Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you've traveled enough to share an opinion on whether you think this person's vision is accurate...
I believe this is in the right category since its a question about the USA...
Not even a little bit.
Looks like it is based completely on stereotypes and really favors more liberal cities like Boston (notoriously racist), San Francisco (not a model for race-relations), Portland and Seattle (notoriously homogenous).
LOL @ Chicago being less "racist" than NYC and LA. Yeah, this map is stupid.
Is the green blotch in the Dakotas and western Minnesota because it's too white for there to be race conflicts? And Anchorage? I would think that the Inuit population of Alaska would actually make race tension more prevalent.
if you've traveled enough to share an opinion on whether you think this person's vision is accurate...
I believe this is in the right category since its a question about the USA...
It's pretty ridiculous. Overly simplistic, no documented reasoning behind it, and no real logic, rhyme or reason.
Also, if you look closely you'll see some pretty dumb assumptions. For instance, the Omaha/Council Bluffs area in SW IA/SE NE is blue, while the rural areas around it are purple? I happen to know that Omaha, NE is very multi-cultural, and it's asinine to think that the rural areas around it are LESS racially-sensitive than is Omaha.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.