The Art of a Boycott (Arizona)

I had to do some thinking about boycotting Arizona. Initially, I was mixed on it because while I felt it's necessary to send a message that will be heard, I didn't want to punish good businesses that didn't support the law.

Then I started thinking about why boycotts work. The most effective ones serve a clear purpose to demand better treatment - there's a target and there's a clear message sent us against them. You send a message to the target that you will not support them as long as they practice something that irks you personally.

(And Ye Olde Webster Says): To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion

Back in the 1930's, my paper had a campaign called "Don't Shop Where You Can't Work" - encouraging Black citizens of Los Angeles to not shop at stores where they couldn't be hired or faced discrimination. And we all know about the Montgomery Bus Boycott where Blacks protested being forced to sit in the back of the buses.

I like boycotts that send a direct message against something. You want to see where someone's true value lies, follow the money (to quote All the President's Men) or the passion. That's what you target. You don't boycott abstract ideas, you stick to your principles against something that threatens it.

Arizona knows boycotts well. I had thought that the state was only boycotted in 1992 for their stance on the Martin Luther King holiday but it turns out the state had been under boycott off and on since 1987. The parallels are striking in that link and if you read it, there's a lot of similarities in public perception of the state.

Why support a state who's government AND citizens that wouldn't respect the holiday in honor of a man who wanted to teach people to love their fellow man? Even the NFL said no and moved the Super Bowl to Cali. AZ lost $300 million and the government did the right thing by reversing their decision.

Here we are in 2010. Should we boycott Arizona again for SB1070? Critics say why support a government that has passed a bill that will unfairly targets innocent people and hearkens back to Nazi/apartheid tactics.

Those against say it won't accomplish anything - it unfairly targets businesses that might support their cause and punishes all citizens who don't deserve it.

Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say that we don't boycott Arizona. We continue to support the state with our dollars. What do we say by that? What do we tell the American citizens or Mexicans on vacation who will be illegally harassed? With our funding of the government, what message are we sending?

Ask yourself if the U.S. did financial business with a country that has some red button issues. Ask yourself if we consumers supported a company that has human rights issues or treated their employees wrong. Is it just about the end result (the benefit of our support) or do we care about the means to that end?

Now what if Arizona was boycotted again? If people used their biggest sign of power, their $$$, to make a statement, what does it say? As we are climbing out of a recession, is it fair to punish Americans who want to make an honest living in addition to the government?

Ultimately, it comes down to this. What's the best way to voice our opposition - are words merely enough or should we do even more. Send a message with our wallets and people will listen.

Boycotts that impact critical funds are powerful because money makes the world go round. They prove a point because it goes from words to action. So Arizona, it's time to watch the money dry up and maybe it'll make you rethink of a better solution to this problem instea

Arizona Takes Another Step Backwards

Arizona has a few black eyes on their record of civil rights. They were one of the last states to recognize the Martin Luther King Holiday, prompting a national outcry in the early 1990's (and a classic Public Enemy song). Now they have taken a horrible step backwards in the fight against immigration with this bill signed today by Governor Jan Brewer that pretty much allows for racial profiling in the search for immigrants.

From Section II of the bill, Article 8, Letter E of now revised Arizona state law regarding immigration:

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

Basically this says, "If you look like you're an illegal Mexican, we have the right to arrest you." Reading the rest of the bill, it also says (paraphrasing of course) "You have to carry your paperwork to make sure you are legal or we can detain you until we find proof."

Being a Black man, I know exactly what this means. If you fit the profile, we have the right to hassle you and potentially detain you by reason of "probable cause." It's ironic that I was discussing this last night over dinner with some friends and now we have a state that pretty much legalized it for people of Mexican descent.

Let's get real. Immigration reform is a serious issue in this country. Businesses need to be punished for openly targeting immigrants for cheap labor and this bill does address that (there's a link to the full text of the bill in the article - 17 pages). Unfortunately, it declared open season on unfairly profiling people. Gov. Brewer said that training will be provided for officers but trust me, that's not gonna be enough.

It's not fair to target a whole group of people to reach a few. And anyone who's been a victim of being judged by how you look can relate to this.

I'm disappointed in Sen. John McCain for not speaking out against this. But hey, he's got re-election to worry about so why alienate the conservative GOP base that you've never been afraid of before? How'd that work out for you two years ago when running for President?

So congratulations, Arizona. You have created "misguided" legislature to quote President Obama and in the result, you deserve whatever hell you catch from Arizona residents and concerned people around the country.

Maybe we also need Chuck D, Prof. Griff, Flava Flav and the S1W's to threaten another trip to Arizona like they did before, update the message from nearly 20 years ago.

(DISCLAIMER: E-TV does NOT and will NEVER advocate the assassination of any public figure as depicted - I promote vigorous protest and healthy debate. But I make no excuses for Chuck D and Co. because their words speak for themselves.)