Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Impressive labor but only to state the obvious.

Posted by thunderwerks on 09 May 2015 at 16:24 GMT

The Google correlation seems bogus out of hand. But the figures, if to be believed, indicate that regions with high Black populations and high levels of Black elected officials are the most likely to be termed RACIST--under the authors' definition. In my estimation, racism is not an attitude in the US, racism is an infrastructural social activity. As such, it is not surprising that regions where there is high Black population and somewhat commensurate Black political resistance to prevailing repressive institution would require appropriate military, social and cultural structures (tools) among the white population to allow for the necessary repression of Blacks. In shorts, more slaves require more slave catchers and the mentality that goes along with that dehumanizing profession.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Impressive labor but only to state the obvious.

nalkoff replied to thunderwerks on 10 May 2015 at 22:59 GMT

Did you actually look at the results?

But the figures, if to be believed, indicate that regions with high Black populations and high levels of Black elected officials are the most likely to be termed RACIST--under the authors' definition.

Some of the areas >0.5 SD above the mean (i.e., the most "racist") were, indeed in Southern areas, perhaps some with relatively high levels of elected black officials, but the map quite strikingly indicates a massive "racism belt" centered on the Appalachian region, which is highly white in terms of demographics and politics.

No competing interests declared.