| Unlike the March 21 and April 10 marches, the intended impact of the so called economic boycott proved largely ineffective and unimpressive, and perhaps even weakened the momentum achieved by the powerful demonstrations of the previous two months. Divisiveness among activists’ groups, as well as the lack of common goals and focus, made evident that the immigrants’ movement lack the necessary direction and leadership to take it to the next level. |
| A Day Without... Significant Effect |
| Text and Photographs by Eduardo Barraza |
The concept of an economic boycott –
acting together in abstaining from using,
buying, or dealing as an expression of
protest– was the hypothesis that
organizers and immigrants around the
nation utilized on May 1st, in hopes of
persuading mainstream America about
the economic might of the Latino
community. Along with the boycott, a
work stoppage strategy was employed
to further emphasize the strength of the
immigrant workforce. Hypothetically,
both tactics were well founded, at least
in principle, since many social
movements have made use of them
acting together in abstaining from using,
buying, or dealing as an expression of
protest– was the hypothesis that
organizers and immigrants around the
nation utilized on May 1st, in hopes of
persuading mainstream America about
the economic might of the Latino
community. Along with the boycott, a
work stoppage strategy was employed
to further emphasize the strength of the
immigrant workforce. Hypothetically,
both tactics were well founded, at least
in principle, since many social
movements have made use of them
| Alfredo Gutierrez, activist and former senator was present at the gathering outside "The Home Depot." He mediated when arguments heated. |
| A young woman, wrapped herself with the American flag, outside "The Home Depot." |
Even with a symbolic effect, the economic boycott and work stoppage did not
achieve the larger realistic result organizers projected, not only because many
people did only one or the other or simply none, but because since the idea of a
boycott begun to take shape, schism started to grow among organizers as well.
Some supported the idea of what was deemed as “A Day Without Immigrants.”
Others opposed this tactic, proposing softer-tone strategies. Locally, in Phoenix,
there was disagreement on whether a human chain, vigils, school walkouts, a
work stoppage or an economic boycott were a right approach to continue the
momentum gained with the unprecedented pro-immigrant marches of previous
weeks. There were serious considerations regarding the actual effect the
economic boycott was going to have, and about the message that such a radical
move would send to the business community, which for the most part does not
oppose an immigration reform. At the end, on May 1st, every group employed the
methods they thought were the best to show the community’s strength. Some
wanted to be “invisible;” others took the streets to show their presence visibly.
In doing this, a lack of cohesion surfaced.
The events of May 1st did not have a stronger impact basically because a boycott
and work stoppage are insufficient and ineffective when they are not extended
for a longer period of time. Time is the key component of both actions, and it is
the only clear way to achieve actual results. An article published on this site
previous to May 1st, titled “Anatomy of a boycott,” explained the intrinsic
characteristics of an effective boycott. This concept was confirmed by Monroe
Friedman, Emeritus Professor of Psychology of Eastern Michigan University, and
achieve the larger realistic result organizers projected, not only because many
people did only one or the other or simply none, but because since the idea of a
boycott begun to take shape, schism started to grow among organizers as well.
Some supported the idea of what was deemed as “A Day Without Immigrants.”
Others opposed this tactic, proposing softer-tone strategies. Locally, in Phoenix,
there was disagreement on whether a human chain, vigils, school walkouts, a
work stoppage or an economic boycott were a right approach to continue the
momentum gained with the unprecedented pro-immigrant marches of previous
weeks. There were serious considerations regarding the actual effect the
economic boycott was going to have, and about the message that such a radical
move would send to the business community, which for the most part does not
oppose an immigration reform. At the end, on May 1st, every group employed the
methods they thought were the best to show the community’s strength. Some
wanted to be “invisible;” others took the streets to show their presence visibly.
In doing this, a lack of cohesion surfaced.
The events of May 1st did not have a stronger impact basically because a boycott
and work stoppage are insufficient and ineffective when they are not extended
for a longer period of time. Time is the key component of both actions, and it is
the only clear way to achieve actual results. An article published on this site
previous to May 1st, titled “Anatomy of a boycott,” explained the intrinsic
characteristics of an effective boycott. This concept was confirmed by Monroe
Friedman, Emeritus Professor of Psychology of Eastern Michigan University, and
| A man walk pass the sign outside "The Home Depot" that warns people not to contract day laborers. |
author of the book “Consumer Boycotts, Effecting Change Through the Marketplace and the Media,” when he
stated after May 1st, what organizers continue to ignore: that boycotts are “not one-day affairs but these are much
longer in duration.” In his book, Friedman discusses different types of boycotts, from their historical application on
labor and economic matters, to more recent issues such as minorities’ civil rights, environmental protection, and
animal rights.
The manipulative rhetoric of some organizers is stretching the results of the boycott in hopes of making it appear
more successful than it really was, thus giving it an unrealistic and disproportionately outcome. They cite inexistent
statistics with the intent to magnify what obviously had a limited effect. Before May 1st, Elias Bermudez, president
of the organization called “Inmigrantes sin fronteras,” used his paid radio program to literarily threaten Latino
business owners who would not close on May 1st with not buying or consuming from them. Bermudez employed the
concept of a boycott as a coercion to force mainly Latino or Hispanic business owners to adhere to a boycott, and
promised retaliation against those who would not support the work stoppage. Consequently, many businesses
closed, mostly out of fear of retaliation, than due to a voluntary and spontaneous support. The day after,
Bermudez, others and Spanish-language media were amazed that so many businesses “supported” the boycott
and work stoppage, and did not have trouble stating that, indeed, May 1st was a “a day without immigrants.”
Demographically and geographically speaking, there was an effect, because the boycott and work stoppage ended
up being a conjunct action, voluntary or not, from Latino-owned businesses who saw in their best interest to close
than to remain open. Elsewhere, in many areas where demographics are not heavily dominated by immigrants,
most companies did business as usual. At its best May 1st, was close to resemble a regular holiday, when
businesses close and traffic decreases.
stated after May 1st, what organizers continue to ignore: that boycotts are “not one-day affairs but these are much
longer in duration.” In his book, Friedman discusses different types of boycotts, from their historical application on
labor and economic matters, to more recent issues such as minorities’ civil rights, environmental protection, and
animal rights.
The manipulative rhetoric of some organizers is stretching the results of the boycott in hopes of making it appear
more successful than it really was, thus giving it an unrealistic and disproportionately outcome. They cite inexistent
statistics with the intent to magnify what obviously had a limited effect. Before May 1st, Elias Bermudez, president
of the organization called “Inmigrantes sin fronteras,” used his paid radio program to literarily threaten Latino
business owners who would not close on May 1st with not buying or consuming from them. Bermudez employed the
concept of a boycott as a coercion to force mainly Latino or Hispanic business owners to adhere to a boycott, and
promised retaliation against those who would not support the work stoppage. Consequently, many businesses
closed, mostly out of fear of retaliation, than due to a voluntary and spontaneous support. The day after,
Bermudez, others and Spanish-language media were amazed that so many businesses “supported” the boycott
and work stoppage, and did not have trouble stating that, indeed, May 1st was a “a day without immigrants.”
Demographically and geographically speaking, there was an effect, because the boycott and work stoppage ended
up being a conjunct action, voluntary or not, from Latino-owned businesses who saw in their best interest to close
than to remain open. Elsewhere, in many areas where demographics are not heavily dominated by immigrants,
most companies did business as usual. At its best May 1st, was close to resemble a regular holiday, when
businesses close and traffic decreases.
For mainstream America, perception and lack of
understanding continues to shape their opinion and their
reactions. While statistically a higher percentage of
Americans back the legalization of undocumented
individuals already here, many continue to disapprove
the tactics employed from those who are trying to
persuade and sell the idea of an immigration reform to
the public opinion and politicians. In fact, many social
analysts agree that, particularly after May 1st, both a
political and social backlash is emerging, hurting the
possibilities of convincing conservative lawmakers in
Washington to pass an immigration bill this year. The
counterproductive effect in the political arena is still to be
seen, but in terms of angering more people, and making
them more fiercely oppose an immigration reform, is now
evident. Therefore, the basic and perceivable outcome of
the economic boycott and work stoppage is that it did not
produce the positive effect needed to persuade and
convince.
A day without immigrants remains theoretically a good
concept. For the time being, the vision seems only
attainable in a movie. Perhaps Latino organizers should
be reading more books on social justice, than getting
their ideas from movie scripts.
Contact the Author
Copyright © 2006 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues
understanding continues to shape their opinion and their
reactions. While statistically a higher percentage of
Americans back the legalization of undocumented
individuals already here, many continue to disapprove
the tactics employed from those who are trying to
persuade and sell the idea of an immigration reform to
the public opinion and politicians. In fact, many social
analysts agree that, particularly after May 1st, both a
political and social backlash is emerging, hurting the
possibilities of convincing conservative lawmakers in
Washington to pass an immigration bill this year. The
counterproductive effect in the political arena is still to be
seen, but in terms of angering more people, and making
them more fiercely oppose an immigration reform, is now
evident. Therefore, the basic and perceivable outcome of
the economic boycott and work stoppage is that it did not
produce the positive effect needed to persuade and
convince.
A day without immigrants remains theoretically a good
concept. For the time being, the vision seems only
attainable in a movie. Perhaps Latino organizers should
be reading more books on social justice, than getting
their ideas from movie scripts.
Contact the Author
Copyright © 2006 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues
| 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 |
with more or less success. However, the intended effect, in any degree of success or failure one may credit to,
might have been merely symbolic than effective in the real sense of what a boycott and a work stoppage propose.
As a symbolic expression, organizers in many of the largest cities of the United States may have made their point.
The hypothesis that the American society would feel the effect of both a one-day boycott and work stoppage, was
clearly aiming to influence public opinion, but after the actions of May 1st, many of the ones who oppose the
legalization of undocumented immigrants remain undeterred. Furthermore, the methods used by organizers were
perceived by many as an action directed to hurt businesses and the economy. This stirred the anger even more and
indignation of a large sector of the population, which does not yield an inch to the idea of allowing undocumented
immigrants to obtain legal status. Consequently, any effect generated by the boycott and work stoppage of May
1st, did not ultimately produce a drastic shift in terms of persuading opponents in buying the idea of an immigration
reform. Not only that; perhaps what organizers recognize as a success and an accomplishment, may actually be a
negative backlash working against them.
Unfortunately, Latino leaders, activists, and organizers, as well as the Spanish-language media, seem to be
unhealthily biased for their own good. Bias, a lack of an impartial self-analysis, and reluctance to admit their own
failures, are deforming their own reality, and preventing them from, first, questioning the leadership, and, second,
assessing their strategies and reevaluating their outcomes. Claiming success, failing to determine the extent and
nature of it, or neglecting to clearly define it, is misleading the people, distorting the movement’s advance, and
making the idea of an immigration reform harder to sell to the American people. Conspiring to make the real
outcomes look better than they are, gives the purpose of their work a fabricated foundation, which may make any
progress gained collapse sooner or later. A reality check may not reveal optimistic results, but can help channel
their efforts into the right direction, and indicate the next steps to take.
might have been merely symbolic than effective in the real sense of what a boycott and a work stoppage propose.
As a symbolic expression, organizers in many of the largest cities of the United States may have made their point.
The hypothesis that the American society would feel the effect of both a one-day boycott and work stoppage, was
clearly aiming to influence public opinion, but after the actions of May 1st, many of the ones who oppose the
legalization of undocumented immigrants remain undeterred. Furthermore, the methods used by organizers were
perceived by many as an action directed to hurt businesses and the economy. This stirred the anger even more and
indignation of a large sector of the population, which does not yield an inch to the idea of allowing undocumented
immigrants to obtain legal status. Consequently, any effect generated by the boycott and work stoppage of May
1st, did not ultimately produce a drastic shift in terms of persuading opponents in buying the idea of an immigration
reform. Not only that; perhaps what organizers recognize as a success and an accomplishment, may actually be a
negative backlash working against them.
Unfortunately, Latino leaders, activists, and organizers, as well as the Spanish-language media, seem to be
unhealthily biased for their own good. Bias, a lack of an impartial self-analysis, and reluctance to admit their own
failures, are deforming their own reality, and preventing them from, first, questioning the leadership, and, second,
assessing their strategies and reevaluating their outcomes. Claiming success, failing to determine the extent and
nature of it, or neglecting to clearly define it, is misleading the people, distorting the movement’s advance, and
making the idea of an immigration reform harder to sell to the American people. Conspiring to make the real
outcomes look better than they are, gives the purpose of their work a fabricated foundation, which may make any
progress gained collapse sooner or later. A reality check may not reveal optimistic results, but can help channel
their efforts into the right direction, and indicate the next steps to take.
| Three young children displaying the American flag pose for their father's camera on the sidewalk of Thomas Road and 36th Street, where dozens of demonstrators gathered on May 1st. The parking lot of "The Home Depot" and "Walmart" was surrounded by Phoenix police officers and demonstrators. Other than heated arguments, there were no incidents. |