| BARRIOZONA |
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
Call 480-983-1445 or e-mail admin@barriozona.com with your request
A Day Without... Significant Effect
By Eduardo Barraza
BARRIOZONA
May 1, 2006
BARRIOZONA
May 1, 2006
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Copyright © 2006-2008 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Copyright © 2006-2008 Hispanic Institute of Social Issues
| Grassroots Journalism www.barriozona.com |
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.
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.
