Majormd, I somewhat disagree with what you’re getting at.
Starting with your last thought, you imply that boycotting based on a war/ideology 50 years old is equivalent to boycotting based on a war/ideology 200 years old. I bet you’d find that people would be more supportive of boycotting based on more recent events. The difference between them is only evident when compared to one another–it’s like the gravitational effects of Mars on Earth: sure it’s there and very powerful, but compared to the moon or the table in front of you, Mars’ gravity doesn’t amount to much.
Likewise, I continue to “boycott” the Elmwood in Rochester because a couple winters ago during a snow storm I helped a stranger push her car out of traffic. One of the employees at the Elmwood came out and refused to let her use the parking lot while she got help. That personal boycott is much much stronger than any boycott based on my disdain of the behavior of Germany and German companies during WWII, if only because it’s more recent.
In any case, I’m just saying that as a personal decision, things like this are factors despite what companies think. I’m not suggesting we as a country block all trade with Germany, which brings me back to your first point. Yes, the economic isolation of Germany after WWI was stupid in light of its long-term effects. However, mild pressure (i.e. people making car-buying decisions slightly based on ideology) over a long term (i.e. 50 years) does not have the negative ramifications but at the same time sets an example for other companies…maybe.
For a boycott to be effective in attaining your aims, several requirements must be met:
You have to have specific aims.
Do you want the Elmwood to send a formal letter of apology, and courtesy coupons to you and/or the person you helped? To fire the employee who was rude & unhelpful? To go out of business?
Do you want Mercedes to retire all persons who had anything to do with the company during & before WW II? (You might be a tad late…) Do you want them to make a contribution to Simon Weisenthal? To pay a fine to the current German or Israeli government? To go out of business?
Did the IOC want South Africa to allow all athletes to compete on an equal basis regardless of race? Did the US government state department want South African businesses to go under (many did) or to accelerate the dismantling of apartheid?
You have to let the company know that you are boycotting them, why you are boycotting them, and what you would like to see them do to regain your business.
You have to have enough clout to convince the company that it is in their best interests to do what you want.
If you miss on any of these, you can make yourself feel better because you are living in accordance with your own moral values, but you are extremely unlikely to effect any change in the behavior of the company with which you are unhappy.
Additionally, you have to consider what unintended effects a successful boycott might have. The economic isolation imposed upon Germany after WW I certainly succeeded in punishing the Germans by lowering their standard of living, but also caused massive unemployment, and created the disenfranchisement that allowed a charismatic Hitler to rise to power by blaming the outsiders, and the Jews within, for all the misery endured after the war.
Boycotting the Elmwood probably has little potential for global effects. International trade embargoes against Iraq may do more to solidify the power base of Saddam Hussein than to undermine him. Time will tell.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.