A little of both. It’s certainly aimed at gang-bangers. And certainly there will be people who dress like gang-bangers that aren’t.
I’ve known a number of bar owners in my life. They’ve all bent over backwards to ensure everybody is welcome in their bar. The reality of life is that young black adults (boys from the hood) cause a greater amount of trouble. And by trouble I don’t mean the odd bar fight where a bouncer throws a couple of drunks out the door never to return. I mean serious trouble.
So yes, it’s aimed at a subset of black people, but it’s not based on a dislike of black people. It’s a socially difficult problem to deal with.
I’ve worked in bars with dress codes too. And young men - of ANY COLOUR - with little money are not who you want in your club. Most fights are started by young men, most of the people who show up wasted already are young men, most of the people trying to get into your club with a gun are young men. There are the frat-boy type investment banker wannabes, of all skin colours, who come in and order rounds of shots and are obnoxious jackasses, but they spend lots of money and they don’t cause too much trouble. You want these guys in your club. There are the baggy jean and Timberland wearing guys, who order very few drinks and are much more likely to start brawls. You obviously do not want these guys in your club.
There’s a point to the dress club, obviously, but it really comes down to money spent and trying to keep the place as safe as possible. And any given night it was much more common to see a pack of young white men wearing fur-collared puffy vests turned away at the door than any other race.
I’m not sure why the OP lumped in fraternities with bars. Fraternities are under no obligation to let anyone into what is a private party in a private residence subject to the rules of the campus.
Downunder a few local bars are banning people wearing “Ed Hardy” style tshirts, tight jeans and hightops. The excuse is that this is the uniform of the bogan and they cause all the fights. In my day if you had a sharpie haircut, tight jeans and boots you couldn’t get into many clubs as we sharpies were uneducated poor kids who started fights, they may have been right but it still sucked.
If you ban the “uniform” of a subculture you normally do it to stem potential trouble, is it racist? Maybe but if you let the crowd get out of control it is you who are talking to the magistrate and not the punk in his timbalands.
I was talking about my college experience in Detroit. Most of the time Black fraternities/sororities would rent the campus ballroom or a hall/club. That’s where the dress code on the flyer would come in.
If you habitually wear leather jackets, oily jeans and “colours” don’t start whining because people assume that you’re a biker, if you want to look hard and edgy then people will treat you the way that you look.
Yes some kids do wear the bad boy stuff just to fit in, though I’d hardly call it fashionable after all of this time.
There are socio paths who behave badly all of the time, and the wannabes who dress like them and practice antisocial behaviour when (a)it is safe for them to do so and (b)when they think that they’ll get away with it.
They get no sympathy from me.
Teddy boys were before my time, I was a “Hairy” for a while (Hippy culture but not into peace and love) and then a skinhead.
I knew the image that I was projecting and didn’t whine about peoples reactions to it.
The thing is that for a good chunk of white American, anything a black guy wears short of a Cosby show sweater is going to appear “hard” and “edgy.” Lots of people are going to interpret any black young man who is not going out of his way to imitate white middle class fashions to be “threatening.” I find it astonishing how many people are ready to believe that every popular black fashion is a gang sign. Few of us know or care to learn what parts of black culture are associated with gangs and what parts are not. In many people’s heads, the two have become synonymous.
It’s not really comparable because as I say literally millions of British kids wear hoodies and baseball caps, not so much leather jackets, oily jeans and “colours”. I haven’t done a survey but I’m not sure that all or even most of these kids are trying to look hard or edgy.
There is a pub near me that many years ago had a sign that said “No squaddies”. They didn’t want the local paras in fighting the regulars and each other.
“Squaddie” = military personel, “para” = member of the parachute regiment.
This bar’s policy is outrageous and obviously racist. If it were just a rule against “sagging” I would support it, but this is a very specific list of “every way black people might dress”. If they were just trying to insist people “dress up”, why are flat-billed caps banned but not raggedy curved bill caps; and why are long plain white T-shirts banned but not T-shirts with logos, like this one for instance? And we have heard testimony that it is not applied in a colour-blind way in any case.
It’s refreshing that the City Pages calls it out for what it is.
OTOH it is alarming and dispiriting to read the comments. Why are those who defend the bar so numerous, given that they are presumably mostly Twin Cities residents, reading a progressive alt-weekly? Gross.
Yes, I think that was the case I was thinking of. Its been decades since law school. I guess I can pretend I was talking about the commerce clause cases :smack:
One of my threads zombied. A rare sight. Thanks, SlackerInc.
When I first saw this story, I was thinking 'Where have I heard Bar Louie before? Oh we have one here." This is kinda surprising from a franchise rather than a local bar.
