I haven’t been part of the abortion part of the discussion.
No, what you said about the focus of the boycott being about encouraging Blacks to patronize Black businesses.
I was combining my responses to different posters into one post; sorry for the confusion.
I wouldn’t get too worked up about this. I’m involved in some groups that have participated in protests regarding the Jena 6 incident, and short of one poorly-worded mention of this “boycott,” nobody has mentioned or circulated this message.
The premise of the boycott is ridiculous. To use the Montgomery bus boycott as an illustrative example, it worked because a) there was a specific complaint against the Montgomery bus system, b) this complaint could be remedied by a change in policy enacted by the leadership of the Montgomery bus system, and c) the boycott was led and maintained by community leaders willing to invest time and energy to assist community members in their day-to-day challenges due to the boycott.
I get a “Protest High Gas Prices” boycott e-mail every now and then, and I always figure that Exxon or Chevron or whomever don’t have a problem with one day of low profits if they get two days of high ones (day before and day after). That’s even if people actually committed to following the boycott.
Ah, no big. I’ve done more than my share of syntaxing things so as to confuse the reader. Can’t ya’ll read my mind and just figure out what I mean? 
I wouldn’t be if it weren’t for the clueless person who put up that flyer in the lobby.
I should note that we’re in the middle of our annual charity season and just yesterday a charity bake sale/lunch drive was in that same lobby.
Heh-heh-heh.
Well, bless your heart, baby! (And I don’t mean that in the smart-ass/“genteel” Southern way.) As honored as I am, and as much I love scepters (what queen wouldn’t? 
)–the Thunderbird, though? don’t know 'bout that–I’m afraid that I must respectfully decline.
Y’see, it’s one thing for me to run the risk, by posting on these boards, of thoroughly embarrassing myself; it is another thing altogether, however, to run the risk of having my *bruthas and sistahs * tainted by my deplorable lack of…well, all those things that make so many people here so interesting and provocative.
Illusions about my place in the scheme of things? Nope, not on top of me.
From the picture on the Wiki page, she looks to be beyond the age when needing an abortion would be necessary. (I could be wrong on her age; I’m not good at guessing age.) However, it still seems hypocritical to me - she got one when she wanted/needed it, but since she changed her mind she wants to deny other women the right to make that decision for themselves.
And I also hold the opinion that refusing to patronize a business solely because of the color of the owner’s skin - not any action of the owner - is racist. If you want to support minority owned businesses, that is wonderful. I try to support local resturants, so I eat at local resturants instead of chains. Doesn’t mean I won’t go to a chain resturant. (If a local resturant would start making Monte Cristo sandwhiches like Cheddars, I could cut chains out completely…)
Didn’t I read on the Dope once that a relative of a black Doper believed black people could not be racist, no matter what they believed, said or did?
In the main, I don’t disagree with you. I do, however, think I understand how people who advocate these kinds of boycotts arrive at their positions.
As a “for instance”:
There’s a Black talk show that I occasionally listen to (when they aren’t pissing me off with, among other things, their brown-nosed adulation of some of the more wacky elements of the Black community, but that’s a story for another day), and on this show, there’s sometimes talk about how Blacks would be treated better by the White powers tha be if they stopped spending so much money with White businesses or institutions.
If I gather correctly, the idea here is that the loss of Black dollars (I can’t recall at the moment how many billions of dollars Blacks are said to have in terms of spending power, but it’s supposed to be quite a bit), would cripple White-owned business to such a degree that they would use their (thought to be considerable) influence in order to ensure better treatment for Blacks. Here, in NYC and the NYC metro area, this is most often put forward in response to police brutality against Blacks, considering that there have been some high-profile shootings/killings of unarmed Blacks by police here (in addition to other police harrassment of innocent Blacks), the latest, most notrious incident being last year’s killing of Sean Bell in the Bronx.
Now, IANAEconomist, blah-blah-blah, so I don’t know if such a prolonged “boycott” would force more Whites to take Blacks and our concerns seriously, but I have to admit to finding the idea somewhat seductive (and I’m a middle class guy who tries to be really rational when it comes to this kind of stuff), and I can certainly see how other, more outwardly radical Blacks can dig it.
Hey, Black people are frustrated–I, myself, have posted on these boards about the varied forms of racism that Blacks still have to contend with on a daily basis–so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some/many/whatever see something like this as a viable weapon in our arsenal. Oh, and not necessarily in a “let’s hurt Whitey for shits and giggles” way, but in a “Look, everybody else votes with their dollars, so why can’t we if it might get us the respect and dignity that we deserve?” way.
So, yeah, this is why I said that such a boycott wouldn’t, to me, necessarily be racist.
Well I for one am such a good person, I have personally protested this racism in Jena for about 30 years before the incident. I have never spend a dollar in Jena, and will almost assuredly die without spending a dollar in Jena. Damn it feels good to be a civil rights crusader, yay me!
Yeah, but what if these business owners are as clueless about the situtation as I was prior to seeing that flyer? They wouldn’t know why, perhaps even if, a certain segment of the population is staying away in droves.
When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense.
Oh, and I didn’t know we were still supposed to be protesting Jena Six. Why didn’t anyone tell me we weren’t to be making major purchases yesterday? We need to choose the spokesperson **before ** the end of the month, people!
Omega Glory no that’s about right, when you factor in CPT. 
If a business treats someone badly based on their color/race/sex/etc., by all means take your business elsewhere. I always vote with my money; if I don’t like the service or the way I am treated I am going elsewhere.
However, if the police department in XCity treats me badly, how is withholding my money from the businesses in XCity going to make a difference? Most small businesses don’t have a direct line to the police commissioner/city council/whoever makes the decisions. So you are punishing a business owner for something over which they have no control.
If this kind of approach has any merit and/or effect at all (I prefer Antinor01’s encouragement toward Black business patronage, not this), it’s about affecting a municipality’s revenues and, therefore, its tax base. There is also the hope it would encourage the business owners who lose money and chambers of commerce to exert whatever influence they can over the city governance or police department.
I think this approach has little chance of being effective but I can see that as being a part of the thinking behind it.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was effective for a lot of reasons. The participants were committed (they lasted way longer than one day); they had leaders who Montgomery and, by extension, the country, were willing to listen to; and, most importantly, the money they deprived Montgomery of did not go back into the coffers on aonther, i.e., they planned for rides, were willing to walk, etc.
If the boycott in the OP lasts for one day, like others have said, any monies not spent will be spent the day before or the day after.
The problem with this though, is why should this onus be put on the whites who own businesses in this city?
I was responding to SnakesCatLady’s question about what something like this has to do with the justice system in a particular locale. The scenario I described would involve white business owners to the extent I described (bottom line, tax base, influence, etc.).
If you read what I said, I didn’t say it was necessarily right, just that might be the line of thinking.
I’ve never thought about who owns the business where I am trying to make a purchase, but I did have to chuckle at this:
I have a vision of a t-shirt with the 50’s style white guy drawing on the front. He is giving a thumbs up, smiling, and underneath is the caption: “I support white business!”
Somehow I feel I might be branded a racist.
Wow, I could have sworn Richmond, West Virginia was part of the United States and one residing there would have had a chance to learn about the history of both; you know, how things have not always been equal and the same for blacks – or black-owned businesses. And efforts and statements regarding either might mean something different in relation to whites, or white-owned businesses.
Think about it.
You’re a better man than I am, sir–and a better Doper, too–'cause I wouldn’t have even dignified **Spit’s ** post.
For this, and for your post #36: thank you. You certainly elucidated things better than I could have.
I must say, though: I’m somewhat torn about the rightness or wrongness of doing something like this. (And remeber, folks, I’m speaking solely in terms of *protracted * action–not some bullshit one day on, on day off boycotting.) I mean, on the one hand, I wouldn’t want White individuals who aren’t racist to suffer. On the other hand, though, it’s not about individuals, right? It’s about actuating the presumed collective influence of the White power and social structures.
And, honestly, if I believed that something like this would *really * be effective, if it meant that innocent Blacks would no longer be subjected to the whims of violent and maladjusted cops who target Blacks because they *know * that we’re easy (read: not particularly sympathetic) targets, or that Blacks would *finally * receive treatment on footing with the rest of society, then yeah, I could see myself supporting it.