"Latinos and legal immigrants, depend on a paycheck from the tourism industry"

[Nikki Stone1]

A reason why a boycott could actually hurt Latinos more than help.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0428-arizona-boycott-20100428,0,1467194,print.story

".....Already, several organizations have canceled planned conventions in Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers Assn. announced that it is moving its fall convention, originally scheduled for Scottsdale in September.

"We just felt that given this new law signed by the governor that it would not be right for our association to meet and convene there and take on the issues of immigration in a state that passed such a misguided bill," said George Tzamaras, spokesman for the group.

Arizona was already reeling from a decline in tourism because of the recession, and the fallout from the law has taken hotel owners by surprise, said Debbie Johnson, president of the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Assn.

"Obviously our members are concerned," Johnson said. "I thought there would be political issues. It has become so tourism-focused and that, to me, is the unfortunate side."

Johnson said 200,000 people, many of them Latinos and legal immigrants, depend on a paycheck from the tourism industry. "They don't want to lose their jobs," she said...."

[BlooInBloo]

1. I'm sure the South Africa boycott hurt a lot of black South Aftricans too....

Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

I'm damn certain that Arizona remaining a Jim Crow state will hurt far more hispanics for a much longer time than will a temporary boycott, resulting in the rescinding of that evil law.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. Especially if such a law spreads.

We had this same conversation RE: boycotting Prop 8 supporters.

[Tempest]

3. Latino groups in AZ are calling for a boycott

They understand the concept of short term pain for a long term gain.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Yup, I know. And yet somehow there's a certain type of Arizonan who is against it.

How shocking.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. The consumer boycotts didn't bring down the South African regime

It was pressure from the Anglo-American power structure that did.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201002160438.html

...But the real story of South Africa's giant leap from utter darkness, i.e. obnoxious white minority rule, to true freedom, i.e. black majority rule, may have begun in earnest in the mid-1980s during previously unannounced secret meetings between a litany of political stakeholders, including the leaders of the white minority regime in Pretoria, leaders of the A.N.C. movement in exile and the organization's best-known crusader, Nelson Mandela, who had been languishing in the obscure Robben Island prison, as well as representatives of the United States and British governments.

The man who spearheaded the negotiations on the side of the apartheid government was an ageing, frail-looking Pieter W. Botha, the then president of the republic. Urged on by its staunch allies in Washington, he set the cards on the table before the A.N.C in exile, whose most prominent backers were the erstwhile O.A.U, or Organisation of African Unity; Col. Moammar Qadafi's Libya and the defunct Soviet Union....

London and Washington were equally adamant. They would back the unconditional unbanning of the A.N.C. and the release of Mandela and other anti-apartheid activities, provided the nuclear weapons issue was dealt with once and for all, lest a future A.N.C government provide Libya's Qadafi with technology or actual material.

Those were the precursors to a series of monumental events to take place in South Africa, starting February 2, 1990. The man who set the ball of change rolling those twenty years ago was not P.W. Botha, but, the apartheid regime's educational minister, F.W. De Klerk, who had succeeded the ailing Mr. Botha as state president, months earlier. So, exactly two decades after announcing that Nelson Mandela was to be released from 27 years of imprisonment at Robben Island, Frederick De Klerk, in effect the last white President of South Africa came out on Tuesday, February 2, to commemorate the day that began the process of dismantling the apartheid system....
________________________________________________


If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to believe that boycotts bring down governments, fine. But what really brought S.A. down was pressure from the Anglo-American empire and their denial of funds from CIA-connected University Endowments (Harvard, for example). Little acts work on little actors.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. So you're saying the boycott of South Africa was a bad thing too.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

Oh, and God bless those anglo-american ubermensch.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Whoever you are, Ignored, you are wrong.

:D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Sure doesn't look like it from here.

:D

[rpannier]

16. Interesting

I know several white South Africans and they include the boycott as one of the reasons that white rule ended

But, I guess they didn't read that article

on note: And yes they did live in the RSA during the 80's they were all older than 20 at the time

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Anti-boycott talk always goes in this direction

"Boycott is a blunt instrument" and etc.

The reason this always comes up is simple: boycotts are actually remarkably effective. They work. Do they hurt "the innocent?" Perhaps, for a brief time, so it's certainly useful to make a cost-benefit analysis of any particular boycott. But it's no reason to reject a boycott - short term pain will likely lead to long-term gains. Business communities panic when people boycott, and they trot out this old "blunt instrument" rhetoric every single time. Perhaps they should get more involved in making their legislature a moral and non-racist one, rather than complaining about lost sales after the fact. Anti-boycott rhetoric seeks to steal one of the few remaining tools from the powerless, and does so most cynically when it appeals to the powerless "victims" of a boycott. Boycotts are effective. In this case, a boycott even seems necessary. Neither life, nor business, nor politics is a consequence free zone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Seems like some are more upset by the boycott than the legislation that inspired it.

I guess that means it's working.

[DevonRex]

18. That's the impression I'm getting, too. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Yeah usually those who you intend to help

get hurt, that said, just like South Africa... Latino organizations are CALLING for this boycott, starting with Congressman Grijalva.

And I will participate... gladly.

[Nikki Stone1]

13. The boycott did not bring down South Africa

See above.

The only thing I am saying is think about whom you are hurting before you go off half-cocked.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. It was part of the process

and even the ANC argues over how much of an effect it had, but it had some.

[MellowDem]

11. Boycotting AZ is stupid...

it won't do anything. And if that law really gets people riled up, then they should definitely boycott Mexico and all Mexican products. Their immigration laws are much more draconian than the ones in Arizona.

[Arctic Dave]

15. It worked when the NFL told AZ to get hosed. n/t

[xchrom]

14. Unrec