Should Baggy Pants be Banned? Florida and Arkansas say 'Yes': We say 'No"

Editors note:
We finally got Hollywood in Blackface out (available on Amazon in book form here). If you enjoy this Web site, purchase a copy and help us send it up the list of Amazon best-sellers (the Kindle version reached #5 in movies yesterday). For a donation of $50 or more, we’ll send you a signed copy of both Hollywood in Blackface and SBPDL Year One (make it in the left-hand corner to PayPal).

Banning 'Baggy Pants' is harmful to the community. Criminals can blend-in now

Interested in following the flooding in Memphis, we took a look at the Memphis Commercial Appeal and instead found a story that takes precedent over the rising Mississippi River. It’s a story of a rapist caught because of the bagginess of his pants:

A 22-year-old man accused of rape had difficulty escaping from Memphis police in Whitehaven because his pants kept falling down around his knees, according to a court affidavit.

Police on Monday arrested Richard D. Graham of Memphis after a chase through apartment complexes that began in the 3500 block of Longbow, near Millbranch and Winchester.

Loud talking originally drew the officers' attention to three men, including Graham. When police discovered that Graham was wanted on a rape charge, he bolted but fell "multiple times while running due to his pants being around his knees," officers wrote in the court document.

On March 1, Memphis police charged Graham with rape following a report of a sexual assault last October involving a 14-year-old girl.

Police also charged Graham with evading arrest, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. He was held in Shelby County Jail with no bond amount immediately set on the rape charge.

We’ve told you before that Black people don’t like belts. We’ve told you that American Idol generated a pop sensation in the Black singer of Pants on the Ground, a song that preceded Antoine Dodson’s Bed Intruder rap but was just as beloved by white people who secretly enjoy laughing at Black people.
 

Arkansas recently banned saggy pants within its borders and Florida today passed a “droopy drawers” bill which prompted one writer at Thegrio.com to question if this was an example of racial profiling:

The Florida legislature passed a bill last week that bans saggy pants in school, allowing for suspension or other punishment for public school students who show their underwear or "butt crack." The sponsors of the bill -- state Senator Gary Siplin (D-Orlando) and state Rep. Hazelle Rogers (D-Lauderdale Lakes) -- are black. The legislation awaits Gov. Rick Scott's signature.

In the same breath, the state's lawmakers also passed a bill banning bestiality, or sexual relations between human and animals. With fiscal crises, unemployment and other problems facing the states, these hardly seem like pressing issues, certainly not serious enough to warrant a law.

In any case, let's stick with the saggy pants law for now.

An extreme step for something so trivial, so harmless, this is not the first attempt by Floridians to hike up the pants. For example, in 2008, voters in Riviera Beach, Florida approved a saggy pants measure which imposed a penalty of $150 or community service for first-time offenders, and jail time for habitual offenders. A judge found the law unconstitutional after a teen was forced to spend a night in jail. Last year, the city of Opa-Locka, Florida imposed a $250 fine and community service for those who don't pull up their pants in public.

And Florida is not alone. Last month, Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe beat Florida to the punch by signing a bill that bans students from wearing clothes that expose "underwear, buttocks or the breast of a female." Proponents believe the law will improve the learning environment and stem the violence caused by student competition over clothing styles. A similar effort in Tennessee failed in a state house subcommittee in April, a second attempt in as many years.

The town of Delcambre, Louisiana passed an indecent exposure ordinance in 2007 that prohibited the showing of one's underwear. In Hahira, Georgia, the city council passed a law prohibiting people from wearing pants below the belt and revealing skin or underwear.

Last year a Bronx man was issued a summons by a police officer for disorderly conduct, and wearing "his pants down below his buttocks exposing underwear [and] potentially showing private parts." 

Deciding to wear pants without a belt will seriously jeopardize employment opportunities for Black males already severely limited in employment opportunities by having the burden of a Black-sounding first name, poor credit score, and higher propensity for being a high school or college drop-out.

It is our belief at Stuff Black People Don’t Like that these laws banning baggy pants do the public a grave disservice, especially when one considers these recent crime statistics published in Criminology: 

The rise in the U.S. Hispanic population and the sharp jump in black violent crime during the late 1980s and early 1990s may skew statistics from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey that appear to show a recent drop in black violence, said Darrell Steffensmeier, professor, sociology, and crime, law and justice, Penn State.

The researchers, who released their findings in the current issue of Criminology, indicated that studies on black violent crime -- a crime that involves force or the threat of force -- often fail to account for the rise in the number of Hispanics in the U.S. Since there is no Hispanic category in the UCR and approximately 93 percent of Hispanics identify themselves, or are identified by law enforcement officers, as white, most arrests of Hispanics are added to white violent crime rates.

"The result is that the violent crime rates for whites are inflated and the black rates are deflated in these studies," said Steffensmeier, who worked with Jeffrey T. Ulmer, associate professor, and Casey T. Harris, graduate student, both in sociology and crime, law and justice, Penn State and Ben Feldmeyer, assistant professor, University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

When the researchers adjusted for the Hispanic effect, there was little overall change in the black percentage of violent crime, said Steffensmeier.

Using arrest statistics from 1980 to 2008 in California and New York, two states that include a Hispanic category, the recalculated national figures indicated that the black percentage of assault increased slightly from 42 percent to 44 percent and homicide increased from 57 percent to 65 percent. There was a small decline in robbery, from 57 percent to 54 percent.

"It is the case that violent crime rates are lower today for blacks, as they also are for other race groupings, but the black percentage of violent crime is about the same today as in 1980," Steffensmeier said.

According to Steffensmeier, studies that purport to show declines in black violent crimes may also rely on timelines that are too short to be effective. For instance, studies that start in the late 1980s and 1990s cover a period of rapid increase in black violent crime fueled by crack cocaine use in the inner cities. According to Steffensmeier, the recent decrease is more likely a return to average crime rates.
"A study that uses statistics from a short time period can lead to a regression to the mean effect," said Steffensmeier. "Which basically means, when a trend rises quickly, it can fall just as quickly."

Some researchers have suggested that the improving trend in black violent crime indicates that African-Americans are experiencing better social standing in the U.S. Steffensmeier said that black progress may not be as pronounced or as broad.
"There may be a growing affluent black middle class, but at the same time, the black underclass appears to have become even more disenfranchised and more segregated from the rest of society," said Steffensmeier.

That the new Black middle class exists at all in America is largely due to a combination of affirmative action and government jobs (the old Black middle class was gutted by the 60s and Disingenuous White Liberal government plans).  Oh… or token Black Republican politicians that are pushed to the forefront of the conservative movement to show that conservatives aren’t racist.
 

Black violent crime is only getting worse, despite high rates of Black incarceration. This is why such laws banning baggy pants must be overturned. Wearing baggy pants is a fine demarcation between the law-abiding and the law-breaking class. The only people who wear baggy pants are Black thugs, Black gang-bangers (or Hispanic) or wiggers. All represent the worst elements of the Black underclass, but one must recall that Morehouse College – a highly respected HBCU – had to mandate a dress code so that the so-called ‘elite’ Black male college students wouldn’t wear droopy drawers.
 

About a year ago, we were on a flight to New York City and members of Morehouse College were on board for some academic fair. Inquiring about the dress code, they shrugged it off, but it was obvious that the Black underclass culture permeates to all levels of Black culture now (Ron Paul is right; 95 percent of Blacks are lost!).

For the safety of all American citizens, any attempt to pass “droopy drawers” bills or “saggy pants” legislation must be opposed. As the magazine Criminology reports, it’s increasingly a shade of Black or Brown that people must fear when it comes to be mugged, raped, beaten or murdered.
 

Saggy pants let people know that trouble is near and potential employers that the candidate for the position (unless its sports related) isn't worth pursuing. Legislation that would remove this easy-to-identify criminal accoutrement threatens to destabilize civilization as we know it.
 

How else would Richard Graham have been caught in Memphis were it not for his ‘droopy drawers?’

#132. Income Inequality

There is a specter haunting America...

Black people love to spend money. Purchasing flashy items to adorn the ear lobe, teeth, neck, body, feet, car or other property is the primary reason saving money for the future is greeted with difficulty in the Black community.

Though most Black children aspire for a career as a professional athlete, the onus on the barbershop will continue to grow as these dreams are continually dashed and graduation rates plummet.

It is for these reasons (and a myriad of others) that a recent study on income disparities between the racial groups becomes so frighteningly obvious:

Income levels for African-Americans are less than half the income levels for whites in 31 major metropolitan areas, according to a Business First analysis of new U.S. Census Bureau data.


The largest disparity exists in Bridgeport-Stamford, Conn., where the per capita income for black residents is $20,368, which is 35.9 percent of the comparable figure for whites, $56,729.

The next four metros with the largest income gaps between blacks and whites are Boise, Idaho; Portland, Maine; Salt Lake City and Miami-Fort Lauderdale. Per capita incomes for blacks in all four of those areas are less than 41 percent of the per capita incomes for whites.

Business First generated racial income comparisons from the 2009 American Community Survey, which was released Monday by the Census Bureau. The study included 101 metropolitan areas with estimated populations greater than 500,000. (The 102nd metro above that threshold, Jackson, Miss., was excluded because its racial income data were incomplete.)

Click here for racial income comparisons for all 101 metros.

Business First matched up the per capita incomes for white, black, Hispanic and Asian residents of each metro. Per capita income (PCI) is defined as the average amount of money received by a residents of a given a area in a given year, encompassing such diverse sources of income as salaries, interest payments, dividends, rental income and government checks.

Four New York metros are below the 50 percent mark when black incomes are compared with those of whites: Syracuse (where black PCI is 44.5 percent of white PCI), New York City (47.8 percent), Rochester (48.8 percent) and Albany (49.2 percent).

The Southern states of the United States house 54 percent of the entire Black population. Curiously, these states also see 50 percent of the people living below the poverty line. Many of the metro areas listed in this study are found in the South. 

When one recalls that single Black women have a net worth of just $5 dollars, the reality of income inequality becomes glaringly obvious:

A recent study which found that the average single black women has a net worth of just $5 may appear to some people to be absurdly, shockingly eye-opening. But the sad truth is that this study represents just one facet of the mounting financial challenges and obstacles facing African American females, and African Americans as a whole.

Indeed, it's very well documented that Blacks in general lag behind their white counterparts on a number of financial measures, including:

- Homeownership rates (did you know 1 in 3 African American homeowners is currently in foreclosure?)
- Income levels
- Net worth
- College degree rates
- Dollars invested in the market

...And so on.

But the dilemma facing single black women may be particularly acute when you consider that many have no one to fall back on when times get tight and no real financial safety net. Add to the mix that many of these women are also parents, trying to raise children, and it's easy to see why this situation is so very dangerous. The plight of single black women has the ability to negatively impact an entire generation.

Barbershops provide steady employment (Black people don't like their own hair that much and rely on Korean businesses for remedies to ameliorate nature's cruelty), but the paycheck pales in comparison to whitey's.
Businesses have no incentive to discriminate, for the power of the EEOC to destroy small, medium or large firms over lawsuits grows by the day. The government provides outstanding jobs paying well above the private sector, but only so many are available. High unemployment is also a nagging problem.

Just as Black people practice "Waiting for Superman" to improve education and thereby removing the racial gap in learning, Black people await passing Go and collecting $200 in an all-out bid to remove income inequities.

Sadly, Black people are stuck with self-blighted properties and land behind bars in numbers far out of proportion to their number in society, while dreams of landing on Boardwalk and  Park Place are replaced with a perpetual existence in the proverbial Baltic Avenue:

Today, African American men working full time and year round have 72 percent of the average earnings of comparable white men. For African American and white women, the ratio is 85 percent. And during good times and bad, the black unemployment rate is typically stuck at about double the white rate. 

The persistence of these gaps is the subject of both a scholarly and a popular debate that is ideological as well as technical. 

There are two broad views of what is occurring. One view attributes persistent earnings inequality to the injuries of social class compounded by the legacy of segregation and slavery: family background and poor schools and a resulting deficit of cognitive skills are said to explain most of the gap. But a second strand of thinking identifies changes in the labor market and lingering racial discrimination as major factors. 

It's not as if this debate is just so much conjecture. There is an extensive body of research on the subject. Numerous studies, in fact, find that not even half of the racial differences in test scores can be explained by family background and school quality. They also show that the economic returns to the test scores and their determinants vary by race and that even when test results are effectively equal, racial earnings gaps remain. So, plain discrimination remains part of the story.

Income inequality will forever haunt Black people who desire to move on up, and for this reason it must be included in Stuff Black People Don't Like. Spend an hour on this Web site, and you might understand why these income inequalities really exist.

#64. No Loitering Signs

Loitering. Nationwide, businesses are confounded with the problem of individuals who have the apparent goal of standing around pointlessly with no desire to purchase any goods, but to merely engage in prolonged periods of fixed lingering.

No attempt is made to make a transaction by these loiterers, but shuffling around endlessly causing discomfort to those who are shopping is an unsettling byproduct of such behavior.

In every effort to maintain positive relations with the law, businesses erect "No Loitering" signs that are attempts to discourage the persistent lurking of unwanted individuals who make no effort to be called customers.

By law, businesses cannot discriminate against would be customers by the basis of their race, ethnicity or religion, but placing "No Loitering" signs in clear visibility is an indicator of that companies uneasiness with people of color.

Policies of "No Loitering" are in place at most malls across America, restaurants and bars and even theme parks:

Walt Disney World ejected four of Florida State University's top football prospects from Downtown Disney last weekend under its anti-gang, no-loitering policy.

The four, including the son of a Disney manager and the son of a Philadelphia civil-rights lawyer, were banned for life from Disney World property late Friday.

A Disney spokeswoman said the youths were expelled because they had been loitering for an extended period and refused to leave when Disney security told them to.

Parents of the youths wonder whether there's another reason: They're black.

"I keep thinking to myself, `This is crazy,' " said Mark Nugent, stepfather of Vincent Williams, football star at Ridge Community High School in Polk County. "Once they realized they weren't gangbangers, why didn't they let them go? They took their pictures. They fingerprinted them. And treated them like common criminals."

Because of concerns about a rise in ganglike activity at Downtown Disney lately, loitering or "any other inappropriate behavior" by groups of youths is not going to be tolerated, spokeswoman Jacquee Polak said Tuesday.

"No Loitering" signs are legal because the business owner is not practicing discrimination against customers, but preempting thievery by singling out shiftless layabouts who make no effort to part with their cash.

Black people often bear the brunt of "No Loitering" signs because of their willingness to travel in packs, which can be mistaken for gangs. Across the nation, discernible patterns of petty theft, crime and destructive decisions are attributed to Black people, which makes business owners weary of their presence.

The Flash Mobs in Kansas City where fueled by a seemingly uncontrollable flame of Black loiterers:

A growing number of youths had begun loitering on the Plaza in recent weeks with trouble erupting Easter weekend.

Police estimated 300 to 500 youths gathered April 3, caused fights and displayed gang signs. Police used pepper spray to break up several fights. Officers arrested a 17-year-old in a car with a gun.

Loitering drives away qualified customers who find the presence of such vagrants a sign of potential trouble and a dis-settling shopping experience. Worse, the nightclub experience for Black people is often objectionable due to an unpleasantly frequent derelict who is participating in loitering outside the club:

City officials have formed a committee and are crafting new rules to address concerns of violence and other problems at local nightclubs, in the wake of a deadly shooting at the Everyday Club and Lounge.

Located at 1603 Seventh Ave. N., the Everyday Club and Lounge Thursday stood vacant and silent, closed in the aftermath of the violence.

And nearby residents were pleased at the emptiness.

"My kids can't come out and play, since I've been here," Lashonda Jordan, who has lived in apartments across from the club since August 2009, said, noting she was "glad" the club was closed. "It's ridiculous ... Black, white, no matter. It's ridiculous how people are acting."

Quentin Antonio "Que" Spencer, 20, of 455 Merry Valley Drive in Columbus, was killed in an April 20 shooting at the club, in which an unnamed suspect opened fire, also injuring three others...

The committee also will be requesting bar owners sign agreements giving the CPD permission to "ride through" problem areas and warn loiterers and people engaged in potentially dangerous or problem behavior around the clubs for first offenses, with second offenders to be "picked up" by the CPD.

And "no loitering signs" will be placed on club buildings, Smith added.

These signs are aimed specifically at Black people, in a legal attempt by business owners to dissuade prospective miscreants from adding to the already overburdened penal system in America.

In Washington DC, an anti-loitering bill was introduced to discourage such behavior:

A bill criminalizing gatherings of more than two people in DC is drawing outrage and opposition from community and labor activists, as well as civil rights advocates. “This is a clear and blatant violation of the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of the American people to assemble,” said Metro Council President Jos Williams. “That it’s been introduced in the nation’s capitol is a travesty of justice." The Hot-Spot No-Loitering bill, recently introduced by Councilmember Jim Graham, would empower the DC police to declare a “hotspot zone” at any time, making it a crime to gather with two or more people on public property and giving the police the power to arrest people in the targeted zone with $300 fine and/or 180 days in jail.

Washington DC is more than 65 percent Black. Worse, the problem of Black crime is found nationwide and is not geographically isolated. In some cases, incidences of loitering by Black people can get so bad, entire malls must shut down in an effort to stave off financial losses:

Highland Mall closed early on Saturday, a day when the Texas Relays were in town, "because the safety and security of our shoppers and retailers is our top priority," according to an e-mail from the mall's general manager. Because the Texas Relays attract visitors who are mostly African American, the mall closing sends the message that Austin does not welcome their business. But the reaction from the blogosphere was mixed, with some defending the mall's action as prudent in the face of an unwelcome invasion of rowdy teenagers.

The struggle to racially integrate lunch counters in the 1960s made history. But equally important was the struggle to integrate shopping. The Highland Mall debacle shows that society is far from achieving that goal.

During the civil rights era, equal access to stores was high on the list of demands for racial justice. Before Jim Crow laws were repealed, many stores restricted their facilities to whites only. Black customers often were not allowed to try on clothes, eat at lunch counters, or use public restroom facilities in stores.

Small towns even implement "No Loitering" policies, to the bereavement of Black parents:

After her 30 year old son was arrested for loitering at Simms Street Apartments on Friday, April 16, mama was not happy. But it was apparently the Public Safety Viper Team she was angry at berating one officer and telling him he was doing the work of the white man.

Officer Bradley told several persons they would have to move along. One male, identified as "Durrell", looked over at Calvin Butler, sitting in a chair in front of a building, and said "Xxck these motherxxxxers, lets go". Sergeant James Dollar warned the male that his conduct was disorderly, and that he could be arrested, especially with the numerous small children in the area.

Sergeant Dollar advised "Durrell" and Calvin Butler to move along and leave the property immediately. Durrell continued to curse and be belligerent but walked on to an apartment porch. Butler, who had a white cup full of beer in his hand, was muttering and arguing with officers saying he did not want to be there anyway.

Loitering is a grave problem because it drives away respectable business, potentially bringing about financial ruination to said owner and depriving a community of an important part of the local economy.

Of course, some businesses employ low-tech measures instead of nasty "No Loitering" signs through the advantageous playing of classical music to ward off loiterers:

The market started using classical music about three years ago to repel loiterers and vandals from their buildings. Senn said the method appears to be working. Since he began playing the music, Senn said he hasn't called police to the lot as much, although the Seattle Police Department wasn't able to confirm that.

Businesses and transportation systems use classical, opera and country music as a crime-fighting tool around the globe.

Stuff Black People Don't Like includes no loitering signs, because Black people are painfully aware that they speak directly to them. Well, and Jay and Silent Bob.

If dress codes can't keep Black people out, "No Loitering" signs will.

#65. Dress Codes

Do private businesses have the right to decide who frequents their establishment? In Black Run America, the notion of private businesses serving customers at their discretion is not allowed, as all companies hoping to maintain positive standing with the government are coerced into conducting business with patrons of every race.

However, Black people are painfully aware that special rules exist that circumvent the law of forced association mandated by legislation that work to include Black patrons where they might not be welcome.

Notoriously, night clubs and bars throughout the United States utilize the clandestine methodology of barring Black people from patronizing their establishment through the elaborate usage of dress codes to deny entry to those who fail to uphold the standards of proper accoutrement's as prescribed by the owners.

Black people are known to have a unique sense of fashion, primarily wearing pants that routinely are on the ground instead of their waist. Owners of bars and restaurants are in the business of turning a profit and these proprietors are painfully aware of the track record that exists of Black nightclubs and bars that routinely are profiled on local nightly news channels for unsavory accomplishments.

Clubs and restaurants across America, forbidden by the government to practice discriminatory policies of denying patrons by the color of their skin instead deny entry to potential customers based on the clothes that adorn their bodies.

Kansas City - recently the home of Flash Mobs - has an area of town popular for the nightlife offered there that strangely imposes rules that seemed targeted toward barring Black people in a fashion completely legal:

Cordish instituted a dress code in June 2008 that has been called racist by critics. The dress code includes a ban on bandanas, work boots, ripped or baggy clothing, shorts that fall below the knees, athletic jerseys, and chains.^[City Hall questioned the Cordish company about the dress code, noting that the dress code seemed targeted towards black males and was inconsistently enforced.

Councilwoman Melba Curls said her son was turned away from the district, while Counselwoman Beth Gottstein stated that "the message I keep getting is that Cordish is only available to some." David Cordish stated that the company was merely attempting to reduce gang related activity.^[21] Critics further accused Cordish of exhibiting racial bias when after DJ Jazzy Jeff left the stage early during a performance.

It has long since been established that Black people do not like belts. Many restaurants and bars have enacted dress codes that deny entry to people who wear baggy pants, which seem to target Black people excessively for their propensity for finding belts unbecoming is legendary.

Cornrows, a popular hairstyle found uniquely found in the Black community, seems to be unpopular to owners of bars and restaurants who find this style of hair a potential harbinger of trouble to their place of business.

Dress codes, you see, are primarily a ruse conducted by business owners who wish to return to the days when freedom of association was a right awarded to everyone, even those who own popular restaurants and bars.

Refusing to serve someone based on the color of their skin might seem archaic and nefarious, but the freedom of an owner to serve customers was a right guaranteed once in the free market. Simply instituting policies such as a dress code act as a modern-day Governor George Wallace standing in the door keeping Black people out of enjoying the fun inside the bar:

Mother's, a popular night club in Chicago, appears to be reinstating Jim Crow laws as they recently barred entry to six African-American patrons. The six students were part of a senior class trip of 200 students from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri and had made plans to visit the establishment. Upon trying to entering the venue, the Black students were denied entry and were told it was because their pants were too baggy.

Not believing the hype, a white student switched pants with one of his classmates and tried the entry process again. Lo and behold, the white student was still allowed in while the Black student was left outside.

The situation in Chicago is not to be outdone by the one brewing in Kansas City, where a forum was recently held to discuss the validity of dress codes and find out, once and for all, if they exist to deny Black people entry to private restaurants denied the right by law to deny an individual entry based on their race:

At a forum entitled, “Is it your Clothes or your Color?”, sponsored by the Human Rights Commission of Kansas City, Missouri a panel of experts, academics, civil right activists and business owners were brought together to discuss the use of dress codes in the city.

The issue of whether or not dress codes were being used as a tool of racism became front page news a couple years ago when people of color, mostly African American men, began reporting problems with their enforcement at the Power and Light entertainment district Downtown.

Several complaints were made to the Human Rights Commission, which then took several steps to investigate violations of the Public Accommodations Law, initiated its own testing and worked with the management of Power and Light to make changes to the code.

Held at the Bruce R. Watkins Center, some panelists used their time to explain their experiences with dress codes around the city, while others discussed the social and legal implications of dress codes and their effectiveness. Members of the community also were given time to express their feelings about the issue and offer anecdotal information regarding the legacy of racism in Kansas City entertainment areas, including Westport and the Plaza.

Moderated by Daniel Weddle, Clinical Professor at the UMKC Law School, the issue of dress codes aimed at particular sections of the community—particularly people of color---came sharply into focus.

Nia Webster, organizer for Power and Lights Out (PLO) said her organization wasn’t against businesses establishing dress codes but want to help people understand about racial discrimination and how to properly report and respond to those incidents.

“Dress code should not be created to discriminate,” said Webster. “Dress is a perception. A person in a suit isn’t any different than someone with a white shirt and jeans. People who are troublemakers are troublemakers.”

Webster said her organization did a survey and that “90 percent knew someone who had been discriminated against.”

Anthony Burnside, a security specialist and consultant, who was Deputy Sheriff and former nightclub bouncer, said a business “had a right to have any dress code the want”.

“It should be posted on their website instead of people being surprised when they get there and are turned away,” said Burnside. “The point is to make money and have a good time.”

Burnside said when he worked as a bouncer in Westport the management let it be known what type of crowd they wanted; “Mix 93”, a local radio station that has a younger, white demographic.

Dr. Clovis Semmes, author and professor of Black Studies and Sociology at UMKC, said the phenomenon of dress codes is occurring nationally and its history was being written in places like Kansas City.

“They (dress codes) may be emerging as a proxy for racial discrimination,” said Dr. Semmes. “It’s a form of market regulation of prime commercial space.”

Dr. Semmes stated that factors like dress, musical selection and demographic targeting were raising many issues “regarding the physco-social perception of young black men” in “prime commercial areas”.

“If you played heavy metal music or country music you probably won’t see a lot of black people,” added Dr. Semmes. “If you have hip-hop or R&B, which has white fans as well, they don’t want to replace a young white demographic with a black demographic.”

Dr. Semmes went on to mention that sociological studies from the 1960s and 70s pointed to problems with how blacks where perceived by whites.

“In every case, black men were seen as more aggressive,” said Dr. Semmes of the studies where whites compared blacks--acting in the exact same manner as their white counterparts. “It only takes 30 percent of an audience for whites to perceive that blacks are in the majority.”

Dr. Semmes said that in “geographical context” dress codes were an issue of “dealing with corporations regulating markets in prime commercial real estate,” and were rare in “areas that are not prime commercial space.”

Andrea Shelby-Bartee, owner and manger of BodyWorks Phase II nightclub at 84^th and Troost said her establishment has used a dress code for years in order to “create a clean, safe atmosphere for everyone to have a good time.”

Bartee added that her establishment was targeting to be “an upscale type of venue” but didn’t feel the dress code discriminated against anyone because of race or ethnicity.

This problem of dress codes isn't geographically isolated in the mid-western states, but affects nearly every state where Black people reside and wish to enjoy a beverage:

On a blustery Saturday night, the usual line of 20-somethings was missing from in front of Peabody's, the Virginia Beach club.

Instead, small knots of people approached the doorman waiting outside on a stool.

When a young white guy accompanied by two women walked up, the doorman looked at him and his black football jersey, jeans and sneakers. He was rejected.

"This is the fifth place I've been turned away from tonight!" he told his friends.

It's common knowledge among clubgoers that Peabody's has a tight dress code.

Some people have speculated that the policy there and at many other clubs might be a subtle ways of discriminating against black people. Club owners, however, say the dress codes weed out patrons who might cause trouble and, in turn, harm their customers and their business.

White patrons say they're often turned away, too, and some black patrons agree with the policies.

"Our policies keep people safe, and it has worked for eight or nine years," said Brandon Ramsey, one of Peabody's operating partners. "People can take that the wrong way. But Peabody's is a mixed crowd. We work hard so people can come here and have a good time."

The irony is that across Hampton Roads, the music thumping inside clubs is often hip-hop, which dominates the charts and lures large crowds to dance, yet club owners set up dress codes that target the "hip-hop look " - the baggy clothes, work boots, 'do rags and other markings.

Ba Da Bing, another Oceanfront night club, looked considerably different than Peabody's from the outside. That night, the patrons were exclusively black, and the people in line had a style that swayed toward roomy pants, boots and camouflage. A security guard, however, said they also don't allow 'do rags, jerseys, gang-related beads, white T-shirts, flags or bandanas.

Ba Da Bing has a reputation for fights.

"A lot of clubs in Virginia Beach make dress codes to keep us out," said James Tamry, 25, a black Norfolk resident who was hanging outside Ba Da Bing on Saturday. He wore a striped Enyce polo shirt and jeans. "We dress a certain way."

At the same time, he said, he understands. "You have a lot of the younger guys, 18 to 21, that come out just to prove how tough they are."

Tamry, who is in the Navy, said clubs "are trying to keep the peace. But to me, something can happen anywhere."

Indeed. Norfolk police spokesman Chris Amos said a suspect was taken into custody last weekend after a knife fight in the Waterside parking garage, ostensibly after leaving one of the mall's very non hip-hop bar-restaurants.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed a discrimination complaint last week against Kokoamos, a bar and grill in Virginia Beach. The ACLU said the club's practice of banning cornrows and dreadlocks was discriminatory and potentially a violation of federal law.

Kevin Martingayle, a Virginia Beach lawyer whose practice areas include civil rights, said clubs are free to discriminate but not on the basis of race, gender or disability. Any place, therefore, that conducts business transactions with the public is within its rights to bar people with baggy jeans, because nearly anyone can wear big pants. But banning blond hair, for example, would discriminate on a different basis that might violate federal law.

Kokoamos' owner Barry Davis said the hip-hop look creates an atmosphere in which violence is more likely to break out. Hair aside, other club owners more or less shared that sentiment.

"It's more a young thing," said Terry Webb, who runs Reign in Norfolk, a trendy spot favored among upscale hip-hoppers. "How many women do you know who work at a Fortune 500 company that would talk to a man in a white T-shirt? At a certain age, it has to stop. No grown man should be going out in a jersey unless he's going to a sporting event."

Why is this trend of dress codes mandated by business owners appearing in virtually every city in America and why do they seem to target the habits of dress primarily associated with Black people?

We know that Black people do not like tipping, so perhaps it is an economic issue. Patrons of bars and restaurants normally tip a waiter or bar tender based upon their service, but Black people are known to refrain from parting with money in a voluntary manner for services rendered.

Or, perhaps it is due to the high-levels of violence that follow Black people at nightclubs throughout America. Bar owners are working to make a profit and develop of reputation of providing a fun, safe environment for patrons to enjoy a good time replete with shots of alcohol and removed from shots that come from guns.

Like the William Gates Foundation Scholarship which is only available to minority students, dress codes seem targeted only at minorities. Private businesses and corporations are mandated by law to serve every patron, regardless of race, yet few people question the rights of a private charity to grant scholarships solely by race, excluding all white people.

If one is morally wrong, shouldn't the other be as well?

Dress codes exist in nearly every city, an attempt by business owners to proactively engage troublemakers by keeping them out of their establishment and they target only Black people in the process.

Business owners risk lawsuits and horrible publicity to implement such dress codes. Perhaps, after failing to enact the three rules set forth by Dalton in the film Road House on how to properly run a bar, business owners realized they would rather face financial ruination by social ostracism than allow Black people to grace their businesses.

ZZ Top said every girl loves a sharp dressed man. Business owners say - through the advent of dress codes - that everyone still doesn't like Black people in their establishment, regardless of the publicity that accompanies any attempt to implement a dress code.

Stuff Black People Don't Like includes dress codes, for utilizing such draconian methods to bar Black people from frequenting a place of business should have been relegated to the bad old days of Jim Crow.

Yet, if forced diversity is so great and freedom of association such an outdated method of conducting of business, why do restaurants and bars across the United States continue to risk closing by having dress codes?

Even the NBA - a league that is 80 percent Black - instituted a dress code for its players. Bars, restaurants and the NBA all have the commonality of dress codes to Black people's chagrin.

#269. Taking the Sticker Off of Hats

Authenticity. This five-syllable word is of vital importance to Black people, as "Keepin' it real" is an integral part of what it means to be Black in America. Acting White is a sin in the Black community and potentially the highest offense that can be made against genuine Blackness and violates the mandate of authenticity that holds together the volatile world of Black Run America.

More so than any other community in America, Black people find clothing to be the mark of a gentleman's distinction, standing and worth in the community. It has been said that you "should dress for the job you want" and this piece of advice is taken quite literally in the Black community, for the era of hip-hop dominance has permeated throughout the whole of Black fashion and created an army of gangstas.

The lack of belts in the Black community would be baffling were it not for the overwhelming zeal that the Black elite shun the wearing of such an unnecessary accoutrement.

Todd Boyd, a tremendously gifted Black author who wrote Young, Black, Rich and Famous: The Rise of NBA, The Hip Hop Invasion and the Transformation of American Culture, has an interesting take fashion tastes of his fellow Black people:

...Boyd believes that there is a strong link between the Black Power Movement and hip-hop culture; he clarifies this point by saying, "In the same way that civil rights spoke to the conditions back in the day, hip hop artists now speak to a populace often disillusioned by those considered overtly political in a traditional sense."

Boyd, an authority on Black culture, understands the restlessness of youth and the trials and tribulations that Black people face today. He realizes the ying and the yang of Black people, for that trenchant analysis of Hip Hop culture shows the great disconnect that exists between the generational gap in Black Run America (BRA).

The Civil Rights generation worked overtime to dress in white manners and practice white mores to be accepted by white people. The progeny of this generation who have created the Hip Hop culture never felt the sting of Jim Crow nor State-sponsored segregation.

All they know is the spoils of the entitlement culture the Civil Rights generation helped create and spawn.

Aaron McGruder, the creator of The Boondocks comic strip (and television show) lampoons Hip Hop culture constantly, but never excoriates Black people too much lest he be considered the dreaded Uncle Tom.

Thus, current Black fashion includes the curious practice of leaving stickers upon freshly purchased merchandise and most commonly this is found on ball caps.

Hats are a vital amenity of the Black wardrobe, for we already know that their own hair is a source of constant resentment toward the class of people that once oppressed them.

The hat is a source of strength for Black people as they can proudly proclaim the city from whence they were raised and reared by association with professional sports team (New Era baseball caps are hugely popular among Black people).

Black people don't want to take the sticker off of the hat they have just purchased, because it helps lend authenticity to the fact that they purchased the hat. Strangely, Black people don't want to ruin the crispness of the hat either as they leave the bill in pristine condition.

Keeping the authenticity of the hat in the same condition it came in from the manufacturer means that Black people can get back at The Man by refusing to bow to the fashion conditions created by white standards for wearing the ball cap.

First, it was wear the hat backwards. White people co-opted this maneuver, forcing Black people to scramble for an original style in wearing the cap. Kangol Hats are a staple of the Black head cover, but white people never jumped over this trend so it lost a lot of the attraction for Black people (secretly Black people like it when white people emulate them).

The uncreased bill look is exploding in the white community, which explains the steps taken to differentiate the looks by Black people. Leaving the sticker on is a defiant middle-finger to the fashion police, who will undoubtedly change the rules to appease Black people and endorse the sticker-on-the-hat look.

Taking the sticker off of a hat would mean that Black people accept the societal norms and conditions to be accepted and regrettably would be considered Acting White. If Black people accept the fashion conditions set by white people, they capitulate their style and one of the few acceptable forms of protesting the oppressive fashion dictated by white people.

Paradoxically, once white people accept the Black fashion then the Rubicon has been crossed and a new fashion must be concocted to ensure authentically Black fashion governs the threads that are to be generally accepted by Black people.

Stuff Black People Don't Like includes taking the sticker off of hats, for this is one of the last remaining vestiges of authentic Black protest left that can be practiced in BRA. The Civil Rights movement guaranteed equality before the law and equal opportunity for all people. The Hip-Hop movement is but an extension of these gallant crusaders fighting oppression in one of the few remnants of white oppression left - the way a hat is properly worn.

Leaving the sticker on is just like refusing to give up a seat on the bus. In the 21st century, it's the last place Black people can voice their disapproval with the system that exists primarily for their benefit.

#113. Belts

Finish the analogy: Brooks Brothers is to FUBU as white is to _______.

Answer? That's forthcoming, but instead let's take a fascinating look at an often neglected accoutrement in the world of fashion today,the belt.

One of the biggest faux pas one can commit in the world today is not wearing a belt, as it has been synonymous with a political protest against the racist fashion standards of the white man, and is yet another example of cultural dominance and ethnocentrism over indigenous and formerly captive peoples.

The belt was invented by white people and has long been a tool utilized by white people to hold up their pants - and lately a tool used by women to accentuate their mid-section and give off the impression of being "skinnier" - and keep them from "sagging":

"Belts have been documented for male clothing since the Bronze Age. Both sexes used them off and on, depending on the current fashion, but it was a rarity in female fashion with the exception of the early Middle Ages, late 17th century Mantua, and skirt/blouse combinations between 1900 and 1910. Art Nouveau belt buckles are now collector's items. In the militarain periods, particularly the later half of the 19th century and up until the first World War, the belt was strictly a decorative part of the uniform, particularly among officers. In the armed forces of Prussia, Crimea, and other Eastern European nations, it was common for officers to wear extremely tight, wide belts around the waist, on the outside of the uniform. These tightly cinched belts served to draw in the waist and give the wearer a trim physique, emphasizing wide shoulders and a pouting chest.

Since the mid 1990s, the practice of sagging has been popular at times among young men and boys. This fashion trend consists of wearing the trousers very low on the hips, often exposing the underwear and buttocks of the wearer. This urban style, which has roots tracing to prison gangs and the prohibition of belts in prison (due to their use as weapons and devices for suicide) has remained popular into the 21st century, particularly among pubescent boys."

We now have the answer to the riddle from the first sentence, as those who decide to absolve themselves from wearing belts are by and large Black people - the "wigger" is also an individual who finds belt wearing perplexing, but that is for another time to discuss - and this has lead to a whole new world of fashion.

Did the fashion of Black people not wearing come from prison? Or are the origins far more sinister and homo-erotic? You be the judge:

"We have now come to the point where young men, in particular, have adopted the culture, clothes and language of young African-American males; those individuals are adopting as role models inmates in prison. It is the latter point that creates the problem.

While there is some controversy as to the sources of the new "fashion", baggy pants worn so loosely that they perch somewhere well below the waist, exposing, usually, decorative boxer shorts, most believe it comes from prison inmates. Bill Maxwell, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, suggests an alternative origin derived from slavery times.

Some white masters would rape their African male slaves; subsequently, the victims were forced to wear their pants sagging so that their masters could identify them for future attacks. According to Mr. Maxwell, dehumanized black slaves wearing sagging pants were said to be announcing that they were available for their white masters. Over time, the style became a little-talked-about subculture that seeped into general black culture."

The other version says the fashion developed in prison among black convicts. Judge Greg Mathis, host of a television program, said in Jet Magazine, "In prison you aren't allowed to wear belts to prevent self-hanging or the hanging of others. . . [Inmates] take off the belt and sometimes your pants hang down. ... Many cultures of the prison have overflowed into the community unfortunately. ... Those who pulled their pants down the lowest and showed their behind a little more, that was an invitation. [The youth] don't know this part about it."

This whole idea of homosexuality among Black people in prison and the almost laughable notion put forth by Mr. Maxwell of Black slaves being buggered by their white masters truly sheds new light on the idea of "No Homo" and also opens eyes as to why HIV/AIDs is so rampant in the Black community.

Most people in this world - save the fine example of Mormons - have been to a bar, and many have probably seen signs that prohibit people wearing baggy clothes from entering said bar. Obviously, this is a good idea, for if we are to believe the reality of "saggy" pants wearing, then most of these individuals are in danger of suicide or are trying showcase their ancestral connection with their Black fore bearers who were raped by their white masters.

Most interesting, a Google search on "Baggy Pants Law" turns up an astounding 93,000 hits, as cities from Atlanta and Los Angeles debate whether they should outlaw baggy pants and make it criminal (the connotation being that only criminals wear their pants baggy):

Atlanta City Councilman C.T. Martin said he's tired of seeing kids and young black men wearing their pants down around their knees. His ordinance would make exposed underwear no different than sex in public.

"It kind of doesn't make sense. It is hard for people to walk," Martin said.

And the councilman has plenty of supporters.

"[There] should be a law against it. I think they should be arrested. They should be fined," said Atlanta resident Beverly Thomas.

Interestingly, this debate on baggy pants and criminality has a number of correlates, as a lot of Black people are in jail and many of those Black people in jail wear baggy pants:

"At midyear 2008, there were 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents being held in state or federal prison and local jails, compared to 1,760 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents and 727 white male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents."

Yet, are the imperialistic laws against baggy pants yet another clear-cut definition of cultural imperialism directed at Black people in a white world?:

Towns across the country have passed laws banning baggy pants, imposing fines and prison time on the offenders. In Pine Lawn, Missouri, the parents of young offenders could spend 90 days in jail. A proposed bill in Kentucky would fine offenders $1,000 for wearing pants below the waistline.

These laws are misguided because they criminalize expression - anyone arguing that exposure of underwear is indecent exposure should work on amending indecent exposure laws rather than criminalizing a specific clothing style. They're also wrong because they target an urban population and one that includes a large number of African-Americans. We tend to criminalize that which we don't understand, and we tend to make laws that increase contact between police and inner-city youth.

Well, one thing is understood: Black people who wear belts are acting white, and Stuff Black People Don't Like has a new addition - wearing belts - for the origins of "No Homo" needs much more research to prove after learning why Black people don't wear belts.