Is the South racist?

[Spreewerke]

That's what I was getting at.

I'm not an American, and it surprises me to read someone describing California as "the South".

Yeah it's really strange. I'm not sure I've ever heard Californian called Southern before.

Creedence Clearwater Revival hails from San Francisco. Makes California south "enough," I guess?

[Weslyria]

The south isn't racist at all.

The south is an idea.

[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.

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.

Since when was I talking about hate crimes? I never mentioned that at all.

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

That's right. From what I've noticed, the minority of people who discriminate or look down upon blacks is a larger minority than those elsewhere.

[SaintB]

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?

LAPD is the most overworked and understaffed police organization in any major city in the US; they've been prone to abusing their position and brutally mistreating people for years now.

[Ifreann]

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.

I can't imagine there would be much Prejudism in the South, then.

---

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?

Racist livestock, maybe?

[Skywarp]

Just as I thought to some extent, adjusting the hate group by state population shows some interesting results.

Below is a list of each state in alphabetical order with an index number representative of the number of hate groups per 1,000,000 population (Hawaii is omitted due to not having data on hate groups there):

Alabama 6.6
Alaska 1.4
Arizona 2.6
Arkansas 9
California 2.2
Colorado 2.9
Connecticut 1.4
Delaware 5.6
Florida 2.9
Georgia 6.6
Idaho 11.25
Illinois 2.1
Indiana 3.1
Iowa 1.3
Kansas 1
Kentucky 3.2
Louisiana 5.9
Maine 4.6
Maryland 3.1
Massachusetts 1.5
Michigan 2.6
Minnesota 2.3
Mississippi 13.7
Missouri 4.3
Montana 10
Nebraska 3.9
Nevada 4.4
New Hampshire 3.1
New Jersey 5.3
New Mexico 1.9
New York 1.9
North Carolina 3.5
North Dakota 4.2
Ohio 2.8
Oklahoma 3.4
Oregon 3.8
Pennsylvania 2.7
Rhode Island 0.9
South Carolina 5.7
South Dakota 3.8
Tennessee 6.1
Texas 1.8
Utah 1.4
Vermont 1.7
Virginia 4.2
Washington 2.4
West Virginia 7.9
Wisconsin 1.4
Wyoming 3.3

Can definitely see some regional racial hatred spikes here and there. Idaho and Montana in the Mountain states, Maine in New England. While Oregon and Washington seem to level out with everyone around them, the high value of Cali and Florida vanishes while West Virginia spikes massively. And The Georgia/Mississippi/Alabama/Louisiana deep south showing a definite trend.

[Big Jim P]

Just as I thought to some extent, adjusting the hate group by state population shows some interesting results.

Below is a list of each state in alphabetical order with an index number representative of the number of hate groups per 1,000,000 population (Hawaii is omitted due to not having data on hate groups there):

Alabama 6.6
Alaska 1.4
Arizona 2.6
Arkansas 9
California 2.2
Colorado 2.9
Connecticut 1.4
Delaware 5.6
Florida 2.9
Georgia 6.6
Idaho 11.25
Illinois 2.1
Indiana 3.1
Iowa 1.3
Kansas 1
Kentucky 3.2
Louisiana 5.9
Maine 4.6
Maryland 3.1
Massachusetts 1.5
Michigan 2.6
Minnesota 2.3
Mississippi 13.7
Missouri 4.3
Montana 10
Nebraska 3.9
Nevada 4.4
New Hampshire 3.1
New Jersey 5.3
New Mexico 1.9
New York 1.9
North Carolina 3.5
North Dakota 4.2
Ohio 2.8
Oklahoma 3.4
Oregon 3.8
Pennsylvania 2.7
Rhode Island 0.9
South Carolina 5.7
South Dakota 3.8
Tennessee 6.1
Texas 1.8
Utah 1.4
Vermont 1.7
Virginia 4.2
Washington 2.4
West Virginia 7.9
Wisconsin 1.4
Wyoming 3.3

Can definitely see some regional racial hatred spikes here and there. Idaho and Montana in the Mountain states, Maine in New England. While Oregon and Washington seem to level out with everyone around them, the high value of Cali and Florida vanishes while West Virginia spikes massively. And The Georgia/Mississippi/Alabama/Louisiana deep south showing a definite trend.

Same list sorted by hate groups:

Rhode Island 0.9
Kansas 1
Iowa 1.3
Alaska 1.4
Connecticut 1.4
Utah 1.4
Wisconsin 1.4
Massachusetts 1.5
Vermont 1.7
Texas 1.8
New Mexico 1.9
New York 1.9
Illinois 2.1
California 2.2
Minnesota 2.3
Washington 2.4
Arizona 2.6
Michigan 2.6
Pennsylvania 2.7
Ohio 2.8
Colorado 2.9
Florida 2.9
Indiana 3.1
Maryland 3.1
New Hampshire 3.1
Kentucky 3.2
Wyoming 3.3
Oklahoma 3.4
North Carolina 3.5
Oregon 3.8
South Dakota 3.8
Nebraska 3.9
North Dakota 4.2
Virginia 4.2
Missouri 4.3
Nevada 4.4
Maine 4.6
New Jersey 5.3
Delaware 5.6
South Carolina 5.7
Louisiana 5.9
Tennessee 6.1
Alabama 6.6
Georgia 6.6
West Virginia 7.9
Arkansas 9
Montana 10
Idaho 11.25
Mississippi 13.7

Edit: I was right. New York (#12) IS more racist than Texas (#10).

[Goodclark]

Not exactly, I live in the north country and there is A LOT of racism here.

[United Marxist Nations]

Not from my experience, but you always get the occasional racist.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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?

LAPD is the most overworked and understaffed police organization in any major city in the US; they've been prone to abusing their position and brutally mistreating people for years now.

Despite some recent abuses of power, the LAPD has drastically improved under Bratton and Beck. Polls show that for the first time in history, a plurality of black Los Angeles residents approve of the performance of the department. Incidents of abuse and corruption are way down, and there's been a concerted effort on the part of the police to reach out to underrepresented communities.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

thank god "no" is winning this poll.

Racism is as old as race. The south is guilty of not wanting to abolish slavery, which, by the way, started on north america in what was then new amsterdam. Sure the south still has problems today with while on black racism (& vise versa). California has it's own history of racism that has nothing to do with the civil war. The spanish (in california) enslaved indians & worked them to their death forcing them to build their missions, which can leave a scar that lasts over generations. Immigration from across the pacific ocean caused it's own race tensions that I'm sure still are alive today. During the civil war, the north imported irishmen who were willing to fight, & after the war, their was a lot of racism against them for their willingness to take jobs at a lower wage, which may remind you of the some of this country's race problems of today. So, to put it plainly, with most of native america out of the way (which has it's own race problems), we area country of immigrants for over 200 years & there is plenty racism for every race. Bigotry's only boundary is an open mind.

[Socialdemokraterne]

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.

Did you base this claim that there is no significant difference between these two datasets on a statistical test? Here's what I've done:

I ran a Dixon's Q test at the 95% CI on both groups, and neither had an outlier. So I proceeded to calculate the regional means, and this is what I got:

Total Racist Hate Groups in the North = G_N = 411
Mean Racist Hate Groups in the North = X_N = 16.44

Total Racist Hate Groups in the South = G_S = 371
Mean Racist Hate Groups in the South = X_S = 33.73

I then tested for significance in the difference between these means using the Welch's T Test with H₀ being that it's insignificant:

Difference Between Sample Means = ΔX = 17.29
Hypothetical Difference Between Sample Means = 0
Variance in the Northern Data = σ²_N = 197.61
Variance in the Southern Data = σ²_S = 63.47
Estimated Variance for T Test = σ²_S-N = 3.70
Calculated t = 4.67
Degrees of Freedom = 32

A quick glance at the table will tell you that yes, these two means are significantly different. They are actually strongly significantly different because their p value is so astonishingly minute. That means that the null hypothesis that the difference between these two means is insignificant is rejected.

Finally, I double checked myself using this calculator: http://graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest2.cfm

Welch t test results
P value and statistical significance:
The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:
The mean of North minus South equals -18.56
95% confidence interval of this difference: From -26.20 to -10.92

Intermediate values used in calculations:
t = 4.9584
df = 30
standard error of difference = 3.743

Review your data:
Group North South
Mean 16.44 35.00
SD 14.35 7.60
SEM 2.87 2.40
N 25 10

The calculator and I arrived at slightly different numbers, but ultimately the same conclusion: the data indicate a significant difference between the means. So no, I didn't misrepresent my data at all. My statistical tests even accounted for the fact that the variances between the sample sets are uneven and the number of samples taken (states in each region) differs.

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.

It would certainly be interesting to see how such trends affect/add to my findings. But I haven't looked at your data on populations yet.

Edits are for formatting. Hopefully this is nice and legible without taking up too much space.

[Nui-ta]

Depends on where you're from.

My boyfriend lived in the backwoods of Louisiana for a while, while still maintaining our then long-distance relationship...people were often very shocked but welcoming of me being an Indian woman and him being a white Italian male. There were two people at his workplace, one employee and one customer, that gave some flak about it, but largely...no. They were decent people.

Now, the fact that neither of us are Christian...that had to be kept a secret because of the few people that were told, pretty much all dropped us like rocks. Again, this is the backwoods of the state, so his and my experiences are probably not accurate summations of the whole South.

[Nana no Atarashii Kokka]

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?

There is some racism still latent in the South, but I have never seen or encountered anything bad. In fact, I saw more racism manifest itself when I was living in Lansing, Michigan (police brutality against Latino and black people like/KKK rallies in the capitol building) than the almost 3 years I've been living in Arkansas. I suppose there are some places that are worse than others and, to be honest, the town where I live is 10 minutes away from the state line with Missouri so people here seem to feel more Mid Western than Southern.

[United Marxist Nations]

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?

There is some racism still latent in the South, but I have never seen or encountered anything bad. In fact, I saw more racism manifest itself when I was living in Lansing, Michigan (police brutality against Latino and black people like/KKK rallies in the capitol building) than the almost 3 years I've been living in Arkansas. I suppose there are some places that are worse than others and, to be honest, the town where I live is 10 minutes away from the state line with Missouri so people here seem to feel more Mid Western than Southern.

^Not sure if actually Nana, or imposter...

[Nana no Atarashii Kokka]

There is some racism still latent in the South, but I have never seen or encountered anything bad. In fact, I saw more racism manifest itself when I was living in Lansing, Michigan (police brutality against Latino and black people like/KKK rallies in the capitol building) than the almost 3 years I've been living in Arkansas. I suppose there are some places that are worse than others and, to be honest, the town where I live is 10 minutes away from the state line with Missouri so people here seem to feel more Mid Western than Southern.

^Not sure if actually Nana, or imposter...

Nana. This is an alternate account.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

For sure, and I called Nordengrund on just that. They've got Nazis, Klansmen, Neo-Confederates, the lot.

Hey now, calm it down there. You can be a neo-Confederate without being racist.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The south is guilty of not wanting to abolish slavery...

How the fuck did you get that idea? What poll was taken, showing the majority of modern Southerners want to re-institute slavery? What Southern politician has advocated it?

...slavery... started on north america in what was then new amsterdam.

Are you kidding me? Europeans first owned slaves when African chiefs sold their prisoners of war and the like to some Portuguese traders. Slavery had existed in Africa for centuries. It took years for actual slavery to make it's way to North America. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

[Aquophia]

Threads like this are proof that liberals are not as open minded and tolerant as they claim to be.

[Ifreann]

Threads like this are proof that liberals are not as open minded and tolerant as they claim to be.

If you discount all the people saying that the South isn't racist, sure.

[Aquophia]

Threads like this are proof that liberals are not as open minded and tolerant as they claim to be.

If you discount all the people saying that the South isn't racist, sure.

The current ratio of this poll is pretty much neck and neck. That's a good chunk of human beings who believe that racism is determined by geographical location.

EDIT:Poll's at 50/50 now.

[Ifreann]

If you discount all the people saying that the South isn't racist, sure.

The current ratio of this poll is pretty much neck and neck. That's a good chunk of human beings who believe that racism is determined by geographical location.

Therefore liberals are hypocrites. Makes perfect sense.

[Aquophia]

The current ratio of this poll is pretty much neck and neck. That's a good chunk of human beings who believe that racism is determined by geographical location.

Therefore liberals are hypocrites. Makes perfect sense.

What's the difference between labeling a southerner as a racist and labeling someone with a large nose a jew? I don't see the logic in either one, but I do see a lot of bigotry.

[Ifreann]

Therefore liberals are hypocrites. Makes perfect sense.

What's the difference between labeling a southerner as a racist and labeling someone with a large nose a jew? I don't see the logic in either one, but I do see a lot of bigotry.

What's the difference in labelling liberals as bigots and labelling someone with a large nose a Jew?

[Aquophia]

What's the difference between labeling a southerner as a racist and labeling someone with a large nose a jew? I don't see the logic in either one, but I do see a lot of bigotry.

What's the difference in labelling liberals as bigots and labelling someone with a large nose a Jew?

The poll. (which is now at 51% yes btw.)