There was plenty of racism in the nineteenth-century North too. Even a lot of abolitionists were motivated primarily by not wanting to have Black people around. As is often the case, those sorts of traditional socially conservative views have remained stronger in rural areas as views have shifted in urban areas and nationally overall.
Obviously I want to map it onto the white redneck southerners as proof that they're racist today for reasons that are continuously inherited all the way back to the Civil War.
I swear I remember reading about a study just like that. Does anybody else remember this?
Wasn't there something like this for France? Vendée revolts vs. share of conservative votes? And not just by region, but like town by town.
2: Yeah, there's this scholarly paper and this MSNBC report that also talks about geology.
Personally, I blame rocks for many problems.
Reminds me of this about the persistence of family wealth. https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/amp/
How they all fit in Florence, I'll never understand.
There's that national map -- or rather, series of national maps -- that map out cotton fields, maternal death rates, and a half-dozen other things, to show that it's always the same map; we would call it the racism map, and racists would probably call it "where the black people live" map.
Kieran Healy posits that the only two maps of the US you need are "population density" and "percent Black".
There's a third map, roughly rural poverty, i.e. the Black Belt + Rio Grande Valley + Reservations + Appalachia which is also pretty important. I think nowadays you're more likely to see the Mississippi Delta group with Eastern Kentucky on a statistical measurement than with Atlanta.
Wouldn't population density catch that?
No, because there are lots of rural areas that aren't particularly impoverished at the county level. I think a more general map of poverty rate or some other economic statistic would meet the purpose. It would group poor urban areas in with the poor rural ones, but that may be appropriate for a lot of things and they won't show up very clearly on a map this scale anyway.
I'm sure we're all deeply invested in keeping straight our rural areas and knowing which town James Coburn is from and which one Dick Cavett is from and all. But at a macro level, I thought it has been a long time since rural Appalachia was poor in a way that rural areas with large non-white populations are. At least the Pennsylvania parts of it.
Henry Fonda is from Grand Island, which is probably too big to be rural. Brando is from Omaha, which is definitely not rural.
14: I really just meant Eastern Kentucky and the adjacent portions of West Virginia and Tennessee. You're right that the Pennsylvania portions aren't that bad.
Eg this map (except that Mexican-Americans have long life expectancy so you're missing the Rio Grande valley on this particular map).
https://scholar.valpo.edu/usmaps/102/
(Also a tiny fraction of Ohio, but not Pennsylvania.)
I think the point is PA Appalachia has more recent immigration, and "core Appalachia" had different settlement patterns and has been poor forever (perhaps going all the way back to the Scottish Borders).
I guess the secret to avoiding extreme poverty but not Trumpism is Italian miners.
My first thought was Rusyn miners, but yes.
There's probably some story here about the National Road vs going through the Cumberland Gap on foot that's relevant.
Highway 40 is a nice way to get to the scenery side of Uniontown.
Anyway, going by way of the portage outside Altoona is classier.
We saw Little Feat a couple of nights ago; that's not Confederate flag territory, exactly, but you can see it from there.
|| Life is tough for the Evangelical Furries. |>
Yeah, being non-Evangelical, non-furry, white, and a man is playing life on it's easiest setting.
24: Weren't Little Feat from San Francisco, like CCR was?
Just looked it up, and I was wrong, they're from Los Angeles.