4 ms·

> Deep South (18 years - born + raised) If I may ask, where, more specifically? I grew up in southern California, and my wife grew up in Columbus, Georgia. W

> Deep South (18 years - born + raised) If I may ask, where, more specifically? I grew up in southern California, and my wife grew up in Columbus, Georgia. We met in the midwest and lived there 15 or so years, and so visited Columbus frequently. For the last 4 months of her dad's life, we lived in Columbus. We've lived in the SF Bay Area for the past 8 years. > [SF Bay Area ...] most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I think I know what you're getting at, and I don't necessarily disagree out of hand. I will say that there is an enormous difference in day to day racial tension in west Georgia compared to the SF Bay Area. In Columbus, from McDonalds to hospitals, there was barely submerged but obvious tension between blacks and whites. I don't mean this to be a counter to what you're saying, I think it's a different thing.

creaghpatr 9y ago
>I will say that there is an enormous difference in day to day racial tension in west Georgia compared to the SF Bay Area. In Columbus, from McDonalds to hospitals, there was barely submerged but obvious tension between blacks and whites. Probably because Columbus GA is 45% black and San Francisco is only 6.4% black. Hard to have black/white tension when one of those groups comprises such a small percent of total population.
- kbenson 9y ago
  But San Francisco is also 33.3% Asian and over 15% Hispanic. The white to non-white percentages are very close between both locations. And while the story of Asian Americans in SF is not the same as Black Americans in the South, it was hardly a picnic for them (for one example, Angel island).
alehul 9y ago
That's an interesting point. As someone who grew up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood of Boston, I'm also familiar with tension, and I remember it being far more racially-defined within the poor communities than elsewhere. Upon moving to nicer areas, however, the tension felt more like rich vs poor, with race (very sadly) often signaling to someone's level of wealth. They also seemed less tension-prone overall, in comparison to the poorer communities. What I mean to say is that: 1. Tension between races seemed to primarily exist at the poorer levels, and that at the wealthier levels, the tension between classes very much overrode any tension between races. 2. Wealthy communities just seem to be more educated and accepting, as they see the better [1] individuals of all races of people. I haven't spent too much time in the Bay Area, but would you possibly say that: 1. The wealth inequality in the Bay Area creates enough of a class divide to where the racial divide isn't noticeable? 2. Alternatively, does the racial diversity in the wealthy of the Bay Area remove stigmas that result in racism altogether? I'd be interested in your thoughts! I'm not aiming to counter either, but just curious. [1] By 'better,' I don't mean to pass judgment on any people; just that people in worse conditions in life will often be forced or incentivized into worse actions. For example, a child's friend is far less likely to steal their toy or game in a wealthier community than poorer. It's not evil, it's just worse conditions resulting in worse actions.

creaghpatr 9y ago

>I will say that there is an enormous difference in day to day racial tension in west Georgia compared to the SF Bay Area. In Columbus, from McDonalds to hospitals, there was barely submerged but obvious tension between blacks and whites. Probably because Columbus GA is 45% black and San Francisco is only 6.4% black. Hard to have black/white tension when one of those groups comprises such a small percent of total population.

kbenson 9y ago
But San Francisco is also 33.3% Asian and over 15% Hispanic. The white to non-white percentages are very close between both locations. And while the story of Asian Americans in SF is not the same as Black Americans in the South, it was hardly a picnic for them (for one example, Angel island).

alehul 9y ago

That's an interesting point. As someone who grew up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood of Boston, I'm also familiar with tension, and I remember it being far more racially-defined within the poor communities than elsewhere. Upon moving to nicer areas, however, the tension felt more like rich vs poor, with race (very sadly) often signaling to someone's level of wealth. They also seemed less tension-prone overall, in comparison to the poorer communities. What I mean to say is that: 1. Tension between races seemed to primarily exist at the poorer levels, and that at the wealthier levels, the tension between classes very much overrode any tension between races. 2. Wealthy communities just seem to be more educated and accepting, as they see the better [1] individuals of all races of people. I haven't spent too much time in the Bay Area, but would you possibly say that: 1. The wealth inequality in the Bay Area creates enough of a class divide to where the racial divide isn't noticeable? 2. Alternatively, does the racial diversity in the wealthy of the Bay Area remove stigmas that result in racism altogether? I'd be interested in your thoughts! I'm not aiming to counter either, but just curious. [1] By 'better,' I don't mean to pass judgment on any people; just that people in worse conditions in life will often be forced or incentivized into worse actions. For example, a child's friend is far less likely to steal their toy or game in a wealthier community than poorer. It's not evil, it's just worse conditions resulting in worse actions.