On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks
refused to give up her seat on the city bus for a white man, an act of
non-violent resistance to a bad law. Almost as one, the African-American
community rallied in opposition to the long-established practice of segregation
on city buses. They staged a boycott which lasted for more than a year, ending
only when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with them against Montgomery’s city
council.
Throughout most of my life, organizations and agencies have
tried to effect change through the use of boycotts – some of which have been
effective, some of which have been abject failures.
Many of the failures, by the way, have been launched by the
American Family Association (AFA), a right-wing religious organization that
claims widespread influence while only reporting 180,000 members / paid
subscribers.
Once when I was a college student serving a small church in
Tennessee, our regular pianist could not make it to play for worship, so a
replacement came from the “big church” nearby. Given the opportunity, this
grandmotherly woman with the old pointy-framed glasses trimmed with rhinestone
introduced herself as a monitor for the AFA. As she explained, she watched
network television shows and reported to the AFA how many profanities and
“inappropriate” situations occurred during those shows. The AFA would then
announce a boycott of the television show and its sponsors based on such input.
I bit my lip to keep from laughing!
A spin-off website of the AFA, wishfully named “One Million
Moms”, regularly calls for boycotts and regularly takes credit for changes that
follow, whether the change was related to the called-for boycott or not. For
instance, 1MM boycotted J.C. Penney because it used Ellen DeGeneres, an openly
gay celebrity, in an ad campaign.
At
about the same time, JCP hired a new CEO who, without consulting anyone, made
major changes to the company that did not go over well with the public. JCP
lost sales, the CEO lost his job, and 1MM claimed the victory.
Another case involved the television show, “Save Me”, about
a less-than-pure woman (played by the lovely Anne Heche) who chokes on a
sandwich and is resuscitated; she believes she died, but now God must need her
to do something special for Him. Hilarity ensues as she tries to figure out
what God wants of her. Only 1MM wasn’t laughing. They called for a boycott of
the show’s sponsors. I’m not saying it was a bad show (in fact, I thought the
concept was intriguing), but the ratings were abysmal in the target demographic
– unrelated to any boycott – and the show was pulled after only seven episodes.
Such boycotts seldom worked though, because the shows’
sponsors are usually subsidiaries of multinational companies like Procter &
Gamble, which produce all kinds of coveted consumer goods. Because of P &
G’s diversified portfolio, they would hardly feel the impact of such a small-time
boycott.
Besides, Procter & Gamble itself has for decades been on
the boycott list because of the false rumors being circulated that they are a
satanic organization.
But the call for boycotts persists even today. For example,
the August 1st issue of Rolling Stone magazine featured the angelic
face of Dzhokbar Tsarnaev, the alleged “Boston Bomber”. Although the magazine
called him “a monster” on that same cover, and the story inside was not at all
sympathetic toward him, someone called for a boycott. Walgreen’s and CVS both
refused to sell this issue on their newsstands, making their self-righteous
announcement in a most public way.
I’m not a regular reader of Rolling Stone, nor did I read
this issue, but thanks to the announced boycott, I know more about this issue
of the magazine than those I actually read in my college days.
Not surprising, Ad Week reported that the controversy only
brought more attention to the magazine, and Rolling Stone sold twice as many
issues as normal, a fact not entirely lost on the Rolling Stone editors, who
are undoubtedly already shopping around for their next to-be-boycotted cover
story!
In another case, Dan Savage, a LGBT activist, has called for
a boycott of Stolichnaya, a popular Russian Vodka, because of Russia’s harsh
laws against the LGBT community. With the Olympics being hosted in Russia in
2014, the boycott is designed to make Russia change its oppressive anti-gay laws
– or at least to not enforce them during the Olympics - so that such people
would be free to participate and attend.
Some bars in New York City have already embraced the
boycott, and recently staged an event where they poured their existing stock of
Russian Vodka into the sewer in front of their bars.
Lucky rats!
This kind of “activism” I truly DO NOT GET! You’ve already
paid for the Vodka! Russia has already received its cut of the profits! Now,
not only will you not get the profits from the liquor you have poured into the
sewers, you’ll have to buy more to replace it!
How does that make sense???
While I am sympathetic to Dan Savage’s cause, I think he is
wrong in this latest boycott effort. Here’s why:
1. Quick: can you name a brand of vodka not made in Russia?
I didn't think so.
2. Russia is a sovereign nation and is neither
subject to nor bound by American notions of right and wrong. In the same way we
did not force American women to wear burkhas to appease Muslim nations when the
games were held in the U.S., I don’t believe Russia must change its laws simply
because we want them to.
So, in the end, it comes down to this: if you don’t want to
abide by Russia’s laws, don’t go to Russia!
Note: I am not here calling for a boycott of the 2014
Olympics!
3. Does Dan Savage really think Americans drink so
much Stoli that the Russian government is quaking at the prospect of a boycott?
As though the Russian economy is based on America’s consumption of one brand of
Vodka alone!
My personal preference runs toward Southern Comfort, on the
rocks. But my favorite Vodka drink, in case you’re mixing, is the
Slow Comfortable Screw:
1 oz. Sloe Gin
1 oz. Southern Comfort
1 oz. Vodka
Orange Juice
Combine the alcohol in an ice-filled highball glass. Top up
with orange juice. Stir and drink.
That drink led to many good times during seminary!
The sad reality is, an American boycott of Stoli would
primarily impact the country of Latvia – where the Stoli we drink is bottled.
Latvia is a small Baltic republic (not a part of Russia) with an unemployment
rate of 22.5% (the highest in the European Union) and a 10% rate of inflation.
An American boycott of Stoli would also unfairly impact
Soyuzplodimport (SPI), the international distributor of Stoli, based in
Luxemborg, and William Grant and Sons, a Scottish company that owns the
American distribution rights to Stoli through the end of this year.
4. And frankly, I don’t see enough outrage behind
this issue that would cause the average American drinker to voluntarily give up
his Stoli. The bus boycott in 1955 was effective because the segregation law
affected the whole African-American community in Montgomery. The LGBT community
in America has neither the number nor the world-wide support to make this thing
work.
And you’re asking American drinkers to give up their
favorite Vodka… for how long?
I’m not saying boycotts don’t work. But I am saying that in
recent years we have been doing them all wrong. Look again at the Montgomery
bus boycott. It was successful because…
a. It was a local issue. It’s easier to boycott the
local bus company than an international conglomerate. You might stop buying
Folgers Coffee, but P & G still has Charmin and Crest and Pampers… just to
name a few!
b. The Montgomery bus boycott was targeted. Those
affected by the boycott were the very people responsible for creating and enforcing
the segregation laws. Innocent low-paid workers in some foreign country were
not affected.
c. The people staging the Montgomery bus boycott were
committed. The African American community – the people affected by the
segregation laws AND the largest group of bus riders – stopped using the bus
system. This was an inconvenience, to be sure, but they had a vision of a
better day and they were committed.
d. The larger community supported the protesters.
Carpools were organized; taxi drivers offered reduced rates to the former bus
riders; local churches even provided free shoes to people who had to walk to
work.
e. Those involved in the bus boycott were willing
to risk everything. Many of the leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
were arrested and jailed for their “subversive” activities. Unfortunately for
the segregationists, this only called national attention to a local problem and
put further pressure on the Montgomery City Council to change.
f. The Montgomery boycott used a multi-pronged
approach. As the average citizen boycotted the bus system, others worked
through legal means to stop the discriminatory laws. The boycott ended only
when the Supreme Court ruled against the City of Montgomery.
So what are we to do then? You might ask. Just close our
eyes and let injustices prevail?
No.
But first, we’ve got to set aside the age-old idea that
America is “Boss of the World”. If we’ve learned anything during these past 12
years of meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations, it’s that we have
no business forcing our way of life on anyone else.
Second, don’t blindly follow any crowd! The Captain has been
a non-conformist all his life. Become informed about the issues (from credible
sources!) and make your own decisions. This will rarely make you popular, but
it will help you sleep at night.
Finally, participate in democracy in America. It’s not
perfect, but it becomes less perfect when intelligent people (like your humble Captain’s
readers) don’t participate.
And one more thing: always drink responsibly!
