| anatomy of a boycott |
The words of a true leader, philosopher and
servant echo today in the wake of a
shapeless movement
servant echo today in the wake of a
shapeless movement
“Along with the march as a weapon for change in our
nonviolent arsenal must be listed the boycott. Basic to
the philosophy of nonviolence is the refusal to
cooperate with evil. There is nothing quite so effective
as the refusal to cooperate economically with the
forces and institutions that perpetuate evil in our
communities.”
With powerful eloquence, the epitome of the civil rights
movement of the fifties and sixties, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., described the boycott in its most basic and
elemental function. In his elucidation, King refers to the
boycott in terms of effectiveness, mainly because of its
nonviolent nature, but also as a component of a larger
strategy that includes not only the march, but also
organization. He knew, and stated it, that the march by
itself “is not a ‘one shot’ to victory-producing method.
One march is seldom successful…it can serve as a part
of a program to dramatize an evil…”
In King’s hands, the three elements of the movement
worked not only as a cluster of social change, but they
effectively produced the expected results. Predictably,
those results did not come easy nor were achieved in a
short period of time. He understood that the victory of
a struggle was a progressive chain of reaction that
added links of success over a period of time. As a social
movement, the search for civil rights was a battle by
battle non-violent conflict that had both strategy and
direction.
The civil rights leader’s words and understanding of
what it took to shake the social status quo, greatly
contrasts with today’s efforts of Latino organizers to
produce social change, within the framework of the
immigrants’ movement. Divided among themselves,
aspiring leaders have repeatedly quoted and referred
to King’s movement as a point of comparison to what
they are trying to achieve. Undoubtedly, they know the
tools –marches, boycotts, and organizing– and have
utilized them in a more or less effective way. However,
the obvious results make evident that effective tools
don’t necessarily make successful craftsmen.
Before we briefly analyze the fact that good tools only
work in skillful hands, we need to stress the value and
efficiency that King acknowledged marches, boycotts,
and organization have. The Baptist minister first
recognized, that the usefulness of marches reside in
mobilizing the forces of good will, and in generating
pressure and power for change. Nevertheless, and
based on his experience, King also expressed the need
that marches “must continue over a period of thirty to
forty-five days to produce any meaningful results.” In
addition to the length of time, King included as an
indispensable ingredient, the size of a march. He
expressed that “they must also be of a significant size
to produce some inconvenience to the forces in power
or they go unnoticed…” King believed that marches
“must demand the attention of the press, for it is the
press which interprets the issues to the community at
large and thereby sets in motion the machinery for
change.”
Second, the civil rights leader explained that in order to
be effective, a boycott was simply refusing to purchase
products from companies which did not hire Blacks in
meaningful numbers and in all job categories. For King,
a true boycott was –listen up, aspiring leaders– “a
disciplined program of selective buying.” He saw this
practice as “the peak of power…it cuts the profit margin
of a business in order to bring about a more just
distribution of jobs and opportunities for…earners and
consumers.” Boycotts, in King’s opinion, must “be
sustained over a period of several weeks and months
to assure results.”
nonviolent arsenal must be listed the boycott. Basic to
the philosophy of nonviolence is the refusal to
cooperate with evil. There is nothing quite so effective
as the refusal to cooperate economically with the
forces and institutions that perpetuate evil in our
communities.”
With powerful eloquence, the epitome of the civil rights
movement of the fifties and sixties, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., described the boycott in its most basic and
elemental function. In his elucidation, King refers to the
boycott in terms of effectiveness, mainly because of its
nonviolent nature, but also as a component of a larger
strategy that includes not only the march, but also
organization. He knew, and stated it, that the march by
itself “is not a ‘one shot’ to victory-producing method.
One march is seldom successful…it can serve as a part
of a program to dramatize an evil…”
In King’s hands, the three elements of the movement
worked not only as a cluster of social change, but they
effectively produced the expected results. Predictably,
those results did not come easy nor were achieved in a
short period of time. He understood that the victory of
a struggle was a progressive chain of reaction that
added links of success over a period of time. As a social
movement, the search for civil rights was a battle by
battle non-violent conflict that had both strategy and
direction.
The civil rights leader’s words and understanding of
what it took to shake the social status quo, greatly
contrasts with today’s efforts of Latino organizers to
produce social change, within the framework of the
immigrants’ movement. Divided among themselves,
aspiring leaders have repeatedly quoted and referred
to King’s movement as a point of comparison to what
they are trying to achieve. Undoubtedly, they know the
tools –marches, boycotts, and organizing– and have
utilized them in a more or less effective way. However,
the obvious results make evident that effective tools
don’t necessarily make successful craftsmen.
Before we briefly analyze the fact that good tools only
work in skillful hands, we need to stress the value and
efficiency that King acknowledged marches, boycotts,
and organization have. The Baptist minister first
recognized, that the usefulness of marches reside in
mobilizing the forces of good will, and in generating
pressure and power for change. Nevertheless, and
based on his experience, King also expressed the need
that marches “must continue over a period of thirty to
forty-five days to produce any meaningful results.” In
addition to the length of time, King included as an
indispensable ingredient, the size of a march. He
expressed that “they must also be of a significant size
to produce some inconvenience to the forces in power
or they go unnoticed…” King believed that marches
“must demand the attention of the press, for it is the
press which interprets the issues to the community at
large and thereby sets in motion the machinery for
change.”
Second, the civil rights leader explained that in order to
be effective, a boycott was simply refusing to purchase
products from companies which did not hire Blacks in
meaningful numbers and in all job categories. For King,
a true boycott was –listen up, aspiring leaders– “a
disciplined program of selective buying.” He saw this
practice as “the peak of power…it cuts the profit margin
of a business in order to bring about a more just
distribution of jobs and opportunities for…earners and
consumers.” Boycotts, in King’s opinion, must “be
sustained over a period of several weeks and months
to assure results.”
| King wraps it up by adding to this social equation of action: “Our most powerful nonviolent weapon is, as would be expected, also our most demanding, that is organization. To produce change, people must be organized to work together in units of power.” Thus, King encompassed all three elements, almost as one, to strategically deal with the social problems of his times. Martin Luther King Jr., successfully utilized these nonviolent weapons because he had three basic characteristics as a leader. He was above all a product of segregation, discrimination, and injustice. Even though he grew up in a middle class family, he suffered and saw these social evils first hand. He prepared himself to serve within the tradition of the spiritual struggle which began with Black slaves, who foresaw in their plight the arrival of a prophet and deliverer. In this sense, King was not only a third generation of Christian ministers, but was also the finished product of years and years of struggle, the most articulated, and the consummated messenger of a new era in the United States. Consequently, the tools of marches, boycotts, and organization were suited for his skillful abilities: great tools; competent servant. The slain leader was above and beyond anything else a philosopher of the movement. He shaped it with intense oratory, a consistent message, and with an educational framework. He insisted that marches and boycotts were a matter of “continuous education of the community in order that support can be maintained. People will work together and sacrifice if they understand clearly why and how this sacrifice will bring about change.” So called leaders and organizers of what has become known as the immigrants’ movement, have failed to philosophically unite, because they have failed to essentially understand each other. It is no wonder the people are going in so many different directions, expressing opinions from one extreme to the other, and complicating a process that lacks a serious course, a consensus of ideas, and a structure to give it form. If King’s methods and tactics are no longer effective, Latino organizers need to stop referring to them; if they are, why are they not utilizing them correctly? In the wake of such a powerful emerging force –the immigrants– the key players of a rising social movement must undress themselves of their clothing of special interests and hidden agendas. To be effective, they need to show their true colors, and to lay their agendas on the table. They should seek common ground and an agreeable philosophy. Even if they do this, they will need to accept that the true calling of a leader is born long before the idea goes through their minds. A genuine leader is not a position of power, but a responsibility to serve. Contact the Author Copyright © 2006 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues |
| Artwork by Chicano Artist Martin Moreno |
Eduardo Barraza is the founder and director of the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues, a grassroots agency that disseminates information through workshops, seminars, and publications to promote informed choices and awareness on social issues. Eduardo is the author of a Spanish book titled “Los zapatos del immigrate y otros escritos,” and is the publisher and editor of BARRIOZONA. |
| BARRIOZONA |
| Bilingual Community Expression Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues |
