Encouraging folks to "buy black"

This was news to me but probably not news to everyone but thought it was worth mentioning. Is anyone aware of the Empowerment Experiment?  Well in the words of the website, the Empowerment Experiment (EE) involves a black family (the Anderson Family) publicly committing to "Buy Black" for one year. In other words to only support black owned businesses.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this. I often times go to a local store and spend extra to support local businesses (the other day I spent $1.19 for a .75 cent candy bar at a local snack stop) so for my part, I believe people should be able to spend their money where they see fit. What I don't want is the Government telling me I have to support black or white owned business or some quota system and feel that I should support businesses that give me the services I want. I was not for the smoking ban in restaurants as I thought it was needless Government intervention. Why not allow restaurants to cater to the smoking or non-smoking crowd. For my money, the non smoking restaurants would get the nod but why remove the ability to smoke in a restaurant?

My issue with the Empowerment Experiment is really a cultural one. What would the media say if white family vowed to buy only from white owned businesses? Would the media (CNN, Fox News, etc.) welcome the family that is white who have made a similar pledge (with the same motivations) to buy only from white businesses? If you go to the Empowerment Experiment website (http://www.eefortomorrow.com/) you can watch all the interviews the Andersons have given. I would bet there wouldn't be the same reaction, especially if the white family was from the "South" (can everyone say KKK?). I don't think I am wrong on this.

Good for the Andersons and don't I wish I lived in a country that I was assured to get similar reactions if I were to choose to do something along the same vein. I should be able to rent to whom I want, support who I want and spend my money how I see fit.

I wonder if the same people who are so ecstatic over the Andersons support the lawsuit brought on by a gay man against the website eharmony.com. Eharmony  is a dating service founded by religious Christians who have done a lot of research on what makes heterosexual dating successful and likely to lead to marriage. A gay man found that the site didn't offer man to man relationships so he sued. Like there aren't any other sites out there that offer gay singles some online match making. But eharmony capitulated - and in my opinion they shouldn't have. Why can't an online dating service offer up their services to clients of their choosing as opposed to being forced to amend their procedures against their wishes to include clientele (for whatever reason) they choose not to include? See this story on the Fox News website for more info.

The Andersons are free to do what they want with their money. The rest of the country should be so lucky.

Outspoken Roman