A party of 25 is surely going to spend way more than one white woman - doesn't make economic sense for the manager to refuse them. Why not toss the complaining customer out?
As stupid as it was for the restaurant employee to tell them "you have to leave because you're black" (which is how I'm reading the claim), it's even stupider if that wasn't even the actual reason.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
It's unclear from the story what precisely happened (and I am not in a position at the moment to watch videos so I haven't seen the footage).
I'm not sure speculation about what could have actually happened to justify this or that is productive. What we need is more actual information.
While I find it entirely plausible that a Charleston restaurateur would deliberately mistreat African-American customers with a full expectation of getting away with it, it is possible that there is more to the story.
The Jim Crow laws are a lingering, disgraceful legacy in the South, attributable to the then-Democratic Party back in the 1870s and 1880s when my great great grandpa the Republican Congressman was trying to pass civil rights legislation, voting rights for blacks, anti-discrimination laws and other then-Republican causes.
The Republicans have changed a wee bit since then, as have the Democrats.
I'm not sure speculation about what could have actually happened to justify this or that is productive. What we need is more actual information.
While I find it entirely plausible that a Charleston restaurateur would deliberately mistreat African-American customers with a full expectation of getting away with it, it is possible that there is more to the story.
The Jim Crow laws are a lingering, disgraceful legacy in the South, attributable to the then-Democratic Party back in the 1870s and 1880s when my great great grandpa the Republican Congressman was trying to pass civil rights legislation, voting rights for blacks, anti-discrimination laws and other then-Republican causes.
The Republicans have changed a wee bit since then, as have the Democrats.
Yorkist
Banned
I'd actually be a good bit more surprised if this happened in Mississippi than Charleston. (Long explanation of demographics will not follow.) South Carolina, this I can believe. Place is like stepping back in time.
The reason I mentioned the two hour wait is because the reason given to the party for the two hour wait was a customer seated in the section where they would be seated felt "threatened" by the group. I would think that the person that complained would not stay in the restaurant for two hours eating. It doesn't take that long to eat. That was what my reasoning was concerning the time.
Yes, it was a large party. But, apparently it was not the party size but the complaint of the one person that kept the party from being seated. And the reason given was because the person was afraid of the black people.
Yes, it was a large party. But, apparently it was not the party size but the complaint of the one person that kept the party from being seated. And the reason given was because the person was afraid of the black people.
Ma'am, I have twenty five customers who find your presence profoundly intimidating. I'm sorry, but you'll have to leave.
Last edited:
People actually waited two hours for a table? I won't wait more than fifteen minutes. Then again, I'm an old, nasty curmudgeon.
I'm not saying that that level of prejudice doesn't exist, because it most surely does. I just don't know of anyone who's willing to wait that long for a table. Is there more to this story?
I'm not saying that that level of prejudice doesn't exist, because it most surely does. I just don't know of anyone who's willing to wait that long for a table. Is there more to this story?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
That's what I'm waiting to hear.
And I know, I know, I said speculation about the circumstances without facts is futile.
However (since I am currently dealing with large and sprawling extended family groups and it's fresh in my mind), if I were with a group of 25 friends and relations the simple act of settling on one restaurant everyone can agree with would be pretty daunting.
If we *did* manage to find one restaurant all twenty-five people would agree to, we would be likely to stick with it, even aware that for a party that large with no reservation it might be a couple of hours' wait. It's kind of a sunk cost thing, better the venue here we all can agree to rather than roaming in the hopes of finding something better that would still accommodate so many people.
I don't know if that's anything close to what happened. But I think it's what my extended family would do.
Yorkist
Banned
^ Though I'm with Haggis, this (Alessandra's post) sounds reasonable to me.
Also it can be a nightmare getting seated on Friday and Saturday nights.
Also it can be a nightmare getting seated on Friday and Saturday nights.
They were celebrating a family member leaving the area. It could be that person's favorite restaurant and they wanted to eat there before they moved away.
Also, the issue was that they were told to leave because a customer felt uncomfortable. Not because 25 was too large a party.
Or they could have gone for the free music. The restaurant has bands that come and play there. Which may be why the person who complained about the group stayed for so long eating. I don't know, obviously, but finding out the restaurant has bands performing changes the dynamics a bit of how fast people would clear out.
Right. Exactly. I mean if twenty five people showed up at a busy restaurant without a reservation, and agreed to sit at the bar until a table(s) became free, that's one thing. Or maybe 25 people with a hell of a lot more patience that I have. But I just don't think we have enough information here to make a judgement. Again, not saying that prejudice might not have been the major factor here. We all know better than that. It's just that this one seems strange.
Mind you, bigotry always looks pretty strange...
ETA: the guy it happened to seemed to think it felt like bigotry. Enough to phone head office - and take it to social media when his calls weren't responded to.
Last edited:
Yorkist
Banned
^ It' also possible that it started with a 45 minute wait that kept getting extended because there were parties in the restaurant who wouldn't leave and kept ordering drinks, right?
Truthfully, all that we have heard is their version of the events. It could be that they weren't permitted to sit because a white woman was uncomfortable with a large group of Black people. However, it could also be that they waited two hours because they were a party of 25 and they had no reservation. Logistically speaking, it would take four or five tables to sit 25 people. If the place was packed when they got there, that meant that they would have to wait until those tables were processed.
Well, but why didn't the spokesperson for the restaurant make that point, then? Or did she, but it just wasn't reported in the item I read? (which happens, I know...)
ETA: Besides, the issue wasn't about the waiting, it was about them being told to leave, because there was a "situation".
Last edited:
The PR person apologized and offered them a free meal. Brown declined the meal and has since escalated the story.
This event happened a month ago. I'd expect another patron or an employee to step forward and support Brown's side of the story. It could be - again - that the reason they were not seated is because their group was large and not because of a woman's situation.
A few years ago, a woman sued a restaurant chain because she found a thumb in her chili. They settled out of court. Later on, a relative stepped forward and said that the thumb actually belong to someone they knew and they planted it there for the money.
This event happened a month ago. I'd expect another patron or an employee to step forward and support Brown's side of the story. It could be - again - that the reason they were not seated is because their group was large and not because of a woman's situation.
A few years ago, a woman sued a restaurant chain because she found a thumb in her chili. They settled out of court. Later on, a relative stepped forward and said that the thumb actually belong to someone they knew and they planted it there for the money.
Exactly. If they were just trouble making or rorting the system, they'd accept the freebie and feel they'd won. It's the fact that they didn't accept it and felt there was a broader issue that needed to be dealt with that - to my mind - gave the story more credence.
It's embarrassing to be treated badly, and something I think most people would rather just put behind them. This man felt strongly enough that it was racially charged to say, whatever his discomfort, that he would take it further. And as you say, it happened a month ago. As I understand it, during that month he tried to contact head office and was ignored. So - should he sit down and shut up? Or, if he believes it was racially charged, should he take it further?
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.
Last edited:
Wow, the Tragedy of The Commons reduced to a single-syllable word:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/rort_1
</derail>
Did I phrase it clumsily, or is it just an Aussie expression?
ETA: It's commonly used down here - sorry if I was unclear.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
I had never, not once, ever heard the word before. Now I have learned something.
It's a useful concept.
(TBH, when I first read it I thought it must be a typo.)
It's a useful concept.
(TBH, when I first read it I thought it must be a typo.)
Last edited: