Feds Disrupt Skinhead Plot to Assassinate Obama

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_i...sm_in_the_News

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/...04368291538100

I don't think any area is without racial and ethnic incident. I only googled Portland because someone claimed that the pacific northwest didn't have issues like this.

The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks hate groups by state:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I didn't say the PacNW was without incident. I said "racial violence" is not more of a west coast thing.

If you add up the groups in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington together, we still don't have as many in the single states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and only one more than Tennessee.

There's a few parts to this though. Up here there is a lot of land, people can live on their own, mind their own business, and Oregon and Washington both don't have income tax, Oregon doesn't have sales tax either. You can have a little separatist group and be survivalists, and a lot of time they don't even do anything locally. The Aryan Nation moved back east and the City of Coeur d'Alene would shut down when a hate group wanted to have a parade. I'm not saying there aren't hateful, ignorant people in Idaho, but they aren't organized in these groups, these groups are mostly outsiders from elsewhere.

I also find random irony with a hate group targets Jews in an area with a very small amount of Jews. Also with the League of the South group active in states that didn't even exist during the Confederacy. To be honest the hate crimes in the area have changed to members of GLBTQ community members being attacked, with many in the two local college towns.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

If you add up the groups in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington together, we still don't have as many in the single states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and only one more than Tennessee.

Sure, but doesn't California have more than any of the southern states? It's still west coast.

Oregon and Idaho are more than 90% White and Washington is about 88% White. I wouldn't really expect a whole lot of racial incidents in a community so dominantly of one race or ethnicity. (ETA:I think there has to be a perception of scarcity or competition before hate groups get crazy; "they're taking over" or "we're losing what's ours" kind of thinking. I do think you have some groups moving in to Idaho in particular from elsewhere, but I don't think Idaho is a racial pressure cooker in itself.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sure, but doesn't California have more than any of the southern states? It's still west coast.

What happens when you scale by population?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

What happens when you scale by population?

I suspect hate group numbers are related to population size as well. Even if you just look at southern states that seems to be the case. ETA: except maybe for South Carolina.

But I wasn't finding a whole lot of merit in the look-these-practically-lily-white-states-don't-have-racial-violence or hate groups argument that seemed to be being made.

ETA: adding the hate group link again so I can find it easily:http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
The Dakotas are practically hate group free. It must be because they are so progressive and tolerant.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I suspect hate group numbers are related to population size as well. Even if you just look at southern states that seems to be the case. ETA: except maybe for South Carolina.

But I wasn't finding a whole lot of merit in the look-these-practically-lily-white-states-don't-have-racial-violence or hate groups argument that seemed to be being made.

ETA: adding the hate group link again so I can find it easily:http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
The Dakotas are practically hate group free. It must be because they are so progressive and tolerant.

You didn't even address my points about rural areas, the easy access to fire arms, and the tax issues that have drawn these groups to the area. They may not do things locally, but they have headquartered here. I even admitted the Aryan Nation had a huge stronghold less than 100 miles from where I live and creepily enough I met people who were involved in it because Idaho is totally inbred and small (it is more like 2 or 3 degrees of separation here, especially with the University).

Maybe the Dakotas don't have hate groups because of geography, tax laws, or something else. Sure they have the Black Hills but the wilderness out here with less people makes hiding out pretty easy. You're a lot more obvious shooting buffalo on the Plains than tracking elk in the Bitterroots. We're very much "mind your business" out in the boonies and luckily we don't condone it here, nor do most of the people of Montana (Peppy can speak for Washington, but she's on the Westside). The groups here were mostly run out by the government for tax and other issues, and moved back east (if I remember right above the Mason Dixon line) where they could operate the way they wanted to.

Also California (according to the SPLC) has "hate groups" against white Christians (the usual hate mongers when people think of hate groups), including the Nation of Islam, the Jewish Defense League, Voz de Aztlan. KSigRC is right that it has to do with population. I don't know why there are more groups in certain Southern states (I have hypotheses), but I do know why groups came to where I live and work, and why they aren't here anymore.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I suspect hate group numbers are related to population size as well. Even if you just look at southern states that seems to be the case. ETA: except maybe for South Carolina.

But I wasn't finding a whole lot of merit in the look-these-practically-lily-white-states-don't-have-racial-violence or hate groups argument that seemed to be being made.

ETA: adding the hate group link again so I can find it easily:http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
The Dakotas are practically hate group free. It must be because they are so progressive and tolerant.

Ignoring that population is likely the reason for California's high numbers, especially given the breakdown in the southeast, while relying on the "lily white" argument seems like you're cherry picking, that's all I'm saying.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

You didn't even address my points about rural areas, the easy access to fire arms, and the tax issues that have drawn these groups to the area. They may not do things locally, but they have headquartered here. I even admitted the Aryan Nation had a huge stronghold less than 100 miles from where I live and creepily enough I met people who were involved in it because Idaho is totally inbred and small (it is more like 2 or 3 degrees of separation here, especially with the University).

Maybe the Dakotas don't have hate groups because of geography, tax laws, or something else. Sure they have the Black Hills but the wilderness out here with less people makes hiding out pretty easy. You're a lot more obvious shooting buffalo on the Plains than tracking elk in the Bitterroots. We're very much "mind your business" out in the boonies and luckily we don't condone it here, nor do most of the people of Montana (Peppy can speak for Washington, but she's on the Westside). The groups here were mostly run out by the government for tax and other issues, and moved back east (if I remember right above the Mason Dixon line) where they could operate the way they wanted to.

Also California (according to the SPLC) has "hate groups" against white Christians (the usual hate mongers when people think of hate groups), including the Nation of Islam, the Jewish Defense League, Voz de Aztlan. KSigRC is right that it has to do with population. I don't know why there are more groups in certain Southern states (I have hypotheses), but I do know why groups came to where I live and work, and why they aren't here anymore.

I think Idaho is remarkable because the groups deliberately moved there and have apparently been run off (good for Idaho). It's kind of in its own special category. I think in most other rural areas the hate groups are home grown and are probably harder to run off for that reason.

ETA: I don't want to spend too much time googling this, but didn't one of the really notorious groups advocate forming a white nationalist homeland in the northwest? All the demographic stuff I'm saying kind of falls apart when the crazies deliberately choose to come to you, likely because of your relative lack of diversity.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Ignoring that population is likely the reason for California's high numbers, especially given the breakdown in the southeast, while relying on the "lily white" argument seems like you're cherry picking, that's all I'm saying.

I didn't do the original grouping, FWIW. My point was just to respond to the southern state vs. pacific northwest comparison, which, I think, was a response to a claim about the "west" which seemed to me to include California.

I've got nothing against the pacific northwest or California.

I think that acts of racial violence or hate groups are more likely to occur in places with relatively large minority populations, poverty, relatively low levels of education. You'll get this in some big cities and you'll get this in some rural areas, depending on the demographic breakdown. Some states have the misfortune of having multiple areas with the wrong mix. And some Southern states all of my demographic predictors AND a horrible racial history.

I think to make comparative claims about regions or states without looking at fundamental differences, like the racial and ethnic make up of the regions, is probably misguided.

ETA: looking at simply the number of hate groups, other than South Carolina, isn't the populations size of the state probably the most tightly correlated variable? Then maybe population diversity?

Kind of interesting random links:http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/ma...Tract&themei=1

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatew...rtherecord.jsp

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sure, but doesn't California have more than any of the southern states? It's still west coast.

Oregon and Idaho are more than 90% White and Washington is about 88% White. I wouldn't really expect a whole lot of racial incidents in a community so dominantly of one race or ethnicity. (ETA:I think there has to be a perception of scarcity or competition before hate groups get crazy; "they're taking over" or "we're losing what's ours" kind of thinking. I do think you have some groups moving in to Idaho in particular from elsewhere, but I don't think Idaho is a racial pressure cooker in itself.)

Washington is actually 84% white as of 2006 census estimates (76% white of non-hispanic origin). The western side of the state (Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma corridor) is far more diverse and WAY more populated than the eastern side, yet the eastern side accounts for 6 of the 18 hate groups identified by city. The whiter side has a disproportionately high number of hate groups for the population size.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Washington is actually 84% white as of 2006 census estimates (76% white of non-hispanic origin). The western side of the state (Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma corridor) is far more diverse and WAY more populated than the eastern side, yet the eastern side accounts for 6 of the 18 hate groups identified by city. The whiter side has a disproportionately high number of hate groups for the population size.

Okay. I retract lily-white from a description of Washington. I also suspect the western side is also richer and better educated, which might account for why the eastern side is more hateful.

I wasn't trying to pick on Washington or trying to suggest it has a bad track record, but the same census put the black population at 3.6 percent.

Again, I don't have data to link to back it up, but I think it's far more common to have racial hostility where there's a perception of scarcity rather than plenty (lower income) and a sense of groups are competing for resources. Even most crazy white racists aren't going to feel really threatened by a group that makes up less than 5% of the population, I wouldn't guess.

I kind of think the hate groups that do exist up in the northwest are transplanted crazies from elsewhere, who sought it out for its whiteness.