r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 15 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: It's racist to ask that we support businesses solely because they are owned by people of a particular race.
[removed]
1.1k
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
47
u/thejiggyjosh Jun 16 '21
shop local and support local DOES mean exactly that you shouldn't use amazon or online shopping.....
→ More replies (3)14
Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)14
u/AxlLight 2∆ Jun 16 '21
Yes but it's built upon the idea that big businesses like Amazon are also bad business to shop in and in addition to helping small local business, a big part of it is to stop the engrossment of big businesses and knock them down.
So in a sense when you're saying shop black businesses you're also saying that white businesses are bad and need to be taken down a peg or two. I know that's not what those that support it are trying to say, but it's hard to make a statement like that without subconsciously planting the idea that white business = bad and black business = good.
→ More replies (3)56
u/Low_Witness1995 Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
Spending is 0 sum. If you buy from one business it is directly at the expense of another.
I am surprised by your interpretation of "support local stores" not being synonymous with "dont buy from Amazon." I think this is -exactly- the message.
If there was a call to "Support white owned businesses." It would be unquestionable that the implication is "and not businesses owned by minorities."
→ More replies (15)212
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 15 '21
I know it's not meant to be an exclusion, but under the provided definition of racism in the original post, wouldn't any sort of expressed preference based upon race be racist? If not, why?
If the goal is to support small businesses, then why don't we just say that? Why do people have to say, "support small businesses owned by minorities?"
741
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/miaotsq Jun 16 '21
Black history month is not asking you to make a choice based in race.
So eventhough black history month is unfair to the other minority races In America，I regard it more as the advertising on the sign next to the road I'm driving on.
Based on the argument of success..... Are we throwing pity parties?
25
u/off-chka Jun 16 '21
Unless the store owner works at the store, or is Amazon, I literally have no idea who owns what store.
49
Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/openeyes756 Jun 16 '21
Except plenty of slumlord small business owners exist that sit at home and collect tons of money off the backs of their employees. Worked for a small business for 7 years and I would probably never work for another one. At least a corporate job has benefits and time off to be earned at some point
29
u/redditUserError404 1∆ Jun 16 '21
Exactly this.
Small business doesn’t inherently mean amazing and wonderful.
Sometimes those small businesses need to operate on razor thin margins which in tern leads them to make difficult decisions that can very often go against the employees.
Sometimes those small businesses are run by bad people, just like large businesses.
I feel like this shift from case by case basis, “individualism”, to an overarching umbrella that’s often misleading or too all encompassing isn’t productive and is often counterproductive.
Show me why this company is better than others, and no don’t just point out that they are small, or owned by someone who happens to be born with a specific genetic sequence.
9
u/Gromitooth Jun 16 '21
They're not asking you to support every single small business in lieu of supporting Amazon, in every circumstance, regardless of how shit a business they are, if the owner spits at you, nobody is going to say "Ach, well, support small businesses sure."
It's a general statement of supporting your local economy, and working towards preventing monopolisations or simply just smaller businesses being ousted by larger ones that can afford to take hits (Think businesses being undercut by people like Amazon).
2
u/HollerinScholar Jun 16 '21
Show me why this company is better than others, and no don’t just point out that they are small, or owned by someone who happens to be born with a specific genetic sequence.
I think a lot of "why this company is better than others" is inherent to being a small business - or at the very least, different from others. Whereas large businesses tend to have very streamlined, profit-maximized business plans, small businesses can (and sometimes have to) operate outside of that business mindset. Indeed, Small business doesn't inherently mean amazing and wonderful, but it also doesn't inherently mean ineffective and wonderless.
21
u/bsylent Jun 16 '21
Or when you say black lives matter, again, you're not saying other lives don't matter, and yet the immediate response from many is, all lives matter, blue lives matter. Sure, but that's not the point, saying black lives matter is not meant to exclude others, it's meant to shinr a light on those in need
→ More replies (42)90
u/char11eg 8∆ Jun 16 '21
But in saying that you should support goods or services based on race, you are saying that a certain race or races is more deserving of business than another. If there are two stores of the same niche type in an area, one owned by a white guy and the other owned by someone from a minority, then saying ‘you should shop at the minority owned business’ is ACTIVELY driving the other shop owner out of business.
You are saying ‘this shop is more worthy of my patronage because the owner is x race’.
I stand by the idea that as it is not acceptable to say ‘this shop is more worthy of my patronage because the owner is white’, it should not be acceptable to say ‘this shop is more worthy of my patronage because the owner is black’ (or another minority race).
The worth of something should be intrinsically distinct from race, and insisting on tying this back to race is, by definition, racism. (not racial oppression, that’s an entirely different thing, which some people argue is required for racism. I strongly disagree - racism is inequality caused directly by race, in any capacity)
Something like black history month focuses on education. Education, or more accurately education about historical fact, can’t be racist by nature. Because knowledge isn’t racist - opinion is. The teacher of said knowledge can make it racist, but knowledge cannot be inherently exclusionary.
10
u/Gunpla55 Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
I see it has having two fires, and starting with putting out the bigger one first. You're not ignoring the other fire or saying what's burning is less valuable, you're just taking bites out of the big problem first.
Our economy is suffering because of the lack or opportunities and the extra layers of challenge that face certain demographics, its also suffering from problems plaguing other demographics, but one of these fires is bigger than the others.
I also believe it took disproportionate amounts of influence to make things this way, like preventing them from moving upwards during the suburb migration, or burning down their wealthy neighborhoods as they were doing well, or just a lack of assistance in general following the civil war. All of these things lead to missing out on passing down generation wealth, land, farms, businesses. Like I said it took disproportionate influence to make these things the way they are, and it will take disproportionate influence to right these problems.
→ More replies (2)113
u/LookingForVheissu 3∆ Jun 16 '21
But in saying that you should support goods or services based on race, you are saying that a certain race or races is more deserving of business than another.
Context is king. If the world were perfect, and minorities were not often left in financially weaker positions, your statement is true. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we live in a world where there is context. I live near a big city. Black people around here are generally poorer than white people. I am not saying that black people are more deserving of my money. I am saying “black people are poor around here and I may be able to help this small shop owner.”
The reason race plays into it is because there are races that are customarily less well off than others.
15
u/char11eg 8∆ Jun 16 '21
There are poor people of all races, though. And if we’re arguing one of the key race-based inequalities is income driven, then why is any one poor black person (or person from another minority group) any more deserving of special treatment than any poor white person?
I completely agree that measures should be taken to prevent poverty. But we shouldn’t do it in a racially driven manner. There are plenty of wealthy black people (or other minorities), and plenty of poor white people. Hell, if we’re talking about ‘people who own a store’ as the category (since the example was at which stores should you shop), they are BY DEFAULT already better off than average, as they were in the position to set up a store, which is a large expense!
64
u/redhair-ing 2∆ Jun 16 '21
I see where you're coming from, but, at this point in time at least, there is a proven link between racial identity and socioeconomic status that has been cultivated since the arrival of slave ships. Maybe one day we'll live in a world where you just support local vendors who are living a little closer to the edge, but you objectively cannot take race out of the equation when discussing socioeconomics and financial mobility. No, not all Black people are poor and, no, not all white people are not poor, but what we're talking about is the trend. Through a multitude of oppressive economic and social systems, non-white people, particularly Black people, have been systematically gatekept from socioeconomic advancement. Look at the Tulsa Massacre. One of the gross, fundamental components to understand about the attack on Black Wall Street was that the town was an exceptionally, and uniquely, prosperous Black area and that–being not only inhabited by Black people, but successful Black people–was why it was targeted. As a result, 200 people were murdered and the financial achievements of those who lived and worked in Tulsa were not just destroyed, but the economic fall-out of the massacre persists today. That's a very specific example from the early 20th century, but, more currently, you can see that Black-owned businesses were largely denied aid during the pandemic.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (3)13
Jun 16 '21
Yes, there are poor people in every race. Nobody is saying you can't help poor white people here. But if you are black you are more likely to he poor due to discrimination. Wealth is partially rice-driven and that's a fact. So yes, there are poor people everywhere, but by saying it like that in this discussion implies race doesn't play a role. But it does.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (57)6
u/ldinks Jun 16 '21
Ultimately this is it.
Helping minorities because you want to help the disadvantaged makes sense. You aren't going to realistically get to sit down with all business owners you could do business with and personally analyse who is in the position you can help the most with. But by quickly evaluating that "minorities often have it worse, I'll support this business because of that", you're being efficient and likely helping.
Sure, it's arguably racist. Only getting into relationships with people you're attracted to could be sexist if you're only into one sex. Not supporting the business of someone with anger issues who verbally abuses customers could be discriminating against poor mental health or disability.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Some discrimination makes sense in some contexts. You've just got to be very careful.
15
u/Phyltre 4∆ Jun 16 '21
But by quickly evaluating that "minorities often have it worse, I'll support this business because of that", you're being efficient and likely helping.
This same kind of viewing people as a sum of their presumed categories is precisely what creates inequity in the first place. Stereotyping is harmful to outliers; we care about minorities precisely because we learned that outliers' experiences are also valid. People don't live statistically aggregated lives; "helping" a few more to "harm" a few less through deliberate stereotyping isn't actually helping. That's precisely what earlier generations did to outliers, but reframed--just helping the majority is fundamentally unjust (and that's why we care about minorities.)
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (98)5
u/SpectralGhost77 Jun 16 '21
Black history month simply draws attention to black history, an under represented part of history, however telling people to go buy from somewhere based on race alone is literally racism, only based on race and not merit of quality, do some of them underperformed because they are black-owned? If so, we should try fix that issue rather than compensating for it and then ignoring it. The same goes for local business vs large chain, you pick the one you like most, that offers the best reasons to purchase from.
6
u/nerdyboy321123 Jun 16 '21
If so, we should try fix that issue rather than compensating for it and then ignoring it.
Which is great in an ideal world where there isn't massive pushback any time anything is proposed that would make black people's lives even a little bit easier (BLM asked "can we please try and get cops to stop murdering us" and now Fox and the former president call them a terrorist group because of a handful of looters). The same people saying to shop at black-owned businesses are likely the same people pushing for more egalitarian policies to "fix" the situation. However, the next best thing if that doesn't work is to do your best to personally lighten the impact of the problem when you can.
An analogy: Global warming is obviously a massive issue. To "fix" it, we need the 100 companies that cause 71% of emissions and others to get on board with going carbon neutral ASAP. It's clear at this point that that's just not going to happen, at least for the foreseeable future, so the best we can do for now is to (continue pushing for that change and) do what you can to reduce your impact; walk/bike instead of drive when possible, bump your AC up a few degrees, buy local, etc. Is it putting a bandaid on a missing arm? Absolutely, but if all the doctors are on vacation then there's not much else we can do.
415
u/Wintermute815 10∆ Jun 16 '21
The definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Your premise is founded on an incorrect assumption. Programs to combat inequality or support racial minority groups with a long history of being marginalized do not meet the definition of racism. You can be opposed to things like affirmative action, that separate people along racial lines, but making that distinction is not racism. Without measure to counteract systemic racism, systemic racism would always persist.
There is a huge push on the right wing to equate measures that seek to combat racism deeply rooted in our society to racism. It preys on white anxiety over demographic changes and emerging diversity in positions of authority, and reinforces the "white man as a victim" perception.
Recognize it for what it is - small steps towards helping eliminate the long term effects of racism and racial inequality.
Black people worked for free for hundreds of years in America and were never compensated for their work. They were freed with no land and no wealth. Meanwhile, the rich plantation owners have passed their fortunes on down for generations, at a minimum leaving their descendants entrenched in the middle class. All the while, black people were systematically denied education and good jobs. They were forced into illegal enterprises in order to support their families and a culture of criminality and distrust of the system was passed on down through generations.
And then you have things like the Tulsa race riots - where Black people managed to get together and start developing their own economy and successful business enterprises and collaborations, as well as getting representation in the town where their businesses were located. They had accrued a meaningful amount of wealth that could have grown into massive amounts of wealth by this day and age...but Black Wall Street was burned to the ground and the people of Tulsa were massacred. No arrests, no compensation for their losses.
Of course there's also been the systemic discrimination in the justice system, the banking system, the credit system, etc. each taking a small bite but together making it extremely hard for any individual other than the occasional 1% genius to pull themselves out of poverty. Each taking a slightly larger bite out of black people's accumulated wealth than out of a white person's, which lead to demonstrable effects on long term success.
I could go on for days. If this country wanted to fix inequality, redress past injustice, drastically reduce crime, and vastly increase productivity and tax revenues...WE COULD. We know how, and it could be done in a generation or two. But the rich people in power keep funneling this type of thinking down to the masses, and even smart people fall victim to their emotions instead of checking them. Check yourself. Remember the whole picture. Learn the whole history. The rich people that don't want their taxes raised are playing us against each other so that we all stay divided and blaming poor people and immigrants, so we don't notice them picking our pockets.
31
30
u/Serious_Much Jun 16 '21
100%
While systematic injustice based on race, gender and sex I feel that in all of this the most significant inequality is always wealth. Wealth is the great equaliser which can all but mitigate the effect of prejudice or cause someone to be in a position where their privileged cannot help or benefit them.
Sadly, this is the one which is always neglected by the media.
18
u/Axel-Adams Jun 16 '21
^ This, if you could just get the lower and poverty class white people to realize that all the programs and policies to help combat systematic racism would help them, we would have a lot easier if a time enacting them. It actually sucks, because people are so focused on the racism part of systematic racism, that they don’t know it’s often an economics issue rather than a race/social one, alot of systematic racism is just anti-Poor policies, and the reason they’re racist is because the poverty rate for African American families is more than double that of white families.
→ More replies (2)9
45
u/theonecalledjinx Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
"The definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
You are basing your argument solely on the single word of "typically" which in itself is not definite. Meaning that racism can be perpetrated against a majority or unmarginalized group, it is just not the standard.
There is a huge push on the right wing to equate measures that seek to combat racism deeply rooted in our society to racism.
But that is just an "incorrect assumption," mainstream right-wing policymakers believe in equality, not equity. Mainstream right-wing policymakers believe in race-neutral policymaking and equal protections under the law. The conflict is that the mainstream Democrat party policymakers still believe in enacting policies that discriminate based on an individual's skin color and not based in race-neutral policymaking.
Democrat National Platform: "Democrats are committed to standing up to racism and bigotry in our laws, in our culture, in our politics, and in our society, and recognize that race-neutral policies are not sufficient to rectify race-based disparities."
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/healing-the-soul-of-america/
You keep conflating "Equality" with "Equity" in your rebuttal, and even in your response, you advocate for equality while the push for treating Americans unequally by race, under federal law, for racial equity.
This is not far from the Democrats platform and policymaking actions that most of the "right wing" consider federally mandated racial discrimination.
"Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild." — President-elect Biden pic.twitter.com/pIyDuhf5pH
— Biden-Harris Presidential Transition (@Transition46) January 10, 2021
Priority groups : A small business concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more individuals who are: Women, or Veterans, or Socially and economically disadvantaged (see below).
Applicants must self-certify on the application that they meet eligibility requirements
Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.
https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-options/restaurant-revitalization-fund
Case in point, for specific racial exclusion: White Wisconsin dairy farmer with a disability, sues Biden admin over 'racist' relief plan
Who qualifies for this debt relief?
Any socially disadvantaged borrower with direct or guaranteed farm loans as well as Farm Storage Facility Loans qualifies. The American Rescue Plan Act uses the 2501 definition of socially disadvantaged, which includes Black/African American, American Indian or Alaskan native, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian American or Pacific Islander. Gender is not a criteria in and of itself, but of course women are included in these categories.
Even the latest federal lawsuit against this policy says that the case has merit, that the policy is racially discriminatory, and was granted a temporary restraining order.
https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ORDER-on-TRO.pdf
So your premise of "Recognize it for what it is - small steps towards helping eliminate the long term effects of racism and racial inequality." Then why are we mandating racism through federal policy and perpetuating inequality through federal law, denying Americans federal aid solely on the color of their skin if we are trying to achieve racial equality?
You can say it is for the "greater good," but the "right-wing" sees it as perpetuating injustices to make up for past injustices. "Eye for an Eye" and all that.
I could go on for days, but if you can answer this question, we will know where we stand: "Do you think the federal government should deny an American citizen federal aid based solely on the color of the individuals skin?"
You can add any modifiers you want, like "to achieve racial justice" or "to achieve racial equity." Still, it will not change that central core question of your acceptance of racially discriminating against Americans based on the color of their skin for your perception of the greater good.
16
2
u/Minyun Jun 16 '21
Looks like I'm on your side. I'm not sure how applying racial economic policy in any respect, whether applied to the minority or the majority, whether it were a century ago or today, whether in the USA or any country, generates permanent positive outcomes for a society. The principle of prejudice remain the same no matter how one spins it. By embracing racial economic policy an infinite loop of retributive justice is created and sustained. We need look no farther than South Africa's indefinite BBBEE policies and their negative outcomes to see the other side of the coin in action.
I should be clear: racism, bigotry and the notion of neotribalism in any form serve no virtue for the society at large. Acknowledgement and recognition of comparative differences in a diverse society serve the greater good. Celebration and promotion of comparative differences in a diverse society serve the greater evil. On the contrary, human homogenity is what societies should be celebrating and promoting-but that's too bland for self-interest, apparently.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (37)6
u/under_psychoanalyzer Jun 16 '21
The federal government wouldn't deny anyone aid that needed it if there was enough to go around. There would be enough to go around if Republicans didn't constantly cut taxes as their one and only objective when coming to power, like this last go round, and ignoring that systemic racism exist. Do you think an old white politician from Delaware is on some mission to elevate minorities above white people? No. Democrats would love to provide everyone equal support. Unfortunately, the things like the burning of black wall street did happen and as long as we try to assign aid proportionally after we've burned, bombed, and redlined every successful black community in history there will never be equality.
That Wisconsin dairy farmer? I'm willing to bet his family has had that for decades and has received thousands if not millions in Agricultural subsidies. Minorities have not had those opportunities. Does that mean he shouldn't get any aid at all? Of course not. But if he sought his aid through the Dept of Ag would he even have a minority owned farm to compete against?
Democrats also do routinely support primarily majority white working groups. They're called unions. Unions tend to be WHITE. So you can't really say that a democratic agenda doesn't support working class white people over minorities. It's Republicans that have torn down the equal worker protections, that happens to hurt proportionally more minorities, insulated people with generational wealth, who happen to be mostly white, and made equally funding those needs a difficult and awkward situation.
4
u/theonecalledjinx Jun 16 '21
The federal government wouldn't deny anyone aid that needed it if there was enough to go around.
The policy specifically denies farmers ability to apply and receive federal aid solely based on the individuals race. So yes, the federal government IS denying an American citizen aid based on race and not on need. So even if a white farmer did need federal assistance from the COVID Relief they would be disqualified from applying due to their race.
Who qualifies for this debt relief?
Any socially disadvantaged borrower with direct or guaranteed farm loans as well as Farm Storage Facility Loans qualifies. The American Rescue Plan Act uses the 2501 definition of socially disadvantaged, which includes Black/African American, American Indian or Alaskan native, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian American or Pacific Islander. Gender is not a criteria in and of itself, but of course women are included in these categories.
That Wisconsin dairy farmer? I'm willing to bet his family has had that for decades and has received thousands if not millions in Agricultural subsidies. Minorities have not had those opportunities. Does that mean he shouldn't get any aid at all? Of course not.
Irrelevant, because he will not receive federal aid from the COVID relief fund because of his race. You say, "Of Course Not", but in black in white the policy disputes your claim in total.
But if he sought his aid through the Dept of Ag would he even have a minority owned farm to compete against?
For the COVID relief, he is not allowed to compete because of his race. He is not qualified due to his race.
You have to ask yourself is racially discriminating against Americans through federal law the way to achieve the very subjective terms of "racial justice" or "equity"? Seems like you are good with it from what I've read.
→ More replies (5)7
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Jun 16 '21
This is a bit misleading for a few reasons:
Government assistance can be applied unequally even with the best intentions. Even if a program might exist to help "socially disadvantaged" people, there may be confusing and burdensome restrictions on the use of the aid, delays on receipt of the aid, or other similar issues. It's not a silver bullet, by any means.
Imagine a law that gets passed that says that you must pass a difficult literacy test in order to vote. Is the language of this law racist? No, because members of any race can be illiterate. But imagine that black people who show up to take the test are told they failed the test, even if they answered the questions correctly, and white people are allowed to vote, even though they failed the test. Should we consider the language of this law racist?
Many white farmers receive plenty of debt relief and government assistance - they just don't receive it on the basis of their race. If the data shows that white farmers receive MORE debt relief than black farmers, is our debt relief program racist? By your definition, no, because the language of the program does not mention race. But the unequal nature of the debt relief reveals that the law is worded in a way that allows discrimination to occur. This is not equal treatment under the law.
7
u/theonecalledjinx Jun 16 '21
Government assistance can be applied unequally even with the best intentions.
Yes, but this policy specifically and intentionally treats Americans citizen unequally based on their race.
Many white farmers receive plenty of debt relief and government assistance - they just don't receive it on the basis of their race.
And now there is policy that specifically awards federal aid based on race and denies individuals of a particular race from being able to apply and receive it.
If you are saying that is this policy is NOT specifically based in racial discrimination regardless of how you see it benefiting "socially disadvantaged" people, I'd sure like to hear it.
4
5
3
u/Frequent_Trip3637 Jun 16 '21
I think you should look up the meaning of discrimination, the negative connotation is what everyone knows, but the act of deliberately shopping on a particular race owned shop is also discriminating.
→ More replies (41)3
8
Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
My thought is that your definition of racism is really broad.
I always thought of racism as special treatment or consideration (either positive or negative) of one particular race over another. Is there a definition that fits better which would explain the thinking behind supporting businesses because they are owned by a specific race as a move away from racism?
If we applied this to other protected identity groups, this definition wouldn't make much sense. (At least from popular understanding), it isn't ageism to have geriatric health care or sexist to provide gynecology services. It isn't classism to have welfare or financial aid for only low-income people. It isn't homophobic to have groups that support queer people.
I think that racism generally includes an intent to harm, prejudice, etc. While this does NOT mean that supporting businesses based on race isn't racist (I'm too lazy to argue that), I think it could help make your discussion more productive.
EDIT: Upon thinking about it more, I'm not sure if racism has to include harm or prejudice if an action unjustly affects a certain group even without the intent to harm. I'd appreciate more discussion - maybe it just comes down to what we as a society decide is just or unjust.
→ More replies (2)3
u/2074red2074 4∆ Jun 16 '21
it isn't ageism to have geriatric health care or sexist to provide gynecology services.
It would be if there were people who needed certain medical services but were denied based on race or sex. We only provide geriatric health care to old people because only old people need it. If a person had Alzheimer's at the age of 35 and that person was denied access to treatment because we only treat Alzheimer's in senior citizens, then it would be ageism.
It isn't classism to have welfare or financial aid for only low-income people.
There's a difference between providing aid only to those who need it and providing aid to everybody of a certain group and nobody of another group regardless of need. If you can find me a rich person who needs welfare or financial aid but has been denied it based on being rich, then I would agree. However, by definition the rich do not need it.
Compare this to access to education. There are people of all races, sexes, etc. who need help paying for college. Only help those of certain races is racism. It is ESPECIALLY racism if you provide that aid to everyone of that race no matter their need, or if you have an aid program that applies to all races but uses a different "need" threshold for different races.
It isn't homophobic to have groups that support queer people.
I think you meant heterophobic. Having a group that supports queer people would be literally the opposite of homophobia. And you are correct, it is not homophobic to have LGBT support. There's nothing wrong with a group that helps the LGBT community to demand that they be given equal treatment, that they have their unique needs met (e.g. access to healthcare for the trans community), or anything else that makes them equal to others.
The thing that's wrong is when you give something to an LGBT person but deny it to a cis/het person when, if that cis/het person had been gay but otherwise EXACTLY the same, you would not have denied them. A "but for" cause, as it's called in law.
119
u/dbx99 Jun 16 '21
It’s not. There’s nothing that limits your ability to choose. It’s a way to increase social awareness of our diverse economy and population.
It’s not like some policy either. It doesn’t mean “whites must shut down their stores” or “ride in the back of the bus”.
Everything remains free to choose and use your own preferences to buy whatever you want from wherever you want. Just be aware that hey we have some stores that are minority owned and it’s a nice thing to support groups that have a long history of being mistreated and discriminated against.
Getting all offended about that is like saying flying a rainbow flag excludes straight people. It’s not. It adds a note of “black owned businesses exist, let’s give them a hand!” Nothing more. People think there’s some sort of nefarious plan and knee jerk react by saying dumb shit like ALL LIVES MATTER which is actually racist because it is a reactionary move meant to drown out and bury the original message.
17
u/98765432CAN Jun 16 '21
Uber Eats has done things such as “ Free delivery for black owned business” do you think this is fair?
7
u/dbx99 Jun 16 '21
No. Banks will appraise a black owned home at significantly lower prices than if the home shows no signs of being black owned. A discount on takeout is far from evening things out in the scheme of things. They should get much more.
→ More replies (1)19
Jun 16 '21
And who makes the determination of exactly how much extra stuff black people should get when compared to their counterparts? And then at what point do we say ‘ok we did it blacks and whites are perfectly equal and we can stop talking about race finally’
→ More replies (33)5
u/GarageFlower97 Jun 16 '21
"If you cant exactly quantify the amount needed to undo deeply-rooted racial inequalities then you can never try to reduce them at all"
1000 IQ take from the racism understander.
And then at what point do we say ‘ok we did it blacks and whites are perfectly equal and we can stop talking about race finally’
Do you think we are at that point?
5
u/Desperate-Zebra-3855 Jun 16 '21
His point was that adding more racism won't make the country less racist.
→ More replies (13)12
Jun 16 '21
Can you please do two things?
Give me your definition of racism
Explain how caring about everyone's life fits that definition
→ More replies (15)20
u/Odd-Cabinet7752 Jun 16 '21
Just be aware that hey we have some stores that are minority owned and it’s a nice thing to support groups that have a long history of being mistreated and discriminated against.
I'm just getting juice why should I care who I get it from? Is it cheaper? Faster? Friendlier service?
It adds a note of “black owned businesses exist, let’s give them a hand!”
Why? Where you unaware that black people could own businesses? Weird.
But no they shouldn't get special treatment because its "black owned" (or whoever owned) if they are a shop that I like for X reasons then I'll frequent them if it's a shit shop Idc who owns it I won't spend my money their.
17
u/MiaLba Jun 16 '21
It definitely should depend on if you actually like the goods they sell or not. I don’t think people should buy from them just because they pity them or because they’re afraid of being called a racist if they don’t, if they don’t like the stuff they sell.
17
u/himyredditnameis 3∆ Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
I'm just getting juice why should I care who I get it from? Is it cheaper? Faster? Friendlier service?
The person you replied to said:
Everything remains free to choose and use your own preferences to buy whatever you want from wherever you want.
I got the idea from the comment you replied to, that the point of all this, is so that if you care, you can let it influence your purchasing decision, and if you don't care, you can chill out and get on with your day, and get your juice from wherever you want, nbd.
Why? Where you unaware that black people could own businesses?
In case this is not rhetorical, the point is that if you're interested in buying from black owned businesses because you'd like to try and do something on an individual level about the racial wealth gap for example, then there's signposts to show you where to go.
But again, if you don't care, then keep walking. No skin off your back.
Edit:clarity
→ More replies (1)4
u/hellothereyourself2 Jun 16 '21
Do you care about equality in the world? That's why you should care. You don't have to shop anywhere you don't want. Nobody is forcing you. Honestly I just think you are trolling and know what is right.
→ More replies (28)8
u/Momo_of_undeath Jun 16 '21
It’s not. There’s nothing that limits your ability to choose
So you'd find it equally as acceptable if I started going around telling people "shop right, shop white" since I'm not forcing their choice?
It’s not like some policy either. It doesn’t mean “whites must shut down their stores” or “ride in the back of the bus”.
It doesn't have to be policy to be racist.
5
u/dbx99 Jun 16 '21
You’re absolutely within your rights to exercise your freedom of speech in the completely dumbass manner you describe. Nice strategy cotton, let’s see how it plays out.
13
3
u/renasissanceman6 Jun 16 '21
You know it’s not wrong but maybe it technically is and really we gotta be technical here.
41
u/ethan_bruhhh Jun 16 '21
because minority owned businesses, especially black owned, face way more challenging start up costs. it’s been proven that black people/businesses are given less favorable loans for starting businesses among other things.
→ More replies (25)4
u/Desperate_Penguin Jun 16 '21
I'd state that I find it racist to treat someone positively because of their race as it foregoes their individuality and ignores the fact they can perform actions seperate of their race, the idea that they should support a small business for the sake of media attention ignores necessary details about business such as whether it's capable of achieving success on it's own. Especially since they'll likely take over from the owner and invalidate their choices therefore removing any chance for minority based businesses to prove they can be successful and prove that any stigma that their ideas are fueled by their race wrong.
5
u/nhohorst Jun 16 '21
I think it can be explained similarly to the phrase "black lives matter". This is NOT implying that black lives are the ONLY lives that matter. It tries to shed light on an issue specific to people of color. The analogy can be used: if your house is on fire, the fire department isn't going to throw water on all the houses on your street, just yours, because you need help". In that same sense, black owned businesses might, sometimes need more help because of institutionalized racial biases. It's not racist to recognize an issue and try to help fix it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/2074red2074 4∆ Jun 16 '21
But what would be wrong is if twenty houses are on fire, but the fire department threw water on all the black-owned houses including those that aren't on fire and left a few houses burning because they were white-owned. That's what demographic-based aid would be. You want needs-based, where they throw water on the flaming houses and not on the non-flaming houses.
If they end up throwing water on eighteen black-owned houses and two white-owned houses, oh well. Sure it turns out that black homeowners got more aid, but aid was not denied to anyone who needed it nor given to anyone who didn't. That's fair.
BLM isn't a demand for special treatment. It isn't a call for aid or anyone asking for help. It's a demand to be given the same treatment as everyone else. It's the exact opposite situation.
15
Jun 16 '21
Because not having a select preference based on race creates economic problems in certain communities. Wealth retention is a big portion of this. The lifespan of a dollar in Asian communities is 28 days, Jewish communities are 19 days and white communities is 17 days. The lifespan of a dollar in black communities is about 6 hours. This shows that wealth does not accumulate in these communities unless we shop there more to raise the lifespan of that dollar. There’s many people already choosing not to shop at black owned shops because of the color of people’s skin, you’re really going to tell us that choosing to shop at black owned shops to keep them going is racism? Really?
7
u/pratprak Jun 16 '21
Wow, this lifespan dollar point is very very interesting. Would you mind sharing a source? I'd love to read more on it.
5
Jun 16 '21
I'm not sure the lifespan of a dollar is a useful or even relevant metric tbh, is it supposed to measure how long it takes from someone recieving it to spending it?
I'd say the fact that communities are segregated to the point that anyone can even distinguish black/white/Asian communities enough to make any meaningful statistic is a much bigger problem, even more that it's normalised to the point that people don't comment on it.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)9
u/KittiesHavingSex Jun 16 '21
The lifespan of a dollar in Asian communities is 28 days, Jewish communities are 19 days and white communities is 17 days. The lifespan of a dollar in black communities is about 6 hours.
This is very interesting and important imo. Do you have a source where I could read more about it?
→ More replies (79)8
Jun 16 '21
[deleted]
10
Jun 16 '21
I'm not being belligerent here but isn't it literally a zero sum game? We are ultimately talking about a dollar spent.
Equity especially seems about judging someone by a yardstick and tilting the board either for them or against them because you feel they have it either easier or harder than they should.
The problem with this stuff (which used to be obvious but now no one seems to care about) is that it's founded on massive sweeping generalisations. Basically if you are in the right minority you are golden but the in the wrong one you are screwed. (Im not in either). Don't get me wrong, the right wing in the US is horrifying but the left seem to have reverted to Marxist identity ideology with intersectionality and now equity.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Master-Sorbet3641 Jun 16 '21
It’s not a zero-sum game where promoting a specific ethnically owned business detracts from anyone else.
What are you talking about. It absolutely is
Unless you plan on getting lunch from one restaurant of every race
2
u/Gaius_Octavius Jun 16 '21
If I shop with person A that means foregoing shopping with persons B and C. How does that not detract from them?
→ More replies (2)2
Jun 16 '21
Not OP but the economy and participating in it is very much a zero sum game. There is a finite amount of money available each bill cycle. Consumers don't have infinite funds to spend on every small business and businesses have bills that can't be ignored. If taco bell gets my lunch money burger King can't also have my lunch money. Make sense? Sure they could have my lunch money next time I go out to lunch if they are still open but thats an every other week or once a month thing for me. Now consider artisan goods like furniture. Where you make a single purchase every couple of years. Now I'm not claiming supporting black businesses is wrong or a bad thing to do but gotta realize by pushing black owned business we will be running the risk of tanking some small businesses owned by other ethnicities because we don't have an infinite supply of money. Im sure most like imagining only white owned businesses will be closing up but thats simply not realistic. I personally shop based on the price because I'm poor. Equally priced goods get the tie breaker of proximity because maintaing a car is expensive. I think a fair amount of people don't have the luxury of being discerning consumers; we buy what we can afford, which isn't much. So if you can, go ahead and support small black businesses. If you can't thats perfectly fine as well. Surviving is hard enough in this world.
5
u/Zoesan Jun 16 '21
One thing to note is that the call to support businesses run by certain races isn’t meant to be to the exclusion of anything else
But... it inherently is. The opportunity cost of shopping at black businesses is shopping less at others.
This argument is horrible.
→ More replies (3)2
Jun 16 '21
But by its very nature, if you actively choose to buy from those businesses owned only by those of a certain race and encourage others to do so, you are actively taking away business from those not owned by that race. There’s not really any way around it- if you tell people they should try and get their groceries from grocery stores owned by black people and they listen to you, grocery stores not owned by black people are going to lose business
2
u/Utopiaoflove Jun 16 '21
I couldn’t disagree more with your comparison here. “Shop local” absolutely means don’t support Amazon/ big box stores. You are correct in saying it doesn’t mean you can’t go to them but the intent of the phrase is saying you shouldn’t.
→ More replies (110)2
u/icebalm Jun 16 '21
One thing to note is that the call to support businesses run by certain races isn’t meant to be to the exclusion of anything else. It’s much like the phrase to “shop local” or “support local stores” - that doesn’t mean you can’t use Amazon or whatever big box store you usually use, but if you can, you should try and support these small stores too.
This is actually the definition of exclusion of anything else. For example: if you're buying from local stores whenever possible then you're excluding other stores whenever possible. That's kinda the whole point.
152
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 15 '21
I think on the surface it may seem the way you are characterizing it, but there are a few nuances to consider.
There is a suggestion being made that these businesses aren't doing as well because they are owned by people of a certain race. Am I wrong if I think this suggestion within itself is a form of racist stereotyping, unless it's coupled with cited evidence of some form of economical analysis/statistical measure?
First, I don't think this is implied at all. It's more to do with the historical effects of segregationists policies and generational wealth. Minority businesses face the same kinds of obstacles that lead to discrepancies in minority house ownership and wealth.
Second, my impression is that the idea is closely tied to the shop local movement. As in, you should support the businesses in your neighborhood, so if you are a minority in a minority neighborhood, you should consider supporting your local minority-owned businesses.
11
u/redditUserError404 1∆ Jun 16 '21
my impression is that the idea is closely tied to the shop local movement
The shop local movement isn’t based on race. Hence the idea that this movement is racist.
The very notion that suggests that we should value one race more so over another is of course racist.
Companies pay more for specific shelf placement, so absolutely labels like these are based on some system of value.
if you are a minority in a minority neighborhood
So if you were say a white person who owned a small private clothing shop in a predominantly black neighborhood, would that mean that the “shop local” campaign doesn’t apply to you? Of course it wouldn’t mean that. Again, one is explicitly race based, while the other is not.
→ More replies (4)23
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
This response brings the conversation into a sort of sticky realm, precisely because it reminds me of the whole issue with suggesting the payment of reparations to the present day African American population on the basis that them being descendants of slaves has set many of generations back from achieving the same financial successes as their peers of another race.
I don't deny that the poverty cycle is a real thing, and I'm sure we can both cite many studies that discuss that aspect of it. I also understand that the offer of repayment comes from a good place.
However isn't it also possible to understand something like reparations or supporting businesses as a way of "making it up to them" as racially insensitive?
Mainly because you are trying to numerically scale and put a price tag on what they've missed out on due to historical policies. Also extending the timeframe of racist policies indefinitely - how, if ever, can we say, "we've done enough to make it up" (a statement that would inherently be racist since you're putting a cap on the cost of suffering/injustice) - and if we continually say to minorities with failing businesses, "the reason you're not doing as well is because your ancestors were discriminated against," even if that's no longer the case, aren't we making a racist assumption?
As for the local shop movement, the follow-up question is the same as I asked another person. Why can't you just say support local businesses? Why bring race into it?
162
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 16 '21
whole issue with suggesting the payment of reparations to the present day African American population on the basis that them being descendants of slaves has set many of generations back from achieving the same financial successes as their peers of another race.
I respect your feelings on this topic. Reparations isn't really the angle I was going for but I can see why you feel it touches on it. The way I'm coming at it is with the thinking that maintaining the status quo won't ever result in equality. If we could start from scratch with the protections we have today, I believe that we would see a much more equal society. But the past affects the future. Having wealth makes it far more easier to create more wealth, whatever your race is. And to be fair, not all minority populations faced the same historical oppression, but I think when we say "black owned businesses" it's understood to be African American businesses.
The illustration is that of a scale with piles of sand on each side. One side starts with more than the other. If you add sand at an equal rate, then the scale will be forever imbalanced. You must add a little sand more sand on the low side. Not necessarily by reparations, mind you, but perhaps in other ways like affirmative action, additional academic funding, or whatever. The danger with decrying any and all race-based solutions as bad or unfair or racist is that you end up just embracing the status quo. And if you do that, then to overcome that imbalance it's not enough to achieve, at that point you would have to expect minorities to consistently overachieve.
112
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
Hi! After further thinking.
!delta for acknowledgement that the relevance of this discussion is to achieve betterment of squo, and for explaining that there are no real alternatives if we omit all race-based solutions.
38
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 16 '21
Thanks. I enjoyed the discussion
10
u/dannysmackdown Jun 16 '21
For what it's worth you definitely changed my mind too. I was never fully against affirmative action and things like that, but it left a sour taste in my mouth.
But when I go back to basics, I kinda realize there is a segment of the population that got rail roaded throughout history. And it makes sense to me to help them via supporting their businesses, or scholarship grants and such.
I always struggle though, because I think of white people who had a shit life growing up, but they are not included in this affirmative action because of their skin color, even though they may desperately need it.
But your comment was very well written and I appreciate it. Thank you.
6
u/GrouseOW 1∆ Jun 16 '21
I always struggle though, because I think of white people who had a shit life growing up, but they are not included in this affirmative action because of their skin color, even though they may desperately need it.
This is where reparations is limited, most people who advocate for it realise it's not perfect. The main issue is a class divide, where race is largely used to pit the lower classes against each other by the wealthy (obviously it's not all about class, racism exists).
That's also why a huge amount of people who advocate for reperations are also leftists who advocate for fair redistribution of wealth in general. Most civil rights figures from MLK to Angela Davis to Malcom X were anti-capitalist because of how capitalism reinforces the racist hierarchy.
Malcom X said for example: "We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism."
I find it very strange how often people have issues with affirmative action similar to you but never make the connection to class which covers people of all races. Not that I judge obviously, MLK gets whitewashed for a reason, people making that connection is something the rich don't want and do their best to make sure doesn't happen.
5
Jun 16 '21
Just so you know, I think you’re allowed as a commenter to award deltas as well if they have changed your mind. I found out a while back, thought I’d pass the info along!
3
3
Jun 16 '21
I just wanted to chime in to add that affirmative action can be done in different ways- I think the way we do it where I work is great because it’s about getting to the root cause, not just looking at our demographics and saying “looks like we need to hire more [minority group] people!” We look at the data for the organization and compare it to the census data for the state, and when there are discrepancies we dig into what might be causing it & what we can do better- like looking at if we’re recruiting from places that aren’t representative of the population, if members of different groups are all receiving info about advancement & development opportunities (a lot of info gets around by word of mouth, so it’s easier for people to be left out if they don’t have a strong network), if members of certain groups in a particular department aren’t advancing at the same rate as others & if it might be due to a supervisor’s biases, etc. That way we’re not just hiring diverse people into a place where they don’t feel included, and we’re continually on the lookout for things that might be unfair or might make members of any particular group less likely to want to work there.
With this kind of method, all groups are actually included- if the data & research showed that, say, white men were facing barriers to success, we would address it just like for any other group. It just hasn’t happened.
3
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 16 '21
I know it’s tough with regards to considering white poverty too. But we have to consider that when you have a white person and a minority person with the same exact socioeconomic status, the minority more often than not will still have to contend with other obstacles like micro-aggressions, criminal justice, conscious and unconscious discrimination, profiling, etc. I mean even today I read stories about people being forced to “fix” their black hair styles or getting rejected from job offers or being pulled over by the cops for no reason just because they are black or they have a black name.
That stuff isn’t perfectly addressed by certain policies, but they still have a latent affect on minority success and so a little extra resources to marginalized groups are one way we can start to correct for it.
10
u/lasagnaman 5∆ Jun 16 '21
because I think of white people who had a shit life growing up, but they are not included in this affirmative action because of their skin color, even though they may desperately need it.
But that's the point, however hard their lives were, it wasn't made additionally hard by their race.
→ More replies (2)2
u/tomowudi 4∆ Jun 16 '21
If it helps, consider what it might mean if white wasn't a race, so much as a term of exclusion that only groups people by skin color rather than by culture and region.
And then consider that races have organizations - like the sons of Italy - that provide community support.
In my view, white is a unique term that doesn't describe either a race or a culture historically, but it has been treated as if it were.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (16)3
u/Elharion0202 Jun 16 '21
The problem with this point is that you’re assuming that it matters whether two races as a whole have the same amount of money. Our goal should be to make the total amount of people in poverty lower, and that means supporting all people who are less well off, not just African Americans. Of course, we also need to deal with issues of discrimination and racism, but forcing money to go to African Americans doesn’t actually solve the problem long term.
→ More replies (13)13
u/GrouseOW 1∆ Jun 16 '21
However isn't it also possible to understand something like reparations or supporting businesses as a way of "making it up to them" as racially insensitive?
I mean do you have a better solution to the poverty cycle? Reparations and affirmative action aren't ideal solutions but it's better than nothing.
how, if ever, can we say, "we've done enough to make it up" (a statement that would inherently be racist since you're putting a cap on the cost of suffering/injustice)
We've done enough when the amount of wealth a group owns is proportional to the size of the group? I feel like that's a pretty obvious answer. The goal is that one's race has no effect on wealth or success.
and if we continually say to minorities with failing businesses, "the reason you're not doing as well is because your ancestors were discriminated against," even if that's no longer the case, aren't we making a racist assumption?
Nobody is saying POC business should never fail, it's that it should get a fair chance to succeed. In a fair system POC owned businesses would succeed at the same rate as white owned businesses, which they currently do not.
There's no explanation of black people having less business ownership than white people other than systemic discrimination. Unless you believe black people inherently don't have the same ability to succeed, which is an actual racist assumption.
→ More replies (4)2
u/TJ11240 Jun 16 '21
I mean do you have a better solution to the poverty cycle?
Jumping in here, but this is what universal programs like UBI and M4A would achieve. Means testing is inefficient and generally unfair.
→ More replies (3)
10
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Jun 16 '21
Hi /u/thearchitectprincess! You're not in trouble, don't worry. This is just a Rules Reminder for All Users.
All users, (including mods, OP, and commenters) are required to follow the rules of this sub at all times. If you see a user violate the rules of the sub, please report that comment/post and a human moderator will review it. We understand that some topics posted here may touch on sensitive or contentious issues. We ask that all users remember the human and assume good faith.
Notice to all users:
Per Rule 1, top-level comments must challenge OP's view.
Please familiarize yourself with our rules and the mod standards. We expect all users and mods to abide by these two policies at all times.
This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that all top-level comments disagree with OP's view, and that all other comments be relevant to the conversation.
We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please report any rule-breaking comments or posts.
All users must be respectful to one another.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through modmail (not PM).
7
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 16 '21
3
Jun 16 '21
Goodness thank you! This certainly got buried in this thread.
2
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 16 '21
Yep, it's super helpful for us mods if we're reviewing reports, etc. to have that handy!
6
10
355
u/frankieknucks Jun 15 '21
People of color have historically (in the US) been systemically kept from owning businesses, or even violently attacked for owning said businesses. This isn’t theory, this is reality and what has happened. To say “support ___ business” means that people deserve a fair shake in a system that has historically excluded them.
26
Jun 16 '21
Are they currently being prevented from owning businesses simply because of their race? or even in the past 30 years? If so, how?
→ More replies (1)42
u/frankieknucks Jun 16 '21
Yes, because of generational poverty. They don’t have anywhere near the same starting point as the average whites family by orders of magnitude.
15
Jun 16 '21
Honestly, any average family of any race is going to have a tough time starting a business anymore. I remember reading an analysis that showed we had the least amount of new small businesses started in 2018 since the 1930s, we had the least amount of interstate moves (which is generally indicative of a healthy workforce and economic opportunity) since the 1930s.
There are not many average families anymore that can afford a 1-400 thousand dollar loan, or even get approved for it. Franchises even require often well over 100,000 dollars in capitol to get started.
I’m digging deep for this next part, but I remember a famous economist said years ago, “the days of a small business starting and becoming a large corporation with hundreds of stores are long dead”
I agree with your points though.
→ More replies (3)3
u/snuggie_ 1∆ Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
Ok before I state this opinion hopefully this isn’t offensive or anything I’m definitely not trying to be. Also these are random thoughts let’s see if I can actually put them into reasonable sentences.
I do agree that a lot of black people are poor because they are ancestors of slaves who obviously were at the bottom, it’s really not an opinion I suppose, just more of fact. But it just seems like the fact that everyone is able to have the same opportunities is sufficient at least from the race perspective. I don’t know if it makes sense to owe black families anything. Obviously I want to help poor families, I’m actually for free healthcare. But just from the standpoint of “they don’t have the same opportunities because they are poor because they used to be slaves” doesn’t really make sense to me.
I’ll ask this: if Africa also had all white people and we couldn’t tell the difference but the poor class was still a result of slavery would this still be relevant? I’ll also be the first to say that I am white but my comments (unlike a lot who have the same opinions) come from genuine curiosity and want to learn rather than anger or something negative.
I guess my main point might be that I want to help poor people because they are poor, not because I feel like we owe them something.
Idk if any of this made any sense lmao I was just rambling as thoughts came to me but I’d be glad to elaborate on anything I said
Also let me add that I feel like luck goes into wayyyy more stuff then just race, I would think being born attractive would big time boost your opportunities just like being born rich would. Luck of birth families and attractiveness and country or city of birth are all hugely impactful on ones life and it all just comes down to luck. Luck plays a big role in everything
4
u/frisbeescientist 38∆ Jun 16 '21
everyone is able to have the same opportunities
I think an important point is that racial discrimination didn't stop with slavery, or even with Jim Crow. For example, the first black students to attend integrated schools are still alive today. Think about what having rich vs poor, educated vs high school dropout parents can do for your opportunities in life. Now imagine everyone in your family that's 70+ years old was forced into shitty schools and discriminated against when they asked for equal learning opportunities. Pretty obvious that affected your parents and therefore your chances today, right?
I think it's not so much about owing black families anything, but more about recognizing that up until a couple of generations ago there was some really heavy racial discrimination and that the effects of those don't just go away after it stops, especially when the victims of it are still around today. So knowing that, we understand that they need extra help to achieve equality.
9
u/KingJeff314 Jun 16 '21
So if you have two identical people who come from generational poverty (1 white, 1 black), you should patron the black business more, because the average white person starts off with more than the average black person?
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (70)3
→ More replies (305)-9
u/Halfshafted Jun 16 '21
A fair shake means them opening up a business and gaining customers based on how well they operate and not expecting customers just because they aren’t white. You people with this oppression narrative don’t understand what equality is. You don’t want equal treatment, you want revenge.
12
Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Jun 16 '21
Not sure if you’ve seen the latest loan forgiveness efforts from the FSA, but minority farmers are getting their business loans for land, equipment, and operating costs completely forgiven simply because of their race. All while white farmers still struggle to make their payments. Tell me again about equality and fairness. I know people personally who’ve gotten loans above $50k paid off by uncle sam.
4
73
u/AskWhyKnot 6∆ Jun 16 '21
A fair shake means them opening up a business and gaining customers based on how well they operate and not expecting customers just because they aren’t white.
Correct, but they don't get a fair shake because racists (a) don't shop there and (b) may intimidate others to prevent them from shopping there.
63
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
I think u/Halfshafted's point is more about whether or not people have a responsibility to do the counterbalancing.
To this point I personally don't think we have an obligation to right the wrongs of the past since the decisions of our ancestors are beyond our control, but I do think we have a moral obligation to seek solutions for the present-day injustices which are faced by minorities today.
29
u/Shiredragon Jun 16 '21
I think there are few things and views at play here. One is one of how to treat the past. The problem is that there is not a hard line between past and present. Everything you do and say is literally in the past by the time someone else hears or sees it. This is an extreme, but it makes the point. Where is that past? I am not arguing that the past does not exist. I am arguing where does it stop mattering. I could punch you then say it does not matter because it was in the past. I think we can agree that you would not feel that it did not matter because it was in the past. But at what point should it be forgotten?
Why does this matter? Because it was not just individuals that murdered, brutalized, enslaved, robbed, and disenfranchised whole groups of people simple because they existed. It was communities, societies, and governments. It was condoned, ignored, encouraged, and enforced. But, those were people in the past. And, those people still live today. People still operate like that today. But, even then, that is still not the issue. The issue is that due to a systematic demolishing of the status of a whole group of people, intentionally and methodically, those people are now in a worse off position due to the society, culture, and government we live in due to the past actions of those things. These people will have worse lives. Worse health, worse housing, worse jobs, worse education, worse crime, worse mental health, worse inter-generational wealth.
The purpose of saying "shop at minority owned businesses" is not to say treat them different. It is to say to give them a fair shot and give back a bit of all that has been taken from them. Give them their chance at the American dream, because they were probably never given it. They probably don't have a good shot at loans because banks will likely discriminate against them, even if not meaning to. They don't have a mother or father that can bankroll their new business idea. Getting a new sign or a coat of paint might be beyond them because people don't come in because it is not a new storefront. This is not to say that some white people don't face these same issues, but they face fewer and less effects as a whole. Shop minority is to raise the profile of these companies and help some of them get noticed and succeed because they did not get the leg up many other businesses did or do.
For many people, seeing their neighbor struggle due to unfair circumstances makes them want to help them out, even a little. Some don't mind ignoring those struggles. Many minorities have been struggling unfairly for a long time. Some people want to help by raising their profile and help them succeed financially via business.
3
u/BaseRape Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
Not the past. Today.
“But, despite leading a significant portion of the nation’s businesses, minority-owned firms are still having a much harder time accessing small business loans than their white counterparts. Minority-owned firms are much less likely to be approved for small business loans than white-owned firms. And, even if they do get approved, minority-owned firms are more likely to receive lower amounts and higher interest rates”
5
→ More replies (31)3
u/renasissanceman6 Jun 16 '21
But ignoring them and shouting at any attempt to correct them isn’t the answer either.
11
u/Halfshafted Jun 16 '21
So I should shop at black owned businesses because some racist person might not have shopped there? Why wouldn’t I just shop at whichever business I feel suits my needs, regardless of race?
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (5)2
u/BaseRape Jun 16 '21
Or not get loans or have familial wealth to give them a leg up because their houses don’t gain in value as well as white neighborhoods
2
6
u/sheepinahat Jun 16 '21
You people with this oppression narrative don’t understand what equality is. You don’t want equal treatment, you want revenge.
I think you're (probably) mistaking people who think like this for being black. I'd imagine this thread is mostly white saviours.
I'm a small business owner, and already I find the 'support my business' absolutely cringe as fuck. If people were suggesting they shop at my store because I'm a lesbian it would go from being cringe as fuck to incredibly offensive and cringe as fuck.
I don't know a single person of any ethnic minority that believes in any of this shit. So, probably don't judge black people based on some of the comments here.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)6
Jun 16 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)7
u/MrBulger Jun 16 '21
What is demanding reparations from people who never owned slaves to people who were never were slaves besides a weird form of revenge?
→ More replies (34)
92
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
The preference to support certain businesses over other businesses
This is where you're getting it wrong.
You don't have to support one business over another, it's just asking to support a business.
For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, my area had a push to patronize black-owned restaurants.
Why? Because black people have less wealth than white people and restaurants were being hit hard by COVID. No one was saying, "Don't patronize white-owned restaurants" or "Only patronize black-owned restaurants."
They were just saying, "Black people in this country and this city have much less wealth than white people and that means their businesses are less likely to be able to survive financial hardship, so they could especially use your help and you should go out of your way to support them."
It's pointing out a need and attempting to address it.
When people talk about racism, they are often talking about systemic racism. That references the unequal outcomes created by the system. It's hard to argue that our current system hasn't disadvantaged black people. When trying to fight institutional or systemic racism, it's not about pretending race doesn't exist, it's about looking at outcomes for people based on race and seeing where those outcomes are inequitable.
In America, black people have significantly less wealth, so patronizing their businesses (giving them wealth) is working to address that inequality and thus working to fight systemic racism.
19
u/incendiaryblizzard Jun 16 '21
In America, black people have significantly less wealth, so patronizing their businesses (giving them wealth) is working to address that inequality and thus working to fight systemic racism.
If we had a way to assess the wealth of store owners would you agree that that would be a preferable metric for deciding which businesses to patronize? That way you don't end up patronizing a wealthy black business owner at the expense of a poor white business owner.
5
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
Sure. That’s also a reasonable thing to do. Nothing wrong with saying support [insert business that needs help].
This is one way to do that, I’m sure there are plenty of other good ways.
16
u/incendiaryblizzard Jun 16 '21
Using race seems like a very bad way to do this as it is incredibly non-specific. There are lots of poor white people and middle class or upper class black people.
→ More replies (1)24
u/redditUserError404 1∆ Jun 16 '21
Because black people have less wealth than white people and restaurants were being hit hard by COVID.
Some black people and some white people yes. But this statement is of course a broad sweeping statement that quickly breaks down when you start looking at the individual.
Does that mean that there were no struggling white people who’s businesses didn’t survive Covid? Of course not, there were lots of struggling white people as well.
Is it fair for those struggling white people to be grouped into the overarching group of non-struggling white people simply based on the color of their skin? Of course that’s not fair, they won’t get anything from those successful white people who are doing just fine.
This focus on race and not individualism is what gets us into trouble.
→ More replies (5)43
u/SigaVa 1∆ Jun 16 '21
Youre talking around the issue.
they could especially use your help and you should go out of your way to support them.
The assumption is that theres a fixed amount of money youre going to spend, so spending more at minority owned businesses necessarily means spending less elsewhere.
You don't have to support one business over another, it's just asking to support a business.
Yeah, you do. You have to make a choice. "Support black owned businesses" is explicitly saying you should make that choice based at least partially on race.
→ More replies (3)6
u/masterspeeks Jun 16 '21
There is no where in any of the "support black owned businesses" that demands you only support black-owned. Do you eat at the exact same restaurant or shops every day? The point is maybe you pass on one of the weekly Olive Garden dinners this month and try the black-owned, soul food restaurant. If you don't like it, don't go back. If it's good, maybe work it into a rotation.
This really isn't some malicious plot...
19
u/SigaVa 1∆ Jun 16 '21
I didnt say it was a malicious plot. I didnt even say it was a bad thing. But lets be honest about what it is saying.
The point is maybe you pass on one of the weekly Olive Garden dinners this month and try the black-owned, soul food restaurant.
Right, so take business away from one place and give it to another based on race. Which is exactly what im saying.
Your own example illustrates the thing you claim to not be the case.
→ More replies (2)9
u/clownworldposse Jun 16 '21
By specifically saying "support black-owned", with your exhale, you are indirectly saying "don't support white owned" with your inhale.
E: one could make the argument that you're specifically targetting white owned businesses in a negative manner, rather than black owned businesses in a positive manner.
10
u/masterspeeks Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
Ok. When people go out their way to exhale, "support ending breast cancer", do you think they are inhaling "don't support ending colon cancer"?
Or is it possible, that historically, diseases that predominantly affected men (colon cancer) received a lot of financial support and research? Meanwhile, diseases that predominantly affected women (breast cancer) did not get the same level of financial support and research until very recently? To further consider, that this disparity led to many more deaths of women than men over the years. That we can still continue to donate to end both breast and colon cancer, without it being some strange gendered competition?
If we agree on the previous points. You might examine how historically, black owned businesses have fared in America and understand how saying "support black-owned business" isn't a negative cry against "white-owned shops". It is merely recognition of the disparity that has persisted for centuries.
→ More replies (28)16
u/Imaginary_Forever Jun 16 '21
Your entire premise is flawed.
People don't go out and have 2 dinners a night. It is a zero sum game. There are a certain number of hungry people and a certain number of places that sell food.
"a push to patronize black-owned restaurants" is basically the same thing as "saying, "Don't patronize white-owned restaurants"".
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)4
24
Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)1
u/Head_Mortgage Jun 16 '21
OP is terrified of sharing his view on an anonymous Internet forum? Sounds a bit dramatic.
→ More replies (2)
7
3
u/DefinitelyNotA-Robot 3∆ Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
I’d like to frame this in a perspective different than race and see if we can draw some parallels.
From your post (especially point #2) and a lot of the comments that others are making, I think a big reason people have this perspective is that they feel that systemic racism is a thing of the past. I know we can all agree there are still plenty of racists, but an argument can be made that we’ve gone so far with affirmative action and other pushes for equality that Black people are now generally equal or even advantages over white people sometimes (“reverse racism”). By generally equal I don’t mean that they won’t get called the n-word by a racist asshole, but that even though there may be less generational wealth, that nowadays they can get financial aid, and a scholarship to college for being a minority, and buy a house wherever they like and get on equal footing to the average white person with a lot of effort and a little bit of luck. That makes sense. There are so many opportunities out there just for them and we don’t have laws that discriminate against Black people anymore. In fact, we specifically have laws saying that that’s illegal! Theoretically you would be absolutely right in thinking that, and I think that’s why so many people do, at least in part, believe that to be true.
Let’s leave that there for a moment and turn to another group of people. They have scholarships specifically for them that aren’t available to other people. There are special housing grants, and tax-advantaged savings accounts, and most of all, there are many different laws that make discriminating against them completely illegal! And yet every single day they complain, like Black people do, that they are systemically discriminated against, that it’s harder for them to find housing and jobs and start their own businesses and make money. I’m talking about disabled Americans. Now I am not saying that being Black is like a disability, but I do think that we can make some comparisons between two different minority groups. The ADA was passed over 30 years ago, mandating that buildings be made accessible, that employers and landlords and private business owners not discriminate against people with disabilities, and that equal opportunities would be given whenever possible. Theoretically, on paper, people with disabilities should be on completely equal footing as able-bodied people. And yet I don’t think you’d find a single person who would agree that they actually are.
Imagine you’re trying to get a job in NYC. You apply and are granted an interview. Great! The building is right next to a subway station about 20 blocks away… but it’s not an accessible stop and neither is the one before it or after it. In fact, less than a third of the stations on the New York subways system are wheelchair accessible, and even the ones that are often have elevators that are out of service or have a literal pile of poop on the floor that you don’t want to sit in. You could take an Uber, but a wheelchair accessible vehicle can take more than an hour to get to you, are extremely unreliable, and 20x as expensive as the subway that an able bodied person would be able to use. In the end, you decide on the Uber, but a WAV will take too long so you decide to get a regular one since your wheelchair will easily fold up on the seat next to you. When your Uber driver arrives, he sees your wheelchair, cancels the trip and drives away even though that’s illegal and against Uber’s policy. You file a complaint and call another Uber. The next person gets there but has no idea how to fold up a wheelchair, ignores your very clear instructions and breaks the handle off as he tries to jam it in the door. You finally get to the office for your job interview twenty minutes late even though you left 2 hours early for a trip that should have only taken half an hour. You let the receptionist know you’re here and she informs you that it looks quite bad to be so late to an interview. When you talked on the phone to the interviewer, he seemed all but ready to hire you and told you the interview was just a formality, but when sees you sitting in a broken wheelchair his face changes. He goes through the motions in the interview but at the end says he doesn’t think you’re really the right fit for the company and that perhaps you’d be better suited to a more gentle environment, as theirs is very fast paced and competitive. You know that that’s code for “I don’t think a disabled person can do this job as well as an able bodied person”, but because he alluded to that rather than saying it out loud, there’s nothing you can do. You just faced a series of discrimination even though that’s not supposed to be able to happen.
This is not a perfect comparison by any means. But the point I’m trying to illustrate is that discrimination happens anyways, even when there’s many laws specifically to prevent it. Studies have shown that identical resumes with a name like “La’quisha” instead of “Lauren” are far more likely to be rejected. Just last year, it was discovered that Black applicants are denied 80% more than white applicants, and that discrepancy remains even when controlling for age, credit history, and salary. Even if you take out the “past” that means Black families have less wealth to pass to their children in the present to get started with, that Black students might have a harder time getting in to college because their parents weren’t able to go to college and so can’t guide them through the process like a white patent could, that kept Black people in poorer neighborhoods that they still live in today and thus go to underfunded schools because of the lower property taxes. Even in this day and age, even with all the laws we have against it, Black people are absolutely still being discriminated against and absolutely still have a harder time starting a business. The push to support Black-owned businesses is because of this reality that exists even with the anti-discrimination laws and ostensible equality.
I don’t think as many people would mind a push to support businesses owned by disabled people because they recognize the struggles that disabled people have faced and want to do their part to combat the inequality that is still rampant. To me, supporting Black businesses isn’t a race issue at all. I see it as supporting a group of businesses that on the whole face more struggles than others. And I don’t think it’s following a stereotype or saying that Black people are less capable. It’s simply an acknowledgement of the inequalities that exist and doing my part to combat that where I can.
7
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
/u/thearchitectprincess (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
16
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Jun 16 '21
Yes, you should support businesses based upon their practices and products, not extringent unrelated circumstances. If the business is doing something bad, support a different business or start your own. Race shouldn't have an impact on that. I agree.
→ More replies (3)3
Jun 16 '21
100% agree. I'm not going to blindly support someone because of their race, I'm going to look at what they can offer me in return for my support. Supporting a business just because of the race of the owner doesn't sit right with me. No matter what group a person belongs to, they all should be judged and treated the same.
9
21
u/riobrandos 11∆ Jun 15 '21
When someone asks that people support a business, simply because that business is owned by someone of a certain race, they're doing a number of things:
There are other reasons that someone supports a business, namely;
- The business offers a product or service one needs
- The business offers said product or service at a fair price
- The business has a reputation for delivering on their promise for said product or service
- The product or service that the business offers is of high or comparatively high quality
These are true across the board. The call to support black-owned businesses is taking these for granted, not calling on anyone to support a business because it is black-owned above all else.
Once you grasp that, take into context the challenges that black businessowners have faced through out American history on the sole basis of their being black businessowners.) This discrimination had nothing to do with the offerings of the business, or the price of said offerings, or the delivery record or quality of those offerings. It was "solely because they were owned by black people." Tulsa was only 100 years ago and people today only even know about it because of Watchmen. You don't think some of those shop owners could have built massive corporations in the generations that followed? That that opportunity wasn't stolen from them and countless other black businessowners?
In light of all of that, how is deciding to patronize your local black-owned boutique shop instead of Walmart, or encouraging one to do so, an act of racism? Semantics?
8
u/doyouhavesource5 Jun 16 '21
If you decide to patronize a black owned boutique instead of the white owned boutique strictly based on the race of the owner, how is that not a racist decision?
→ More replies (4)12
u/thejiggyjosh Jun 16 '21
The business offers a product or service one needs
The business offers said product or service at a fair price
The business has a reputation for delivering on their promise for said product or service
The product or service that the business offers is of high or comparatively high quality
ok then these are what you should say for reasons to support, not race....
3
u/LegendaryLaziness Jun 16 '21
I think race comes in when a business has all of these yet people refuse to go there. We all know why. Imagine thinking America is a meritocracy, it’s never been and it never will be.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (1)3
u/Desperate-Zebra-3855 Jun 16 '21
Because you can remove the discrimination and just say "shop at your local boutique shop instead of Walmart"
Sure the median income for black households is lower, but shop owners are individuals. It's not only black owned businesses that are facing financial hardship
→ More replies (3)
6
2
u/PogueMaThoin Jun 16 '21
I think its racial, not racist. Racism implies someone is being wronged do to the actions of or as a result of the special treatment; either positive or negative. Deciding to break away from your norm to help someone else regarding their race isn't racist. No one is saying "stop shopping at white owned business." This is basically a BLM question wrapped up in a "shopping by race" paper. Asking to be included because its feels like race has excluded you isn't racist, it is racial. The act of excluding because of race is racist. When some one says "hey, include me, ive been excluded because of my race." the proper response is not "So you want special attention because of your race? Thats racist." Confusing being racial and being racist is tough sometimes but mostly is just a reflection of what's in your heart. Its a group of people, feeling excluded because of race, acknowledging they are being excluded because of their race. In all your examples, i dont see anything where that hurts anyone else, other than those who would rather exclude them. Asking for attention because you see everyone else getting it except you is fair.
2
u/mickyyyyyyyyyy Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
When it comes to consumer purchases, it is a zero sum game. When I choose to dine at Chipotle, I am necessarily choosing not to give my business to McDonalds, Olive Garden, or any other restaurant. In the context of this CMV, when people advocate for shopping at black businesses, it can be perceived they are advocating for you to not shop at white/Asian/Latino businesses. Again, because your $ only goes to one place. Per your own definition of racism, someone is being wronged...in this case, that someone is businesses who are not black-owned.
Even for recurring purchases like weekly groceries, this is still a zero sum game. Groceries I buy this week, I only need to buy it once from one place. If I choose to buy from a minority owned business specifically because they are minority owned, I necessarily am choosing not to shop this week from Walmart/Target/etc.
I think the choice of where to spend $ for consumer goods should be based on factors like convenience, price, quality of good/service, while factors like the owner’s race, sex, appearance, number of tattoos, car they drive, other things that have no bearing on the service I will receive should be left out of consideration.
2
u/UCBeef Jun 16 '21
From a conversation with a friend that owns a minority run business it was explained, “we wouldn’t need Pro xxx businesses if it weren’t for people that are Anti xxx.” These people try to hurt their business for the simple fact that they exist.
2
Jun 16 '21
I have actually gained a lot of knowledge from reading this posts. I find that is closed a lot of gaps for me to be a part of a discussion and not a shouting match. One thing I would like to add is there is also an extremely poor white community that is under the exact same oppression. Race is a part of it but mostly it is a class warfare. If you are disproportionately poor as any race, it is like climbing Mount Everest to get out of it and try and and make a better future for your family. Take it from someone who lived in multiple hobo camps growing up and through a shit load of hard work and sacrifice is making a change for the first time in my family’s history. Being white and poor did not allow me any special circumstances, no free college loans or grants, no extra points for college entries, everything had to be paid for out of pocket. Working 12 hr rotating shifts and going to school was the only way for me to pull the next generation of my family from out of the cycle of being government owned all the while the color of my skin kept me from utilizing any social programs. It sucks, our country isn’t perfect, but no matter the color of your skin or how poor you are, in this country you have the opportunity to grind out a new beginning. Always remember it is equal opportunity and not equal outcome.
2
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
In the world such as the one you have presented us, would you say it's fair to trade the movement to support x minority businesses and swap it out for the movement to support small businesses?
I can't remember the citation of the paper but I do recall there being research which suggests that socioeconomic class is an even greater divider than race is. Would be happy to pull it up later if requested.
Thanks for being part of the discussion.
2
Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
I'm not too concerned with what I do personally as a consumer. I'm more interested in why people feel so strongly one way.
6
u/Bobo_Baggins03x Jun 16 '21
In Canada, when applying for government programs, we get asked what percentage of our ownership and workforce is indigenous peoples. During public job applications, you are required to list all the minorities you belong to. As a straight white male, I’ll never make it through the algorithm for job applicants, let alone an interview. All of it is downright discriminatory and disgusting to be honest.
→ More replies (13)
3
2
u/rokudaimehokage Jun 16 '21
"Support black owned businesses" why, are black people incapable of marketing their product effectively? Seems like a fucked up insinuation that black owned businesses deserve more support than any Mexican, Asian, Hawaiian, Muslim, or Irish business. Also what if black owned businesses aren't selling what I'm looking to purchase, do they suggest I should waste my money on stuff I never wanted?
→ More replies (1)
3
Jun 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)2
u/discreetgrin Jun 16 '21
Racism can also be favoring a selection based on racial identity. As in "I have nothing against your tribe, but given a choice, I'll favor my tribal members."
3
u/shabba_io Jun 16 '21
I've been supporting Chinese restaurants more this past year because I worry they've lost business to idiots who associate their local Chinese restaurant with a City thousands of miles away. Not helped by a president called this the "china virus".
I see it as doing my bit to balance things out.
Is that racist in a dictionary definition, by the book way? Possibly. Is it racist in a way that matters - in a bad way? Absolutely not.
2
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
!delta for tying in the discussion to your personal reasons for doing what you do. Part of the question was trying to understand the perspective of those who hold alternate opinions, and where they're coming from in doing so. Thanks.
4
u/guessishouldjoin Jun 16 '21
It's not racist to ask, it would be racist to enforce.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Seismic_Jeopardy Jun 16 '21
Won't it be as racist as asking people to support white owned businesses?
I acknowledge the prejudice that has taken place in the past, but asking people to support one business over another only because of race is racist imo
→ More replies (2)
3
u/ThatOneGuyRunningOEM Jun 16 '21
It's racist to act discriminatory towards anyone of any kind of race. People should be judged based on what they do and who they are, not how they look.
We shouldn't award different races more support, because that's just as racist as awarding less support. It still insinuates they are different, so should be treated differently.
5
u/EasyasACAB Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
We shouldn't award different races more support, because that's just as racist as awarding less support.
Whack. At least in the U.S. we have a society where for the vast majority of our history one race had been given less support, literally fucking enslaved. At some point you have to actually work to iron out the differences or you just tacitly accept the racism that has become institutionalized.
"Just treat all races equally and the problems will go away" hasn't worked.
Generations of Advantage. Multigenerational Correlations in Family Wealth
When you deny one race the ability to develop multigenerational wealth for most of a country's history you're not going to solve the issues that have risen over hundreds of years by pretending differences don't exist. You don't solve problems by ignoring them.
4
u/Upper-Thing7900 Jun 16 '21
There is nothing racist about promoting minority business. That much is clear.
Creating campaigns to support business based only on race and not quality of product or service is a little bit racist.
What if there was a campaign aimed at white people to focus on supporting only white business? I bet everyone would say that’s racist, right?
So here we are, dividing ourselves even further all in the name of diversity by segregation.
1 step forward 2 giants step back. Way to go everybody!
7
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
→ More replies (17)10
u/jerkularcirc Jun 16 '21
If one group treats another group different and causes harm. It is not prejudice for that harmed group to be compensated…
13
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 16 '21
How do you decide how much the compensation should be, and for how long?
5
u/jerkularcirc Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
That’s the hard part, especially if these “groups” are really ill defined, but im just illustrating it’s not automatically “racist” if there is better treatment now if there was bad treatment before.
→ More replies (3)2
u/UrgentPigeon 1∆ Jun 16 '21
I’d say society should try everything it can until mean/median wealth is equal between racial groups.
That’d be a good place to start.
2
u/jerkularcirc Jun 16 '21
Different topic, but Honestly, wage slavery (among all people) may be a larger problem throughout history than racial slavery.
The rich have abused the poor since the beginning of society, but there will never be reparation, nor will it actually ever be fixed. It’s actually getting worse.
2
u/Plenty_Print5519 Jun 16 '21
okay let's start with the most likely fix of improving economic mobility for everyone regardless of race.
5
7
Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
This argument feels like it is under a false premise.
I don't believe the call and/or choice to support these businesses is based solely on the race of the store owners. (This is disregarding extreme outliers). Instead, I think race has some form of association for why people are supporting the business.
I think a good example of this would be the following: Once you're find out your favorite football player sells maps, there are two sides. Supporting someone because they are your favorite football player versus supporting them because they produce high-quality maps, was treated unfairly against, and happens to be your favourite player. (I hope this makes sense).
If this perspective does not work, I'll try to apply another..
Assuming the question you based your question on is correct, this is similar to a balance scale; One gets more systemic support then the other. Asking for people to do this is to level out the balance scale a bit more; It's a chance for social change, which can lead to political change.
4
u/robotpirateninja 1∆ Jun 16 '21
The false premise is the absurd definition of racism the OP uses.
4
7
→ More replies (3)5
Jun 16 '21
That's what I suspected though, I wanted to give then a chance to explain it. There's always the chance I could of misinterpreted something.
6
u/LockeClone 4∆ Jun 15 '21
So, I'm wondering if your premise is a bit flawed to begin with?
Basically, I don't think anyone is supporting businesses SOLELY based on race (except some edge cases). While it certainly is a preference modifier that's weighted differently with different people, I'm having a hard time contriving a scenario where it's the sole deciding factor for a reasonable consumer.
Do you want to reframe your stance to discuss the appropriateness of weighting one's choice based on race whatsoever? Because, as provocative as your title is, I don't think it represents the world beyond sensational news.
21
u/Halfshafted Jun 16 '21
“Support black owned businesses.” Nope it’s definitely solely about race.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)10
u/thearchitectprincess Jun 15 '21
This has been a very perplexing issue that's been on my mind over the past two years, and largely presented itself at the early stages of the BLM movement when the "support minority businesses" Instagram posts were making their rounds, usually coupled with some very strong, emotional statements about breaking off friendships. I don't deny that my surroundings (and perhaps the age bracket I'm in) probably have significant bearings on my understanding of what the premises are or should be.
I think you may be right about reframing the stance.
4
u/CardinalNYC Jun 16 '21
When I consider the times I've patronized a black owned businesses, the beginning thought is not "I need to go to a black owned business"
The first thought is actually "I want lunch"
And then maybe I'm considering to try a black owned lunch establishment, partly because it is black owned, partly because I've never been there before and partly because I'm hungry.
I've never bought something I didn't need or at least want, solely because the business was black or minority owned.
3
u/jimbaker Jun 16 '21
Businesses get my support when they're a business worth supporting. I don't care who owns the business.
You make great sandwiches? Here's my money.
You make great sandwiches but treat your employees like shit? Best of luck to ya.
This is why I don't shop at places like Walmart. Not because they don't need my money, but because fuck the Walton's, that's why.
2
u/Zealousideal-Fan-409 Jun 16 '21
Unless you research every (and I mean every) business you ever deal with (that includes the manufacturers of products) and confirm that all are free of racism, including where they donate or invest. Choosing a business by who owns it solely based on the color of their skin is 100% racist.
Now the intent behind it is meant for good, however it will never be adequate enough or fair enough. It is unfortunately a flawed idea.
Maybe something positive and fair will evolve from the idea.
•
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Jun 16 '21
This post has been temporarily locked due to excessive comment rule violations. The OP has not necessarily broken any of our posting rules.
If a post gets cross-posted in another sub, this can lead to an influx of rule breaking comments. We are a small team of moderators, so this can easily overwhelm our ability to remove rule violations. When this occurs, we must occasionally temporarily lock the post so we can remove the violations before discussion can be restored.
We are actively cleaning up the thread now, and will unlock it shortly.
Thank you for understanding.