Skulking

You as an individual treating everyone the same regardless of race is admirable. The problem with that view is that society does see color. Society does treat people differently based on their race. By not seeing color you are discounting societies treatment of people of color and saying that it doesn't matter because you treat everyone the same. Not everyone is as well adjusted as you and able to treat everyone the same regardless of race. We have moved forward from a time when not seeing color was adequate, and now recognize that not seeing color is something only those with privilege who don't need to live with being treated as less than due to the color of their skin can do. I'm not saying that you treating everyone the same regardless of race is a bad thing. The problem is that it isn't enough for one individual to do that. We as a society need to acknowledge the different experiences of everyone, and accept that some groups have been oppressed by the systems put in place by society and that some people though not all of them intentionally have benefited from that oppression. We as a society need to actively work together to break down those systems of oppression and build a better more equitable society for the future. But until we acknowledge the damage caused by the past there is no way we can move forward into that future.

Macster

Damn!! That's going to be a devastating blow to them.

ShannonM

This is one of the core differences between the Critical Theory and Liberal models of social justice. In the Liberal model, (and, I'd argue, in reality,) "systems" and "societies" are dependent phenomena that derive their properties and even their existence from the individual humans who make them up. In the Critical Theory model, "systems" and "societies" are separate entities, and they have properties and behaviors that do not derive from any of the humans who exist within them.

Thus, under the Liberal model, if all of the individuals in a society start treating everyone the same regardless of race, that society and all of its systems would no longer be racist, because it couldn't be racist if there were no individual racists in it. Critical Race Theory explicitly denies this. Not "denies that it's possible for it to happen," but explicitly and repeatedly denies that anything about the system would change even if it did.

--Shannon

Koyote

But even if this were to occur (and it hasn't in the US), the effects of past racism would still be present. Just one easy example out of a gazillion that could be cited: income and wealth disparities are strongly intergenerational. Hence there may still be a need for ameliorative policy, if you care about fixing the problem.

woodcraft

Thanks, I'll check it (or at least some of it) out.

Skulking

I am honestly unsure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with the point you quoted. I am not suggesting that nothing would change if every single person treated everyone the same regardless of race. The world would certainly be a better place, but I don't think that it would solve all of the problems which would still be left over from centuries of racism. There are systems in place that won't be done away with just because we all agree to not see color. We have spent so long working on putting racist systems in place in ways that the people taking advantage of them can claim they aren't actually racist. We need to acknowledge those systems exist and remove them before just not seeing color might be acceptable. In the reality I live in, I expect that that day would be many generations in the future because generations of racism and hostility towards anyone who is other will take a very long time to undo. And until that happens simply not being racist yourself isn't enough.

50PlusCycling

Slavery has a long history, dating back thousands of years. If we are paying reparations for slavery in previous generations, the line will be very long, and African-Americans would be at the very end of it.

We then must decide which African-Americans deserve reparations and which don’t. Many people are not aware that many American plantations were owned by black freemen, and these black plantation owners also owned African slaves. Many plantations were owned by Indians (Native-Americans) who also owned slaves. Should the descendants of slave owners owners qualify for reparations?

Then we must consider other factors to decide whether ho pays and who collects. Should those who immigrated after slavery was abolished be required to pay reparations? Should those descended from African-Americans who arrived after slavery was abolished be disqualified from receiving reparations?

Rivendell is free to do reparations pricing, but I am free not to buy bikes from Rivendell. If you are enough of a self-hater who needs to get increase your sense of self worth virtue-signaling by buying a bike from Rivendell, and voluntarily pay reparations pricing, you are free to do so.

shelbyfv

I welcome the effort. As our national consciousness evolves, we'll probably see many similar plans, both small and large. Even if they don't all hit the nail on the head, the attempts move us forward. FWIW, it's encouraging to see the mostly positive response here on BF. Sure there have been a few knee jerk/dog whistle comments, but compared to an RV forum (another hobby) the posts have been thoughtful and enlightened.

indyfabz

Love my racks from Riv. My purchase decision had nothing to do with increasing sense of self worth and everything to do with them being the right tool for the jobs I do.

himespau 

Exactly, the history of redlining means homes of Blacks are worth less and there is less income to pass onto the next generation. The lack of Black Rockefellers and Black Carnegies 100 years ago still impacts the starting points today. As does the fact that Black children are more likely to be educated in poorer quality schools. It's all fine and dandy to treat all people the same, but, if they're not starting from the same point, they are not being treated the same by the system.

Macster

Just want to address this false narrative before it gains any traction. As was clearly stated in the offer details:

"Normal prices don't subsidize BRP. We have not raised normal prices to make up for the loss incurred with BRP sales, so if you're white (for example), you are NOT 'paying for Black people getting a discount.'"

"BRP bikes don't cut into our normal inventory. We are specifically ordering 10 percent more bikes than we would have, and these are earmarked for BRP sales."

Koyote

Exactly. A lot of the posters who are criticizing Riv don't seem to have READ the policy. They are criticizing something that Rivendell is not actually doing.

jon c. 

I suspect much of the criticism actually has little to do with Rivendell's policy. It's much broader than that.

coffeesnob

ya Newsom has done such a good job handling the homeless situation I am sure he can handle this just as well.

2old

At least we know Riv's gross profit on bike sales. Also, since this is purely race-oriented, is it legal? I can only imagine the clamor if it were reversed.

tkamd73 

I certainly wouldn’t think so duh! Thats assuming, I’m only one of a few. I’m just choosing to no longer do business with them.
Tim

Gconan

Is the only thing that seems silly. However it's their decision, and I hope a friends wife gets one. It would not seem right for her to get bumped for a rich person.

I-Like-To-Bike

​​​​​​​Conversely I expect the added sales to BF posters impressed enough by the new policy to make any additional purchases to be close to zero.

Whether Rivendell will significantly increase the total number or percentage of its clientele that are black is open to debate with its current lineup of products even with a 45% discount.

Gconan

I don't think they have anything in stock do they?

BillyD

Outstanding decision.

BillyD

They're apparently not concerned about the legality. This from the offer description:

"Please no advice on the legality of this from people who don't qualify. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were legal. Gerrymandering still rages on. No squawks of "reverse discrimination!" That's exactly the point, but a better term is positive discrimination. Positive because it doesn't hurt anybody, the way classical discrimination did and still does."

2old

Thanks; looks like he just changed the law. I hope someone tests this in court.

ShannonM

I read that as "We ran this by our lawyer, and we think we're good. If you're not an attorney practicing corporate discrimination law in the state of California, you're not qualified to have an opinion, so please don't waste everyone's time sharing yours with us."

Which is pretty much true, and something we should keep in mind as well.

--Shannon

Trakhak

If you want a test case for outrageous socialism, how about fire departments? I've paid taxes to support fire departments for half a century, and I haven't had a fire yet, dammit!

tomato coupe

If you really feel like you're missing out on something, I know a guy who knows a guy ...