Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from BARRIOZONA,
Call 480-983-1445 or e-mail admin@barriozona.com with your request
Phoenix, Arizona – “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.”
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.
Copyright © 2009 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues
Grassroots Journalism
www.barriozona.com
|
The words of a true leader, philosopher and servant echo today in the wake of a shapeless movement
By Eduardo Barraza
BARRIOZONA
May 1, 2006
Anatomy of a Boycott