The validity of moral boycotts on whole countries

Great Debates
1

So in the Obama-Beer thread, **jayjay **mentioned that he was upset that Skip Gates didn’t boycott Red Stripe beer out of solidarity with the oppressed homosexuals in Jamaica.

Now, this is not enough for me to boycott and entire country.

First off, what a boycott says is because of certain cultural attitudes, you want to punitively remove the ability of the people of that culture from being able to feed themselves and their families.

Taking this base assumption I weigh it against the enormity of the crime, and the possible impact that the boycott may have.

With this one I won’t support it because:

  1. Homophobia is not worse than famine in Jamaica.
  2. Even if the boycott were to hit the bottom line of Red Stripe beer, no one would associate it with the reason for the boycott.
  3. In the off chance that the executives do recognize the reason, that is not going to change the opinions of those who do not work for Red Stripe.
  4. You are holding the entire country responsible for the nastiness.
  5. As far as human rights offenders go, Jamaica is WAY down the list of nasties that I buy products from regularly.

So it seems to me that Jamaica is a convenient target here. It’s a small country, and it doesn’t produce enough things to make it inconvenient to boycott them.

Lets contrast this with China that is incredibly nasty to political dissidents, treats the Falun Gong at least as poorly as homosexuals are treated in Jamaica, and has a lot of other groups it treats very badly besides. To me China would be at the top of the list of moral boycotts. But we don’t boycott China. Why? Because it would actually require us to make a lifestyle decision that goes beyond choosing a different beer among the other half a dozen to several dozen choices available. We’d have to change the way we live to boycott China, so its human rights abuses go remarked upon but not boycotted.

In neither case would a boycott really make much difference. In fact even though China is bigger, I think they’d be more likely to take into account the public image and recognize shifts in consumption of their goods based on political issues than Jamaica would.

For jayjay he is personally invested in this issue. For me, the persecution of homosexuals in Jamaica is no less abstract than the persecution of Uighurs in China.

So in closing, I don’t boycott Jamaica because I see no point in cherry-picking countries I support because almost no country on the planet is right morally. There are just as good reasons to boycott the United States of America as Jamaica. So for boycotting to make sense for moral reasons I’d have to enjoin an ascetic lifestyle where I do without most modern conveniences in order to do what I can to avoid supporting corruption worldwide.

2

This leads to a possible solution, or at least partial one, that I use. Given that a boycott will, usually, hurt those oppressed as well, I try to support boycotts if those who are the victims of the negative acts are calling for them, through their representative organizations.

Hence the ANC and COSATU called for economic sanctions on and a boycott of South African goods. Therefore the boycott passed the first hurdle for me. I don’t if Jamaican gay groups are calling for a boycott of Red Stripe beer. If they were, I would consider it.

3

"First They Came . . . "

It’s extremely rare that a country persecutes a particular minority and nobody else, or that such a country is only rotten in one respect. China has a long history of treating its people horribly, and is worthy of a boycott. I really don’t know much about Jamaica, but I’d bet there are lots of other negatives there. It would be very unusual for a relatively free society to persecute just one small minority, without a lot of other crap going on.

And even on an individual basis: in the U.S. (and I know I’m painting with a broad brush), individuals who are vociferously homophobic tend to have other nasty opinions as well.

4

If persecution of homosexuals is enough for a boycott, why not boycott America?

I’ve never seen the point of a boycott.

5

panache45 But my point being that there isn’t a single nation that isn’t worthy of a boycott, or at least they are very rare, and the size of the nation makes it more likely to be boycott worthy. Does the US deserve to be boycotted because of Iraq and Afghanistan?

6

That might have been justified more than 30 years ago, when gay people were routinely thrown into jail, losing their jobs and families, and driven to suicide . . . or raped or murdered, with no consequence to the perpetrators. Today, there is no longer institutional homophobia, just as there is no longer institutional racism. Today’s hatreds are more on an individual level; the only vestige of institutional homophobia is the resistance to same-sex marriage . . . which is very minor compared to the way things used to be.

No. We have legitimate reasons to be in Afghanistan, and we got into Iraq by way of our government’s deception, not because of anything that’s a permanent part of our culture. And by now, most Americans want us out of Iraq anyway. Social attitudes don’t exist in a vacuum, and there’s no way this country could have continued in Iraq . . . or continued treating minorities unfairly. The U.S. has always, in general, been one of the “good guys,” and tends to eventually own up to its mistakes.

7

No for Afghanistan, yes for Iraq.

8

If the us deserves to be boycotted, why are you not participating in the boycott?

Also, gays and “boy cot,” gotta be a joke there somewhere.

9

That’s a very grammatically incorrect statement. Here’s how it should have been written:

If we deserve to be boycotted, why are you not participating in the boycott?

Only if you include the words “Catholic” and “priest.”

10

I don’t think his sentence was grammatically incorrect. He just didn’t capitalize US.

11

No, this is twisting things. What you want and what your options are may not quite match. It is certainly a disadvantage of boycotts that they may not target wrongdoers specifically enough, but that doesn’t mean the practical effect of a boycott is exactly what you wish it was, and it also doesn’t necessarily mean the boycott is morally invalid (though it could mean that or could tarnish the validity somewhat).

Unfortunately, most ethical judgements have some messy edges. We still have choices to make.

I think probably, as a sweeping statement, it’s true that if people are somewhat aware of issues and are inclined to join in boycotts that originated in good faith, the world would be a better place than it is now. It might even be true that advertising the messy edges of a boycott has as its greatest consequence giving people an excuse for avoiding any uncomfortable changes.

But certainly the more time we spend considering any ethical judgement, the better will be our actions.

12

Well I think that one needs to look at the inevitable consequences of an action and recognize that it is part and parcel of the action. The point of a boycott is to deprive people of their livelihoods in order to punish them for some behavior. There are no two ways about it.

Yes, and when the good outweighs the bad, then you act.

Well the Montgomery bus boycott was a brilliant strategic maneuver for every reason that the Jamaica boycott wasn’t.

  1. It hurt the bottom line of the buses because the black population was their primary customer base.
  2. The message was never lost, the city of Montgomery knew precisely why it was happening from the moment it began until the moment it ended.

Neither of those things applies to homosexuals in Jamaica.

Right.

13

I, for one, will go to significant extremes not to buy anything that I can determine was made in China. Did you know that there are NO straw beach hats NOT made in China? None that I could find, anyway.

I don’t care that it probably won’t make a fig of difference, I just don’t want to have anything to do with that country and its government.

14

My wife used to work for a Milliner in New York. Barbara Feinman millinery. She makes straw beach hats. They aren’t cheap though.

Yeah, but the problem is that the other products that you buy have components made in China. But at least it makes more sense to boycott China than Jamaica. Or at least boycott both.

15

Boycotts seem to me more like a way to signal your group affiliation than to make a real political difference. Boycotters rarely do the research to find where the components of a final product were made (I’m thinking in particular people who buy American cars that contain just as many Japanese-made parts as a Toyota), or what kind of people benefit from their purchase. (Suppose a large fraction of the Jamaican gay population worked in brewing?) The fact that they generally do not take the time to target their efforts implies that they are more interested in making a statement than making a difference - which, it is true, would be a negligible difference anyway.

16

Yes, I agree. It’s a way to pretend to political relevance. A boycott is meant to be a strategic assault on someone’s bottom line. The only form of boycott of a nation that seems to have any real impact at all are economic sanctions levied by a nation state.

17

Oh, I agree. If I buy a t-shirt that says “made in Thailand” I have no idea where the cloth came from. And I also agree that my little avoidance makes zero difference to the Chinese Communist government. It’s similar to a person deciding they don’t want to contribute to the conditions under which calves live, so they don’t eat veal. I’m not going to stop anything but at least I’m not contributing to it.

18

Is it just beer, or am I also supposed to boycott Jamaican coffee? Reggae music? And do you really know where that pot you’re smoking came from?

19

British Columbia most likely on that last one. Come on people, come up with a reason to boycott Canada. :wink:

20

They are right about too many things, which makes them smug. I hate that. :wink: