Category: News and Views
A family's year of 'buying black'
An Illinois couple travels far to buy groceries, gas and even vitamins from black-owned businesses. What if, they wonder, all African Americans made the same pledge?
By Ted Gregory
March 10, 2009
Reporting from Chicago — Maggie Anderson drives 14 miles to buy groceries, which might seem curious given that she lives in bustling Oak Park, Ill. She and her husband, John, travel 18 miles to a health food store in Chicago for vitamins, supplements and personal care products. They drive some distance for gasoline too.
The reason? They want to help solve what they call "the crisis in the black community." They want to buy black.
The Andersons, African Americans who rose from humble means, are attempting to spend their money for one year exclusively with black-owned businesses and are encouraging African Americans across the nation to do the same.
They call it the "ebony experiment."
"More than anything, this is a learning thing," said Maggie Anderson, who grew up in the crime-ridden Liberty City neighborhood of Miami and holds a law degree and an MBA from the University of Chicago. "We know it's controversial, and we knew that coming in."
But the Andersons said they also knew that a thriving black economy was fundamental to restoring impoverished African American communities. They talked for years about how to address the problem.
What they came up with is provocative. One anonymous letter mailed to their home accused the Andersons of "unabashed, virulent racism. Because of you," the writer stated, "we will totally avoid black suppliers. Because of you, we will dodge every which way to avoid hiring black employees."
Apart from that letter, most comments have been encouraging, the Andersons said, adding that most people see the endeavor as beneficial to all.
"Supporting your own isn't necessarily exclusive," said John Anderson, a financial advisor who grew up in Detroit and has a Harvard degree in economics and an MBA from Northwestern, "and you're not going to convince everybody of that."
The undertaking, which began Jan. 1, "is an academic test about how to reinvest in an underserved community" and lessen society's burden, he said.
If focused on black businesses, the estimated $850 billion in black buying power in the U.S. each year can expand businesses, create jobs, and strengthen families, schools and neighborhoods, the Andersons and other advocates said.
"When a thriving African American or urban community is realized, certainly as a society as a whole we all win," John Anderson said.
They are using a public relations firm, have created a website -- ebonyexperiment.com -- have been laying the groundwork for nearly two years and have enlisted researchers from Northwestern University to detail and extrapolate the effects of their spending.
Still, the first two months posed challenges in finding stores that meet what Maggie Anderson called her "exacting standards." Her latest crisis is finding shoes and clothes for the couple's toddler daughters.
The Andersons buy gasoline cards from black-owned stations in Phoenix, Ill., and Rockford, Ill., and use the cards elsewhere.
After several weeks of searching, Maggie Anderson found Farmers Best Market in Chicago, a black-owned grocer 14 miles from their home, and God First, God Last, God Always Dollar and Up General Store, a black-owned general merchandise establishment 18 miles from their house.
They moved their personal accounts to Covenant Bank in Chicago, but have been unable to switch their mortgage and student loans to black-owned financial institutions. And they haven't changed utility companies.
Lawrence Hamer, associate professor of marketing at DePaul University, called the Andersons' project "brave and courageous," and said its logic was "exactly right."
But it probably will be futile in achieving anything meaningful in the black economy, he added.
"It's just so hard for a small group of individuals to have an impact on something that's so huge," said Hamer, who is African American. "It's almost like a viral marketing campaign. It only works if enough people catch the virus."
Even if they do catch the virus, Hamer said, it is extremely difficult "to get people's attention to change their behavior in any significant way."
Maggie Anderson conceded that "it's still little by little and it's still a lot of work, but I'm still very committed to this."
Although it may be one of the more well-organized and -monitored projects of its kind, the experiment is not the only venture of its kind, said James E. Clingman, a prolific writer on African American economic empowerment who teaches a class on black entrepreneurship at the University of Cincinnati.
African Americans have been buying black for more than a century, Clingman said. Booker T. Washington, long an advocate for African American economic power, was an early proponent, and African Americans have been forming black-buying cooperatives for decades, he added.
But thriving black businesses began dissolving in the mid-1960s, when African Americans focused on political power and civil rights and began patronizing white-owned businesses under the misconception that buying white signified blacks' upward socioeconomic mobility, Clingman said.
"Unfortunately, many black people abandoned their own businesses and supported others, thinking that politics was the way out," he said. "Politics still will not get you anywhere unless you have an economic base. Quite frankly, I'd rather have more black businesses than black politicians."
In June 2008, Karriem Beyah opened Farmers Best Market, which he calls "the only African American grocery store in Illinois that offers a full line of fresh market products."
Since being featured on the experiment's website, Beyah said, he has seen "incremental increases in the customer count" and received numerous e-mails and phone calls of support.
He said he believed in the mission.
"We, as African Americans, support everyone," he said. "The ebony experiment is saying, 'Listen, let's pay attention to us. Let's give some support.' Ebony experiment can bring awareness, and in that awareness comes better profits and better services and better opportunities. It just grows from there."
I support what this family is doing. These Andersons are brave and courageous, for such an experiment is bound to bring on harassment, opposition, and perhaps violence. It's generous of them to try to help and support the black population.
Concerning the business that now refuses to hire blacks, this family indulging in this experiment is no reason to partake in illegal and intentional discrimination. How selfish and closed-minded.
There's nothing wrong with blacks trying to support blacks. It's something that doesn't happen too much in present times. I think it's a beautiful thing. This may not be widespread among the black communities and population yet, but now that it has gone public, more blacks and perhaps others will participate in this experiment.
This is a healthy thing for blacks because we are so quick to put each other down for acting a certain way or just for being black. How can we expect other races and ethnicities to respect us for who we are when we don't even do that?
These are hopefully baby steps that will lead to leaps.
Very well said. I totally support this. I'm hoping that it instigates some change. I know it won't be instantaneous or widespread at first, but if I lived in an urban environment where I actually had choice, I would go for this experiment. I think it's an awesome undertaking. I don't for a minute consider it to be "racist" or anything of the sort. As a Caucasian individual, I am disgusted and outraged that someode would leave such an incriminating message for these people who are only trying to do what may helpthis gone-to-pot economy rise up again. You just never know what these little revolutions can bring.
This is something that I'd call doing the wrong thing for noble goals. Doing this is just encouraging people to see the superficial divide between various skin colors and helping to widen the divide that others have been trying to close for so long. Rather we should be trying to see each other as people and only just other people. The sooner that that gets through people's heads, the soner that what color people are or what their ancestors were, will not be an issue and we can think of ourselves as being just the human race. We all, every one of us, have much more important things to worry about as a world, without trying to encourage a divide, well intentioned or not.
I have problems with this, though they stem from slightly different perspectives. In an ear of encouraging open trade and, survival of the most efficient, this is precisely the type of policy that may maintain badly run businesses whilst putting well-run businesses out, encouraging less efficiency over-all in the economy. The U.S. keeps preaching open market and avoiding protectionism on the international state and this type of behavior is no exception. The goals are noble, the black population needs to gain increased selfworth and opportunities, they've been the victim of social discrimination in the past, for hundreds of years. But I think such inequalities be much better addressed through improved education and opportunities rather than targetted racial preference. All other things being exactly equal I might prefer a blind business owner or employee to a sighted one, but if I see clear advantages, be it price, quality, customer satisfaction or otherwise, I will let those qualities decide how I place my business or decissions. This is basically exactly the same as getting money for being blind, not for being good or working hard but for being blind, and this is a form of racism, just imagine if whites only bought from white-owned businesses, it would cause a public outrage. So, as well stated above, noble intentions, worthy goal but absolutely the wrong methods, something I cannot agree with, though fortunately it may have a coupleof nice side effects such as encouraging black buseness men and women to try their hand at small business and jumping into active competition.
cheers
-B
I can see how one would think that supporting black businesses would be a form of encouraging the divide between the races and how one could possibly constrew this practice to be endorsing bad or inefficient businesses.
However, increased educational and other opportunities, while noble, may not be enough. Keep in mind that a solid educational and numerous degrees do not guarantee one equal footing in society, never mind equal employment.
I agree that I would not support a blind business owner if he or she operated an inefficient business, but in the context of this story, one could infer from the above comments that we are hastily generalizing all black businesses to be sub-par or small-town hacks.
Let's give the owners of this project a moticum of respect as to their intellectual faculties and capacity for sound judgment.
However, increased educational and other opportunities, while noble, may not be enough.
yes, but this is true for everyone no matter your skin color. If I start a business and fale is it because I am blind, Gay, a woman or is it because I am black? Not to me it isn't it's because of the quality of the goods sold or quality of the food!
The two things that bugs me the most about this is it's racest and it creates a double standard.
If I were to go public and say I am only going to buy from stores that are owned by white people, what do you think would happen?
“Just imagine if whites
Only bought from white-owned businesses, it would cause a public outrage. So, as well stated above, noble intentions, worthy goal but absolutely the wrong
Methods, something I cannot agree with, though fortunately it may have a couple of nice side effects such as encouraging black business men and women to
Try their hand at small business and jumping into active competition.”
Are you stating and equating that Caucasian Americans who buy from Caucasian Americans (white folk), the power holding majority in this country, is the same as minorities purchasing from minorities?
Unless someone “white” lives in an ethnic neighborhood, they will very likely be making a purchase from a “white” owned business.
Are black business men and women currently not involved in active competition?
People who want to contribute economically to their communities are doing a good thing, and this is something done by everyone, white, black… This is absolutely not, the wrong idea.
A better comparison would be: people supporting their community by purchasing from neighborhood business, and not corporate owned businesses.
This is not at all increasing racial lines. There exist, a divide in this country between white and black, and one must acknowledge this from a social, economic perspective. If there are fewer black owned small businesses, because everyone is shopping at a wall-Mart, including black folk, one has to think, that eventually these large businesses will eat up the small business owner, leaving only corporations.
Yes, we all shop around for the best deal, but sometimes we just support large corporate business out of convenience.
I mean, do you honestly think Star Buck’s coffee is that good you need to be charged $4?
Oh, my grapes! Alex, you said it all.
I too, think that this is far from racist. Whites are the majority in this country, and that's that. It's sad that things are this way, but that's just how it is, and we must deal with it. Like Alex said, if the businesses owned by blacks were not supported by someone, the larger businesses would eat them up. Minorities have to support minorities when the majority won't.
It's unfortunate that people have to do things like this, but this is a white man's world, and I highly doubt that will ever change. No matter what you do, how much you educate a person, and expose them to different races and nationalities, racists will always be around, whether it's because of the way one was raised, or because of a bad experience one has had involving a person with different skin color.
You guys are equating racism to corporate vs small business, those are two completely different things, not to mention that corporations, good or bad, are owned by share holders and traded on public stock exchanges, thus allowing folks from whatever race to own and influence how they are run. A lot of start ups in California have created billionaires from technology ideas, mostly Asian, but they could only do that because they attracted white customers. And as for white folks always being a majority in this country it is simply wrong, they will officially be a minority, if I remember correctly, by 2048 if current birth trends remain unchanged, and there's little reason to expect any changes. And there are some great black business guys, many in the sports and broadcasting businesses and they've done excellently, without resorting to same-race purchasing to give them the edge. The U.S. already has an increasingly diverge population, the country has become practically bi lingual, you see news stories about people and meet people from Spanish, Chinese or other Asian speaking cultures who have lived here for years without knowing but a few words of English and my feeling is this country is slowly wering away from its idea of people living together in one big melting pot of ideas, it's becoming mroe a group of ethnic societies sharing government and land. I don't know what the American vission was but I think this is not the original idea. All this being said, taking race into account when you decide where to spend your money is racist.
Just because one belongs to a minority group does not allow one to become racist. A good business person of whatever race with the right idea can market that idea to all, or to a preference of one's own race or to a particular group, that's different, it's good business sense, I've had great chicken wings at a Chinese restaurant and excellent Chinese food at a restaurant owned by a white guy.
If a business is run badly it'll go under, what we got to make sure of is that there's no barrier to a particular race or ethnicity in entering a business and obtaining capital, but protecting businesses based on race is not a clever route to go down. And better education, prevention of teenage pregnancy rate and other issues will actually offer better lives to all, not just to the few who have the passion, interest and ability to raise capital and start their own businesses, it is a small minority I assure you.
Finally, I'd like for someone to explain to me how this is not a racist behavior, the definitions I've seen talk of discriminatory behavior against one or more races, and this clearly is a sample of that.
Hi wildebrew
No one is equating racism to small vs. corporate business. The entire point of the above posts are that it an ethnic group supporting it’s economy within the US, is not racism and can better be equated to whether one supports small or corporate owned businesses.“
“Finally, I'd like for someone to explain to me how this is not a racist behavior, the definitions I've seen talk of discriminatory behavior against one
or more races, and this clearly is a sample of that.”
What you’re saying here is that Mexicans, patronizing Mexican owned businesses is a racist behavior?
Let’s put it another way. if whites only bought from whites for one year, every non white business owner would be hurt. They are the POWER HOLDING MAJORITY.
If Jamaicans only bought from Jamaicans for one year, not much would happen except that more Jamaicans would do business with each other.
You said:
“not to mention that corporations, good or bad, are
owned by share holders and traded on public stock exchanges, thus allowing folks from whatever race to own and influence how they are run.”
This is very true, and in a perfect world, everyone would have an equal share in who owns and does not own stock. Fortunately, you comprehend that this is not a perfect world, and that there are certain people who in this country have certain advantages over others, because in the very next line you clearly state:
“A lot of start Ups in California have created billionaires from technology ideas, mostly Asian, but they could only do that because they attracted white customers.”
You also mention:
“And As for white folks always being a majority in this country it is simply wrong, they will officially be a minority, if I remember correctly, by 2048”
I will assume that when you speak of Majority, you are not simply referring to population size.
The objective of this experiment is not to give black owned business an edge over other businesses; it’s to keep them afloat in the current state of the economy.
As I read through this board topic, I wonder, how is this experiment any different than another experiment of an American wanting to only buy products that are made in America? Is the idea of an American wanting to buy something that is made in America any less or more rasist than someone who is black wanting to do business with someone else who is also black? I personally think it is only human nature to want to conduct business and buy goods with others who are somehow connected to you.
As someone who grew up in a small town run by the aquiculture and auto industries, I would much rather do business with a small locally owned business rather than some conglomerate mega business located in some huge metropolis thousands of miles away. Does this mean I am discriminating against large corporations? I also know of people in my town who absolutely refuse to do business with a foreign car company simply because they do not want to see our manufacturing jobs shift overseas. Are they racist for not wanting to do business with a car company owned buy a country other than the United States?
And as far as Caucasian Americans becoming a minority is concerned, if the current population trends continue, they will most likely be a minority in terms of numbers, but a minority is not defined strictly in numbers. If they are able to retain their high power and status in our society, it is highly unlikely they will end up becoming a minority despite their declining population.
Cat, Alex, amen!
Like Cat said, When majority and minority are spoken of, it doesn't necessarily concern just population size. The whole point is that whites are superior to everyone else. No, I don't think it's right, but it unfortunately is true.
And I highly doubt birth trends will remain the same for thirty-nine years straight. If you want to follow predictions, we're not even supposed to live till then. I digress.
But you tell me, how trying to support one's own race or ethnicity is racist? Shopping at particular stores, preferring certain doctors and certain churches is not showing hatred or intolerance toward any race or races.
We just have to live with the fact that some people are superior to others in the eyes of the government and economy, and that eight times out of ten, a person's skin color determines clientele, job positions, job assignments, and customer service.
Our country was made this way centuries ago, and this is one characteristic that shall remain the same.
The big difference here is biast vs absolute preference. Many factors affect our purchasing decission and having ethnicity and location factorred in as part of the decission making process is a good thing, but if the #1 factor in any decission related to purchasing is race that is racist to me, if you refuse to buy goods or services from a white owned firm because it's owned by a white guy, to me is wrong, just like refusing to hire employees unles they are of your race is unacceptable. The question really then has to do with how far this trend goes and the article seems to indicate that race is the #1 determining factor in al purchases and I resolutely stick to my guns in that is wrong. Sometimes it's right to support one's community or business, sometimes it is wrong. In the beginning there was huge opposition to computers and software because they would take away so many jobs, in the end they've created more and better paying jobs. If I had found two cars with similar enough qualities I would've chosen the American over an Asian car, but when Asian cars are clearly superior, cheaper and their employees are better treated, not to mention that their CEOs get paid less than a million dollars a year vs the tens or hundreds of millions spent on ineffective bosses of American car companies that lose billions because they decided to go for the environmentally unfriendly vehicle types and designs because they had a higher profit margin I choose the asian model. It is cheaper and a message has to be sent to a company if they are utterly failing to take a look at themselves and innovate, it's painful in the short run but in the long run it'll preserve their existance. Should we ignore Apple because they are not a blind owned company and stick with FS because they are run by blind people?
The U.S. is strictly a free market economy and while they trumpet that at home and abroad that's the way they believe our collective lives are best served, there is a myriad of economic analysis supporting and disputing these claims and that's the essence of macro economics and it is a fun subject to study but hugely complex.
Most businesses and most profitable ones come through research, most research is done by government and at the university level and that's where new opportunities are created to transform whole towns, countries and economies, bio tech, green technology, computers and e commerce etc, and that's why it is all important to give all races the encouragement and chance and wipe away racial discriminations at that level. Retail is but a part of business and I feel less important than these core sciences. The U.S. domination on the world stage has everything to do with how much has been invested in research and development, not in how aggressively coke has advertized or how many Wal-Marts ahve sprung up all over the place.
Less than a 100 years ago women could not even vote, they're not equal yet but the society is much closer towards equal opportunities for men and women now than it was then, we've come a long way racially since the 60s and so I do not understand the "white domination" preaching on here. Populations choose government, in order to be elected you must reach out to the majority of voters and then you must offer them something in return, the beauty of democracy is that the majority of the nation has to stand behind the government, thus, over time, changes are made and reinforced as the population mix changes.
Birth trends do often remain pretty fixed over longer periods of time and I think the population mix change in the near future is inevitable, we already have a fresh face in the white house and it's less than 50 years since blacks here were treated horribly.
So that's my reasoning, in short, I only claim that I think this is right and these things will happen, people may agree or disagree with me. I've seen interesting views on here that make me consider them and I hope you guys do the same. I don't claim to be all knowing and I may well be wrong and, as a foreigner in this country, may be lack basic understanding of the reality of the nation or feel for its history and its problems, but I have been here for 10 years and often been totally amazed at the people I have met and worked with of all races, and I think blurring racial lines is the way forward but I feel the approach suggested in the article does not achieve such a goal, rather the opposite, in fact.
All right! These people aren't refusing goods from stores owned by white people just because they are white; they are simply not buying goods from whites in order to support their own race. That's why it's not racism. Don't you understand that? They aren't doing this because they don't like white people, but because they want to heighten the status of their race in the economy. And I say this is plenty progress. As I've stated in a previous post, blacks are constantly putting each other down more often than not. We can't expect other races to respect us when we don't respect each other.
And in many countries, whites are superior; they get paid more, sometimes better customer service, and sometimes get better deals. How much history do you need? A few years back, affirmative action was banned in this state just because a black person or two got excepted into a college and some white guy didn't.
We are a long way from blurring lines between races. Our country's secret motto for a long time has been: "if you're skin isn't white, then you lose the fight." I'm not being discouraging, but this is how it is for many.