General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArbitrary "No Buy-No Sit" rule no different than literacy, jellybean & "How many bubbles in soap"
tests, when applied only to certain people.
Some folks are STILL trying to defend and justify the indefensible and unjustifiable, now by claiming that a Starbucks manager has the unfettered right to kick people out of their cafe if they don’t make a purchase - even though, in the Philly situation, the store had never previously communicated this alleged policy to anyone, the white people in the restaurant who didn’t purchase anything weren’t removed, the black men who were arrested had only been in the restaurant for two minutes before having the police called on them, and weren’t told they needed to buy something or leave or that the police were being called.
This calls to mind the bogus soap bubbles and literacy tests - where black voters were required to guess how many bubbles in a bar of soap or the number of jellybeans in a jar, recite the Declaration of Independence by heart, or perform other similarly impossible tasks in order to prove themselves “eligible” to vote. On the other hand, white voters were not given such tests or were given tests that were a cinch to pass.
When challenged to explain why no blacks were registered to vote, local officials shrugged and said, “Not our fault. They didn’t pass the test.”
And when black folk pushed back and tried to register and vote anyway, the police were called to remove them from the courthouse and arrest them for trespassing, loitering, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, etc.
And plenty of “good folk” stood by and defended them, arguing that the county officials did nothing wrong because, after all, they had every right to give potential voters a test and the police had no choice but to arrest any non-eligible voters who refused to vacate the premises.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
unblock
(56,198 posts)nearly everyone speeds. many people have dealer-installed borders around their license plates, which are technically illegal if they cover even a tiny fraction of the markings on the tag (yes, i got pulled over for having one of those that barely, barely encroached on the words "constitution state" at the bottom of the tag.)
it's far too easy for the police to pick and choose who to pull over and therein lies the power to be selective and abusive, including (surprise!) on a racial basis.
George II
(67,782 posts)Seems like every time I saw a car stopped by the police, the driver was black or Hispanic.
At the time our town was about 90% white.
bullwinkle428
(20,662 posts)It doesn't seem quite as bad at the present time, which makes me wonder if there was a conscious change in mandated policy.
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)I have it in my family papers files - a copy of a northern Alabama literacy test AND the answer key.
Test was given in Portuguese that year.
So lets take it another step -
Are these folks even speaking the same LANGUAGE as Effie and JAG? Because it seems to me if they are defending racial discrimination that gets the VICTIMS arrested then perhaps these folks aren't as "Real American" as you and me?
BumRushDaShow
(169,761 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)"They came in and didn't make a purchase, so I want them out of here now."
Different lyrics, same tune.
BumRushDaShow
(169,761 posts)By Steven W. Thrasher
Mr. Thrasher is a doctoral candidate in American studies.
April 21, 2018
<...>
The police in this country have long been empowered to respond to white anxiety about the very presence of black people. The 1863 “Ordinance to establish patrols for the police of slaves in the Parish of St. Landry” is an early example. “Every free white male person, having attained the age of 16 years and not above the age of 60 years, who shall reside in the State of Louisiana and Parish of St. Landry, shall be bound to do patrol duty within the limits of the patrol district in which he resides,” it read. This piece of legislation allowed white men to directly police black people.
When emancipation finally came, so did the Black Codes and Jim Crow. As Carol Anderson wrote in “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide,” the Black Codes created a world in which, for African-Americans, “self-sufficiency itself was illegal, as blacks couldn’t hold any employment besides laborer or domestic,” and they were “banned from hunting and fishing and thus denied the means even to stave off hunger.” At the same time, “If African-Americans refused or could show no proof of gainful employment, they would be charged with vagrancy and put on the auction block, with their labor sold to the highest bidder.” If the police didn’t see the “crime” — working, not working, fishing, hunting — firsthand, all it took to derail a black person’s day (and in some cases, life) was a white person making a report, and this happened often.
<...>
You don’t have to look to history books to hear this kind of story. Think of the things that have attracted police attention — leading to arrest, assault or even death — in recent memory: a black boy playing with a toy gun. A black Harvard professor entering his own home*. Black teenagers selling bottled water on the National Mall. Black high school kids celebrating the end of the school year at a pool party. This is life in a country where white citizens who see life through racism’s lens can often count on the police to share their outlook. This dynamic isn’t any less terrifying when you label it “racial bias,” a phrase used to describe Starbucks’s planned training.
As a result, there are two classes of American citizens: Members of one can carry machine guns in front of the police in open-carry states without recrimination, drink alcohol in public without reproach and wait for friends in Starbucks without worry. Members of the other — people like me — worry about leaving our hands in our pockets after jaywalking on a cold night.
*
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opinion/sunday/starbucks-racism-white-people.html
George II
(67,782 posts)....when they encouraged people to use their free wifi, whether they bought coffee or not.
Recently my wife was at our local Starbucks with her sister, she got a kick out of seeing a man working on his laptop drinking Dunkin' Donuts coffee!
But he was white.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I hate people who do that and think they should be kicked out - especially if there aren't open seats available.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)And that policy became so bloody successful everybody chain restaurant, including McDonalds, ripped it off. Hell, Mcdonalds ripped off the coffee too!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)By their fruits we will recognize them.
That low hanging fruit (often being fertilized by the Well, Actually) being "why does everything have to be about race!!??", "I'm not privileged!", "I've never heard that as a racial epithet, so it's not!","minorities can be racist too!"
Pretty simple to recognize the consistent and tortured trivializing and/or minimizing of racial issues, one by one.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)job to read her mind. All they can do is make the arrest and then, if she was discriminating, then the men can file a complaint or sue" are buying right into what this is really all about.
This wasn't about getting those two particular black men out of "her" cafe. This is about making black people less likely to even go in there in the first place.
If I know that by going into a certain restaurant, the manager can discriminate against me as much as they want, as blatantly as they want and, as long as they don't say out loud it's because I'm black or call me nigger loud enough for anyone to hear them, the force and might of the armed law enforcement that I pay for and that's supposed to serve and protect me as much as the manager of any coffeeshop, will step in and use their power to enforce and operationalize her bigotry, publicly humiliate me, arrest me, jail me, and deprive me of my constitutional rights, just because SHE said so. And the only thing I can do about it is hire a lawyer and take her to court and maybe get some money damages sometime down the road, you can bet I'm going to think twice about ever setting foot in the place.
And that's the point and the goal.
And that's why the police aren't supposed to arrest people and charge them with a crime without determining any probable cause, just because some white woman screamed "TRESPASS!"
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)1st - I want them to out themselves/businesses. Seriously - where can we go? Tell us. Let us know specifically.
2nd - If they won't out themselves, then we need to out them. Why give them an opening to have these incidents occur?
If I have a $100 bill I want to make certain I'm spending it in a place that is worthy of me. And of you. And of the two men recently arrested.
They (the bigots and racists) don't get to take our money, then turn around and use it to have an arrest made. Someone black spent money in that coffee shop on that morning. Someone did. As the manager, she took the money on behalf of Starbucks (property taxes, city taxes, state taxes) and used it to inflict pain on two black men.
So I'm sorry - it has to be this way. This one manager did it to all of them. I don't have to knock down a business - to lift one up.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No argument from me. I'm with you on this one all the damned way.
"This is about making black people less likely to even go in there in the first place..."
And THAT truth is what the low-hanging fruits ignore in every possible form available.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)"they were doing nothing wrong!"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/14/602556973/starbucks-police-and-mayor-weigh-in-on-controversial-arrest-of-2-black-men-in-ph
Now, for a place that made it's name for being a place to hang out, this was stupid, and it speaks to a manager that apparently did not even understand what Starbucks was supposed to be about. Part of the Starbucks culture has been eroded by a bunch of corporate types who just want a bunch of yuppies, who come in, come out, like it was McDonald's, even though Mcdonald's made money by installing cappuccino machines and free wifi. This manager probably panicked because he or she was used to catering to this Yuppie base, and was afraid that if black people hung out there, it would scare the snowflake yuppies away. Of course, the idiot probably was nott hinkign ahead that said friend might have bought a coffee, or migt have bought his FRIENDS coffees, which would end up putting money into the store's pocket.
This is even more inexcusable as, while some parts of Philly are racist, Philadelphia is a city known for having an affluent, educated Black Middle class, this dates back to Ben Franklin's time. This idiot should have not have panicked like some Dixie Hayseed going "what are they doing here?"
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Keep on with thought provoking posts. How many soap bubble indeed. Words fail.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Thanks for posting this.
Sid
IronLionZion
(51,271 posts)Enforcement of rules should be the same for everyone.
I see this in security screenings all the time. Some people get extra deep scrutiny.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)rules...throwing out people of color was the goal.
wryter2000
(47,940 posts)I'm so sorry you have to keep explaining this stuff.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)I guarantdamntee you that if it were me, a middle aged white man who is always dressed conservatively, they wouldn't have pulled out any handcuffs, nor arrested me. At worst, they would have asked me to step outside of the store. More likely than not, they would have explained to the store manager I was waiting for a friend, and that there is no need to be so difficult.
sheshe2
(97,637 posts)Ye Gods.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Gothmog
(179,870 posts)I agree with your analysis
betsuni
(29,078 posts)
mercuryblues
(16,415 posts)from the beginning. Then I found out that the cops were called in less than 2 minutes. I would love to know the time lapse from the cops being called to their arrest. My guess is it wasn't a long time either.
This is a prime example why economic equality doesn't automatically create social justice. These men could have gone into the shop with tuxedo's on and still had the cops called on them. I am also willing to bet that if this story did not go viral, the charges would not have been dropped.
Unless these men take this to court this arrest stays on their record. Even though the charges were dropped. They have to pay out of pocket to get this expunged. All because of a racist asshole.
Trust me the cops in the area know who they are and will also be looking for them as payback for making them look bad. If they parked to far off the curb, ticket. 2 miles over the speed limit, ticket. Even though the arrest didn't stick this will follow them for a while. The only way they can avoid this is to stay out of the area. Effectively red-lining them, legally.
erpowers
(9,445 posts)"No Buy-No Sit" is not the same as literacy tests. If these men had tried to buy something they would not have been refused the right to buy something and then they would not have been removed. Black people who wanted to vote when literacy test were around were not allowed to vote regardless of what they were willing and able to do. Yes, this manager was wrong in the way she handled the situation, but "No Buy-No Sit" rules are not the same, or similar to literacy tests.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)They are a rule applied as a prerequisite to doing something. The rule is applied differently or not at all to whites while being applied to blacks in a way that makes it virtually impossible for them to comply.
You are making a rather broad assumption that the men would have been allowed to stay had they bought something. Given that the manager didn’t give them a chance to buy anything - they were in the store just two minutes before she called the cops, barely time to get in and take off their coats and figure out what they wanted to purchase - and she never told them they were expected to buy something, that they would need to leave if they didn't, or that she was calling the police on them, and never insisted that or seemed to care whether any of the white people bought anything - it should be apparent that she wasn’t the least bit interested in whether they bought anything or not. She just didn’t want them in “her” cafe. Period. And if they HAD bought something, I think it’s likely she would have conjured up another excuse for gettng them out of there - just as the voting officials did when black voters were able to correctly respond to the answers on the literacy tests.
You can try to distinguish the two situations, but they are solidly comparable.
erpowers
(9,445 posts)It is not virtually impossible to comply with the No Buy-No Sit rule. I am not against these men, but two minutes is more than enough time to get in line an figure out what you want to order. The menu at most Starbucks is not that complicated.
I do believe that the manager was wrong in the way she handled the situation, but the rule was not and is not wrong. Starbucks should just make sure the rule is enforced properly, which means it has to apply to everyone who walks into a Starbucks. Managers should be made aware that if they enforce the rule selectively they will not be allowed to quit from the store; they will be fired.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I just see things differently. For me, this situation is very different from literacy rules. Those rules were impossible to comply with, but it is easy to comply with No Buy-No Sit rules. All one has to do is buy something.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)and uniformly applied. But if the buying rule is only applied to certain people and only at certain times and it's not clear how one would comply with it, it's just as impossible to comply with as a literacy test.
For example, do you have to buy something as soon as you walk in the door? Or can you sit down first, get settled and THEN buy something? Is there a minimum amount that you have to buy before being allowed to stay? Does a purchase entitle you to a certain amount of time in the place, but you then have to buy more in order to stay longer? If I buy a $1 banana as soon as I walk in the door, can I sit and stay all day without buying anything else? If I sit down for 30 minutes without buying anything but plan to buy $20 worth of food and merchandise while I'm there, am I not in compliance with the rule? Does the rule apply to parties or individuals? For example, if I'm with two other people who don't buy anything, but I buy $30 worth of stuff, can they stay or do they have to leave if they don't personally purchase and consume it themselves?
Countless variables and difficulty enforcing the rule make that rule nearly impossible for everyone to know how to comply with - and if they are applied arbitrarily by a biased manager, they can operate just like the literacy tests of days gone by - not there to really enforce the supposed purpose of the rule, but as a veiled excuse to keep certain people out.
And, as I said, I don't believe that simply buying something is enough to keep someone from being harassed. This Starbucks didn't even have such a rule - at least not one that had ever been communicated or enforced as far as anyone can tell - and the men were STILL arrested for trespassing. This manager didn't care whether the people in her cafe bought something - if she did, she would have made sure that EVERYONE did or have EVERYONE who didn't arrested. She didn't. She targeted these particular men. And she targeted them solely because they were black. The No Buy No Sit rule was just the excuse she used. If they HAD bought something, she would have found another excuse to get them out - just as the clerk in the "Selma" clip, once Annie Lee Cooper answered his first two questions satisfactorily, told her to name all 67 of the judges.
I've seen a similar dynamics in employment situations throughout my career. For example, both as a lawyer in a law firm and a law professor, I was involved in the hiring process and practice for new lawyers and professors. After awhile, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: Although every applicant was asked to submit a law school transcript, none of the hiring partners or professors seemed the least bit interested in the transcripts of the white applicants. And they were interested in the transcripts of the black applicants if, and only if, there was something negative in them. Otherwise, the transcripts were pretty much ignored. As a result, I saw white applicants with poor grades hired without any question over black applicants with much better grades. When I pointed out this discrepancy, my concerns were dismissed with such excuses as, "Grades are only a predictor, but they're not everything {which I actually think is true}." And then they would point to something else, a non-objective thing they liked about the white candidate that, in their view, made them more suited for the position. But less-than-stratospherically high grades for black students were usually a dealbreaker. "Yes, she's got great references, but did you see her GRADES? She just doesn't measure up."
That's what is at play here - and was also at play in the literacy tests. The No Buy, No Sit rule and Literacy Tests were supposedly objective criteria - and it's easy to say that all someone has to do is comply with them by either buying something or passing the test - but, just like the Literacy tests, the Starbucks rule, in the wrong hands, is just as arbitrary and capable of being used to discriminate against and exclude people.
