And having grown up in a 95%+ white area and moved to SF, it's been my personal experience that it's very easy to have sweeping assumptions about groups you haven't met any members of (which is a class segregation of housing and schooling can lead to future problems).
To take this a step further, I think such biases even hold to a lesser extent within races (based on accents, dress, hobbies) that perpetuates the class system and ultimately the 1% issue.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/...
> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in its decision last week, held that the North Carolina state legislature acted to entrench itself and “it did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.”
> The court called this strategy what it is: racist. The panel wrote that “using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics.”
> In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Absentee ballots, disproportionately used by white voters, were exempted from the voter ID requirement. The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”
I welcome any other sources you might have showing that this is factually incorrect.
Gotcha.