Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TheThoughtDigest's avatar

I really like this, and as someone who works in PR, I have seen many a deck leading with “black-owned” and how to get white retailers to understand why you’re black-owned. If the product is great, you don’t need to refer to your blackness to sell it. Marketing/PR should be based on the effectiveness of the product and USP, and then translate that to your target audience. Very great read 👏🏾👏🏾

Dr. Brigitte White's avatar

This is a really interesting perspective. My father used to say something similar, “You don’t have to be a Black engineer or a Black dentist. You can simply be an engineer or a dentist. Philosophically, I agree with that. But I also think there’s another layer to this conversation that often gets overlooked: access.

A lot of venture capital still flows through social and financial networks that have been accumulating relationships and wealth for generations. Founders like Emily Weiss didn’t just walk into a room with an idea. They were already operating inside ecosystems where capital, introductions, and trust were circulating.

So while I agree that we shouldn’t mentally pigeonhole ourselves, I’m not sure removing identity language alone changes the deeper structural dynamics around who has proximity to capital and who doesn’t. Confidence absolutely matters. But so do networks, history, and inherited access.

68 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?