top
East Bay
East Bay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Liquor Store Attacks Go Deeper than Booze

by New America Media, Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Mom-and-pop liquor stores have long been a target for blacks angry at the economic disempowerment of their communities. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a contributing editor at Pacific News Service and the author of "The Crisis in Black and Black."
Police officials and storeowners in Oakland breathed a huge sigh of relief at the arrest of suspects in the trashing of local store. But the arrests didn't totally answer the question of why a splinter group of black Muslims were angered enough to wreak havoc on an Arab-owned mom-and-pop store in a poor black neighborhood.

According to reports, the men were outraged that the store's Muslim owner sold alcohol to poor blacks. That's the easy answer. Their wanton destruction tells much about the depth of black economic disempowerment and the mistrust and hostility many blacks feel toward those they deem "foreigners" coming in and controlling the economy of their community.

Mom-and-pop liquor and convenience stores have always been ready-made targets of black anger. The Oakland store trashing simply was a repeat of that tragic history.

The urban riots that tore through poor black communities in the 1960s were sparked by police abuse. But rioters quickly took out their wrath on mom-and-pop grocery and liquor stores. Many of them were Jewish or non-black owned.

Rioters looted and torched the stores. Many of the storeowners, desperate to save their businesses, hastily hand-scrawled, "We colored-owned too" on their doors and windows.

In some cases it worked, in others it didn't, and the stores were burned to the ground. Black residents accused storeowners of selling shoddy goods at outrageous prices, of discourteous treatment and of refusing to hire local blacks.

Black businesspersons claimed that they were denied business loans, and that banks and insurance companies routinely redlined poor black neighborhoods. This made it impossible for blacks to open retail businesses in their communities.

Major retailers were scared stiff of the violence, and crime, and refused to invest a nickel in these neighborhoods. That left them even poorer and more underserved. Koreans, Arabs, Chinese, Vietnamese, Latinos and other newly arrived immigrants stepped into the business void. They pooled their money, relied heavily on family members to work in the stores, and were willing to put in long hours to make the business work.

That further deepened the resentment of many blacks. That fury exploded in 1992 following the acquittal of the four LAPD officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. The small mom-and-pop liquor stores, this time mostly Korean-owned, were the targets of black rioters. Black residents voiced the same complaints of high prices, bad merchandise, rude treatment and that the storeowners deliberately plied black communities with liquor and tobacco.

Surveys showed that neighborhoods in predominantly black South Los Angeles were inundated with a glut of liquor stores. Surveys in other cities, including Oakland, showed the same pattern of liquor store proliferation.

Some charged that city and state officials looked the other way as small merchants profiteered off alcohol sales in poor black neighborhoods.

In the wake of the riots, community activist groups in Los Angeles and other cities marched, picketed and challenged the liquor licenses of storeowners. They forced city and state officials to toughen restrictions on the sale and transfer of the licenses, and to pass more stringent ordinances on liquor sales. That however, did not boost black ownership of these stores, nor lessen ethnic tensions. The majority of the stores in these areas are still owned by non-blacks, and in many cases the owners are newly arrived immigrants.

In Detroit, Washington, D.C., New Orleans, Cleveland, New York and Los Angeles, many storeowners are Arab or from the Middle East. Following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the number of hate crimes against Muslims soared. Blacks were not immune from engaging in Muslim-baiting and stereotyping.

In some surveys, a majority of blacks agreed that racial profiling was not a bad thing as long as those profiled were Arabs or Asians, and not blacks. The terror jitters further fueled resentment toward Arab and Asian storeowners. Some blacks screamed loudly that foreigners, meaning Arabs or those of Middle Eastern ancestry were taking over their community. The owners again were slammed for making a fast buck off poor people, while liquoring up poor blacks. Some stores were vandalized and robbed. A few storeowners reported physical attacks.

Though many black leaders and residents are angered at the lack of black-owned businesses in their neighborhoods, may be wary and fearful of Muslims and are deeply concerned about the sale of alcohol in their community, they still denounced the attack against the Oakland store.

Nation of Islam spokesperson Tony Muhammad vigorously condemned the attack, and stressed that the vandals did not belong to the Nation of Islam. This is a good thing. Trashing stores in the name of Allah is the absolute wrong way to improve the quality of life in poor black neighborhoods.

Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by deanosor (deanosor [at] comcast.net)
Who do the cops "say" did this repugnant action?
by throw the racists out
>In some surveys, a majority of blacks agreed that racial profiling was not a bad thing as long as those profiled were Arabs or Asians, and not blacks.

Well, there's part of the problem there, isn't it. A bigger part is that certain white radicals, in an ill thought out attempt to appear not to be racists, are agreeing with this racist analysis, just because it is made by Blacks. This is racist by definition. It's also incoherent.

If it were armed gangs of *white* goons who were trashing Arab run stores and assaulting Arab store clerks, these very same white radicals would be outraged. They're not. Instead, they are defending the indefensible.

Why do they do that? I have a theory:

Radical thought in the Bay Area, especially *white* radical thought, is incoherent, irrational, ill thought out and more help to our enemies than it is to our cause or to the Bay Area. There is a reason that the Bay Area activist community blunders around in circles, pausing only long enough to shoot itself in the foot periodically. It's because the Bay Area activist community is not thinking clearly.

You can't be anti-racist and racist at the same time. Pick a side. If you choose to side with the racists, stop calling yourself radical. You're not radical. You're reactionary.
by more
New geo-spatial research methods are improving our understanding of how local environments shape the level of alcohol-related problems experienced by communities. A growing body of research shows a relationship between alcohol outlet density, drinking and harm that is most marked at the neighbourhood level. The research literature reviewed below suggests that reducing the number and density of alcohol outlets can reduce heavy drinking and local alcohol-related harm, such as violent crime.

Studies in the USA in the 1980s and early 1990s showed a relationship between alcohol outlet density and alcohol consumption levels that was mutually reinforcing over time. This was followed by research in medium-sized US cities that linked alcohol outlet density to specific measures of alcoholrelated harm such as drinkdriving and violence. Findings from city-level data do vary between different parts of the USA, but analysis of neighbourhood level data consistently shows a significant link between outlet density and harm after controlling for sociodemographic and other relevant factors. These findings can inform policing and licensing decisions, as well as the wider policies of local and central government.

One of the earliest studies, of 213 California cities, showed that a 1 per cent increase in beer bars resulted in more than 1 per cent increase in public drunkenness and drink driving. Other Californian research linked high outlet density to high numbers of night-time traffic crashes and pedestrian injuries in the neighbourhoods studied, with some spill-over effects into neighbouring areas.

Research in Newark, New Jersey, showed that alcohol outlet density was the single greatest predictor of violent crime at the suburb and neighbourhood level (census tracts and census blocks). This link with harm levels holds good whether density is measured per head of population or per square kilometre. California studies linked the density of off-licensed outlets to violent assault, including violence involving young people. In an average city in Los Angeles County, each additional outlet was associated with a 0.62 per cent increase in violent offences. In New Jersey, alcohol outlets, along with bus stations and all-night businesses, appeared to become crime ‘hotspots’. The effect of high outlet density on crime was specific to the area, however, with little of spill-over into neighbouring areas that occurs with alcoholrelated driving offences.

One New Orleans study of outlet density is relevant to the debates about personal choice versus community responsibility that often come up when intervention in the alcohol market is proposed. It shows how the link between outlet density, drinking and harm works through the social norms that are created within communities. Rather than affecting individual behaviour directly, the density of alcohol outlets in a community has a structural effect on alcohol attitudes and drinking patterns across that community that then influences the attitude and drinking pattern of individuals.

In this study, urban residential census areas were randomly selected to provid three examples each for hig and low outlet density and four different levels on the socioeconomi deprivation index 24 areas in all. A random telephone survey of 2,604 adults in these areas asked abou personal drinking and attitudes to alcohol including social acceptability and perceived norms for friends, and distance from an off-licence (as a proxy for density), as well as sociodemographic information. The analysis looked at drinking and attitudinal differences between individuals and also between averages for each area. For individuals, all the variables except density were strongly linked to drinking norms; male sex and higher education were more likely to mean heavier drinking; black ethnicity and increasing age were associated with drinking less. Distance from home to the closest offlicence made no difference. However, 16 percent of the variation between individuals on perceived drinking norms and 11.5 percent of variation in selfreported drinking related to where the individual lived. When the data was analysed by neighbourhood, the average distance to nearest outlet for each neighbourhood was the only variable that linked to averages on attitudinal and drinking measures. That is, in neighbourhoods with low distances on average to the nearest off-licence, there were heavier drinking norms.

In the researchers’ view, this finding indicated that in a high outlet density area, whether you live next door to a liquor store or a kilometre away, everyone’s drinking norms are affected to some degree by the neighbourhood environment. This is consistent with social learning theory and with research from other countries that shows individual drinking behaviour is influenced by the drinking behaviour of one’s social network. For example, research links heavier drinking among 10-17 year olds and among university students to perceptions about drinking by friends that overestimate their actual consumption.

A high density of alcohol outlets increases the visual presence of alcohol in a neighbourhood, and may have similar effects on attitudes and norms as high exposure to television, print and billboard advertising for alcohol. The presence of alcohol outlets, including signage and empty bottles or intoxicated patrons in the street, may also have a ‘broken window’ effect, suggesting that ‘no one cares’ in this neighbourhood. Concentrations of bars and bottle stores can act as ‘attractors’ of socially disinhibited people and help create the conditions for nonnormative activities such as drug use and prostitution. This, as well as the effects of increased drinking in the neighbourhood, may contribute to the link between outlet density and violence.

The type of outlet linked to increases in harm varies between the US studies. Differences appear to be related to local patterns of drinking and risk and reflect licensing system differences between US states. In New Orleans it was the density of off-licensed premises that made a difference, with researchers pointing out that the data for on-licensed premises would include many serving the tourist industry rather than the local population. No such distinction could be made in the New Jersey study, where licensed premises usually have both on and off sales. In Californian studies, the density of licensed restaurants affected alcohol-related crash rates, as alcohol was twice as likely to be consumed in restaurants than in bars , but bar density was linked to higher assault rates. Research on different types of licensed premises in Perth, Western Australia, did not consider density but linked intoxication levels, drink-driving, alcohol related crashes and violence to late-closing hotels (pubs), particularly those with high volume alcohol sales.

High local crime rates are better explained by alcohol availability and outlet density than by the socio-demographic characteristics of the neighbourhood – although those characteristics may contribute to the level of community organisation and control over what happens in a neighbourhood. In the USA, whites and those with higher incomes are most likely to drink frequently and heavily. Yet in Chicago, areas with high African American population had six times as many offlicensed outlets as areas with mainly white populations. The concentration of alcohol outlets, particularly off-licences, was a major predictor of homicide levels, after controlling for other neighbourhood factors. That is, higher ratios of blacks or young males in a neighbourhood did not explain a higher crime rate. The California and Los Angeles studies also showed that alcohol availability and outlet density in communities were stronger predictors of the level of violence than race or ethnicity. Researchers go so far as to suggest that the overrepresentation of African-Americans in US violence statistics may result from neighbourhood-level risk factors rather than from personal or cultural characteristics. A review of crime in the USA attributed a decline of homicide to falling alcohol consumption, and presented evidence that tighter regulation of alcohol availability could help reduce violence.

These studies link density to harm statistics, which are most readily available for drinkingdriving and violent crime. The Chicago study, which reports community action in lower income Chicago neighbourhoods, describes other negative effects of high liquor store density:

Typical complaints include the serving of minors, littering, loitering, harassment and intimidation of pedestrians and customers, public urination, drug dealing, prostitution, assault and even murder. These specific grievances represent more general quality-of-life, public health and safety problems that feed into the economic and social deterioration of an area. For example, safety issues, like drug dealing and stealing, raise local business operating expenses and create a poor business environment.

Increased competition between many bars and bottle stores in an area may encourage cost-cutting and irresponsible management. This study showed that customer visits to liquor stores or bars often did not involve other retail shopping or consumer activity. High numbers of alcohol outlets may be displacing a retail mix that would benefit other businesses.

Many councils want to develop vibrant entertainment areas that attract tourists as well as local residents. Restaurants, bars and bottle stores provide jobs and other economic benefits, and increasing numbers of licensed premises may be thought desirable for the community. Concentrating alcohol-related problems in one area – but away from residential zones – may even seem to be a good idea from a policing perspective.

This review of research shows that concentrations of alcohol outlets can in fact increase the local problems to be dealt with. Local governments may wish to give careful consideration to the location and density of bars and bottle stores and to the role that these kinds of business play in the retail mix of their city centres.

http://www.ias.org.uk/publications/alert/04issue2/alert0402_p19.html
by um
"Well, there's part of the problem there, isn't it. A bigger part is that certain white radicals, in an ill thought out attempt to appear not to be racists, are agreeing with this racist analysis, just because it is made by Blacks. This is racist by definition. It's also incoherent."

First off New American media and the person who wrote the specific article you commented on are not white. Secondly I dont understand why you are so into have a high density of liquor stores in poor communities. Liquor store density causes violence in all communities. In poorer communities and communities with less access to political power there are more liquor stores because of racism and classism.
by no heroes save ourselves
> You can't be anti-racist and racist at the same time. Pick a side.

One: picking a side in the middle of a divide and conquer strategy = fanning the flames of COINTELPRO. The 60s and 70s proved that. Please don't say "I'm right and you're wrong" in response, that just proves my point. Don't think this is about COINTELPRO? Open your eyes.

Two: while I don't agree with the attacks on the stores, over-simplying a problem is exactly what led to the attacks on the stores in the first place.

Three: further, you can't always argue for the rights of the individual and the rights of the community at the same time, at least not in the way you're doing it. It's inherently contradictory. Liberty and self-determination can go hand in hand, but not like this. Wait, what am I saying? You don't even know what self-determination is. Never mind.

So much for your "analysis"...
by more bunk logic
Studies show that a high number of guys buried at Boot Hill died with their boots on. This does not mean that they died from putting on boots. Neither does the concentration of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods cause the social problems of poor neighborhoods. Poverty causes the the social problems of poor neighborhoods. Non poor neighborhoods with a lot of liquor stores have different social conditions. I know because i live in one. I've also lived in a number of poor neighborhood. I've spent half my life in the ghetto. So, yeah, i do know what I'm talking about here.

But that's not the issue. The alleged causal relationship between liquor stores and anti-social bbehavior is a distraction being made by people whom, no matter how many time they get called on it, can't come up with a viable excuse for their fundamentally reactionary position of failing to swiftly condemn the use of force to cram religion down the throats of the unwilling, or the even more reactionary position of supporting the denial of choice to people who live in poor neighborhoods, but not to people who live in non poor neighborhoods. They also don't want you to think too long or too hard about how racist they are to fail to condemn attacks on Arabs, solely because they were committed by Blacks. If it were white goons who trashed these Arab run stores and assaulted Arab store clerks, these racists would be up in arms. But they would have you believe that such fundamentally racist behavior is somehow OK, because it was non whites who did it. The patent absurdity of such a position means that if you do think about it too long, you'll reject it. That's why they are trying to distract you with all this irrelevant BS.

Focus please. Do you want roving gangs of armed thugs dictating to *you* that you must follow the rules of their religion? I didn't think so. If it happened to you, you'd be up in arms. To not be up in arms because it happened to somebody else is hypocrisy of the first order and the highest degree. To not be up in arms because it happened to Arabs, is racist.
by no heroes save ourselves
You've made the point about people breaking up shops in the name of religion is against where you're coming from. I think everybody gets that people who are on this tip are in your sights. You can stop repeating yourself now, seriously.

I do have some questions for you, though. What about the people in the community who are black who either drink, or who don't but are opposed to prohibition, and are concerned about the proliferation of alcohol stores in the community? What about muslims who aren't in favor of prohibition, but who support both the self-determination of the black community to decide their own future, as well as the rights of arabs all over the planet, including arabs in this country? Do you think they're "the enemy" as well?
by cp
Yes, topic is exhausted. Neither sf.indymedia nor this site has done any actual original reporting on the issue, even including sticking up photos without text, or lazy interviews with local people. If someone with such a news organization actually was going to lift a finger about this, it should probably start with reporting. So why not hypothetically explore a similar situation. What would you do here. Germans don't want to interfere with other cultural practices, but what if that conflicts with ethics of their culture.But the attitude is fairly widespread and working class : http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/magazine/04berlin.html
by deanosor (deanosor [at] comcast.net)
...how it's the proliferation of small liquor stores that CAUSE violernce in the areas. Is it true that in black and poor areas that violence subsides if liquor stores are closed? In Chicago there is a bar on every 1/2 block. Is there more violence in all of Chicago, or only the poor black neighborhoods? Were/Are the prohiboitionists right? I think liquor stores in easy out.
Mainly it has more to do with the internal colonization of blacks, and the no hope/no money syndrome in those communities, rather than the proliferation of liquor stores that cause violence. A person to begin with to discuss the subject of why there's violence in the Black commmunity is Stan "Tookie" Williams, but they're going to kill him. The violence begins at the TOP.
by o
many people assume all 'minorities'' are the same.african types of all hues are the most considered ''different'' in this current world. I grew up in the ''eenie meenie minie moe'' era when i lived in bernal heights in the 50's. nobody wanted to be the '' ni@@Er''.what does that sday about our world?.also ,police treat violent white people like long lost buddies ,while an african descended pwerson is treated like some dangerous wild monkey or something.i know i have seen this too many times.fear og african genetics.people think african genetics will make the society less ''technical'' and the trains wont run on time etc. etc.people havent taken into account the indigenous native and african knowkedge of earth and how to live with the world we find ourselves living in. trhe western european life process is limited in its way of living on ''earth'' and it shows with the disaster we find ourselves living in and fearing.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network