|
|
|
|
|
|
by OJFord
1425 days ago
|
|
|
It just makes it sound like you want it to be exclusive doesn't it? How many black people are going to feel comfortable in a 'white friendly place'? It's kind of 'you don't belong here' in the most explicit but not threatening way possible. If I (white) saw 'black friendly cafe' or something, I don't have a problem with that to be clear, but I would absolutely assume that I'm not exactly welcome, that it's intended to serve that community - as in perhaps even specific to a particular country/region people are from (or have heritage) locally. If what you want is actually a hyper-inclusive mix, I don't really know what you can actively do, but I do think you need to not mention any particular groups or categorise people like that. |
|
|
"Pro-black" is not equivalent to "Pro-white" mainly because of the context within the US. "Pro-black" however is equivalent to "Pro-Italian" or "Pro-Irish" because of the historical context of how those phrases relate to generalized heuristic (cultural celebration usually involving commerce).
> If I (white) saw 'black friendly cafe' or something, I don't have a problem with that to be clear, but I would absolutely assume that I'm not exactly welcome, that it's intended to serve that community
If your lived experience is that you haven't been welcome to a 'black friendly cafe', then that is unfortunate. That is not my experience and I can't find any data or historical context that reinforces that narrative. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that if it did, it would not be wrong, but that statement reinforces my point.
You are using the context of how you would feel as an equivalency to the intent of the person who puts out the message. If you don't allow for nuance, then you will have missed the point.
"Pro-white" or "White friendly" messaging historically has been extremely overt as being anti-Black, so much so that we have entire amendments in our US Constitution that exist in an attempt to combat them.