No surprise that this attitude is most prevalent in the area of America which historically had the worst problems with racism; and it's equally unsurprising that the South continues to wane as a political force in American politics, given their failure to adjust to the changing face of our country.
I wish you would think before you peddle horseshit like this. One of the earliest, and worst, riots in the history of the United States was the anti-conscription riot in New York, commonly known as the draft riot, and which took place over several days in 1863. The human targets of the rioters were blacks, who were beaten severely, or beaten to death in the streets--and several of them lynched. Race riots were common in Cincinnati, Ohio in the post-war years, being the largest city in the "border" area, where freed slaves came looking for work. The Urban League was formed in 1909, after a prominent and notorious lynching--in Springfield, Illinois.
Certainly racism was institutionalized in the South, and small wonder. It is nonsense, however to say that the South had the worst problems with racism. When blacks rioted in the 1960s, the cities they burnt were Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Newark, Baltimore and New York. Certainly there were riots in the South, but to attempt to suggest that somehow racism was worse, or more prevalent, in the South is a failure to read and understand our recent history objectively.
By the way, far from being marginalized, the "New South" elected Ronald Reagan, in an historic change of political allegiance. In 2000, Bush took Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Virginia--and he even took Tennessee, although that is the home state of his opponent.
If the South is waning as a political force in our nation, it's a pretty damned recent event.