1 melancholia 7.14.2009 at 12:38 pm: I initially commented in the original post about this that I was appalled at the racism here, but on reflection I think we should withhold judgment against the owners. I listened to them speak on a local news story and they seemed genuinely shocked that they were accused of this. The “complexion” statement may have been made out of context – it seems they used it in the sense of “the general aspect or character of something,” as in huge group of young kids changing the character of a more peaceful setting. I just don’t know.

Now, it’s possible the owners are racists and did this out of a hatred for blacks. And if patrons of the pool really made some of the comments they allegedly did that’s troubling to say the lest (but doesn’t necessarily reflect on the owners themselves).
But I’m withholding further judgment unless more facts come out – I’ve been too wrong before on stuff like this, most notoriously with the Duke rape case. Also, there was a huge uproar over racism in my town when a mall closed during a weekend when lots of blacks came to town for an event – until video was released showing the horrible and legitimate security nightmare they faced at exactly the same event in years past (riots, fighting, even one rape I think).

I want to clarify that these comments have nothing to do with the systemic racism – blacks don’t really have very many pool clubs to go to in the first place. Its just about the moral condemnation of the individuals here.
2 human 7.14.2009 at 1:34 pm: Melancholia, I am sorry to say that your comment makes you appear pretty naive about how racism works in the real world.

Saying that a bunch of black kids swimming in a pol changes the “general aspect or character” of the pool or club IS RACIST. It is flat out racist. The people in charge of this club do not have to sign an “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE” statement in order to make it be racist. It IS racist.
3 amandaw 7.14.2009 at 1:37 pm: Ditto human.

Racism can say “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE”

Or it can say “But those kids talk and play differently and it would change the atmosphere with the whole group.”

The latter is still racism because it takes “traits typical to black people” and marks them as lesser in value than “traits typical to white people”

That means concerns about quiet, safety, etc. can be partially rooted in racism.

I know, thinking about that makes people all uncomfortable n stuff. That’s lovely, because people of color get to be made a lot more than “uncomfortable” by the effects of these attitudes EVERY DAY.
4 melancholia 7.14.2009 at 1:49 pm: Yeh, I mean I get what you all are saying. It could be unconsciously racist if you were using “neutral” traits that really just picked out minorities. But I’m not convinced that happened here from the facts we have – that they only selected “traits common to black kids.” I think they might have selected traits common to all kids, regardless of race.

I guess I’m thinking of this through a legalistic lens. If they were legitimately concerned that because of a massive inflow of youngsters would ruin the tranquility of the club, that would be legitimate. I don’t know how many kids they were used to having run around, but it’s not inconceivable that having 30+ kids in the pool at once would interfere with the use and enjoyment of the pool by people who were paying for it. I mean I get annoyed by just 1 or 2 kids at a movie theater.

If they would have done the same thing if 30+ white kids came in to the pool, then I think that is not racist. That’s sort of the “test” I would use.
5 SnowdropExplodes 7.14.2009 at 2:28 pm: I’m with human and amandaw on this one.

If you make the statement that you are excluding a certain group from your establishment because they might change “the general aspect or character” of your establishment, then you are necessarily making a value judgement against that group of people. When that is a judgement made against a group of non-white children, then yes – racism is almost certainly a significant factor. If nothing else, it says that white folks’ money and custom is seen as more important than that of non-whites. Simply blaming this on the racist attitudes of some of the other patrons is no get-out for the owners; they choose whose money to accept, and whose to refund. They chose to accept the racists’ money and to kick out the black kids.
6 Vail 7.14.2009 at 2:38 pm: It comes down to this… They said “sure give us your money and you can come.” The kids show up and suddenly it’s “here’s your check back.” Now even if they totally weren’t trying to be racist (which I doubt) as a business you should never, never do that. Who’s going to hire you for a company picnic or what not if you don’t do your homework, make sure that you’re prepared and ready to do what you were given money for. Even if you screwed up, you make it work or no one, I mean no one is going to trust you to handle events etc. It’s not only racist, it’s a darn stupid way to do a business.
7 human 7.14.2009 at 2:39 pm: I guess I’m thinking of this through a legalistic lens. If they were legitimately concerned that because of a massive inflow of youngsters would ruin the tranquility of the club, that would be legitimate.

No. No, it wouldn’t. If all or most of the children concerned are people of color, this is in no way legitimate, “legalistic” or otherwise.

Think about it, melancholia. If you start making allowances for “legitimate” reasons not to let black people patronize your business, suddenly it becomes pretty easy to get around that pesky Civil Rights Act, doesn’t it? You can just decide that you don’t serve “ugly” people, because your “pretty” customers wouldn’t like seeing them in your establishment, and then define all black/brown/whatever class of people you don’t like as “ugly.”

Or “loud.” Or “disruptive.” Or “unsafe.”

When you buy into excuses like these, you let racists off way way way way too easy. Don’t let them off the hook.
8 Alphanista 7.14.2009 at 3:11 pm: This is all just sounds to me like the owners are just pissed at some unruly kids. Blown out of proportion.
9 human 7.14.2009 at 3:22 pm: Or “unruly.”
10 chava 7.14.2009 at 3:36 pm: Guys, the pool owners KNEW it was going to be a bunch of kids! They signed a contract with them/took the money in advance…presumably they knew how many children and their general age before they showed up.

Leaving….the reaction of other customers, or the reaction of the owners to the (previously unknown?) “complexion” of the children.
11 Pega 7.14.2009 at 4:04 pm: Chava hits the nail on the head with this one. The club asked for and received a specific amount of money based on the number of children who would be attending and negotiated a specific day of the week when these children would be able to make use of the facilities. When the group arrived, they didn’t even have time to get into the water before they were asked to leave.

The club wasn’t averse to children using their facility, or they wouldn’t have made the arrangement in the first place. What they couldn’t deal with was the complexion of the children who arrived.
12 SnowdropExplodes 7.14.2009 at 5:11 pm: Not to mention that, if the comments of patrons (as reported by the visiting camp kids) are accurately reported, the club was already happy to have white kids running around: the quote was of some woman saying of the black kids that she was “scared they might do something to my child”.
13 Vail 7.14.2009 at 5:52 pm: Since they gave back other checks (I’m pretty sure the other groups all had the same “complexion”) I don’t think it was THESE kids who acted up. I think that peeps complained about “those kind” using the pool and they forked over checks.
14 brista 7.14.2009 at 6:03 pm: I have never, ever heard the term ‘complexion’ used in any way that wasn’t referring to skin. So let’s consider the ways in which this isn’t straight-up racism:

(A) The environment: It’s a relaxing, quiet pool for adults! Well, the pool took reservations knowing that the reservation was for 60+ children and young teens. Had that been an issue, the pool would not have taken the reservation.

(B) Fees: Maybe the camp didn’t pay all the money! This situation is a PR nightmare for the pool, right? Well, if it was truly based on a misunderstanding about fees, I’m sure that would have been stated in their press release.

(C) Misbehavior: The kids were acting up! The kids didn’t even have time to get in the pool. Unless they started throwing bricks through the pool house windows the second they got off the school bus, I’m pretty sure there wasn’t enough time for bad behavior.

I really don’t see how this could be anything BUT straight-up racism.
15 gexx 7.14.2009 at 6:26 pm: The kids did, however, get a new place to swim because of the uproar about this story. It doesn’t fix everything, but it’s nice to know that people are willing to step up and help!
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/localCampers__Complexion__No_Problem_for_New_Pool_Philadelphia.html
16 gexx 7.14.2009 at 6:26 pm: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Campers__Complexion__No_Problem_for_New_Pool_Philadelphia.html

try this link, sorry!
17 Napalm Nacey 7.15.2009 at 12:27 pm: gexx – Candy and sprinkles, YAY! I love a happy ending!

Ugh. The faces of those kids as they described how those people reacted. Damn, I wish I could have been there. I wish I could dress those jerks down for what they did to those poor kids.