Attached is a link to the top 10 most segregated cities in the US. Is it dangerous to blame the South for racism in the present day US?
Can't they ever do lists? That website was messed up. In fact, most of those top 10 websites are. Just clickbait. I saw two of them, got fed up and gave up.
Segregation was a purposeful, coordinated public policy. North and South, East and West.
Two main programs implemented it throughout the country. FHA and the interstate highway system.
North tends to be more racist
Five states in the south voted for George Wallace because he promised segregation. I'd say that if there is a hotbed of racism in this country, it's located in Dixie.
Besides, there's not many large cities in the South to make that list to begin.
Of the top 100 cities in the United States some where between 1/4 or 1/5 (I lost count) are in the south.
Also Wallace was over 40 years ago when the South voted strongly Democrat so the has easily been recognizable a switch in South since then.
Yeah. The Dixiecrats split because the democrats started championing civil rights.
The political parties have switched positions since then… the southern minds have not.
MJ, if you're counting Texas cities as southern, you're mistaken. Maybe Houston fits the bill, though I would probably disagree, but other Texas cities are not what would be classified as Southern or Dixie.
Umm...Texas cities are cities in a southern state, whether the city turns out to "act southern" or not is irrelevant but instead shows evidence that racism in cities isn't the states locations fault.
Texas is Texas. It's in between the southwest and the south. It's neither.
You would label El Paso as a southern city and it is definitely not.
East Texas (east of I-35 corridor) fits into the Dixie mentality for the most part.
But to label Texas as a whole a southern state is ludicrous.
Seeing as this poll is about "The South" in context of race: this is the south en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie
Texas is included then. Again, this is adding to my point that "The South" has changed.
A) you're citing Wikipedia 😂
B) even your citation states that Texas is SOMETIMES included. Parts could be, but not all of it.
Even in the comments on this poll southerners have dissociated Miami from the south because it's not a southern city. You can't now adopt Dallas, Austin, San Antonio or El Paso.
When did George Wallace run?
Late great - 1972 Nixon, Humphry and Wallace he attempted for the Democratic nomination in 76 but lost to Carter
Lost - true or false, in 1860 Texas joined the confederacy? Dont think I need to cite that and I dont think u see what I'm trying to do
The whole point of the question is citing how bigots still define the south by things decades old. Most who bash have never been there.
MJ, things change over 150 years. Yes, Texas was in the CSA. No, Texas is not a southern state today.
Wallace ran for president throughout the 60s and 70s… you know when the south was fighting segregation and putting up some symbol around their statehouses to show their fight. What symbol was that?
Oh yeah. That "battle flag" that southern dummies are getting all worked up about today.
Things obviously haven't changed that much in Dixie.
Actually the biggest victories for the battle flag so far that I've seen is a man who started waving it in Boston, NY and Gettysburg, South Dakota
And the biggest victory I've seen for healing and inclusion was in Columbia, SC by removing that symbol of racism that you celebrate.
I don't "celebrate" anything confederate. I'm pointing out the fact that the two pieces of people who do support the flag are from NY and SD, hardly the south.
Do you deny racism is outside of the South?
There are absolutely racists outside of the south. Do you deny that there is a disproportionate amount of racists in the south?
Not according to all the info of data for present day
That's funny because according to your new article, most of Dixie is more racist than your average part of the country. That would pretty much fit the description of disproportionate.
As is West Texas, North east New Mexico, Ohio, West /central NY and Pa, north Minnesota and Wisconsin as well as Michigan, West Virginia, Rhode Island I-4 Corredor, Iowa and SoCal
Which means disproportional racism is closer to North East coast
You need to find a new map, buddy. Iowa is all blue on that one. Those areas of red are KC and StL.
Maybe you need a better education because not only have you flunked geography, but you're failing English too.
Because there are other red areas in the country outside of Dixie does not change the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of racists in Dixie.
There are more racists in the south than there are elsewhere on average. That is the definition.
LateGreat- why do I always get the crazies?
Because you can't read a map or understand English. That's why.
The last post you'll get from me
Have a good day :)
I'm sure it will be. I find your image ironic since you've shown quite a lot of ignorance with your inability to grasp English or understand what your own sources were actually saying.
MJ, cause liberals are all crazy.
Ok first off, yeah it's dangerous to blame one geographic area for a social problem our country has. If you wanna solve the issue, you can't say it is all the fault of one area - it's not.
But don't come to that conclusion based off this data...
That list is of "major cities", which are located in large part in the north anyway. If you're looking by population, there are plenty of cities in the south with huge populations, but not the same kind of cities. They cover large areas so they're
way less dense and you aren't likely to have those super distinct groupings of people since you don't have tons of people living in close proximity. It's an interesting article but nothing we didnt know and it doesnt explain the geography of racism.
Also I couldn't see the last two cities cuz the link was glitching out, but I'd like to see one of those maps for DC - it's pretty segregated. Maybe its population is too small to qualify for this list, I don't know.
9 and 10 were Milwaukee and Detroit.
DC - www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/the-remarkable-racial-segregation-of-washington-d-c-in-1-map/
Ah ok thanks. And yeah, just as expected for DC. It's such a small city geographically too, a 10 minute drive will take you from the most shown-off, touristy part of the city to the most dangerous.
Ten minute drive? Walk a few miles south east of the Capitol Building.
North street and Charles in Baltimore is the diving line for races. (Coincidence they were the dividing line for the riots?)
Good thing Maryland has Hogan, man is amazing.
A few miles is a 10 minute drive haha
And that's interesting about Baltimore. Speaking of Hogan though, I'm sure you've heard of his lymphoma...it's horrible to hear. Wonder what implications it'll have in Annapolis.
None, although Lt. Gov Rutherford is an amazing person, Hogan is still in command. I think the Baltimore prison being shut down shows that. Very hard working person, atypical politician. Gerrymandering is (or at least should be) next.
Sure, sure. Hopefully he's able to keep up with his responsibilities in the future!
Yeah gerrymandering is always an issue - but the general assembly keeps going more democrat so if we keep that up till 2020 we're staying gerrymandered in favor of
the dems anyway
The Hogan administration is looking to take the issue to court. Similarly to what happened in Florida where their southern districts were deemed illegal, also Hogan remains doing what he's doing he could be governor in 2020.
That happened in Florida? Weird that they can seem certain ones illegal when others are clearly gerrymandering...like just have some advisory committee look over all districts before they're finalized. Well actually I guess constituents do that but
still...Maryland's are totally whack...and our public confirmed them in 2012 so whatever
Well that's what happens when Martin Owe'Malley is Gov. He literally taunted Republicans with the Rain Tax including asking them for a pen to sign it. There's a reason Democrats turned on Lt Gov. Brown
O'Malley's got a presidential campaign ahead of him too...well tbh before the primaries he does at least haha
Sorry, it will be a Hillary/Sanders combo of some sort from the left.
God help us if the right doesn't get its act together. Trump takes the nomination…
It'll be Hillary. And I seriously doubt trump will get the nomination. But who knows...
Yeah we will see, but Republicans are known for doing dumb stuff a lot so I'm not looking for anything, have fun in 2016.
Good luck with 2016 haha
I'm not too personally invested, but I'd like to see how stuff turns out especially if Hillary is in the running...or Trump haha either would be exciting
Regardless if you have a favorite candidate or if you even follow the election or not, you do have a lot invested in 2016; every American does.
Also Barbara M's Senate seat is up in Md, that could be interesting if Md goes purple (I can dream)
^ not with the dems in charge of gerrymandering! And like...our liberal constituency...
Anyway, I'm pretty disillusioned with politics. Whoever's in office it's gonna be the same kinda thing. They're gonna have problems and taxpayers make up for it.
Well senate is state wide, but to the extend what you said is true, it is also false. There are differences between politicians, but thats why I hate how America looks at party, partisanship is nothing but a title and even I fall to favoring one side
Simply because I like the letter next to a politicians name.
No I'm talking even despite parties. Hillary and Trump seem different on paper, but will either reallyyyyyy change the trajectory of the country? My vote would be probably not.
Ignoring Hillary and Donald (idk who has worse hair)
It is possible, looking at FDR compared to Hoover or Nixon to carter and then again to Reagan. Depends heavily on Congress/Court if GOP holds both Houses it may.
Ha. Hillary's hair is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with being blonde.
And sure, they can be different. But it's hard for Americans to know that beforehand anyway. If not impossible.
It's hard for Americans to know politics in general ('Murika 🇺🇸) but you need to look for the non-politician, which for president is hard. I'd say in 2016 it's Sanders, but I would never vote for him.
And Hillary scares my democrat friends…
There are very few non politicians running for office...I don't even know about sanders. And you clearly need more feminist democrat friends.
I think sanders is running because he believes in socialism and not for himself I mean.
And I'm not sure I ever had an official democrat feminist friend…but the world always could use more feminism but I do not need to tell you that do I?
And yep, I'm taking care of adding some feminism to the world 👍🏼 or at least my part of the world.
So Fiorina/Clinton 2016?
And if anything to it would be Clinton/Fiorina not the other way around
Sorry, I couldn't go for that if Shillz is Prez.
As a feminist I can't vote for a women who "stood by her man" when that man was accused by 8 people for sexual assault.
(I did some research on feminism) but I would vote for Fiorina either
I don't know anything about Fiorina. But as a feminist you shouldn't be one to judge a woman's personal life. How she handles her relationship with her husband is not for you to judge and certainly not a reason to not vote for her.
Fiorina has no political experience.
That's also not why I'm not voting for her, simply my first feminist case study and opinion. Ironic…as an executive of the the college republicans I'm against a president of the college republicans.
She's not a republican anymore...college changes people politically. And in other ways of course, but politically. I have a friend who's republican and keeps talking about how she maybe wants to leave the party cuz she's sick of it.
Like I said, Party means nothing. So many republican, Conservatives and moderate alike, leave instead of trying to change it. Heck, College Gop made a video distancing us from the actual party. Hogan renewed faith in party for me.
Party means a lot. Otherwise you wouldn't be part of LCR, we wouldn't have this system. It's a group of ideas represented by people. Some of which are crazy...glad you have faith in Hogan.
MDCR, I'm statewide now (insert smirk here). But seriously I can't support trump so yeah I vote against the democrat, but Lincoln Chafee was a republican, Reagan was a democrat party means much, but I don't think it should (#WashingtonWasRight?)
Hey congratulations. Yeah sure, it's just an organizing factor. Which we need around here to keep things from going totally crazy. Anyway, we have a while till 2016. Plenty of time to get mentally used to president Trump haha
Maybe this will be a good year for 3rd party candidates.
Rubio is one of the best choices (my personal selection) for the GOP, hopefully that times sees the Elimination of Trump.
Yeah we just need a third party candidate first. Idk why Sanders is running dem. Well I know why, but maybe it's time to try a new strategy.
And give Rubio more press time. I've seen close to zero about him.
In 2013 Rubio gave the republican rebuttal to the State of the Union which was actually an amazing speech, but all people got out of it was he has a sip of water (Merica!)
And electoral college isn't going anywhere.
That's how it goes. Priorities.
And sure. That doesn't matter if enough people vote 3rd party anyway.
It is difficult for a 3rd part to get 270 electoral votes, and when it gets split so no one gets past the post, the House will vote partisanly which will elect either Dem or Rep cuz no Ind. there, or it goes to the Supreme Court and we get W. again!
Yeah, that's why the culture has to change. If we get better candidates too, that'll facilitate it. It's just all a mess...our political system is screwed up haha
Vote NOPE 2016.
Same thing, different animals/color
Aw hahaha throwback on that one
That poor party never had a chance
Well yeah…look at the members of it...It also got you nominated for president of the VC
But seriously I probably will vote and party lines because…well NY it doesn't matter.
I got nominated for president? I don't remember that but who knows haha
Sure, vote how you will. we're still a ways off from challenging the 2 party system
You were, or at least someone nominated you, you declined it.
And. I doubt we will ever become 3 or more party friendly. 1992 so the closest we can get. Then people go back to lesser of two evils (no Perot no Clintons maybe no W)
Huh. I vaguely remember, idk.
And if people get fed up enough with the system, it might. Or if like Channing Tatum runs for president with the Green Party in like 5 years, maybe we'll get there haha
Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a stripper turned actor to unite people (get the female and male LGBT community big democratic base if he holds conservative views maybe) but it's difficult enough winning plurality, but look at Alaska's Gov
Also, stop going to google images to pick your hockey players and politicians. *facepalm*
^ I don't do that, I just realize that plenty of people do
It could happen for sure...we'll see how stuff plays out.
We will, but there will not be an independent president in our life time. $ is also an issue, so I will say don't look for Tatum's abs rocking the vote in 2020.
That is a bullshit list. Houston was not on the list. Neither was New Orleans or Atlanta. Detroit? Milwaukee? HAHAHAHAHA!!!
I read the article backwards. LOL. Just woke up. I withdraw the diverse cities of Houston and New Orleans and agree to the list with exception. I don't believe LA, NYC, Chicago, nor Boston should be on the list. The focus should be on integration.
Dangerous in that it would be difficult to remain alive with such low intelligence.
I'm not sure it's dangerous but it's unfair and stupid. Racism is everywhere.
No, racism is used so much, I don't pay attention. 😎
The south seems so interesting. But as a black guy born outside it, I would never visit the south by choice.
I was born in the southwest, so I don't know the decent, if they're any, parts of the south. It's all just the South. I'd never visit it by choice because I wouldn't feel safe. I was in Richmond in March, but I was with a large group of people.
Just saying we aren't going to hurt anyone if there good people. We are actually quite friendly here in the South as long as you don't come here insulting us or trying to change things.
I don't consider most of Texas part of the south. From New Mexico to Austin, I still consider part of the Southwest.
I don't know of any indecent parts of the South other than a select few city/downtown areas.
I can understand the fear if all you know is stories told by haters, but the South is, in reality, full of extremely friendly and polite people.
The South is much safer than the North. The only time I have felt unsafe in a city in the US was in Philadelphia.
Zia, I wouldn't avoid the south if I were you. There's a lot to see and do.
Just know that if someone says, "Bless your heart." They're not being nice most of the time.
I hate articles where you have to click to multiple pages to read the whole thing. I mean seriously that is so annoying. I read two cities before getting fed up.
You can guess the cities. NYC, Detroit, St Loius. The only city from the south is Miami.
It's ridiculous, it always was. But what's dangerous about it?
By ignoring the problem in other areas because someone is too busy blaming the South it allows the problem to continue to well…continue and possibly even grow in the rest of the country.
The article had nothing to do with the south. It merely highlighted cities where the populations settled in segregated patterns. Mandated segregation? No. Self selected segregation. To the author of both the article and the question I have to say....
SO WHAT? This proves nothing except that the article author is trying to stir things up and create a controversy where none exists. The study was worthless and holds no indicative obligation for anyone.
Much ado about nothing!
I live in the Philly area and grew up in So. Philly. Whenever low income people move in those with the means move out and the people that move in just destroy the place. This has been proven time and time again. Chester, Darby, Upper Darby, Lansdowne
, Folcroft, Colwyn, etc... All destroyed because of section 8 government funded housing. These people move in and just don't care about anything. They take the "it's not mine" mentality and bring their low income attitudes to destroy the area.
...then they have the NERVE to complain that people move out, businesses close, crime skyrockets and the place becomes a hell hole. I would not subject my family to these neighborhoods or the city.
It's not a mater of race, it is a matter of class and a lack of parenting.
You are not moving into my neighborhood unless you are a person of means and work ethic that can afford the mortgage and the taxes and the upkeep and the living expenses. I don't want lower class people around my family. Color is irrelevant.
Why would or should someone live in my area if they can't pay for it?? I can't think of a single reason.
I concur, Cpt. This was a BS piece that refused to highlight their own city, Hotlanta. More segregated cities are found South of the Manson-Nixon than North. The comments on this board show the true intolerance among even fellow SOHers. Pathetic.
My bad Cpt. I just woke up and read the actual article as it very slowly loaded in my iPad. It was a useless fluff piece meant to drive some imaginary agenda of both author and editor. Diverse cities are found in the South, I lie (in bed) corrected.
I hate how racist people north of the mason-Dixon are. They are intolerant bigots.
Let's ban their flags!
Segregation in the north is only based on class, not race. Unlike the south, racial segregation was never legally sanctioned in northern states.
And what makes you think that it's not based on class in the South now?
Also, whites and blacks didn't live in harmony in the North either. Most wanted to ship the blacks back to Africa (Lincoln included).
Race relations in the North aren't perfect, but it's way better than relations in the South.
What is your reasoning?
Brandon, have you ever been to the south?
I think it's dangerous because by simply blaming racism on the South, we're more so pointing fingers rather than actually creating useful discussion and dialogue. We're one country, and whatever racial problems we have aren't confined to one region.
I've always said that Boston was the most segregated city I have lived in. And I have lived in lots of places.
When I lived in NC, my neighborhood outside of Raleigh was the most diverse I'd ever lived in. People on my block came from all over and we got along great. We had the best block parties throughout the summers. I miss that street.
Yeah, outside of history and TV, I never actually saw racism until I started traveling for work.
California's majority races are white, hispanic and asian. The black population make up a small minority here. Saying that California isn't diverse because of a small black population is wrong.
My city is 30% white, 30% hispanic and 30% asian.
The link comes from segregation based on mapping a city by race and comparing it to "red-lining" or when city officials drew lines around certain areas for certain races. Size of population has little to do with this specific link.
Well, the rebels took over this thread from the Yanks! Haha
Didn't we say the South will rise again? :P
I'm not sure why ppl accuse us of racism. I'm sure it exists but I don't see it often. Occasionally someone says something stupid but it's a ridiculous accusation.
People like to blame the south for racism because of history. Apparently we can't progress haha.
Just blame it on Mississippi like the rest of the country
But what about small towns in west Texas that don't know that people can be different colors?
Well because it is in Texas alone makes it more so than any other state say...like Wisconsin
I wasn't really surprised about this. 😕
Hahah yeah, you people on Wisconsin used to be most racist in the nation.
Then there's Minnesota which has the highest terrorist sympathizer population…
What's going on up there?
It's probably the terrible weather that makes us all cranky
Weather, definitely the weather. ❄️
Aveg- aren't you concerned about being called a racist?
Not really, I just see and hear things and am not surprised.
Notice how only one of those cities is from the south...👌🏼
Miami doesn't count as the South
Nor does St. Louis...
Well if we don't count Miami then none are
You can't possibly consider Miami the South (at least not Confederate South). For one simple reason, most adults in Miami were not born here. And by the way, Miami tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
ALL of those cities vote democrat.
Let me understand, cities that are predominantly Liberal are more segregated. Meanwhile, many Democrats love to say that Republicans are bigots. Looks like Conservatives are not the ones labeling people.
I really wasn't expecting my city to be number two on the list
If I went top 25 Buffalo, NY made it. My former home.
Really? My first thought was who knocked it off the top. 😬
I knew it was bad but I thought for sure saint Louis and a couple other city's would be ahead of it
Idk if it's dangerous but it sure is dumb. Although, Id like to see the data of poor and not poor segregation. Either way, liberal cities are the worst for minorities, in every situation
I wasn't sure what word to use. My thinking is that by focus on the South we miss the real problem which would let it continue to fester, but yeah. Some days English comes easier than others!
Anyone who has been to the south & who has talked to people in metro areas of the country outside the south KNOW that we're not really the problem, but we get the blame.
Just this week, I made food for a funeral for a family from church who happened to be black. When I signed up to bring food only moments after the sign-up was announced, the sheet was full & yes, most of the congregation is white.
I have hated how the argument is south focused when these shootings are happening in non-southern cities, the fact segregation happened *everywhere* but people only look at race as either non-existing or pre-1865
Seriously, this is the best use of a reference for data I have ever seen on SOH. Bravo!! Hard to see any bias in this data analysis, but I'm sure some SOH race baiters will find something.
Hahaha thanks, someone who *constantly* posts about race issues posted this and was impressed by it.