News
A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’
Target’s recent decision to end its diversity programs has sparked backlash among Black consumers and entrepreneurs. While some call for a boycott, others caution that it could harm Black businesses more than the retailer.
Timeka N. Tounsel, University of Washington
Some Black consumers may be breaking up with Target this February.
It all started late last month, when the retailer announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move drew widespread rebuke from social justice organizers, including New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Dr. Jamal Bryant. Although Target said one set of its racial-equity initiatives had already been scheduled to conclude, the timing was notable: The move came just days after the White House called for a federal DEI ban, and as several other companies took similar actions.
Beyond renaming its “supplier diversity” team – now called “supplier engagement” – and ending “diversity-focused surveys,” Target hasn’t said what the change will mean for the many Black entrepreneurs who sell everything from coffee to sunscreen on its shelves. The webpage for the retailer’s Black Beyond Measure initiative, which highlights dozens of Black-founded brands and connects business owners to a program designed to “democratize access to retail education,” remains active.
But Target’s critics, including Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, view the move as a surrender to the new presidential administration’s attack on equity programs. In a news conference outside Target’s Minnesota headquarters on Jan. 30, 2025, Armstrong called for a nationwide boycott of the store to begin on the first day of Black History Month.
While many social media users posted in support of the boycott, some Black founders whose brands are stocked by Target – and there are dozens of them – have been more conflicted. Tabitha Brown, whose products can be found in various aisles, from books to cooking appliances, asked customers to reconsider boycotting Target. Withholding their dollars, Brown insisted, will hurt Black businesses far more than the corporations that sell their products.
This request for restraint garnered a mixed response on social media. Some Black consumers accused Black business owners of selling out the very racial community that contributed to their success.
So, why would a Black business owner ask consumers to patronize a retailer that signaled it doesn’t care about Black customers? And how did something as mundane as where people buy toilet paper and shampoo become a litmus test for racial consciousness in the first place?
Black consumers and the fight for dignity
The marketplace has long been a battleground where Black Americans have sought to assert their citizenship. Most of the nation’s biggest household brands didn’t begin to take African American consumers seriously until after World War II. Before that shift, advertisements and product packaging were more likely to feature degrading Black caricatures to appeal to white shoppers, than to address Black consumers directly.
This segregated commercial landscape reinforced the belief among some community members that Black people would not be taken seriously as citizens until they were taken seriously as consumers. They would need to vote with their dollars, patronizing only those brands and retailers that respected them.
In my research on marketing campaigns aimed at Black women, I’ve examined how the struggle for consumer citizenship complicated the dynamic between Black entrepreneurs and consumers. On the one hand, businesses have long leveraged Black ownership as a unique selling proposition in and of itself, urging shoppers to view Black brand loyalty as a path to collective racial progress.
Unlike their larger competitors, Black entrepreneurs relied on their racial community to stay afloat. Patronizing African American businesses could therefore be framed as a racial duty. Conversely, as African American advertising pioneers made clear, recognition from big brands was a political victory of sorts because it signaled that Black dollars were just as valuable as anyone else’s. https://www.youtube.com/embed/SAFubUnsl3Y?wmode=transparent&start=0 A short documentary from The Advertising Club of New York featuring iconic ads from African American marketer Tom Burrell.
Competing for Black dollars
Corporate attention to Black consumers ebbs and flows in a cycle that is especially noticeable in the beauty and personal care industry. In seasons of limited competition for African American customers, entrepreneurs typically thrive, even while they struggle to meet the capital demands of a growing brand. Their success, however, beckons larger corporations, which then seek to capitalize on consumer niches they previously ignored.
Two common approaches that mass market brands pursue to compete for Black dollars include acquiring smaller, established Black brands and developing their own niche products. Large corporations deployed both strategies during a period of intense expansion into the beauty market of the 1980s.
Black owners tried to stave off their competition by creating a special emblem that alerted shoppers to their authenticity. Then, as now, social justice organizations, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH, also initiated boycotts and urged Black consumers not to choose “lipstick over liberation.”
Nevertheless, many Black entrepreneurs sold their brands, and by 1986 nearly half of the Black hair care market was no longer Black-owned.
A linked fate
Parsing winners and losers within the world of Black enterprise is as difficult now as it was in earlier periods. African American business owners often possess a cultural consciousness that distinguishes their brands, even when they can’t match the resources of larger competitors. And as they figure out how to survive an uneven playing field, Black entrepreneurs sometimes face accusations of betraying their racial community.
In a market governed by the law of supply and demand, Black consumers benefit from increased competition. Yet, racial loyalty sometimes asks that they eschew these benefits for the sake of keeping Black dollars in Black hands.
Four years ago, when Target launched its Black Beyond Measure funding initiative, it seemed that the retailer had struck a rare balance in supporting Black brands and their customers. In addition to curating a collection of products to lure shoppers, Target used the campaign as an opportunity to position entrepreneurs to flourish well beyond Black History Month.
Now, as Black consumers and business owners weigh varying responses to the retailer’s decision to reverse their commitment to DEI values, one question endures: Do Black dollars matter?
Timeka N. Tounsel, Associate Professor of Black Studies in Communication, University of Washington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
Can the Trump administration legally deport Palestinian rights advocate Mahmoud Khalil? 3 things to know about green card holders’ rights
Gabriel J. Chin, University of California, Davis
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the government will deport lawful permanent residents who support Hamas and came to the U.S. as students with an intent “to rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities,” referencing the Palestinian rights protests at universities in 2024.
“And if you end up having a green card – not citizenship, but a green card – as a result of that visa while you’re here and those activities, we’re going to kick you out. It’s as simple as that. This is not about free speech. This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” Rubio said on March 12, 2025.
That policy has now ensnared Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia University and a leader in the Palestinian rights protest movement at the school. Khalil, a Palestinian who was born in Syria, faces deportation after he was arrested on March 8, 2025, in New York City. The that the secretary of state had determined Khalil’s presence or activities in the country posed “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Mahmoud Khalil,
Khalil entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2022. In 2024, he received a green card and became a lawful permanent resident – meaning he has the legal right to work and stay in the U.S. There are an estimated 12.8 million lawful permanent residents in the country.
Khalil’s lawyers say that his arrest and pending deportation are unconstitutional.
In many respects, the rights of lawful permanent residents and citizens are similar. Yet citizens and lawful permanent residents do not enjoy equal status under the law.
The Supreme Court and other courts recognize that lawful permanent residents have First Amendment rights to free speech.
Yet the Supreme Court upheld deporting lawful permanent residents in the 1950s based on their political activity, in particular membership in the Communist Party.
So, while lawful permanent residents may not be criminally prosecuted for their political speech or activity, what they say or write may well affect their ability to remain in the U.S., if the government determines that they are a security risk.
I’m a scholar of immigration law. Here are three major differences between the rights of citizens and lawful permanent residents.
1. Limited political rights
Lawful permanent residents are people born in other countries who can legally work and live in the U.S. for as long as they like. They may enlist in the U.S. armed forces, apply to become U.S. citizens, and are legally protected against discrimination by private employers.
States also generally cannot discriminate against lawful permanent residents – though states may require certain groups of people, such as teachers or police, to have U.S. citizenship.
Between 1820 and 1920, noncitizens routinely participated in different aspects of government, including voting, holding office and jury service in many states and territories.
These days, states and the federal government generally allow only citizens to serve on juries, hold political positions and vote. With a few exceptions, such as voting in some local elections, permanent residents are not able to do any of these things.
2. Limited public benefits
The distinction between noncitizens and citizens extends to other areas of life, such as public benefits.
The Supreme Court has frequently stated, “In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
In practice, this means that the federal government – and to a much lesser extent, states – do not offer public benefits, such as Medicaid and other kinds of government support, to lawful permanent residents and other noncitizens on the same basis as citizens.
For example, lawful permanent residents must generally wait five years before becoming eligible for certain programs intended to support low-income people, such as Supplemental Security Income and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
3. Reversal of immigration status
Finally, unlike citizens, lawful permanent residents can lose their legal immigration status.
Congress has enacted many grounds for deporting a noncitizen, or stopping them from entering the country.
Some courts have found that the U.S. government can deport a lawful permanent resident because of national security or terrorism concerns, even if the person has not committed a crime.
The Trump administration argues that they can deport lawful permanent residents like Khalil under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that a lawful permanent resident can be deported if the secretary of state has reasonable ground to believe that this person “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
The Trump administration had initiated deportation proceedings against Khalil on this ground.
U.S. law also provides that any non-citizen can be deported if the secretary of state and the attorney general jointly determine that the person is associated with terrorism, or poses a threat to the U.S. In addition, the law says an immigrant can be deported if they “endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuades others” to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.
Still, lawful permanent residents are entitled to certain basic rights, such as retaining a lawyer to represent them in administrative hearings and court before they are deported.
By contrast, the U.S. government cannot deport a U.S. citizen for any reason. However, sometimes U.S. citizens are deported by mistake.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has found that while it is constitutional to execute a military member for desertion in wartime, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deprive them of citizenship.
Legal grounds for deporting noncitizens
There have been few recent court cases testing the scope of deporting lawful permanent residents on national security grounds based on pure speech.
In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that if a person is deportable, they are deportable – even if there is some other reason that motivated the government’s deportation proceedings, such as a suspicion that the non-citizen is involved with crime or terrorism.
The Supreme Court also then held that the government could deport non-citizens for technical visa violations, even if the case was based on the government’s belief that the non-citizens were associated with a terrorist group.
There is also some precedent arguing that deportation based on “adverse foreign policy consequences” is too broad and nonspecific to be constitutional.
Indeed, Marianne Trump Barry, the sister of the president, held this opinion when she was a federal judge in the mid-1990s. But Samuel Alito, then an appeals court judge, overturned Barry’s ruling on procedural grounds in 1996.
For its part, the Supreme Court has occasionally held that very broad and indeterminate deportation grounds are “void for vagueness,” meaning so sweeping and imprecise that they are unconstitutional.
Khalil’s lawyers appeared with U.S. government lawyers before a federal judge in New York on March 12. Their goal: to get Khalil moved from internment in Louisiana back to internment in New York. But that may well be just the beginning of a long haul for the Palestinian student. Courts have proved reluctant to second-guess security grounds rationales in immigration cases. For these reasons, cases like Khalil’s may go on for years.
Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Criminal Law, Immigration, and Race and Law, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hearty recipes for celebrating from the comfort of home
(Family Features) While some St. Patrick’s Day celebrations call for green beer and large gatherings, you may instead opt for a cozy evening at home with comforting foods and close friends. Whether your shamrock spirit leads you out for a local parade or you’re more of a stay-at-home leprechaun, there is one tradition all can agree on: delicious Irish food.
If a quieter night cooking at home is up your alley, you’re in luck. You can put a meal worthy of gold on the table with these festive Irish favorites from “Cookin’ Savvy.”
A hearty home-cooked meal loaded with flavor and sure to fill you with cheer, Irish Beef and Beer Pot Pie is made piping hot to warm up any St. Patrick’s Day party. Full of hashbrowns, carrots, peas and beef, it’s a twist on tradition served with puff pastry topping the tasty stew. A cup of your favorite stout beer, of course, will come in handy for deglazing the skillet to ensure you enjoy every bit of beefy flavor.
Perfect for serving as a sweet complement to coffee or tea, or all on its own as a nightcap nibble, Irish Sweet Soda Bread comes together in a snap so you can let it bake while enjoying the main course. Offering an easy way to participate in the festivities, it might just become a household favorite to be savored year-round.
Make your home a St. Patrick’s Day haven with these hearty recipes then discover more celebratory meal ideas from “Cookin’ Savvy” by visiting Culinary.net.
Irish Beef and Beer Pot Pie
Recipe courtesy of “Cookin’ Savvy”
Servings: 4-6
- 1 pound ground beef
- 1 cup stout beer
- 3 tablespoons flour
- 1 can (15 ounces) tomato puree
- 1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce
- 1 tablespoon garlic powder
- 1 cup beef broth
- 1 bag (28 ounces) hashbrowns with peppers and onions
- 1 can (14 ounces) carrots, drained
- 1 can (14 ounces) peas, drained
- salt, to taste
- pepper, to taste
- 1 sheet puff pastry, thawed
- 1 egg
- Heat oven to 400 F.
- In large skillet or Dutch oven, brown ground beef; drain and set aside.
- Over medium heat, deglaze skillet with beer and whisk in flour. After thickening, whisk in tomato puree and add Worcestershire sauce. Mix in ground beef, garlic powder and beef broth. Add hashbrowns, carrots and peas. Season with salt and pepper, to taste. Simmer 20-25 minutes, stirring occasionally.
- Place puff pastry sheet on cookie sheet. Beat egg and brush over pastry. Bake 10 minutes. Place hot puff pastry on top of beef mixture and serve.
Irish Sweet Soda Bread
Recipe courtesy of “Cookin’ Savvy”
Servings: 4-6
- 4 tablespoons butter, melted
- 1 cup sugar
- 1 1/2 cups buttermilk
- 4 cups self-rising flour
- 1 cup currants
- 2 tablespoons sanding sugar (optional)
- coffee or tea, for serving (optional)
- Heat oven to 375 F.
- Mix melted butter and sugar then add buttermilk. Mix in flour and currants.
- Flour hands and counter. Add sanding sugar to dough, if desired, and knead into ball.
- Grease small Dutch oven or pie plate and bake 40 minutes. Serve with coffee or tea, if desired, or as a dessert.
Substitutions: Raisins can be used in place of currants.
SOURCE:
Culinary.net
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In a significant shift for the automotive retail landscape, Advance Auto Parts has announced plans to close all remaining locations in California by mid-March 2025. This decision is part of a larger restructuring initiative aimed at addressing ongoing financial struggles within the company. The announcement was made in November through a federal WARN notice, which provides affected employees with a minimum of 60 days’ notice to prepare for the impending job loss.
Advance Auto Parts
The ramifications of this closure will be profound, with more than 1,600 workers set to lose their jobs as Advance Auto Parts shuts down its remaining 137 stores across the state. The closures began in early February and will follow a broader consolidation strategy that impacts over 725 locations nationwide.
The decision to close these stores is largely driven by a significant downturn in consumer demand. According to the company, fewer drivers are opting for vehicle repairs, contributing to a challenging market environment. This trend was starkly illustrated in the company’s recent financial report, highlighting an operating loss of $820 million in the fourth quarter of 2024.
Shane O’Kelly, President and CEO of Advance Auto Parts, stated, “During 2024, we initiated transformative actions to reposition Advance for long-term success and value creation.” This statement underscores the urgency of the company’s restructuring efforts and its commitment to adapt to the market’s evolving landscape.
As part of its comprehensive plan, Advance Auto Parts intends to consolidate its distribution operations, reducing the number of centers to 12 larger facilities by the end of 2026. Furthermore, the company aims to open 60 market hub locations by mid-2027, which could potentially help streamline operations and improve efficiency in a challenging retail environment.
The closure of all California locations signifies a substantial change in the automotive parts sector, marking the end of an era for many consumers who have relied on Advance Auto Parts for their automotive needs. As the company navigates these changes, the goal remains clear: to emerge stronger and better positioned for sustainable growth in the years to come.
For employees and consumers alike, this transition brings uncertainty, but it also represents a critical phase of re-evaluation and adaptation in the face of shifting market demands. The coming months will be pivotal as Advance Auto Parts implements its restructuring plan while supporting its affected workforce.
Related Link:
https://ktla.com/news/california/advance-auto-parts-store-closures/
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Groundbreaking for a Sustainable Future: LA Metro’s Southeast Gateway Line Light Rail Project
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-
Urbanism2 years agoSignal Hill, California: A Historic Enclave Surrounded by Long Beach
-
News2 years agoDiana Gregory Talks to us about Diana Gregory’s Outreach Services
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years agoThe Absolute Most Comfortable Pickleball Shoe I’ve Ever Worn!
-
STM Blog2 years agoWorld Naked Gardening Day: Celebrating Body Acceptance and Nature
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years agoACE PICKLEBALL CLUB TO DEBUT THEIR HIGHLY ANTICIPATED INDOOR PICKLEBALL FRANCHISES IN THE US, IN EARLY 2023
-
Travel2 years agoUnique Experiences at the CitizenM
-
Automotive2 years ago2023 Nissan Sentra pricing starts at $19,950
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years ago“THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARDS OF PICKLEBALL” – VOTING OPEN