This was clarifying for me. Thank you. I've done quite a bit activist hamster-wheeling and grew disillusioned for other reasons. The focus in this is helpful.
This reminds me of something I read about diamonds the other day. Jewelry diamonds are the ultimate luxury item, but "blood diamonds" and other conflict stones have been on people's minds since the 90s (while most ignore the DeBeers cartel that controls the world diamond market) and there have been boycotts over the years, like against Botswana in 2010 and Israel in 2015.
And ultimately, nothing changed, people still by jewelry diamonds all the time, but in recent years cultured (synthetic) diamonds have been gaining in increasing hold on the market due to the technology becoming cheaper and the diamonds being traceable. And in 2024, sapphires (particularly the Australian ones, which are also traceable) were the dominant engagement ring stone. Not saying the problem is solved, but there have been positive changes.
I think it dovetails with your article, it takes a long time to raise people's consciousness about an issue, and even longer to make changes. And instead of a boycott (particularly a one day boycott) giving people an ethical alternative that does not require greater effort will get much better results.
So I agree whole heartedly. As one of the poor folk in a deeply red rural state I just can't boycott as a rule. I can do a day, or even a week but beyond that... But it isn't just that. Buy local means buying from MAGA here for everything including farmers markets for fresh produce. The difference between Sam's Club and Costco is a half a tank of gas. If you say a Sam's membership means I'm wealthy...I'm feeding 5 adult's ffs...I buy my hamburger in 10 pound rolls, and yes all of us have income. Doesn't that say something! I'm tired of being judged by folks for whom their privilege is showing. Not to mention most of you are doing what's in style right now but will change when it becomes fashionable.
Some unpleasant guy (now dead) once wrote about how most protests, petitions, boycotts, etc are surrogate activities designed to defuse tensions which prevents actual change. You go on a march, wave a flag, and go home thinking that you've "done your bit". No, you haven't. Powerful people love protests because they change nothing.
In general, I’m in agreement with your position here, and would extend the same to a lot of marches—in which the amount of time and effort and heart of a few don’t lead to much measurable change. There’s another impact of these actions for some, though, which is that doing a thing can lead to learning and further involvement. I’m puzzled about your Walmart/Target example though since Target has lost a lot of customers since dumping their DEI policies leading to loss of market share and a lawsuit from shareholders—surely that counts as impact?
My Walmart/Target example is about the tendency amongst progressives over the last decade or so of to refrain from shopping at Walmart but continue to do so at Target. Those recently boycotting Target over their DEI policy change is a separate issue, but frankly one that underscores my point (at least how it's unfolded so far) considering that Target has not budged despite losing some customers.
Yes, doing a thing can lean to learning and further involvement. But then it can also lead to folks giving up. It's highly circumstantial. Which is why I tried to stress that not all boycotts are a lost cause, but it's important to be clear at the onset the purpose behind doing so. It's when the organizers of a boycott insist that doing so will lead to a stated goal and then fail in their attempt (which is the case more often than not) that it can be not only a fruitless but harmful action in terms of discouraging people from resisting. Boycotts seldom succeed in forcing an entity to change their behavior, but sometimes they do have other legitimate purposes.
I appreciate what you have said except you are spreading untrue and unhelpful info. About the BDS movement which is proven time and again to be effective… check your sources please because this one faulty and mis-informed observation delegitimizes an otherwise meaningful essay!
This also may be a semantic difference between us in how we are defining 'effective'. The goal of BDS as I understand it is to use economic pressure to force Israel to abide by international law and treat the Palestinians with the same rights and respect that they do Israeli citizens. And considering that the actions of the Israel state over the past year and a half fit many definitions of genocide, and in the entire time that BDS has existed Israel has only further and further defied international law, combined with the fact that the Israeli economy has never been significantly destablized by BDS boycotts, that combined with the data out there brings me to the conclusion that the movement is not successful. But again, if there's something I'm missing I'm willing to take a look at it.
Its not just about money darling…. No genuine boycott movement is ever just about dollars, pesos, lire whatever…. Its also about divestment, bringing social awareness to issues and having a say about what your money is supporting? There is a spiritual dimension to it!
so as I suspected, this is a semantic issue. If we are judging by a "spiritual dimension", one could argue that all boycotts are successful. I am not going to use that criteria. I look at the stated goals of boycotts in general, I look at the stated goals of BDS as put forth by their organizers, I look at the data, I read what experts have to say about it, and I came to my conclusion. And I stand by that conclusion that it has not been successful according to those parameters.
If you could point me in the direction of what you're referencing, I'm happy to have a look at it. I relied on multiple sources that span a decade in making the determination that it has not been an economic success, and I have never seen anything convincing that makes the case that it has "proven time and again to be effective" but I am also always open to new information.
You're right, I don't, because your characterization of it as “the movement” suggests that there's consensus or even any sort of real organisation and neither exists. It's a plethora of movements all jumping onto the same idea, all with different goals and aims and ideas which often contradict each other, with various groups taking credit for the idea and pretending that they're the ones leading it, where in reality it's all one big jarbled mess. And the person who actually seems to be the most likely one to have initiated it has just been exposed as a sex offender. If you think there's a singular goal for “the movement” respectfully you're operating in an echo chamber.
I agree with you that it’s messy but there are talks of starting small and doing longer boycotts later. Your article comes off as, “well I don’t go to chik fil le but a handful of progressives I know do so that makes me better than them.” A significant amount of people didn’t buy shit they didn’t need for a day, how is that seen as a bad thing?
Also, so what if the guy was accused of something 20 years ago and is trying to do something good today? That’s like MAGA trying to say Black Lives Don’t Matter because someone lit a McDonald’s on fire.
I’m just confused why someone that chose to leave America is judging people here who are trying to do something about cooperate greed. Why does this upset you so much? You know how big America is and how hard it is to get people to agree on anything and a lot of people came together yesterday and I think that’s amazing.
And in addition, the chik-fil-a comparison is ironic because Cfa has in fact changed their policies in the last years as a result of consistent complaints about their donations. A little research goes a long way, as you say. And they did in fact respond to people’s poor perception and boycotts. Bui they continue to carry that hate chicken moniker because no one has bothered to follow up.
They didn't significantly change their policies, they engaged in some PR bullshit while doing a better job at hiding where their money goes. Now instead of donating to individual organizations that cause harm to LGBTQ+ folks, they funnel their money to a single dark money organization that does not disclose where each donor's money actually goes. They continue to carry the hate chicken moniker because people who understand how these things work are not fooled.
People are dedicating their entire lives and livelihoods to find solutions to extremely difficult and nuanced long standing isdues….!!! And then others come along and want to de-legitimize those efforts… so what are you doing to figure this out…, words on paper??? Ok then, that’s your thing… go for it!!!
So it's obvious that you're angry and that you know very little about who I am and who I have done. Which is fine, and is fair, but I'm going to respectfully ask you to take your anger elsewhere. You disagree with my conclusion. I disagree with yours. But I'm not attacking you and I ask for the same respect.
There's nothing more tragic than people dedicating their lives and livehoods to false solutions like BDS and other "feel good" boycotts ... except maybe someone wasting everyone's time by trying to shoot the messenger as you are.
I don’t save podcasts on the BDS movement but have watched many…. Its YOUR neck on the line here with your essay so its up to you if you want to widen your circle of research on the BDS movement!
Respectfully, no, it's not my "neck on the line". I don't say things that I can't back up. Telling me that you've watched podcasts does not prove your argument. If you can send me actual data, I am willing to look at it. But you can't just come on here and say "you're wrong, research it" and then not be willing to provide me with a counterpoint when I ask. I am perfectly willing to revisit my conclusions if presented with new information. But "I have watched many podcasts" does not cut it.
This was clarifying for me. Thank you. I've done quite a bit activist hamster-wheeling and grew disillusioned for other reasons. The focus in this is helpful.
This reminds me of something I read about diamonds the other day. Jewelry diamonds are the ultimate luxury item, but "blood diamonds" and other conflict stones have been on people's minds since the 90s (while most ignore the DeBeers cartel that controls the world diamond market) and there have been boycotts over the years, like against Botswana in 2010 and Israel in 2015.
And ultimately, nothing changed, people still by jewelry diamonds all the time, but in recent years cultured (synthetic) diamonds have been gaining in increasing hold on the market due to the technology becoming cheaper and the diamonds being traceable. And in 2024, sapphires (particularly the Australian ones, which are also traceable) were the dominant engagement ring stone. Not saying the problem is solved, but there have been positive changes.
I think it dovetails with your article, it takes a long time to raise people's consciousness about an issue, and even longer to make changes. And instead of a boycott (particularly a one day boycott) giving people an ethical alternative that does not require greater effort will get much better results.
So I agree whole heartedly. As one of the poor folk in a deeply red rural state I just can't boycott as a rule. I can do a day, or even a week but beyond that... But it isn't just that. Buy local means buying from MAGA here for everything including farmers markets for fresh produce. The difference between Sam's Club and Costco is a half a tank of gas. If you say a Sam's membership means I'm wealthy...I'm feeding 5 adult's ffs...I buy my hamburger in 10 pound rolls, and yes all of us have income. Doesn't that say something! I'm tired of being judged by folks for whom their privilege is showing. Not to mention most of you are doing what's in style right now but will change when it becomes fashionable.
May minds be opened
as wallets close.
Let tomorrow be fierce.
Some unpleasant guy (now dead) once wrote about how most protests, petitions, boycotts, etc are surrogate activities designed to defuse tensions which prevents actual change. You go on a march, wave a flag, and go home thinking that you've "done your bit". No, you haven't. Powerful people love protests because they change nothing.
In general, I’m in agreement with your position here, and would extend the same to a lot of marches—in which the amount of time and effort and heart of a few don’t lead to much measurable change. There’s another impact of these actions for some, though, which is that doing a thing can lead to learning and further involvement. I’m puzzled about your Walmart/Target example though since Target has lost a lot of customers since dumping their DEI policies leading to loss of market share and a lawsuit from shareholders—surely that counts as impact?
My Walmart/Target example is about the tendency amongst progressives over the last decade or so of to refrain from shopping at Walmart but continue to do so at Target. Those recently boycotting Target over their DEI policy change is a separate issue, but frankly one that underscores my point (at least how it's unfolded so far) considering that Target has not budged despite losing some customers.
Yes, doing a thing can lean to learning and further involvement. But then it can also lead to folks giving up. It's highly circumstantial. Which is why I tried to stress that not all boycotts are a lost cause, but it's important to be clear at the onset the purpose behind doing so. It's when the organizers of a boycott insist that doing so will lead to a stated goal and then fail in their attempt (which is the case more often than not) that it can be not only a fruitless but harmful action in terms of discouraging people from resisting. Boycotts seldom succeed in forcing an entity to change their behavior, but sometimes they do have other legitimate purposes.
The loss by Target and getting sued by shareholders is not a new thing. It is not the result of anything that's happened since the election.
I appreciate what you have said except you are spreading untrue and unhelpful info. About the BDS movement which is proven time and again to be effective… check your sources please because this one faulty and mis-informed observation delegitimizes an otherwise meaningful essay!
This also may be a semantic difference between us in how we are defining 'effective'. The goal of BDS as I understand it is to use economic pressure to force Israel to abide by international law and treat the Palestinians with the same rights and respect that they do Israeli citizens. And considering that the actions of the Israel state over the past year and a half fit many definitions of genocide, and in the entire time that BDS has existed Israel has only further and further defied international law, combined with the fact that the Israeli economy has never been significantly destablized by BDS boycotts, that combined with the data out there brings me to the conclusion that the movement is not successful. But again, if there's something I'm missing I'm willing to take a look at it.
Its not just about money darling…. No genuine boycott movement is ever just about dollars, pesos, lire whatever…. Its also about divestment, bringing social awareness to issues and having a say about what your money is supporting? There is a spiritual dimension to it!
so as I suspected, this is a semantic issue. If we are judging by a "spiritual dimension", one could argue that all boycotts are successful. I am not going to use that criteria. I look at the stated goals of boycotts in general, I look at the stated goals of BDS as put forth by their organizers, I look at the data, I read what experts have to say about it, and I came to my conclusion. And I stand by that conclusion that it has not been successful according to those parameters.
Saying that a boycott is about the "spiritual dimension" is the liberal equivalent of "thoughts and prayers."
Not exactly…: not for me!
If you could point me in the direction of what you're referencing, I'm happy to have a look at it. I relied on multiple sources that span a decade in making the determination that it has not been an economic success, and I have never seen anything convincing that makes the case that it has "proven time and again to be effective" but I am also always open to new information.
It’s pretty clear that the author has no idea what the purpose of the movement is.
You're right, I don't, because your characterization of it as “the movement” suggests that there's consensus or even any sort of real organisation and neither exists. It's a plethora of movements all jumping onto the same idea, all with different goals and aims and ideas which often contradict each other, with various groups taking credit for the idea and pretending that they're the ones leading it, where in reality it's all one big jarbled mess. And the person who actually seems to be the most likely one to have initiated it has just been exposed as a sex offender. If you think there's a singular goal for “the movement” respectfully you're operating in an echo chamber.
I agree with you that it’s messy but there are talks of starting small and doing longer boycotts later. Your article comes off as, “well I don’t go to chik fil le but a handful of progressives I know do so that makes me better than them.” A significant amount of people didn’t buy shit they didn’t need for a day, how is that seen as a bad thing?
Also, so what if the guy was accused of something 20 years ago and is trying to do something good today? That’s like MAGA trying to say Black Lives Don’t Matter because someone lit a McDonald’s on fire.
I’m just confused why someone that chose to leave America is judging people here who are trying to do something about cooperate greed. Why does this upset you so much? You know how big America is and how hard it is to get people to agree on anything and a lot of people came together yesterday and I think that’s amazing.
And in addition, the chik-fil-a comparison is ironic because Cfa has in fact changed their policies in the last years as a result of consistent complaints about their donations. A little research goes a long way, as you say. And they did in fact respond to people’s poor perception and boycotts. Bui they continue to carry that hate chicken moniker because no one has bothered to follow up.
They didn't significantly change their policies, they engaged in some PR bullshit while doing a better job at hiding where their money goes. Now instead of donating to individual organizations that cause harm to LGBTQ+ folks, they funnel their money to a single dark money organization that does not disclose where each donor's money actually goes. They continue to carry the hate chicken moniker because people who understand how these things work are not fooled.
Im not arguing with you… I just have a different opinion… I have no investment whatsoever in your posts being accurate or not….I just read em…
Then perhaps in this case it's best that we agree to disagree.
People are dedicating their entire lives and livelihoods to find solutions to extremely difficult and nuanced long standing isdues….!!! And then others come along and want to de-legitimize those efforts… so what are you doing to figure this out…, words on paper??? Ok then, that’s your thing… go for it!!!
So it's obvious that you're angry and that you know very little about who I am and who I have done. Which is fine, and is fair, but I'm going to respectfully ask you to take your anger elsewhere. You disagree with my conclusion. I disagree with yours. But I'm not attacking you and I ask for the same respect.
I would love to see you become the best version of yourself Alley… you have a gift, use it wisely!
There's nothing more tragic than people dedicating their lives and livehoods to false solutions like BDS and other "feel good" boycotts ... except maybe someone wasting everyone's time by trying to shoot the messenger as you are.
How much shit did you buy yesterday to make sure it didn’t have any impact Rhyd? ;)
lol. I don’t even live in the United States.
Ok, that would have been tragic “lol”
And I can think of many things much more tragic, but thats for another time…..
Im sure Alley appreciates your support! 👌🏻
I don’t save podcasts on the BDS movement but have watched many…. Its YOUR neck on the line here with your essay so its up to you if you want to widen your circle of research on the BDS movement!
Respectfully, no, it's not my "neck on the line". I don't say things that I can't back up. Telling me that you've watched podcasts does not prove your argument. If you can send me actual data, I am willing to look at it. But you can't just come on here and say "you're wrong, research it" and then not be willing to provide me with a counterpoint when I ask. I am perfectly willing to revisit my conclusions if presented with new information. But "I have watched many podcasts" does not cut it.
After exploring Andrea's posts I get the sincere feeling her account is just there to regurgitate various and often contradictory bits of propaganda.
yipes. it’s an essay. take it or leave it😃
I left it already…..days ago!
The point is to be disruptive & it is a disruption.
Bullshit
Thanks for such a clear and detailed rebuttal