description would be reddish states, blueish states and/or purplish states.
Aside from that comes the matter of who you hurt by arbitrarily drawing geographic lines of good versus bad.
Knowing two dynamics for "every force there is a counter force" and "united we stand divided we fall" might aid you in this endeavor.
Who do you hurt?
1. Moderate or even liberal non-racist whites in the South that nonetheless identify with their region as being home, by arbitrarily trashing their region or state, you instantly create a subtle if not overt form of counter animosity for you have in one simple minded stroke effectively trashed them, their family and friends as well.
2. To some degree this goes for African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics and Latinos living in the South as well, not only have you written off their home but by creating geographic division you have made the task of political unison in their states all the more difficult.
3. Southern Democrats in general by making their election chances more of an uphill battle.
Now the question is who have you helped with your actions.
1. Conservative and to some degree racist Southerners who become more empowered to play off your regionalistic bigotry.
2. Republicans in the South by fostering regionalism you make their of job of running on division all the easier.
3. Republicans in the North beholding to the less than 1% of the income strata, by using division to help foster a "Solid South" dedicated to electing Republicans to Congress and thereby increasing the chances of a Republican Majority, you increase their power as well.
No region or state has a monopoly on racism or bigotry but some do face a greater challenge than others in overcoming these base instincts, regionalism used as a divider only serves to make enlightenment all the more difficult.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
