* Any tool that allows to discriminate "for" allows to discriminate "against"
* What is the rational to be able to add "black-owned", but not "mexican-owned" or anything else, are mexicans not victims of discriminations ?
* What is the end game ? Black people go to black-owned businesses, white people go to white-owned businesses ? this kind of anti-racism looks a little bit like segregation to me.
I'm not against any positive actions, but this one seems dangerous and could have unwanted indirect impacts
As a European I'm very far removed from all this and don't really care either way.
But I can't help but wonder - are there any Native American voices in this whole story? Black people got a raw deal but surely it's incomparable with Native American history and they situation the few remaining find themselves in now. Or am I totally wrong?
There are people of all demographics who've had a raw deal. In modern America, there are black people born into lives of "privilege," and there are white people born into adversity. So does flagging a business as minority-owned tell the full story of the owner's life circumstances? Certainly not.
On the other hand, veteran ownership is a common thing to see advertised. I guess I have no problem with businesses self-advertising their own values. I take more issue if Google has a short list of business attributes, and only causes they deem worthy make the list. I don't know if that's the case though.
In contrast to most of the comments here, I like this.
Earlier this year, I watched the first episode of Trigger Warning with Killer Mike (Netflix). In this episode he tried to spend a few days putting money only into black-owned businesses... It was a hard experience for him, and since then I have tried to be conscious of where my money goes, and if I have the option of selecting a black owned business intend to do so, and I am happy that there is an easy way for me to do that.
So, you're saying you're intentionally prioritizing businesses based on the owner's race. By doing so, you're making a statement, that the race of the owners is an important variable since it leads to a different economic outcome. You're denying ecomomic opportunities to other businesses based on their owner's race.
I honestly wanted to make this, but as a white person I opted to not as there is potential for harm.
Glad to see it, reading though the comments here really makes new feel like many commenters don't know the history of why black Americans are so economically deprived (in general, obviously there are exceptions).
Black wall Street is a piece of history to look up or reading seriously about the case for reperations (freakonomics had an interesting, multifaceted episode on it recently)
I support BLM, the protesters, and reparations even, but this is damaging.
There's way too many racists for businesses to put up a flag saying 'Black and Proud' or 'Gay and Proud', a lot of bigots probably eat at a McDonald's, they might stop if they learned the franchise owner is black, gay, or <insert other minority>. Anonymity can bring in more cash, which I think they could probably use, esp in this economy.
I'm sure, there's a lot like myself who'd go out of our way to use these businesses, but I'm not sure if we outnumber the bad segments of society.
It's less intrusive than spamming my Google assistant quick actions with an undismissable "black lives matter" button for the last couple weeks. When tapped, it affirms BLM solidarity vow. My phone region wasn't even North America.
More ontopic, wonder if this will be extended to other minorities. Easy way to filter out actually Mexican owned taco shops. Or Japanese owned sushi. What let's go full political, what if I want to avoid Christian owned franchises like Chick-Fil-A. Maybe some of that Blue Vs Yellow division from HK.
The spread of US internal issues to the rest of the world is quite frightening to be honest. A social unrest in North America has way, way more influence in Europeans countries than our own local issues (I'm in the EU), and both our news and politicians react quickly to it, even though US problems are mostly irrelevant here. Even without living close to America, or try to be only consuming local content, it is impossible to avoid whatever is happening there. This country has really too much impact over the rest of the world, which wouldn’t be necessarily an issue if not for the fact that it is widely dysfunctional.
There's nothing being forced on us here in the EU in the context of BLM. It's more the case that people here lap it up, copying all the same narratives, terminology and practices. This goes for both ends of the political spectrum. It's pretty worrying.
Basically. The world can't even get competent contact tracing apps running because it must comform to US / Silicon Valley privacy standards. Google/Apple rebuffing sovereign governments to implement more granular models, because it'll open domestic privacy pandora's box. They're too big for America, let alone the rest of the world.
According to "Anti-racists", MLK's dream of "judging people by the content of their character" is now a racist dog-whistle.
Not sure when, but eventually the shoe must drop and people realize this so-called "Anti-racism" is an incredibly racist ideology. This is not progress.
Certainly the effectiveness of affirmative action is independent of a consensus around affirmative action's effectiveness.
Affirmative action is a widespread policy and has been for decades. Is its effectiveness now conditioned on consensus that the policy is effective? That is a ridiculous rhetorical trap: If anyone expresses mere skepticism that affirmative action has not been effective, then that person is by construction the cause of its failure; conversely, if everyone does agree that affirmative action is effective, yet disparities have persisted (by just about any measure), then everyone is lying to themselves and one another in order to achieve a political consensus that perpetuates the struggles of black Americans (note a parallel to the rhetoric from supporters of Jim Crow, "the peculiar institution" and various progressive "scientific racism" programs like eugenics). I'd consider the latter scenario downright evil.
Affirmative action as currently implemented based primarily on race is just as bad, shifting the inequality of opportunity at best. White people of low socioeconomic status are disadvantaged while people of color with high socioeconomic status unfairly benefit. The idea of affirmative action and “anti-racist” policies are fundamentally fine, but it’s almost completely socially unacceptable to disagree with the popular strategies.
Plus it can pit those low income groups against each other in favor of self-degrading white people in higher academia that do indeed seem to be there without too much merit.
Where is the evidence that being against affirmative action is responsible for maintaining racial inequities? Because that is quite a extraordinary claim, given that we have maintained racial inequities far longer than affirmative action has been popular.
How can we provide economic remedy for the centuries of economic warfare against Black Americans if any remedy specifically addressed to Black people is considered 'racist'? How else do we close the black-white wealth gap legacy of legal racism in America if we're not allowed to do anything to help Black people specifically out of fear of "reverse racism"?
Can we worry about getting Black America the economic remedies they deserve after being shut out of wealth for centuries before we pretend we're worried about "black supremacy"?
This is a good question. I would argue you do it by creating policies to help all low-income families, irregardless of identity.
Many government policies aren't just systemically racist (some indeed are), but are also systemically "class-ist". Meaning they are designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. If you segment a population (say Black communities), they will become disproportionately more poor over time, and if you segment your stats by race it then appears to be specifically targeting that group. In fact you can find similar stats for Mexican/Latino-americans, who are also victim to the same policies.
So if we focus on just fixing Black issues specifically, we are now ignoring another minority group. Why doesn't Google show "Mexican-owned" businesses, or "Asian-owned", or "Female-owned" businesses? This isn't progress, nor is it useful. Perhaps more useful identifier would be "Community-owned" or "Low-income-family-run establishment", so if people are really interested in helping these poor communities, they can do so universally. Segmenting ourselves by racial or gender identity does not solve the problem, and is in fact guaranteed to make things worse in the long run.
As a progressive I am frustrated that people who call themselves progressive are now promoting regressive racially charged policies. This is not what progress should look like.
I should think, perhaps by helping individual people instead. If someone is poor then someone might help them, I suppose. Then it won't be racist, it will be individualistic, it would seem.
Hiring someone for the job should be decided on if they are competent at that job, not on other criteria such as black, white, men, women, taller, religious, etc, unless that is relevant for this kind of job (such as acting in a movie, perhaps).
The challenge to the idea of hiring the most competent person (I know you didn't specify "most"), is that people from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have had the opportunity to become competent at them due to systemic oppression.
What I generally don't see discussed is the hard part of the problem. A business should do their best to hire the best person to complete a job, but how do you do that while bringing up disadvantaged people so they have a fair chance to compete?
I think since America's centuries of legalized racism affects every Black American living today, every Black American deserves some form of remedy. I also think it's best for America long term (in terms of stability and growth) to make things right with Black America including economically. It's not good for America's stability to let the racial wealth gap stay the same as it was in the 1950s days of legal racism.
I'm in favor of cash payments and other investment for Black Americans to correct the centuries of extensive, targeted legalized racism against Black America. We need a Marshall Plan for Black America badly. Build up Black America after centuries of war against them like we rebuilt Japan and Europe after World War 2.
I agree with you that there would be a severe political backlash, especially among members of Trump's base. I still think significant investment into Black communities is badly needed regardless of the backlash and is in the best interest of the US in terms of social stability and economic growth. It's not good strategically to let wealth gaps stay the same or grow, it seems to increase the risk of conflict to let such massive inequality remain.
It is vexing. We were supposed to progress to the point that a person’s skin color was a matter of complete indifference. Now it is in the forefront of even the most petty and insignificant matters. This is not going to end well.
I don't think black America's economic situation is insignificant though. The racial wealth gap is still huge and hasn't changed much since racism was legal. It will take a lot of conscious, directed action in favor of black people to provide economic remedy for slavery/Jim Crow/redlining and other systemic racism.
I don't see how Google adding a black-owned business label might encourage a previously non-racist person to now want to 'fight' black people or feel ill will towards black people.
Well, it might be unintentional. Hiding those labels by default will make it better to avoid such an unintentional bias, I think. I don't care if they are black or not, but I don't want to be unintentionally biased.
I think it's acceptable to elevate Black people to be on the same level as other races in America as opposed to disadvantaged. I actually think Black America is owed a lot more than what Google is doing here after centuries of legalized racism and being shut out of building wealth, but that's the US government that owes them.
"Other races" don't get special labels on their businesses.
Putting tags like "Women Owned" de-legitimizes the owner. It makes women owned business seem stigmatized, as if it's unusual or especially notable. It strips them of their dignity.
And native peoples don’t get labels on their businesses, despite centuries of mistreatment. Growth of Hispanic-owned businesses has been slow In the US, and it’s likely caused by socioeconomic conditions. Should these groups get a special label? Who gets to decide which groups get a label?
I'm strongly in favor of remedies for the harm caused to Native Americans as well, I was happy to see half of Oklahoma declared a reservation legally recently. They are definitely also a group who was unfairly targeted and deserves specific remedy too.
Can you clarify what "elevating" looks like from your perspective?
And considering how many immigrants there starting out with literally nothing (one example) how we should pick one race to help but not all terribly disadvantaged people?
The only way they can be on the same level is if they are not labeled based on the race of the owner. Emphasizing black ownership or any other attribute can only either add advantage over other groups or be a disadvantage. There is no good outcome possible other than it doesn’t affect anything, at which point what’s the point?
I don't think you need to look for a "should." The article says:
> Google said it has seen “a surge in online searches for Black-owned businesses” in recent months
So it seems like a feature Google decided is useful for its visitors in the same way that a business' address, operating hours, and reviews are useful for its visitors.
By that logic, if they saw a surge of interest in white-owned businesses, it would be justified adding a “white-owned business” label.
I think we can say “segregating people based on skin color is wrong in principle,” or “segregating people is acceptable if it benefits those who are disadvantaged,” but I don’t see segregating races based on search interest as a reasonable policy.
The other downside is they aren’t flagged as black owned, when they are.
For example, Yelp has a “Black owned businesses” link right at the top of the first screen of the app. I clicked on it. There is one listed in my city.
My city’s population is about 50% black, and there are way more than a single black owned business nearby.
Without saying that white-owned businesses have it easy (no one has it easy these days), I believe that black-owned businesses face additional, unique challenges that white-owned businesses don’t. Some of those challenges are new (eg communities of color being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19) and others have been around for much longer (ranging from black communities being historically disenfranchised to the the mental overhead of code switching when talking to the majority of the country). Taken as a whole, I feel they contribute to a reality where owning a business is harder for a person of color than a white person.
That appeals to my sense of fairness in business: someone shouldn’t have to work 10%, 20%, or 100% harder to achieve the same outcomes. I feel ill-equipped to address this unfairness systemically (volunteering my time to teach code is the only example I can think of at the moment) but letting the reality of a black-owned business’s challenges factor into my purchasing decisions feels like a valid way to tip the scales back a bit closer to equilibrium.
> someone shouldn’t have to work 10%, 20%, or 100% harder to achieve the same outcomes
This will never stop happening, no matter how hard you try. Do you seriously believe that someone with 30 years of experience should work as hard as someone who is doing it for the first time ? That just doesn't make sense.
You don't have to. I think it's only the Government that should have to provide economic remedies like reparations to close the racial wealth gap/legacy of centuries of legalized racism in the America. I will do my part to support Black Americans as a private individual, but really it's going to take Government action to close the racial wealth gap.
This is getting really frustrating. How many tech company equity-based judgement calls are we going to be subjected to, that will not be extended to other groups that aren't the popular favorites of the moment?
How about tags for restaurants owned by poor immigrants? Or how about veterans? Or people who are their family's first people to go to college?
When are we done with this moment, or when does the equity get extended to other equity-worthy groups?
Isn't this the exact definition of racism ? Imagine if they started putting jewish owned business. It can be both used to promote and discriminate, but in both cases to differenciate people based on skin color. This is absurd.
It doesn't matter to me if they are black-owned or women-led or whatever (and, in order to avoid (possibly unintentional) bias, perhaps it should not be listed by default, unless you specifically look for that information). I should think what matters is the quality of the products/services. Business hours, telephone number, price, etc, are much more important than whether or not those people are black.
Then I suppose this isn't a very useful feature for you.
Taking feedback or offering a customizable experience isn't really Google's way so I guess you'll just have a small icon to ignore until they decide to silently kill the feature
The fact that you're getting voted like a rollercoaster shows just how controversial things like this are. There are people who want to force their entirely absurd notions of "equality" upon the world, and those who realise that this is a very dangerous and destructive line of thought.
This is actually the definition of racism packaged as anti racism. I don't get it, pointing out a business is black owned means you differentiate based on skin colour aiding discrimination.
I guess in this context that's what it means. Giving money out simple based off someone's skin tone doesn't make much sense to me. Don't think America invented slavery.
African-Americans have way higher living standards and income than Africans though. I know very few who would have rather be born in Kongo or Zimbabwe.
Because the moment you treat someone different because of things like skin color it's racist, you know.
Doesn't matter if it's a preferred or discriminatory treatment because any preferable treatment for one group of people based on race is a discrimination against all other.
Racism is a hierarchical caste system based on a pseudo-scientific classification of people into races. The dominant form of racism, invented in Europe and exported all over the world via colonization and slavery, is built on the concept of a biologically superior "white" race. This form of racism, also known as white supremacy, is deeply embedded in the societies and institutions of European countries and their former colonies. The United States are no different.
In the United States specifically, Black people are in a special position, because their very existence as a group is the result of colonization and slavery. Their existence is a physical reminder of the racist origins of the US. And the injustice they continue to endure in the United States today - including of course police violence, but also housing discrimination, discrimination in the workplace, excessive incarceration, restricted voting rights, restricted access to healthcare and education, etc. - are a reminder of the fact that racism is still, today, deeply embedded in US institutions.
One consequence of this, in the US, is that there are few Black-owned businesses relative to the population, and as a result, Black people have less access to equity. Because equity is the primary mechanism for wealth increase in the US, and is taxed very favorably compared to wages, this means that Black people are not able to benefit from economic growth at the same rate as the rest of population. This is a self-reinforcing problem because a Black entrepreneur is much less likely to receive an investment from a bank or VC than a white entrepreneur of similar experience and risk profile.
This is a widely known problem, and one commonly proposed solution, if the US finance system won't invest in Black businesses, is for Black people to "invest in themselves", so to speak, by choosing to buy from Back-owned businesses whenever possible. So this is primarily about helping Black people support each other, in the absence of US institutions not supporting them appropriately.
Bad idea. Just like it is/was stupid for them to surface the neo nazi content I've been shown in the last few years, eg. in Google News.
I usually expect more from this company. Has Google gone hopelessly corporate?
Both woke and racist subgroup of people are very happy with this decision. While the former knows where to go shopping, and latter is more aware of what to avoid.
I’m fully in support of surfacing attributes about groups who are systemically discriminated against (African American, women, LGBTQ, etc.). I also appreciate knowing that some business is local, supporting the poor and those not privileged to have a decent education, the disabled, etc.
But considering how most of the world has turned strongly and violently right wing in the last few years, I’m also concerned about targeted attacks against such places in the light of this information. Yeah, if you won’t visit a place dominated by businesses owned or run by African Americans because of this fact alone, that’s problematic in itself. But if you’re against these groups and want to cause harm, now Google has made it easier for you to find them or inform people who think similarly in other places where they should target.
I don’t know if this move is beneficial or harmful overall at this point in time. I wish this had been done more than a decade ago though.
> most of the world has turned strongly and violently right wing in the last few years
Really? Do you have evidence that right wing violence exceeds that of any other political affiliation? Anecdotally, looking at current events, the opposite seems to be true. I'm not looking for a fight, I'm genuinely curious if there are sources for this claim.
The right wing tendency is a reactionary response to this kind of activism.
A few percent of people believe themselves to be superior due to race. Some people will always be like that but it was certainly a less and less prominent political orientation.
But the conquest for more state control, against freedom of expression, against open dialogue put more and more people against activists. I don't think there is anything more to it and overall pretty simple.
There are people making millions with esoteric bias training which are basically just bullshit jobs that certainly don't improve understanding. This industry needs a constant supply of racism.
If the business owners choose to broadcast that label then it’s fine.
The only thing I don’t like about this social pattern is that it can over time lead to people becoming more prejudiced. Filter by white-owned, Chinese owned, etc. The worst version of it was when Germany labeled Jewish owned businesses.
The best way to deal with a bug is to not design a system where the bug could appear.
> The best way to deal with a bug is to not design a system where the bug could appear.
Correct. The problem right now is that prosperity around small businesses tends to be stumbled-upon by people with the necessary networks and safety nets. Said people largely tend to be White, and as a result, there's a bias in the number of White-owned businesses which succeed.
Affirmative Action and other policies (including this move by Google) recognize this and realize that the only way to level the playing field is to artificially boost the signal on Black-owned businesses, Black attendance in higher-ed, etc., because with policies that completely remove all handicaps, momentum is sustained, and momentum right now is in favor of sustained systemic racism (even after the protests).
That's also why policies like this generally aren't considered racist: because they act to level the playing field when a certain group has an outsized advantage.
> The only thing I don’t like about this social pattern is that it can over time lead to people becoming more prejudiced. Filter by white-owned, Chinese owned, etc. The worst version of it was when Germany labeled Jewish owned businesses.
To this point, it's also a difficult balance to strike. How can we get to as close to level as possible without instilling the wrong search practices long term? I don't think anyone knows the answer yet.
Most of us understand the "anti-racist" philosophy. We just don't agree with it.
BTW, it's the height of passive aggressiveness to use this rhetorical trick of naming things (antifa, anti-racist) in such a way that you use the very name to shame people.
I mean, meet my new group: the anti-evil collective. What's that? You're don't agree with us? Well, you're against evil, aren't you? Are you some kind of a demon, or a devil?
So, you claim to understand "anti-racism", but don't agree with it. And yet you're complaining about the name?
I'm sure if you understood the philosophy then you would be able to articulate your issues with it, rather than just complaining about something superficial. I'm guessing you're also against (but understand, ha) feminism too? but just don't like that it sounds like it's just for women.
Or maybe he doesn't want to waste the time writing a dissertation-length critique as a comment on an Internet news aggregator? The name being pretentious and tendentious is a quick heuristic to determine that the overall ideology is nonsense.
I have recently begun calling self-described "anti-<X>s" co-<X>s. Co-racists are almost exactly the same as racists, just with slightly different vocabulary that depends on the existence of classic racists. Co-facists are essentially the same thing (any outgroup must be oppressed and overcome at all costs, is simultaneously weak and super-powerful, etc). Marxist regimes are almost always co-capitalist and co-imperialist (such as the largest explicitly Marxist regime today).
The idea is that the relationship between <X> and "co-<X>" is sort of like "domain/codomain," "sine/cosine," "product/co-product," "vector/co-vector," etc. in math, or "dependency/co-dependency" in psychology. "Co-<X>" cannot exist without <X>, but behaves almost exactly the same.
I'm seeing many comments calling this initiative "racist", or at least going against the principles of all people being equal, etc. This is incorrect!
Racism is a hierarchical caste system based on a pseudo-scientific classification of people into races. The dominant form of racism, invented in Europe and exported all over the world via colonization and slavery, is built on the concept of a biologically superior "white" race. This form of racism, also known as white supremacy, is deeply embedded in the societies and institutions of European countries and their former colonies. The United States are no different.
In the United States specifically, Black people are in a special position, because their very existence as a group is the result of colonization and slavery. Their existence is a physical reminder of the racist origins of the US. And the injustice they continue to endure in the United States today - including of course police violence, but also housing discrimination, discrimination in the workplace, excessive incarceration, restricted voting rights, restricted access to healthcare and education, etc. - are a reminder of the fact that racism is still, today, deeply embedded in US institutions.
One consequence of this, in the US, is that there are few Black-owned businesses relative to the population, and as a result, Black people have less access to equity. Because equity is the primary mechanism for wealth increase in the US, and is taxed very favorably compared to wages, this means that Black people are not able to benefit from economic growth at the same rate as the rest of population. This is a self-reinforcing problem because a Black entrepreneur is much less likely to receive an investment from a bank or VC than a white entrepreneur of similar experience and risk profile.
This is a widely known problem, and one commonly proposed solution, if the US finance system won't invest in Black businesses, is for Black people to "invest in themselves", so to speak, by choosing to buy from Back-owned businesses whenever possible. So this is primarily about helping Black people support each other, in the absence of US institutions not supporting them appropriately.
> The dominant form of racism, invented in Europe and exported all over the world via colonization and slavery, is built on the concept of a biologically superior "white" race.
That sounds like bullshit honestly. I haven't seen any evidence that white people specifically have "invented" racism instead of being a position of power for the most part. There's plenty of evidence that racism existed throughout the history in all parts of the worlds and all the races are susceptible to it, it's just white ppl historically ended up being on top for the most part.
To suggest that non-white people are somehow different and could not have possibly be racist or "invent" racism is to deny human nature and perpetuate the myth that the color of your skin makes you special albeit in a negative way in this case, and therefore is racist.
> In the United States specifically, Black people are in a special position, because their very existence as a group is the result of colonization and slavery. Their existence is a physical reminder of the racist origins of the US. And the injustice they continue to endure in the United States today - including of course police violence, but also housing discrimination, discrimination in the workplace, excessive incarceration, restricted voting rights, restricted access to healthcare and education, etc. - are a reminder of the fact that racism is still, today, deeply embedded in US institutions.
I like how readily every measurable statistically significant difference between races is readily attributed to racism without any attempt to explore multiple other possible explanations. Sure, the only possibly reason that the racial minority that that has been historically economically disadvantaged and repressed from advancing over generations has been poorer educated, engaged in more crime and less economically involved today would be racism.
It sounds that way to you because it goes against your beliefs. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong...
> I haven't seen any evidence that white people specifically have "invented" racism instead of being a position of power for the most part.
If you read History books, you will find plenty of evidence. It’s not hard to find. Nothing I wrote is particularly controversial among historians.
> There's plenty of evidence that racism existed throughout the history in all parts of the worlds
You’re thinking of bigotry, or prejudice. You are correct that it is present everywhere in the world. But it is not the same as racism (see my definition of racism above).
> and all the races are susceptible to it
Note that races are a pseudo-scientific concept. There is no such thing as “all the races” when talking about humanity as a whole. It’s as meaningless as saying “all the Hindu castes in the world”.
> it's just white ppl historically ended up being on top for the most part.
Yes, Europeans conquered most of the world, occupied it militarily, plundered its resources, enslaved, killed and displaced tens of millions of people, and invented the concept of “white people” as the superior race to justify it. As a result, much of the world’s wealth and power was redistributed to Europeans and their descendants, both in Europe and in their colonies.
If that’s what you mean by “being on top” then we are in agreement.
> To suggest that non-white people are somehow different and could not have possibly be racist or "invent" racism is to deny human nature and perpetuate the myth that the color of your skin makes you special albeit in a negative way in this case, and therefore is racist.
Again, you are confusing prejudice and racism. Sure, I guess anyone could have invented racism and spread it to half the planet. Any human group is biologically capable of doing that. Who cares? That statement applies equally to every historical fact. Any humans could have conquered the Mediterranean - but the Romans did. Any humans could have caused WW2 - but the Germans did. Any humans could have invented and spread racism - but the Europeans did.
> I like how readily every measurable statistically significant difference between races is readily attributed to racism without any attempt to explore multiple other possible explanations.
Oh, plenty of people have looked for other explanations. It’s just that they have failed to make a convincing case for them. By contrast, what I explained to you is supported by mountains of evidence and pretty much the entire scientific community. You might as well be looking for alternate explanations to global warming. But feel free to try!
Sure, the only possibly reason that the racial minority that that has been historically economically disadvantaged and repressed from advancing over generations has been poorer educated, engaged in more crime and less economically involved today would be racism.
I didn’t say it’s the only possible reason. It’s just the only reason supported by evidence and research.
* Any tool that allows to discriminate "for" allows to discriminate "against"
* What is the rational to be able to add "black-owned", but not "mexican-owned" or anything else, are mexicans not victims of discriminations ?
* What is the end game ? Black people go to black-owned businesses, white people go to white-owned businesses ? this kind of anti-racism looks a little bit like segregation to me.
I'm not against any positive actions, but this one seems dangerous and could have unwanted indirect impacts