Starbucks's Race Dialogue Initiative. #racetogether.

Post Reply New Topic

People are getting all upset over this, WHY I have no idea. Starbucks is having their employees write the words "#racetogether" on coffee cups they serve to customers. All barristas are doing is writing #racetogether on paper coffee cups. It's no big deal. If you don't like it, just ignore it or you could even tell the barrista you want a cup without that on it, but why get upset over those two words? No one says you have to talk about it. It's not like it's a big deal but people are freaking out over it. I just don't get why people would have conniptions over those two words. Why would they upset anyone? To me, it's a symptom of how much people have lost their sense of reason if they are seriously going to lose it over those two words.

I don't understand why so many people have such an issue with this silliness yet cannot be even more disturbed by what happened at OU with SAE.

If certain students at OU wanted to raise awareness about race, or to publicly state they do not like black people, why didn't they just come right out and do it instead of sneaking around then denying that is what they are doing or how they feel? They could distribute stuff that says "#noblacks if that's what they truly believe and that's seems far more emotionally triggering than just writing "#racetogether."

Another thing is, I wonder how many people who are freaking out about this are also the ones who say everything anyone ever says or writes is merely freedom of speech. If they honestly feel anything goes, why get upset over those two words on a coffee cup? We all are supposed to be expressing ourselves freely at all times so what does it matter if those words are on a cup? What's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.

Starbucks can (and does) do what it chooses. I appreciate that their stores are instructed to welcome guests who choose to wear unconcealed firearms if local laws provide doing so. I have chosen to do this once or twice at their stores, though, since almost every merchant in Utah does the same, the novelty wasn't quite as effective as it would be elsewhere. Still, when Second Amendment supporters chose to accept Starbucks' welcome as we did, we neither expected nor received their help to promote our rights. Neither do I believe that Starbucks should use the paper cup that becomes my property as part of my legitimate purchase to advertise its support of the #racetogether political meme (no matter how much I support the meme). I don't even appreciate their logo plastered on everything that comes with every purchase because they should market themselves without drafting me and my cash into the bargain.

So, when Second Amendment supporters carried openly in their stores nationwide, we didn't promote their involvement as part of our message (in fact, they threatened to sue one group who had gone that far). Both Starbucks and the Second Amendment supporters played nicely but separately. In the #racetogether strategy, they give their customers no choice but to play along. They didn't accept that step too far when a Second Amendment group used them, so I believe that they shouldn't turn around and force others to accept becoming walking billboards for their pet project(s), either.

Most people who buy from Starbucks pretty much support such ideas so it's not a matter of offending or forcing something on a group that is entirely at odds with the concept. It's not like going into a KKK meeting, declaring, we all must race together, invading their right to peacefully assemble and at a KKK meeting, you would expect to hear messages like OU's kappa SAE chapter because the ideologies are congruent. According to the message displayed at SAE's official site, what was on the video was NOT in compliance with their overall philosophy and goals. I disagree with this idea we must go to the private KKK meeting when they are assembling peacefully because it's our right under freedom of speech, expression, religion and bother them with our opinions. If this occurred I would fully support the KKK booting such people out.

Corporations promote their own ideologies all the time and you either accept or not but if you are going to start bombarding a franchise you simply do not like or agree with for writing something on a cup that would appeal to their demographic, then aren't you being a bit hypocritical if you truly support the right to free speech? You know what is going to be on that cup, you have the right to buy or not, but why wouldn't your just ignore it if you don't like it or want it? Why do you have to bully a twitter account or try to get others not to buy the coffee? Why is it such a big deal in the first place? Plus, you have the option of asking them not to write on your cup. Just tell them please do not write on my cup.

As far as guns go, a movie theater across the street, which is owned by people in this part of the country, do not let people bring firearms inside but you don't see the bullies appear in full force hitting them with all kinds of surly tweets and comments in droves simply because they don't allow firearms inside. Same goes for 7/11, they don't let guns inside, either. So it's not like Starbucks would be the only corporation that prohibits this but since they have the reputation of being "liberal" they are being bullied and attacked by people who claim to support the first amendment without any sort of regulation.

By using my examples of the #racetogether campaign and the previous Second Amendment related "Starbucks Appreciation Day" campaign was intended to show the double standards that Starbucks believes it enjoys. It chooses to engage in the former while having had a history of backing away (but not entirely) from the latter ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all ). Yes, corporations are allowed to pick and choose their marketing battles. But, I argue that when they start charging me for the luxury of their free speech (whether I agree with them, or not), they cross a line. I am no longer recruited using guile and witticisms, I am drafted into their campaigns whether I choose to do so or not. Would those who embrace Starbucks' #racetogether campaign feel comfortable if Burger King started an alternate #raceapart and gave them no choice in the matter of becoming a walking billboard while being expected to pay for it? I doubt it.

I was a marketing vice president. These were the decisions I faced. Often, the best marketing message is one of "come one, come all" neutrality especially when it comes to divisive issues. When I was told that a shopping-mall magazine that I had designed for a Chicago suburban neighborhood included a model who the mall vice president described as "too dark" for his clients. I acquiesced, chose another image of a whiter model, and published tens of thousands of copies of the magazine. The following month, that vice president's supervisor visited our office. I walked right up to her and apologized for choosing a model who was "too dark" for their demographic. I asked her if the whiter model was more to their liking. Oh, did I say that this woman was black? Yep. She thanked me for the information about her subordinate and, I suspect, he was fired before she returned to Chicago.

The same scenario played out when I was designing telephone-book display advertisements and chose to include various races in my spec-art ads based on U.S. Census statistics. I got grief over that from one small town in southern Washington near Portland. The sales representatives begged me to change the models back to white because the business owners didn't want to market to non-white residents. I substituted more Latino models for the black models, and the complaints went away.

So, yes, I understand racism where it matters, not just as a campaign slogan. My black, Latino and Arab boyfriends over the years loved my stories and agreed with my solutions. I also gave my customers what they wanted and paid for. And, that's they key. When I did marketing, I couldn't know if all of our customers were welcoming of others or if only five percent were. But, I learned quickly that customers will get what they want even if it means switching to different marketing businesses who agree with their politics.

But, this gay, white, Christian, firearm-owning, libertarian activist found creative ways around the discrimination obstacles without offending the clients who paid him. Starbucks could learn from that. After all, they did it once before with their Second Amendment policies. Heck, they could even make the #racetogether campaign slogans optional for customers by placing Sharpie pens at the barrista bar or the condiments bar, and letting each individual free-spirit choose for himself or herself.

Just my thought.

It's my dream to work at Starbucks if I don't get famous.

I have heard that it is a pretty cool company, at least to its employees. But, I try to Buy Local whenever I can.

The "race problem" in America is that many non-black people fear/hate/won't live near black, people because of the high crime/ghettoization that has happened to so many black majority cities ...

Starbucks would never openly talk about it.

And it will only get worse, because we are told that black students/schools are largely failing in nearly every state.

I don't see those two events as related. You are saying since Starbucks barristas are instructed to put #racetogether on a cup, which isn't even related to what is in the constitution in any way, except, perhaps, freedom of speech or expression, creates a double standard since Starbucks wouldn't support a campaign promoting the second amendment? I don't get how the two are related. From what you have typed, letting you bring a firearm inside supports this idea that firearms should be allowed everywhere. Whether the founding fathers intended for everyone to own a firearm, I can't agree that is what they had in mind. It seems like they were only writing the constitution for themselves, not really the majority of people in the colonies so I have no idea what they would want for everyone. They did not include everyone in their little group. That is fact. So how can we know what they intended or wanted? We can only look around us and make relative decisions which is what they pretty much did, if we follow their example. It's all about an individual's interpretation. If you look at the spirit of a document congruent with the times in which it was written, freedom for all doesn't appear to be the real message. Of course you would say that is unamerican because everyone is pretty much taught being an American means having ultimate freedom because it is what the founding fathers wanted but there is no proof at all they wanted everyone living in a country to have as much freedom as themselves. None at all. Take a look at Thomas Jefferson. He is a man credited with writing about freedom and government tyranny but really what he is saying is, government, you better not come in and take my right to keep slaves. That is pretty much what he is talking about. He wanted to preserve his lifestyle and his own freedom. He did not care about everyone's freedom. He pretty much saw the government as an entity that could tax him or allow him not to do whatever he wanted, which meant to treat slaves however he wanted and keep as many as he wanted. That was pretty much his life. So, this idea of unmitigated freedom was alien to the ones who wrote the constitution but it seems to be so ingrained in everyone, for better or worse, they convince themselves it is what the founding fathers wanted but really, it's just what Americans today want. People do no consider how alien our existence today would seem to them.



I notice the trend is toward ethnic neutrality meaning hiring a person that can fit into one or more ethnic groups chosen for movies, ads and commercials. This way brown skinned people can all relate to her as a group instead of just certain ethnicities with tan or dark skin but not so ethnic looking that whites cannot relate. I am surprised your employer didn't want such a model in the pictures.



That's what I meant by ethnic neutral...



It's much ado about nothing by people who probably never even go to Starbucks and are attempting to change the minds of those who do. I can tell you right now I only go for the coffee because theirs is nice and caffeinated. They could put a picture of someone holding a gun to another's head and I would still buy the coffee. I just like the coffee. Typically I avoid places who use division-type marketing methods but none of them have coffee as good as Starbucks so even if they did something like that, I would still go and get the coffee. Starbucks is one of the few brands I feel that way about, if not the only one. I would need to consider if I could just buy another brand for the others before claiming Starbucks is the only one . I still don't get it because all the company said is they wanted people to dialogue about race. It's not like they were telling people what to say. They just wrote "race together" and that's pretty much what we all are in the US, several races living together because we are a melting pot country so people getting so upset I just don't see why they would get upset over that when it's pretty much a statement about what kind of country this is, one where we race together. They didn't say "race together and be happy about it." They were not telling people what to say to each other about race. People's reactions must have been really extreme for the executive to close his account on twitter and I just don't get that at all. It's just two harmless words on a cup and it's what we all are here how can that be denied. We race together in the US. Just a fact about how we exist here.



Thanks

That's how you interpret it. Starbucks isn't telling people how to interpret those words. That's why I don't get why people are so irritated. I can understand rolling the eyes but to get so annoyed by words that are so open to interpretation and only state a fact about how we live. #racestogether would seem more accurate though.

Because Americans are tired of hearing about race from liberals in the government.

Do you think Starbucks' "Race Together" initiative is a good way to spark a national discussion about race relations?
Yes(32%)
No(68%)
This News 13 poll is a clear indication of it.

If Starbucks liberals created America there wouldn't be a Bill of Rights let alone a first or second amendment.

Starbucks is talking about race.

"Starbucks also will publish "Race Together" newspaper supplements to spark conversation on the topic".

See, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /24955733/

These people are so phony. They will never talk about the real issue as I cited earlier.

Alternatively, here is what a black person said, "Stopped at Dunkin' Donuts this morning; got my coffee and croissant sandwich and no lecture on my victimhood," tweeted ConservativeBlackMan.

See, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /24955733/

Thank you. If I was about 175 years old and had engaged in racist acts leading up to the Civil War, I might agree by now that my actions were wrong.

But, I am 53 years old, never acted in racist ways toward anyone, and essentially owe nothing to those who complain about the racism in their lives. I don't doubt that it exists, but I amn't responsible for it. And, as I have written earlier, I have done what I could do effectively to teach others to act as I do without forcing them. I resent businesses forcing me to be a bit player in their attempt to: 1) make more money, and, only then, 2) teach fairness. Make no mistake, Starbucks sees this as a way to get some cash. My racially different and diverse family members and friends have agreed with my actions and opinions, and find it personally insulting that the professional race-baiters who make their careers doing this kind of schtick so shamelessly attempt to speak for them by proxy.

I think it's hilarious how people can twist such a seemingly benign thing into something twisted and sinister.

I'm pretty sure Starbucks can write whatever the hell they want on their cups. Nobody has to buy from Starbucks if they don't want to.

I hate to say "I told ya so...."

So, now Starbucks has angered many of its supporters and customers on both sides of the question. They lose face, some temporary cash and any dignity they had hoped would occur as a result of their intentions. I guess that ends the worldwide discussion.

Watch for a new flavored-coffee creation to distract the world long enough to put this fiasco to rest.

It's not the government that is putting that on cups. It's a corporation. And it isn't like they are telling you to do anything or be anything or have an opinion. Race Together is what we have to deal with. That's our country. How can anyone deny for one second America is pretty much nothing but several races living together as opposed to one of those countries that is all one ethnic group or ethnicity with just sliver minorities here and there?