What is the LEAST racist part of the country?

[bgwah]

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

[Gabu]

Vermont; there's absolutely nothing to be racist about.

[J.R. Brown]

North Dakota

[A18]

I've never encountered racism, to be honest. Plus I've only lived in this one county all my life, so I can't speak for the United States as a whole.

Someone want to make a map where dark red = super-racist, light blue = almost no racism?

[Jake]

Somewhere like Wisconsin most likely, or Iowa.

[Gabu]

Someone want to make a map where dark red = super-racist, light blue = almost no racism?

I doubt this would be possible to do very accurately without a ton of research.  There would be too much urge to insert what you'd like to be the truth otherwise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the criteria is different races voting differently, the top racist are
1. MS (Bush won whites 85-14, Kerry won blacks 90-10) gap of 151 points
2. AL (Bush won whites 80-19, Kerry won blacks  91-6) gap of 146 points

and the least racist is
1. DC (Kerry won whites 80-19, blacks 97-3) gap of 33 points
2. VT (Kerry won whites 58-40, not many blacks) i'm guessing a gap of about 45 points

[Gabu]

If the criteria is different races voting differently, the top racist are
1. MS (Bush won whites 85-14, Kerry won blacks 90-10) gap of 151 points
2. AL (Bush won whites 80-19, Kerry won blacks  91-6) gap of 146 points

and the least racist is
1. DC (Kerry won whites 80-19, blacks 97-3) gap of 33 points
2. VT (Kerry won whites 58-40, not many blacks) i'm guessing a gap of about 45 points

I don't see why different races voting differently would imply that racism exists...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't see why different races voting differently would imply that racism exists...

Well, we want something quantatitive. Another thing you could look at is a comparison of poverty and income.

[A18]

That's also not racism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Poverty rates

Similar:
Vermont
Alaska (probably unfair advantage from the oil money doled out to everyone)

Different:
Iowa
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=Demographics+and+the+Economy&subcategory=People+in+Poverty&topic=Poverty+Rate+by+Race%2fEthnicity

States with highest black poverty:

1-3. Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming 52%
4. Wisconsin 47%

Highest hispanic:
1. RI 39%

Highest other:
1. ND 51%
2. SD 48%
3. NM 37%


Highest white:
1. West Virginia 21%

[Gabu]

Er, I still don't see what this really has to do with racism... they're quantitative statistics, yes, but not about racism, as far as I can tell.

[Jake]

Or we can go by what area is more racist. I'll stand by my claims in the other thread that the most racist areas are the rural, lower middle class, almost exclusively white areas of the US, specifically those in the North East and West.

[phk]

Or we can go by what area is more racist. I'll stand by my claims in the other thread that the most racist areas are the rural, lower middle class, almost exclusively white areas of the US, specifically those in the North East and West.

In the West, it'd be where theres signifcant Hispanic-White populations.

[patrick1]

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

From what I have heard... Many Native Hawaiians are racist against whites.  Maybe it is just my burnout surfer friends' paranoia though.

[Beet]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have a sneaking suspicion that, despite outward signs, more working class areas might actually be less racist than more middle class areas; if we look at the recent U.K election results, the Tories based a lot of their campaign on bashing immigrants. The assumption was that this would help them regain the North Kent marginals (mixed skilled working class and lower middle class areas for the most part) while it would backfire in more middle class suburban London seats.
But the Tories only gained one North Kent seat, but they gained a lot in suburban London.

[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.

[opebo]

I've never encountered racism, to be honest. Plus I've only lived in this one county all my life, so I can't speak for the United States as a whole.

Someone want to make a map where dark red = super-racist, light blue = almost no racism?

Here's one in Blue, where the darker shade = more racist:

[opebo]

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

[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.

[bgwah]

Idaho isn't that racist... They have a bad rep becuase a couple dozen neo-nazis set up their little base there a while ago. Although Aryan Nations is in Pennsylvania now.

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

[Hitchabrut]

WV is pretty racist.

[Cashcow]

Michigan is probably one of the more racist northern states, though there are no real "racist" operations in the area.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Somewhere like Wisconsin

never been to Milwaukee, have you?