None worse than this piece, published by one of the subsidiary sites of the Media Research Center, attempting to use Disingenuous White Liberal (DWL) logic to shame Starbucks. [Why Is There No Starbucks Coffee House in Selma?, CNSNews.com, 3-19-15]:
But a friend of mine named Paul made a brilliant point.
Sorry CNSNews.com, but a Starbuck's is located a few feet from Ferguson, servicing the global headquarters of the Fortune 500 Company Emerson Electric
If Starbucks wants us to talk about race, let’s start with why they don’t have Starbucks Coffee Houses in some of America’s cities that are mostly black, or have had a racially charged history?
My friend looked up various cities, and found that there are no Starbucks Coffee Houses in many of them.
Places like Highland Park, Michigan, which is at the center of Detroit, is inhabited by a population that is 94 percent African-American. Or in Benton Harbor, Michigan, which is almost 90 percent African-American. There is not a Starbucks in either town.
There is not a Starbucks in East St. Louis, Illinois, in which 98 percent of the population is African-American. Nor is there one in Gary, Indiana, whose population is 85 percent African-American.
The recent remembrance of the march on Selma, Alabama had the president walking down the street with many people who fought for civil rights, but once again, Selma doesn’t have a Starbucks. Neither does Ferguson, Missouri.
Here is the point, if Starbucks wants to have a conversation about race, perhaps they should explain why they are not accessible to most of those they claim to advocate for and champion. If being of a different race than white is higher on their list of desirables, why isn’t Starbucks putting their money where their mouth is?No, I'm not the author of this piece's (Jen Kuznicki) friend. In fact, if you head over to Twitter, you'll notice the SBPDL Twitter account confronted Mrs. (or is it Ms.?) Kuznicki for incorporating extremely faulty logic in asking why a corporation - that must answer to shareholders - isn't opening up shops in heavily black areas cities across America.
Simply put: Businesses want to be in the black, not surrounded by blacks.
Interesting, a Starbuck's shop is located close to 70 percent black Ferguson, though it's only short walk from the campus of the headquarters of Emerson Electric, a Fortune 500 company.
More than 1,300 employees work there, making it an attractive location for a Starbuck's; the same can't be said for 70 percent black (and rising), where QuikTrip, K-Mart, Toys 'r' Us, and Big Lots have recently fled.
Why doesn't 86 percent black Jackson, Mississippi not have a Starbucks?
Why does 4.9 percent white Camden, New Jersey not have a Starbucks?
No business should be faulted for closing up shop and moving away from an area undergoing extreme demographic changes, especially when the racial population once possessing the capital attracting the business to the area has engaged in the oh-so-American phenomenon of white flight.
Where it not for extreme government-mandated affirmative action in the private sector and absolutely insane racial favoritism in the public sector, there would be no black middle class.
Bemoaning the lack of Starbuck locations in heavily black areas as a "gotcha-moment" of pseudo-journalism by the crack writers at CNSNews.com is embarrassing, when the demographics of cities like Ferguson, Jackson, Camden, East St. Louis, Highland Park, and Gary represents the only reason this private business isn't operating in these locations.
The so-called opposition to the Democrat Party and those pushing Black-Run America (BRA) are the primary people in need of an uncensored conservation about race, but there just as wedded to the idea of eternal minority uplifting as those they profess to be ideological opposed against.
Businesses want to be in the black, not surrounded by blacks.