the study did not actually submit their data. For example, of 1,020 participating Texan agencies, a total of 64 actually submitted data.

[Socialdemokraterne]

You have, however, CD, provided interesting metrics. I'm not so confident of the data itself (issues of representativeness are my biggest concern considering so little data returned), and you could've presented it better, but examining hate crime incidents is a valid metric.

[Romalae]

Going by my own observations (I live in Texas) as opposed to studies/research, I would definitely say that the South is of a more racist nature than the rest of America, but that is a generalization and does not apply for most people down here.

[Christian Democrats]

You have, however, CD, provided interesting metrics. I'm not so confident of the data itself (issues of representativeness are my biggest concern considering so little data returned), and you could've presented it better, but examining hate crime incidents is a valid metric.

The data, which is nicely organized in the table, comes from the FBI, which is required to collect hate crimes data from state agencies by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990.

Going by my own observations (I live in Texas) as opposed to studies/research, I would definitely say that the South is of a more racist nature than the rest of America, but that is a generalization and does not apply for most people down here.

Racism ≠ hate crime

There are a lot of racists who do not commit crimes.

Statistically, though, the South is just the same as the rest of the United States when it comes to hate crimes. In fact, the South actually might perform a little better. I would need to do more research. I might gather more data for a future thread (a few days or weeks from now) on hate crimes (not just racial ones) in the United States by state.

[Farnhamia]

Going by my own observations (I live in Texas) as opposed to studies/research, I would definitely say that the South is of a more racist nature than the rest of America, but that is a generalization and does not apply for most people down here.

So ... the South is more racist but the people mostly aren't?

[Socialdemokraterne]

You have, however, CD, provided interesting metrics. I'm not so confident of the data itself (issues of representativeness are my biggest concern considering so little data returned), and you could've presented it better, but examining hate crime incidents is a valid metric.

The data, which is nicely organized in the table, comes from the FBI, which is required to collect hate crimes data from state agencies by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990.

So it's data collected by the FBI. That's nice. I don't care, it in no way impacts the representativeness of the data, and it doesn't address my problem with your not having separated racial/ethnic hate crime from the rest, but it's nice to know that the FBI collects hate crime statistics.

Now how about addressing one of the issues I actually raised, CD?

[The Global Proletariat]

Personally, I feel many places in the North are more racist than the South. Fewer blacks live in Northern cities as a proportion of the population, so the chances of interacting with a black person are slimmer. I don't know a single black person since I moved to Western New York, whereas I knew several when I lived in Maryland.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Racism ≠ hate crime

There are a lot of racists who do not commit crimes.

Statistically, though, the South is just the same as the rest of the United States when it comes to hate crimes. In fact, the South actually might perform a little better. I would need to do more research. I might gather more data for a future thread (a few days or weeks from now) on hate crimes (not just racial ones) in the United States by state.

General hate crime rates are tangential information, just like the statistics on each state's general number of hate groups. It's fine to present them in order to provide broader context, but you're really missing the target here. We're talking about racism specifically. That is where your presentation needed work, not a neat, pretty depiction of your data. You're dancing around the topic of the thread.

Also, the red weakened the strength of the data you presented for the purpose of refuting my argument.

[Arumdaum]

I recently heard of a woman, a black woman, who was beaten to death by the LAPD. This made me wonder, what with the LAPD's history of dealing with minorities, if the South is actually as racist as people say it is. I mean, this is Los Angeles, not exactly Atlanta or Birmingham. When do you hear about women being kicked in the crotch and bloodied by the people who are supposed to uphold the law in the infamously racist South? From those who have been there (I haven't), is the South any more racist than the rest of the United States?

California Isnt considered a Southern State Back in The Cival War its Land Was Part of Texas but that was well over 200the years ago

The Real South is No More Raceist then Any other part of the country or world

Um, California was part of the Union. o.O

Never part of Texas.

[Mavorpen]

Racism ≠ hate crime

There are a lot of racists who do not commit crimes.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I'm sorry if I seem hostile, CD. I'm not trying to seem defensive or drive you on the defensive, though I certainly may have become defensive.

I'm just saying that the data you've presented might not be representative enough to draw any solid conclusions and that they don't address the central issue of the thread. The geographical distribution of hate crime in general is a topic worthy of discussion, but it's not what we're talking about here.

We're interested in the geographic distribution of racism. While the topic of the geographic distribution of racially and ethnically motivated hate crime is salient to that issue, the information you've presented (general hate crime's geographic distribution) is only somewhat related and ultimately not all that useful for the topic at hand even if my concerns about representativeness don't end up holding water.

[Skywarp]

Of course the south is racist, it can't help to be. Racism emanates from the soil as a vapor and invades ones every pore, turning every single resident into a raving Klansman or Aryan warrior....yes, even the non-caucasians.

All sarcasm aside, the data I presented above appear to indicate that the South has a higher general concentration of racist hate groups. Determining why this is the case is significantly less straightforward, however. I'm open to hypotheses.

Frankly you're mis-representing your own data, overall there is little difference between the two. Your own SC data it little different that the Midwestern states own ratings (or that of most of the states along the entire easter seaboard and mid-west all the way to New York), and the worst Southern state is still significantly less than California. If any trend can be taken from that, it's that overall the central, northwest and New England states tend to concentrate low, the eastern seaboard, and midwest is overall moderate, with heavy concentration in Georgia/Florida, Texas and California. Though the makeup of the racial groups is a bit different between the Mid-west and Southern states, as it's primarily white-nationalist type racists in the south, whereas the mid-west to north-east shows more of a mix of white-nationalist and black-nationalist racist groups.

It would be more interesting to see the data presented of the groups with comparison to territorial coverage and population densities. As it seems some of those trends in numbers tend to follow population densities roughly of the states in question.

[New Rogernomics]

California is not part of the South. This is the South:

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia

You raise an important question: how shall we define "the South"? I defined it as being all states which seceded during the Civil War, and analyzed them accordingly. That means I treated states such as Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri as part of "the North".

In terms of the civil war, while some Marylanders supported the Confederacy; Maryland never left the union. The similar could be said of a few other states on that list.