Starbucks is often enough considered a harbinger of gentrification – which sees gentry-level folk push away those who can’t afford to live in a “Starbucks-worthy” area. Frequently those most negatively affected in this scenario are people of color; this is one of the things that made “racetogether” seem more like “marketingtogether.” However well-meaning it may have been, it came from an outlook that is somewhat inherently commercial. Ideology-wise, Starbucks has a left-leaning slant and it likely expected its customer-base to be much more for “racetogether” than not. Even if by some chance there’s an enlightening dialogue about race, everyone’s simply going back out into a landscape of inequity that people literally buy into, anyway.
Starbucks has tried to bring what you might call its progressive income zoning to neighborhoods with less resources, but I don’t think there are any long-term examples of Starbucks in areas without some source of upwardly mobile income. Such zoning goes beyond space to a mentality that inherently defines itself by being juxtaposed with blackness, which is not a part of what’s mainstream unless it enhances it via various forms of supposed exoticness — and among that particularly what doesn’t challenge the false narrative that some people are inherently virtuous/better while others are not.
Most moderate- to high-status discussions of race/class – even those on a fairer minimum wage – are lessened by a social order in which racism, all -isms are connected to profiteering in some way.
I bought some ketchup recently (yes, I will take the ketchup-buying ribbon, thank you) and anyhow, it had this cap that’s impossible to make a mess with. Though that was not the highlight of that week, it was a highlight of that week — and thus this is also a ketchup post.