Hacker News Reader

Comment by joonix | Hacker News Reader

Nightclubs in Houston try to keep minorities out because white people will call a place "ghetto" if it has a lot of blacks or Hispanics. It's not hard to figure out. Growing up in Houston I saw countless venues quickly disappear as soon as word spread that they were "ghetto." What basically happens is the young white women feel uncomfortable around "ghetto" men, so they go elsewhere. Young men go where the young women are.

You can blame the patrons, not the owners. The owners are behaving rationally, sadly.

View on HN

This is sadly true. I currently live in Houston, and I've seen it first-hand. Bouncers will more-or-less throw out anyone who isn't white. (I avoid those places, but I live near several of them (midtown) and I've seen it happen several times.)

It's not limited to Houston, however. Tuscaloosa (Alabama) had several bars with similar policies. There it was a "dress code" (basically business casual--in a college-targeted bar) that was only enforced if you weren't white.

The rest of the country has plenty of racism as well, but it's much more blatant in the south.

That's EXACTLY right... Houston is all about what I would call "Rationality".

It cuts the other way as well.

I live in Houston.

I'm one of the pricks driving all of the prices up inside the 610. I live behind the gates you see when you drive down Sunset.

Recently, I went to lunch with an acquaintance who is black. We went to a pretty nice place in Third Ward, where we met up with his friends. Being the frank [person] that I am, I professed to surprise that there would be such an upscale restaurant in Third Ward. (It had prices to match.) At which point they explained to me that it's common knowledge that if black people go out to eat in Houston, they should do so in Third Ward. So as to avoid... let's just say... "added ingredients" in their meals.

What struck me as I contemplated the conversation on the way home from lunch... was that very intelligent and successful blacks believed that the integrity of their food would be compromised if they did not eat in Third Ward. Now I realize that the reality is that this belief probably has a good basis in fact, so I completely understand their tendency to eat at restaurants with open kitchens, or at restaurants in Third Ward.

And that was the rub, there IS a sort of self-segregation that was going on... but it's all based on decisions that are completely rational for the individual. In the single case of black eating habits for instance, if a few knuckleheads in Houston are more likely than they are in other cities to ... say ... add bodily fluids to the food of black patrons... then blacks will tend to eat at their own restaurants.

Are the restaurants racist? Not really. They just happened to hire a nugget head. Probably, quite unknowingly.

Are the blacks racist? Not really. They just don't want to eat food that is potentially contaminated with bodily fluids. Quite understandably.

So everyone can act in an honest, forthright, and rational manner... and the results can still seem pretty ugly.

I know Houston pretty well... and I think that is the sort of thing that is coming out in these Yelp reviews. The ugly ways that race and rationality intersect in an economy or society.

> So everyone can act in an honest, forthright, and rational manner... and the results can still seem pretty ugly

Sorry, what? "Everyone can act in an honest, forthright, and rational way"?

The people adding "added ingredients" to their meals are acting in an honest, forthright, and rational way?

This isn't "rationality", it's acting like a racist asshole.

Now, it's not surprising if black people avoid places that have a bunch of racist assholes. But that doesn't mean that what's going on is self-segregation; that's overt, racist segregation on the part of the knuckleheads who are spitting in their food.

I'm really having a hard time following what you're trying to say, because it feels like you're trying to say "well, that's what happens when everyone acts rationally", and I'm not really seeing that, I'm seeing a lot of people acting in a racist manner.

I think the point is even if 9/10 places to eat where safe people would still avoid them simply because of 3rd party's that are not working at those safe places. Aka the risk is somewhat independent of the restaurants actions.

From the above post:

> Are the restaurants racist? Not really. They just happened to hire a nugget head. Probably, quite unknowingly.

He seems to be implying that "restaurants" (I guess he means the cooks, and owners who don't stop the cooks) who spit in black people's burgers aren't racist.

Even if, as you say in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, he's talking about third parties who aren't working there, the restaurant has a responsibility to not allow patrons to disrupt other patron's meal. If someone were to spit in my food, and the restaurant didn't kick them out, I'd sure as hell be pissed off at that restaurant.

Racism (and other forms of discrimination based on who you are rather than what you do) is insidious and evil, and needs to be stood up against, not just passively saying "well, that's what they do, what are you going to do." It is fundamentally wrong to treat a person as a category, rather than an individual.

Guy...

look... the owner may not even be around when a cook or waiter compromises someone's food. How can you say that the owner is a bigot simply because he or she has bigots working for him or her.

I've run into MANY bigots in San Francisco for instance. Many work at Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. Does that, then, imply that the senior executives at these firms are bigots? At some point, you need to trust your employees. You only know what you see, and you can't see everything. This does not make you a racist... it makes you a human.

That's right.

The presence of what may be single knucklehead, in Houston, drives blacks to patronize their own restaurants to the exclusion of others.

(I do realize that the practice of compromising the integrity of the food of black restaurant goers is probably a pretty widespread practice, and not the work of a "single knucklehead".)

My only point is... I doubt, in a lot of these cases, that the restaurant owner him or herself is racist.

> Are the restaurants racist? Not really. They just happened to hire a nugget head. Probably, quite unknowingly.

> Are the blacks racist? Not really. They just don't want to eat food that is potentially contaminated with bodily fluids. Quite understandably.

Weird phrasing at best. Under no set of circumstances would it be valid to characterize the blacks you describe as "racist." Unless you've really, really internalized the Romney "corporations are people, my friend" thing, discriminating against a restaurant cannot be racist.

> You can blame the patrons, not the owners. The owners are behaving rationally, sadly.

I understand what you're saying but if what you're describing is correct, you can blame the owners for not complying with federal law.

Yep, this is illegal. From an article in the Houston Press( http://www.houstonpress.com/2011-02-10/news/getting-past-the...)

Although they are private businesses, in the eyes of the law — specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — bars and nightclubs are "public accommodations" like hotels, restaurants and movie theaters, and thus forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Private clubs, institutions such as country clubs that are selective in membership and only open to members, are generally exempt.

However, "Even if you have a doorman, a bar is more like a restaurant than a country club," says Dale Ho, Assistant Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in New York City. "So, generally speaking, a bar that treats patrons differently on the basis of race is in violation of federal law."

There's a fine point between good and bad discrimination when it comes to bars and clubs and the like--a great deal of the attraction of many bars is having a particular vibe or culture, and if an owner wants to cultivate that in a particular way they should be free to do so.

It's thorny.

EDIT:

Why do you disagree?

It ia not thorny. Discriminating on the basis of race is immoral. Period. You cannot determine someone's character or how they fit into an establishment's 'vibe' simply based on the color of their skin.

If your notions of "vibe or culture" include race, it's illegal and wrong.

If a white guy and a black guy are dressed the same, and the black guy gets turned away...

Could it be that the patrons are acting ghetto, which begets the venue the ghetto moniker? I don't doubt that there is some racism going on, because racism is still coursing through our veins, but certain behaviors make "white women" feel uncomfortable and unsafe, just as much as they make many other people feel that way. The whole problem is a rather reflexive and self-fulfilling one.

Since "acting ghetto" is code for "being black," yes, they most certainly would be.

This kind of stuff happens all over in this country: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-sues-lucky-strike-l... and http://chicagoist.com/2010/10/14/foodie_rant_-_sometimes_dre... being two examples I remember.

The policy forbids plain white T-shirts? What.

This is very common. Places particularly ban plain white t-shirts and baseball caps as it will keep out a segment of young black males. This isn't limited to white spots either, some clubs with a black clientele also enforce this ban.

Wait, if the club is targeted at black clientele, then why do they have a policy designed to keep out black people?

Economics - black clubs also enforce dress codes to try and ensure their patrons have some cash to spend. They want a clientele that can "dress to impress". Banning white shirts and baseball hats is also an attempt to lower issues with gangs, and young men (of any race) tend to fight a lot, so if you can get a slightly more grown up clientele, you might have less problems.

Huh, I guess that makes sense. If the objective there isn't to target a race, but rather a class or age group, then I guess that isn't terribly different from restaurants requiring sports jackets.

Because they want to attract affluent blacks, not broke yoof troublemakers.

I'm going to back this up in so much as I have seen this happen in Houston, as far back as the early 90s. A bar will open, perhaps their DJ spins hip-hop, and a primarily African American clientele "discovers" the place. Management freaks out and either cracks down on the door policy or bans hip-hop so that portion of the clientele doesn't come back.

It sucks, and it is wrong.

Also, this is not every bar or club in the city. There are a lot of spots with a multi-racial clientele in Houston that have been rolling along for years (some of my friends bartend at them), but if you're into the "high end" clubs/lounges and that sort of thing then you will definitely run into this crap. But then, I've always thought of those places as pretty low class.

> You can blame the patrons, not the owners. The owners are behaving rationally, sadly.

You can blame both, in fact. The owners don't get a free pass on having a racist door policy just because a few patrons are racist as well.

If you want to keep the club from being "ghetto", then have a dress code, and turn away anyone, white, black, Hispanic, or other, who doesn't meet the dress code, and let in anyone who meets the dress code and is not obviously disruptive (belligerent, drunk, etc). Be very clear with bouncers that it's not OK to apply such dress codes differently based on someone's race.

I'm sorry, but if a patron is going to leave because a black person is going to come in, they aren't a customer worth having. If they're worried about the customers just going to another club, they should get together with the other clubs and agree to universally adopt a "no racist bouncer" rule, spelling out what kinds of rules and dress codes are acceptable and what kind are not.

This is a free market issue that would be solved with regulation - in their eyes, keeping out black people gives the club a higher chance of success. In order for one club to stop being racist, all of them have to so white patrons just have to deal with being around (shock horror) black people. It just takes one to waive from this policy, and there isn't a huge amount of motivation to stick to it. So, govm't has to stick it's nose in and make sure bouncers aren't being racist (fairly easy, just send sober black people in who are 100% conforming to the dress code and see if they get refused), and fine them massively if they are guilty, thus de-incentivising racism. Eventually, patrons will grow up and get used to the "scary" blacks and score one for equality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com