The South Shown in Graphics.
Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)
My personal feeling these factors contribute and excarbate the continued election of Republicans.
What I see is a war map.
A series of maps showing the attacks of Republicans on a sector of the populace. An ongoing attack that has lasted decades. The results of the Republican policies are the maps above
I don't look at this as a blanket condemnation of the South. But more, some of the reasons and results of Repuke control.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just like 1846 is not 1776.
This particular design - the one on car bumpers, mailboxes, barroom walls, and private flagpoles all over the South (and granted, elsewhere as well) is an inauthentic confederate flag, using the proportions of the Battle Flag of the North Virginia Army, and the colors of the Naval Jack. It was concocted in the post-war south by this fella;
And even if we pretend that this particular symbol has shed the burden of that genesis (it has not) we must still recognize that the men and women who use it as a symbol are hearkening back to an era where the region seceded from the union in order to preserve the rights of the wealthy, landed elite to own and use other human beings as chattel, whose milita opened fire on their own country to begin a war over the issue, and who rallied after the war to create a reign of state terrorism and abuse against those former slaves and their descendents, the aftershocks of which still are felt through to the present day.
Funny, I lived down there for more than half my life, and I saw it everywhere. Several state flags are either modeled on it (Alabama, Florida), incorporate it (Mississippi, former Georgia) or are modeled off other flags of the Confederacy (current Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, Texas.)
Something tells me that a bunch of states that still cling to the dream of slaughtering their countrymen in order to preserve chattel slavery by continuing to fly such symbols above capitol buildings and govenrment offices throughout the south, might not yet be "over it," if you follow me.
You call me bigoted all you fucking want, I'm used to morons telling me that talking about racism and its defenders and its symbols makes me a bad person. Doesn't bother me. As a long-time southerner I can tell you that the problems of the south are native, and rooted in the continued reverence for those flags and the wild shitfucking ideology they represent.
Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)
this?
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]See below.
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Data from 2000, so not exactly current.
The map for mainline protestantism is the one below northern Midwestern states 30-40% mainline protestant, while southern states are 6-10% mainline protestant.
It's not clear to me that religion has much leverage on diabetes. Probably not as much as diet and genetics. And even while evangelical religion is at work on issues of evolution and sex education, I am not sure that evangelical religion has much leverage on completion of high school diploma requirements.
The south has a discernibly strong region affiliations with culture..although those affiliations are spreading. Still, I am not threatened by Duck Dynasty, Swamp People, Catfish Noodlers, NASCAR, fried chicken or Paula Deen.
I do feel threatened by the push for American neo-feudalism. But that seems to have only spurious associations with the ante-bellum culture of southern planters.
That movement's affiliations seem to be much more pronounced among denizens of lower Manhattan, and New York residents who were born in Kansas.
face us. Much of that stuff feeds into a stereotype about poverty, when the real picture is much different and much closer to home in many cases.
And if we ever hope to really address it, we have to have good information, eh?
Clinically-gathered information is the best of all, so we don't end up with false pictures, meant only to rile people up on equally false premises. 
We can certainly strive to be as unbiased as possible, and that's always a good thing
I may have to read that link later. I work with numbers all day long (distances and bearings) so my eyes are glazing over at the moment...
Perhaps some maps and graphics would be in order here?
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Not the exact same map, but close enough.
The map is "an adaptation of Wikipedia's bible belt map"; however, the link provides U.S. and U.N. data charts in support.
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/united-states-unicef-crc
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Unfortunately, I can't trace the first map, Protestants, to any reputable source.
Anyway, have to get to work.
Now you can post the source information for your FB friend!
And as a presumably educated Liberal, you should know better than to use that as a guide to how people voted.
Try this superior map instead:
http://politicker.com/2012/11/the-purple-election-map/
And urban population is growing every day.
What I'd like to see is "urbal" (a mind-fart just gave me that word.) If the FCC can create that free WiFi system across the country as they've envisioned (without the corporations intervening) we could see viable telecommuting from the exurbs and rural communities. Imagine what that would do to local politics, and for the better 
generalizations, then, that Californians, in general, are crazed loons with bleach-blonde hair and modified boobs (or other parts).
won't deny that
A lot of things in those first maps, like poverty, are legacies of the last map, slavery.
Reducing the south, which has the highest percentage of African Americans down to negative ideas about how bad southerners are really isn't taking in the whole picture, about how past racism created may of those current problems, and how many southerners are themselves victims, not bad guys.
We see these blotches of color on the map in approximately the same place and our brain tricks us into thinking "correlation".
I'll try to give some intuitive reasons why you shouldn't draw conclusions between the maps.
1) The counties are too small. Can you spot dallas on all the maps? Is it the dark county surrounded by mostly white in "poverty"? Is it the 2nd darkest blue in "diabetes"? Is it the the relatively non-baptist area in "baptists"?
2) Evidence against correlation are easily ignored when interpreting these visually. The dark area of the baptist map does not match up well with the dark areas of the diabetes map. Texas and arkansas are medium blue in "diabetes" but red (n. texas) in "baptists". Ohio is dark blue in "diabetes" and has virtually no baptists and is mostly blue in "education".
3) The color buckets are too large. The "diabetes" map (the only map I can read the key) is approximately under-7%/7%/8%/9%/10+%. You can't measure correlation with large "everything else" type categories.
4) The maps attempt to tell a particular story while maintaining a sort of plausible deniability ("I never said that" . Take a closer look at "Child Maltreatment Death". Why are missisippi, tennessee, the carolinas, and virginia colored very dark red but have no numbers? They're not in the top 16. They should not be colored at all, like NY, NJ, and the rest of the northeast. Also note that #1 is florida, which appears to be most unlike the rest of the south by the other maps.
5) More important hidden variables. New mexico has high poverty but is nothing like the south. Why? Immigration. Southern Texas has relatively few baptists compared to northern texas? Why? (My guess is hispanic catholics). African americans have higher rates of diabetes and south has the highest population of African Americans (A-A population distribution map can be kind of surprising if you haven't thought much about it). The northwest is full of hardcore racists and conservatives and yet they are on the opposite end of all these maps compared to the south.
Well, these were just off the top of my head. I hope it helps people place these maps in a more informative context.
I think the most telling (and among my favorite) graphics of the south would be...
However, as it neither insults nor exults any one imaginary land at the expense of another imaginary land, it's not really suitable for all tastes.
or the photographer used a high-number neutral-density filter (I like those filters as they make clouds really pop out of the sky, like in this pic.)
If people want to see the beauty of the South, all they have to do is drive through it. If they're worried about all the republicans, then we advise you to not get out of your vehicle the whole way. Eat and sleep in your car/truck, and avoid everything but the scenery
