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 m

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.