Before I left, I sent an email to the family offering to help. I told them about a successful lawsuit by "the Jills"--local civil rights attorneys Jill Clark and Jill Waite. They sued the Minneapolis Police Department for acting in concert with a white store manager of a Tom Thumb who violated the equal access civil rights of a Black customer. In that case, the store manager refused to sell the woman anything and told her to leave the store, even though she had not done anything wrong. When she questioned why she had to leave he called the cops, who threatened to arrest her if she did not leave. Again (and this was attested to in court by the cops involved), this woman had committed no crime. Police admitted they violated the woman's rights at the bidding of the store manager. Tom Thumb upper management claimed not to be aware of their store manager's disposition but made no efforts to correct the situation once they became aware of it.
One of the conditions of the settlement is that the MPD must train police officers in the Civil Rights Act and about equal access rights to public facilities/services so that this situation will not occur in the future.
It is not clear to me that the police did anything wrong in the situation--according to the post from the family, which I just reread, they came quickly, they investigated by listening to both sides and to witnesses and they didn't automatically threaten the family with arrest but stood by while the problem was at least somewhat resolved (though dissatisfactorily, by the family paying and leaving). So maybe the training was put to good use. The only other thing they could have done (in an ideal world) is to have arrested the manager for violating that family's civil rights--but that is a civil offense and folks aren't arrested for civil offenses, they are sued, which is what I understand the family is doing.
The "villains" here appear to be the wait staff member and the manager. I don't buy that bit about needing further "investigation" before reaching that conclusion. There were witnesses and they were willing to tell their story to police and provide their contact info to the family. Moreover, other people in the restaurant were not complaining about being treated poorly (a la the "waitress having a bad day" theory). What does it tell you when the Black family is given poor service but the other patrons are not?
Being a relocated southerner, I DEARLY LOVE barbeque, especially ribs and rib tips. I'll go damned near anywhere to get good barbeque. I'm a huge fan of Art Song's Hickory Hut on University and Dale--hated when they closed the Lake Street store. I've never tried Market BBQ but I can see that I won't ever unless their upper management makes some kind of public effort to deal affirmatively with this situation and give this family some justice. This is bad timing for them, with Ribfest just around the corner, so I would suggest they act soon. I'll be sending a letter to them to that effect.
Thanks to Tim B. for recommending Ted Cook's BBQ. I haven't tried it yet but I will soon. And I'm definitely open to other recommendations, on list or off.
Soon I'll post an incident I witnessed at Famous Dave's and why, besides their very mediocre food, I'll never go there again. The incident did not involve racism--just really, really bad service to an injured patron.
Michelle Gross
Bryn Mawr
At 05:21 PM 7/11/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of empathy on this list for the family who attended Market Bar-B-Que, and the urge to rationalize and otherwise excuse the behavior of the people who "served" them, is appalling. These people are not lodging their complaint anonymously; they signed their name to their post. They obviously would not be contemplating legal action if other patrons hadn't unilaterally come forward to defend them, going so far and to provide their names for future testimony. It wasn't a single waitress who disrespected them; the next person up on the hierarchical chain likewise treated these paying customers in a manner calculated to ensure they wouldn't return. Does anyone doubt this happened? On what basis?TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
People on this list must think that the "Whites Only" signs and other manifestations of Jim Crow are ancient history. They aren't. They are a fundamental part of that grandmother's personal experience. To suggest that this woman suck it up and extend herself further by getting in touch with the owners is naive at best--racial ignorance is a harsher, but no less accurate description.
How have African-Americans in this country historically gotten satisfaction for their grief and insult; by trying to reason with executives further up the corporate ladder, or by threatening or filing a lawsuit and/or organizing a boycott? That's what racist establishments, whether the racism is widespread, happenstance, or otherwise, understand and react to. If the manager had caught the waitress pocketing the $65 bill, she would be fired on the spot, and I don't imagine there would be many on the list arguing that she just needed the money this one day and should be excused for her behavior.
If the people on this list don't realize that black citizens routinely try to ignore or rationalize away the subtle and not-so-subtle ways they are treated with fear, suspicion and dislike by the white community, especially right here in passive-aggressive Minneapolis, then it's time to get a clue. When your mother is crying, your kids are scared, and a waitress, a restaurant manager and a police officer all don't want to own up to the fact that you were mistreated, despite the consensual opinion of objective observers, further patience is probably not a virtue.
Finally, those who profess to want to know the "whole story" before drawing any conclusions should hope for a lawsuit. Otherwise your stance is just a convenient way of ignoring what happened, while congratulating yourselves on your fair-mindedness.
Britt Robson
Lyndale
