Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not so much racist as idiotic. Suppose, for instance, that there was a backlash. Who would be affected the most? (And I don't hesitate to say that it wouldn't be white-owned businesses).
No I don't feel that its racist. I myself shop local when ever possible. That said a double standard does exist. If whites were to proclaim that they only shop white businesses they would be tarred and feathered by the press. Personally I'll shop what ever local store has what I need race is not a factor.
I don't think it's racist, I just think it's unhelpful and being done solely as a mean to get there name in the media (IMO). I remember discussing this months ago when the IL couple started this. I just find it so ironic that this couple lives in a Chicago suburb that isn't even majority black. if they want to preach the gospel of "buying black", couldn't they at least rent in a neighborhood w/ a majority black population? instead of Oak Park, this couple could be living in Humboldt Park or Garfield Park. hell, they could have even bought a house in Hyde Park or the southside of Chicago which likely has more blacks than Oak Park. instead of wasting time, energy, resources, and money traveling dozens of miles out of your way to support the local black owned store, why not just move into that area (even if temporary, or at least be there fairly regularly) and work to fix it up on the inside.
I think this "experiment" doesn't even begin to address the issue of why there are so few black owned businesses. it doesn't address the issue that few blacks own their businesses, many can't secure the credit to open it (yeah, some will cry racism that the white owned banks won't lend to them, but many of them may just have crap credit), a lot of blacks in Chicago are clustered in high crime areas where kids are prone to dropping out of high school and joining gangs. it seems like that if you're black and want to open a business that black customers will patronize, you don't have many choices outside the bad, high crime areas (speaking of Chicago here), and really, who wants to open up a new business in such an area?
I would love to shop at black owned businesses, however, the few I've been to had horrible customer service and poor product selection. for me, the BEST way to buy products made and sold by blacks is to shop online or get specialty items. in the end, I'm going to spend my money at the place that provides the best customer service, the best product selection, and/or the best prices. I will sacrifice one of the above if the others follow suit, but I won't sacrifice 2 or all 3
People should shop wherever they want to shop. Nobody has to explain themselves when it comes to what they decide to do with their money. And if white people want to support white businesses, they can do that too. The idea that it's racist for white people to do it is just another example of the double standard that exists in this country now... A double standard that begins and ends with all white people having to explain their every move and blacks not being accountable for anything to anyone.
It's all nonsense. It's your money. Spend it where you want.
The things you outline show bigotry at its finest. Sure, you are free to shop whereever you want, but that doesn't preclude you from showing hypocritical bigotry in your shopping choices. In fact, by avoiding stores with Christian fishes, you showcase your particular brand of bigotry.
On the other hand, while you espouse everyone's freedom to "shop where they want", I have all my bets on the suspicion that you expect my tax money to involuntarily support pro-abortion counseling and government-funded fetal stem cell research (items that I am morally opposed to, but don't have the right to "shop" and opt out).
Just like my childfree existence pays taxes for your schools.
You get what you get.
Just like I pay higher federal taxes because I'm childfree.
Don't see me whining all over the place, now do you?
That was my first thought too, if a white person did it, then it would be called racist.
Folks seem to make these judgments, not unsurprisingly, without historical context or consideration of the motivations of the individuals or groups involved.
For one group, in this case African Americans, to pursue an economic strategy to eliminate the economic disparity that cripples their community is one set of issues, for another group to promote the continued economic superiority of their group for the purpose of maintaining that economic superiority is quite another thing all together.
Of course economic exclusivity has been a time honored economic strategy for ever ethnic group that has found itself on the economic short end of the American economy, it is a well functioning tool of economic empowerment today, employed by Koreans, Cubans, and others. Yet, I never seem to read any criticism of the economic practices of these groups.
The essence of racism - what makes it bad - is that it is used to keep one race in power and to marginalize and weaken other races. So, if you choose to support minority-owned businesses, for whatever reason, you are not supporting the existing racial dominance of the white segment of our population.
However, if you choose to support white-owned businesses only, you are supporting the existing white dominance.
Face it, there are plenty of reasons to want more diversity in our society. We need more Korean restaurants and African guitar players and Chilean lama-wool vests.
But there's no reason to want more white-owned businesses. They already have an advantage in our society. So deciding to support white-owned businesses is deciding that whites don't have enough power already. That's racist.
No, racism is basing decisions on the color of one's skin rather than the content of their character.
They are indeed being racist. If they weren't they'd be patronizing any struggling business regardless of the color of the owner's skin.
How many whites, asians, etc. have put up businesses in black communities when some blacks have refused because it wasn't profitable yet these blacks won't patronize their stores. It's obviously about skin color and nothing more.
No, racism is basing decisions on the color of one's skin rather than the content of their character.
Horse crap. The context of King's speech is based upon the historical use of color as a negative determinate of the inherent worth of one person over another.
Quote:
If they weren't they'd be patronizing any struggling business regardless of the color of the owner's skin.
So I suppose it is racist to buy a Toyota over a Chrysler?
Quote:
How many whites, asians, etc. have put up businesses in black communities when some blacks have refused because it wasn't profitable yet these blacks won't patronize their stores. It's obviously about skin color and nothing more.
Perhaps you should do a little research on the predatory, and by your definition of racist, practices of the Korean take over of the African American hair care business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
