Racism is very rarely as simple as “doesn’t serve any black people”. If they serve black people wearing suits and professional clothing, but call the cops on black people wearing jeans low, but serve every white customer, then their practices are racist.
This entire post is basically a textbook example of institutional racism in American society today.
This is a highly offensive phrase. Using it basically indicates that the speaker doesn’t deserve any benefit of doubt.
There is nothing historical about America’s history of racism.
Tell me, what’s the specific date that you imagine that American society stopped being racist?
Evidence? If I were on a jury and some criminal charge in either case were dependent on proof of racial bias, I’d probably find “Not guilt! Reasonable doubt.”
But in the real world, we form probabilistic judgments based on our experience. We constantly take actions without certainty. My best guess is that racial bias was at work in both these examples with probability well above 98%. What’s your best guess? You needn’t commit to a 0% or 100%; there are numbers (probability estimates) between these extremes.
In the Starbuck’s incident there is telephonic evidence that only two minutes passed between entrance of two blacks and a call to 911, and witness testimony that whites were seated without ordering immediately. Like you, I might go with “Reasonable doubt” if on a jury, but that doesn’t mean the probability bias was at work is 0%. Surely you understand this.
In the other incident, it looks like you skimmed the news story. Nobody’s complaining that the news show called attention to the academic success of the black. The complaint is that the newslady called the black “obnoxious because you can only go to one, you can only take one full ride, and you are taking a spot from someone else who worked really hard.” Surely you can see that this comment is ignorant. Fellow newsladies didn’t correct the ignorance; they built further on the peculiar meme.
Applying to multiple schools is quite common: Do you honestly find it likely the newslady would have belittled the student were he white? I’m not asking you to discuss standards of proof in litigation; I’m asking you to use your experience and guesstimate the probability that racial bias was at work.
ETA: It’s possible the newslady was herself, in some sense, “unbiased,” but wanted to take advantage of her viewers’ bias to pursue a GOP racist agenda. Welcome to today’s America.
And you think that there’s zero information about any of these questions available to you?
Wel, I guess it’s too bad that the company has accepted responsibility for this incident I GUESS WE WILL NEVER NO NOW!!!
Oh, well, just one of the imponderable mysteries of the world.
Yeah, I don’t get that. That story has been in almost every form of media for two days or so. There are no more questions to be asked. Jesus Christ.
Wow. I never once said that there is no racism now. In fact, I just pointed to examples of it.
And I see my post warning about calling people racist without evidence is being used to call me a racist. And I apparently used a phrase that takes away all benefit of doubt. Case closed.
Pathetic.
Next time, perhaps you shouldn’t use a widely known incident that has video evidence, statements from police, mayors, participants, customers, and the friggin’ CEO of Starbucks to get on your high horse of “Well, we should probably give people the benefit of the doubt”
If that is a violation of the rule against insults then I am at a loss regarding how else to point out a statement that is an example of exactly how racism manages to thrive in our society.
It was a good example though if today were several days ago. The Philadelphia Starbucks incident was making national news and was being debated A LOT on social media before many of the facts were out or verified.
Sure but today is NOT several days ago. And the waveform has collapsed to “Racism”
Funny thing, cases that aren’t vigorously debated on social media are often the ones that just get hushed up and go unexamined.
So I read the article about this at NPR, and it appears people are leaving out a few details:
-
The manager was following written store policy that says people who are not purchasing food or beverage should be asked to leave, and police should be called if they don’t.
-
One of the men asked to use the washroom, and the manager claims that when told he couldn’t use it unless he bought something, he began cursing at her. If true, then we have a situation where a female manager was being cursed at by a large belligerent man. Calling the cops in that situation should not be a surprise at all.
-
One of the men said that he’s been going to that store since he was 15. So I assume it’s not exactly a Klan meeting space.
Now, I totally get the point that it’s possible that she wouldn’t have called the cops if it had been two white men in business suits, and this could be evidence of the kind of casual racism black people face. On the other hand, if that white person in a suit was standing there cursing at her, maybe she would have done the same thing. I can’t see into her heart, so I wouldn’t dream of calling her a racist. She may have just been a scared woman facing a large belligerent man.
By the way, I have been refused a restaurant washroom key because I wasn’t a customer. My wife once had a horrible incident where a bout of colitis left her with an urgent need for a bathroom, and two stores in a row refused to let her use their facilities unless she bought something. And she was a blonde white woman in business attire. So that is not unusual at all.
Societal racism is not a problem of the heart.
I don’t see anywhere in that story that the manager asked the guys to leave. Can you point it out?
Societal racism should not be used to destroy the career of a specific person without evidence, just as black inner city violence should not be used to judge an individual who happens to be black and live in the inner city.
That’s why the correct way to live is to try and be as colorblind as possible and treat people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. I’m pretty sure a famous guy once said that. Treat individuals with dignity, assume they are innocent until proven guilty, etc.
That’s not to say we should not fight to end institutional racism. The big mistake is in using the evidence of institutional racism to attack individuals on the assumption that they must be racist. That’s not justice - it’s scapegoating.
First of all, whose life, specifically, has been destroyed? So far as I can tell, the name of the person who called the police has not been in any of the reports I’ve seen.
Second, while you’re so concerned about that person’ slide being destroyed, can you give a thought to the two 23-year-old black men who had the cops called on them? Do you know how often such incidents result in deaths of black men? How often they escalate to filing of criminal charges for things that never would have happened if they had been white? How one police charge for many black men leads to one things after another that makes it impossible for them to make progress in society?
Give more thought to the multitudes of black men whose lives get ruined day after day, anonymously rather than the Tony number of white folks who suffer any consequences, long term or short, for setting off such dominos.
The manager claims the men refused to leave. Maybe she asked them, or maybe it was obvious if they cursed her out and then sat down again. As further evidence of their refusal to leave, the article also states that the cops asked them three times and they refused, even after being told they would be arrested for trespass if they didn’t.
Now, it may be that the two men became enraged about the bathroom because they thought refusing was racist, so they sat down and proceeded to make a point and force a confrontation. And maybe they were even right to do so. On the other hand, they also paint themselves as calm and polite, while the manager says they were cursing at her. Someone’s not telling the truth. And it would be racist to assume either party was the liar absent other information.
You keep harping on the idea of an individual who is being adjudged racist. I don’t care whether any particular individual is condemned as racist. It’s all evidence of the racist system we live in.
You’re weeping tears for the individual whose life has been destroyed when all that is happened is that a global corporation has decided to give some lip service to the idea of trying to raise its employees awareness of unconscious bias.
For the sake of protecting some Tony handful of individuals whose lives might or might not be destroyed you’re demanding that people who are victimized by racism keep giving the beneficiaries of racism all the benefit of the doubt over and over because there’s never any definitive proof of racism, that is, very few people confess that they did something with a racist motive.
I can accept all of that as being true, while still pointing out the fallacy of using general conditions to declare the guilt of some individual without evidence. Since this type of behaviour is what drives exactly the type of racial disparities in policing you are talking about, I’d think you’d want to minimize it.
The person destroyed here is the manager, who was fired and now has to wear the ‘racist’ label for as long as people remember the story. If she actually isn’t racist, but was just a person making a tough decision in a frightening situation, a grave injustice has been done to her.
Ah, the good old, ‘You’ve gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette’ argument. Used to justify abuses of individual rights since time immemorial.