The boycott of Arizona by a growing number of musicians has been one of the most high-profile acts of resistance to the state’s new anti-immigrant law. But like most boycotts it has been the subject of great scrutiny in terms of its potentially damaging effect on perceived innocents. For instance, Arizona concert promoter and activist Charlie Levy recently explained that: “By not performing in Arizona, artists are harming the very people and places that foster free speech and the open exchange of ideas that serve to counter the closed-mindedness recently displayed by the new law.”
A reaction such as this, however, is only understandable to those who don’t understand how boycotts work. Their intent is not to harm people or places, but to catalyze segments of a society that have the ability to influence the repeal of an unjust law or policy. Much like the sterilization of a wound, any harm to people or places along the way should be looked upon as part of the healing process. The harm that is caused during a boycott is only temporary and, unlike the injustice it opposes, never terminal. A boycott that’s based on a just cause, such as the repeal of a racist law, is a tactic that resurrects humanity and ultimately improves the quality of life for everyone.
One of the musicians who seems to get this point is Conor Oberst, who fronts the band Bright Eyes (and is featured int he above video). Oberst wrote an intelligent and heartfelt response to Levy, saying that he regrets “any of the collateral damage the boycott is causing” and realizes “that the people of Arizona did not vote on SB1070,” but sees a far bigger picture—one that is “a threat to our basic ideals as Americans and Humans.”
Oberst has already seen a town in his home state of Nebraska adopt a similarly racist immigration law and is “in the process of organizing a fund-raiser for the NE chapter of the ACLU who is suing the town of Fremont.” But should the law pass statewide, he is fully prepared to “be the first to call for a boycott of my home state.”
It isn’t often you see this kind of dedication from a musician. So often there is a hollowness that lies behind musicians’ political statements. Oberst seems keenly aware of this as well and it’s another reason he is determined to stick with the boycott:
Just as you may feel the boycott is an empty gesture, I fear that if we return to business as usual (under the guise of some civic movement) that this will all devolve into the typical grandstanding that is political activism in music. It might make us feel better but won’t do a damn thing to change the minds of the radical, racist minority that seem to have controlled Arizona politics for decades. In short, it will lose its teeth.
At the same time, Oberst is humble enough to minimize his role:
Much of the Artist end of the boycott is symbolic, I acknowledge, and no real threat to the economics of the State. But it is an important part none-the-less for awareness and messaging. The Boycott has to be so widespread and devastating that the Arizona State Legislature and Governor have no choice but to repeal their unconstitutional, immoral and hateful law. It has to hurt them in the only place they feel any pain, their pocketbooks.
Perhaps what’s most inspiring is that entertainers like Oberst, are excited to take part in what could become “the largest and most effective boycott this country has seen in a long time.”
Good for you. Artists are powerful, empathetic, courageous. Thanks for doing this. I’ll buy the music. Keep it up.
There is most definitely hollowness in this guy…and it’s frankly in his head.
You missed the BEST parts from from Mr. NotsoBright Eyes:
“The only thing, clearly, that these people care about is Money and Power, that and the creation and preservation of an Anglo-Centric Police State where every Immigrant and Non-White citizen is considered subhuman. They want them stripped of their basic human rights and reduced to slaves for Corporate America and the White Race. They are engaged in blatant class warfare. It is evil, pure and simple.”
“The Boycott has to be so widespread and devastating that the Arizona State Legislature and Governor have no choice but to repeal their unconstitutional, immoral and hateful law.”
SERIOUSLY, does ANYONE actually agree with what he’s saying here? Anyone of reasonable intelligence would dismiss Mr NotsoBright Eyes rant as simply wrong and borderline delusional. The people attacking the law are simply creating and attacking a straw man.
The AZ law mirrors federal law and in case you were wondering: U.S. Code 8 Section 1304 (e) states that “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.”
Visiting a local detention center will indicate that people are held, as criminals and animals, for much longer than thirty days. Beneath the surface of this discussion, there is a certain cruelty that must be confronted. Namely, the cruelty of seperating mothers from their children, husbands from wives and humans from freedom. I, for one, agree with what Oberst articulated, i.e. “the other” being considered subhuman. These “aliens” – as they’re so crudely termed – want nothing more than to build a better life for themselves and very often, the reasons for why such a life is not possible on their homeland is due to American foreign policy.
This nation was built by aliens. The only “natives” to speak of witnessed the coming of the UFO (unidentified floating object) and found themselves victims of genocide shortlty thereafter.
Here’s to a broader perspective. Cheers.
ESM, I almost cried reading your reply…almost.
They are treated like criminals because they ARE criminals. They broke the laws of the United States. Violated the sovereignty of the United States. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your limited intellect around? Like you, I wouldn’t like detention to last so long, I wish our government was efficient enough to DEPORT them within 30 days.
Illegal aliens are not treated subhuman. Cruelty? What’s cruel about it? Do you have the same feelings if I committed armed robbery with my kids in tow? How about the cruelty of subjecting kids to the risks involved in an illegal boarder crossing?
Alien is not a “crude” term, at least to those with a rational world view.
The American foreign policy quip simply highlights your sheer stupidity. Just going to leave that claim out there with no justification? Blame America for their problems or their nation’s problems? Too funny.
The only thing that needs confronted is the stupidity of your argument.
Oh, those natives you speak of are not “native” They migrated across the Asia/N.America land bridge.
Sorry about the ad hominem, but stupidity must be “confronted.”
I’m strongly in favor of expanding legal immigration, guest worker program, ect. I have no tolerance for ILLEGAL immigration or idiots who try and distort enforcement of our law and border.
Here’s to a rational and correct perspective. Thanks for the laughs and have a super day.
D. Killion,
You clearly have no grasp of international political economy. If you did, you would have understood my “quip.” Considering your manner, I think it best to end this interaction here. Also, don’t apologize for your ad hominem. It says much more about you than it does about me.
Peace.
Oh I understand what you were trying to say, but I do not subscribe to it. I take a liberal view in fact, you take a Marxist one in tone.
Yes, it says I have no tolerance for stupidity and I ridicule it, and you clearly can’t differentiate between supposition and fact.
Don’t be mad because you can’t defend your fluffy arguments against rudimentary challenge.
If you care to debate, make an actual argument.
You ARE your most indicative argument.
And your crass insults indicate that you’ve already invested too much ego into this discussion for it to be worthwhile. I see little hope for a beneficial exchange of ideas.
Peace.
Investing ego? Where’s the intellectual stock exchange? A beneficial exchange of ideas involves TWO competing arguments. So far, there has only one. Yes, take your ball and go home like a good boy.
Buh Bye
Your last metaphor is very interesting. In your imaginary world, it seems, you are the schoolyard bully. Again, you are your most indicative argument. Just remember, not every kid who takes his ball and walks away is weaker. Likewise, because someone doesn’t take you seriously enough to engage doesn’t necessarily mean you win the imagined debate.
I eagerly await your next revelation. At some point, maybe we’ll get to a worthwhile discussion about the differences between neo-liberal and “Marxist” economic analyses and why, I think, global political economy unjustly and systematically disadvantages developing nations. For now, however, your aggressive online persona is more interesting.
Peace.
No, in my last metaphor you were the whiny kid who didn’t get his way and quit. Weakness and bullying have nothing to do with it. Since you’ve apparently decided against it, let’s discuss.
“I think, global political economy unjustly and systematically disadvantages developing nations.”
That’s a start, but leaving out the all important rationale. Are you saying that the discipline of IPE is unjust and disadvantages? If not which school of thought are you referring to? What is just and what is unjust in your opinion? How does the liberal policy unjust and disadvantage developing nations (I will assuming that you are referring to liberal policies)?
D. Killion,
You won’t convince me to engage with you until you drop your pretentious and insulting manner. That means cutting all the ad hominem nonsense and comments like “take your ball and go home like a good boy.” I find such things intellectually immature and offensive – not to mention violent; hardly worth dignifying with any serious engagement.
At no point did I quit the discussion. I simply haven’t found you worthwhile. Thus, in so many words, I’ve expressed that instead of enter the more serious topic, which I doubt you are mature enough to conduct without spewing insults at the slightest sign of disagreement. While I find this exchange petty, you unfortunately are the one who set that tone.
I hold respect to be a prerequisite to mature and intelligent exchange. Once I see that you’ve agreed to carry on with a semblance of personal discipline, I’ll take you seriously.
Peace, amigo.
No, an intelligent argument is a prerequisite to an intelligent exchange. Since your poor little feelings are hurt, you will not engage. In my last post I explained the metaphor to you and thought you starting to make an argument. It wasn’t ad hominem at all. Violent? Seriously? Intellectually immature is better than intellectually bankrupt.
Sorry, respect is earned and you quitting does not earn it. Too bad, as you may have learned something.
At least you caused a chuckle or two.
Later kid.
D. Killion,
Intellectually immature and intellectually bankrupt are not far apart.
Intelligent arguments are generally free of childish barbs and fallacies. In any case, they’re certainly much easier to recognize and appreciate that way. You lack civility, which has inhibited our exchange. Consequently, the only thing that’s bankrupt are your conjectures about a perfect stranger.
I hoped your last response would have been free of insults so we could commence a real discussion. You’ve proven otherwise, and I’m afraid this silly exchange must end here.
Peace.
N.B. Yes, insults are violent acts.
Wow, what a tragic place the discussion has come to!
I’d just like to point to good points being made on both sides. First, there is sense to what D. Killion is suggesting about insisting on the rule of law. Even when nonviolent action compels one to an act of civil disobedience, one should be careful that the one act does not undermine the whole fabric of society. When black civil rights protesters broke the rules to sit at a white-only lunch counter, they did so in order to change the law, not in order to undermine the whole system of laws in the first place. Their attire and polite behavior was an outward sign of that intention. The immigration rights movement should similarly find ways to send signals to those of us who might be concerned that the rule of law in general (as opposed to particular unjust laws) could be undermined by their movement.
On the other hand, ESM is correct in insisting that the immigration situation has to be seen in a much more regional and global context. It rather blows the mind that, under the current trade regime, goods can travel freely across borders but people cannot. It seems to me that D. Killion is wise to be an advocate for immigration reform, for expanding the options for legal immigration. But I hope he can realize also that enforcement without reform will amount to a human tragedy that could rend our society apart. Increased enforcement should come only alongside humane reform in the laws being enforced.
Nathan, I agree with your comment about insisting on the rule of law. But such a standard should apply to more than just activists. The law itself must not threaten the fabric of society. Despite D. Killion’s assertion that “the AZ law mirrors federal law”, the Department of Justice believes it is unconstitutional. Among the reasons cited are that it will “result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens” and “burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.” Federal law simply doesn’t allow for warrantless arrest authority. Advocates of SB 1070 are missing this point.
Just watched a great segment on The Daily Show that really excoriates AZ lawmakers. State Rep. Carl Seel is upset about photo radars because they unfairly target speeders, but is all for the immigration law which he believes fairly targets immigrants. In short, as The Daily Show’s Olivia Munn, put it, “speeding is probable cause to check immigration status, but speeding is not probable cause to give you a ticket for speeding.”