But again, why bother talking about the south at all?
We are now far afield, and I'll stop arguing the point after this, but the topic is about Mexico, which then led to a discussion about "political correctness", and then the post in question which tried to say the reason Americans have issues with race are...only southern examples specifically cast against Western states.
Those same Western states have issues with racism; they would be just as effective to cite.
> But again, why bother talking about the south at all?
To specifically cast the experiences of people growing up in different parts of the country with different against each other to highlight how their views on race and racism may differ. The South is not being used for the purpose of vilifying it, but to explain how as a country people over a certain age may have had very different experiences with race in different areas of the country. It says absolutely nothing directly about the current state of the South, that's something you seem to have inferred from the comment (and whether it was meant as an implication is debatable, but it is not factual).
A statement could be made comparing and contrasting experiences of certain citizens of the United States 150 years ago and some other country that did not allow slavery. I wouldn't necessarily think that's meant to cast the US in bad light, but to use it as a tool to illustrate a point. It's obvious the US of today is not the same as the US of 150 years ago. It's also obvious the South of 40-50 years ago is not the same as the South today.
I think perhaps you're just a bit more emotionally invested in the perception of the South, and have seen the South as it currently is denigrated unfairly to a degree, which I'm sure happens, and you are conflating that type of occurrence and this. I just don't think they are equivalent.
> * talk about racist policies against the Chinese in California in the 1800s
Which does not directly affect current discourse, being removed by multiple generations from those alive today.
> * talk about racist policies against the Irish and sentiments against Catholics throughout the country even just prior to JFK's election in 1960
Sure, but then you're bringing religion into the mix. That seems unwise when trying to make a specific point that to that point has not included religion. It will just muddy the waters.
> * talk about racist views and policies towards interracial marriage in the South and Southwest
Also applicable, but less well known.
The point isn't to correctly spread the blame for bad behavior around equally, it was to explain why Americans have thin skin regarding race issues. The South is a valid example of this,and is the common example because it is so well known and recent. That may strike you as unfair, but fairness wasn't the point, communication was.
We are now far afield, and I'll stop arguing the point after this, but the topic is about Mexico, which then led to a discussion about "political correctness", and then the post in question which tried to say the reason Americans have issues with race are...only southern examples specifically cast against Western states.
Those same Western states have issues with racism; they would be just as effective to cite.