Boycott
A boycott is to abstain from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organisation as an expression of protest or as a means of coercion.
The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, in County Mayo, Ireland who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880. In September that year protesting tenants demanded from Boycott a substantial reduction in their rents. He not only refused but also ejected them from the land. The Irish Land League proposed that, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should refuse to deal with him. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Boycott soon found himself isolated — his workers stopped work in the fields, stables as well as the house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him and the local postman refused to deliver post.
The concerted action taken against him meant that Boycott was unable to hire anyone to harvest the crops in his charge. Eventually 50 Orangemen from Cavan and Monaghan volunteered to harvest his crops. They were escorted to and from Claremorris by one thousand policemen and soldiers – this despite the fact that Boycott's complete social ostracism meant that he was actually in no danger of being harmed. Moreover, this protection ended up costing far more than the harvest was worth. After the harvest, the "boycott" was successfully continued. Within weeks Boycott's name was everywhere. It was used by The Times in November 1880 as a term of organized isolation. According to an account in the book “The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland” by Michael Davitt, the term was coined by Fr. John O' Malley from County Mayo to “signify ostracism applied to a landlord or agent like Boycott”. The Times of London first reported on November 20, 1880: “The people of New Pallas have resolved to 'boycott' them and refused to supply them with food or drink.” The Daily News wrote on December 13, 1880: “Already the stoutest-hearted are yielding on every side to the dread of being 'Boycotted'.” By January of the following year, the word was being used figuratively: "Dame Nature arose....She 'Boycotted' London from Kew to Mile End" (The Spectator, January 22, 1881).
On December 1, 1880 Captain Boycott left his post and withdrew to England, with his family.
Historical Milestones (Chronological)
- 1769, in opposition of "taxation without representation," Colonial boycott of British trade goods.
- 1830 - boycott of slave-produced goods.
- the boycott of Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, an English land agent in Ireland who was subject to a boycott organized by the Irish Land League, 1880
- the boycott of British goods in December 1921 by Mahatma Gandhi, known as the swadeshi policy. Gandhi also urged people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, to resign from government employment, and to forsake British titles and honours.
- by African Americans during the U.S. civil rights movement, late 1950s and 1960s
- the United Farm Workers union's grape and lettuce boycotts
- the Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel
- the boycott of South Africa by a large part of the world's countries during its apartheid period
Earlier practice
Although the term itself was not coined until 1880, the practice dates back to at least 1830, when the National Negro Convention encouraged a boycott of slave-produced goods. Other instances of boycotts are their use by African Americans during the US civil rights movement; the United Farm Workers union grape and lettuce boycotts; the American boycott of British goods at the time of the American Revolution; the Indian boycott of British goods organized by Mohandas Gandhi; and the Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel. In 1973, the Arab countries enacted a crude oil embargo against the West, see 1973 oil crisis. Other examples includes the United States boycott (under President Jimmy Carter) to participate in the 1980 Summer Olympics, held in Moscow that year (to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan), the retaliatory boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles by Soviet Union and following 14 Eastern bloc countries, and the movement that advocated "disinvestment" in South Africa during the 1980s in opposition to that country's apartheid regime. The first Olympic boycott was in 1956 Summer Olympics for the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
American track star Lacey O'Neal coined the term 'girlcott' in the context of the protests by male African American athletes during the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. Speaking for Black women athletes, she advised that the group would not "girlcott" the Olympic Games as they were still focused on being recognized. "Girlcott" appeared in Time magazine in 1970, and then later was used by retired tennis player Billie Jean King in The Times in reference to Wimbledon to emphasize her argument regarding equal pay for women players.
Montgomery Bus Boycott
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a political and social protest campaign started in 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama intended to oppose the city's policy of racial segregation on its public transit system. The ensuing struggle lasted from December 5, 1955 to December 21, 1956 and led to a United States Supreme Court decision that declared the Alabama and Montgomery laws requiring segregated buses unconstitutional.
Parks was a seamstress by profession, but she was also educated. Shortly before her arrest in December 1955, she had completed a course in "Race Relations" at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. Rosa Parks was also secretary for the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP. The boycott was planned before Rosa Parks's arrest. Her arrest was a test case which allowed them to challenge segregation on public buses. Community leaders had been waiting for the right person to be arrested, a person who would anger the black community into action, who would agree to test the segregation laws in court, and who, most importantly, was "above reproach." When fifteen year old Claudette Colvin was arrested early in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat, E.D. Nixon of the NAACP thought he had found the perfect person, but Colvin turned out to be pregnant. Nixon later explained, "I had to be sure that I had somebody I could win with." Enter Rosa Parks. She was arrested on Thursday, December 1, 1955 for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger. When found guilty on Monday, December 5, 1955, she was fined $10 plus a court cost of $4, but she appealed. Rosa Parks also helped and supported the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks is now considered one of the pioneering women of the civil rights movement.
On Friday, December 2, 1955, Jo Ann Robinson (president of the Women's Political Council) would receive a call from Fred Gray, one of the city's two black lawyers, informing her that Rosa Parks had been arrested. That entire night Robinson worked tirelessly mimeographing over 35,000 handbills reading:
"Another Negro woman has been arrested and thrown in jail because she refused to get up out of her seat on the bus for a white person to sit down. It is the second time since the Claudette Colvin case that a Negro woman has been arrested for the same thing. This has to be stopped. Negroes have rights, too, for if Negroes did not ride the buses, they could not operate. Three-fourths of the riders are Negroes, yet we are arrested, or have to stand over empty seats. If we do not do something to stop these arrests, they will continue. The next time it may be you, or your daughter, or mother. This woman's case will come up on Monday. We are, therefore, asking every Negro to stay off the buses Monday in protest of the arrest and trial. Don't ride the buses to work, to town, to school, or anywhere on Monday. You can afford to stay out of school for one day if you have no other way to go except by bus. You can also afford to stay out of town for one day. If you work, take a cab, or walk. But please, children and grown-ups, don't ride the bus at all on Monday. Please stay off all buses Monday." [1]
The next morning at a church meeting with the new minister in the city, Martin Luther King, Jr., a citywide boycott of public transit as a protest for a fixed dividing line for the segregated sections of the buses was proposed and passed.
The boycott proved extremely effective, with enough riders lost to the city transit system to cause serious economic distress. Martin Luther King later wrote "A miracle had taken place." Instead of riding buses, boycotters organized a system of carpools, with car owners volunteering their vehicles or themselves driving people to various destinations. Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work, although it is unclear to what extent this was based on sympathy with the boycott, versus the simple desire to have their staff present and working.[2] When the city pressured local insurance companies to stop insuring cars used in the carpools, the boycott leaders arranged policies with Lloyd's of London.
Black taxi drivers charged ten cents per ride, a fare equal to the cost to ride the bus, in support of the boycott. When word of this reached city officials on December 8, 1955, the order went out to fine any cab driver who charged a rider less than 45 pesos. In addition to using private motor vehicles, some people used non-motorized means to get around, such as bicycling, walking, or even riding mules or driving horse-drawn buggies. Some people also raised their thumbs to hitchhike around. During rush hours, sidewalks were often crowded. As the buses received extremely few, if any, passengers, their officials asked the City Commission to allow stopping service to black communities[1]. Across the nation, black churches raised money to support the boycott and collected new and slightly used shoes to replace the tattered footwear of Montgomery's black citizens, many of whom walked everywhere rather than ride the buses and submit to Jim Crow laws.
In response, opposing whites swelled the ranks of the White Citizens' Council, the membership of which doubled during the course of the boycott. Like the Ku Klux Klan, the Councils sometimes resorted to violence: Martin Luther King's and Ralph Abernathy's houses were firebombed, as were 4 Baptist churches. Boycotters were often physically attacked.
Under a 1921 ordinance, 156 protesters were arrested for "hindering" a bus, including King. He was ordered to pay a $500 fine or serve 3,855 days in jail. The move backfired by bringing national attention to the protest. However, King commented on the arrest by saying: "I was proud of my crime. It was the crime of joining my people in a nonviolent protest against injustice" [[3]]
The boycott resulted in the U.S. civil rights movement receiving one of its first victories, and gave Martin Luther King the national attention that would make him one of the prime leaders of the cause.
On 2 December 2004, the United States Postal Service announced a pane of 10 postage stamps including the Montgomery Bus Boycott in its 2005 Commemorative Stamp Program. [4]
On Tuesday, April 18, 2006, the Rosa Parks Act has been approved in Alabama to allow those, including Rosa Parks posthumously, considered lawbreakers at the time of the Boycott to clear their arrest records during the civil disobedience. The state House of Representatives approved the Act unanimously, but three senators in the state Senate opposed it. The Act is waiting for Governor Bob Riley to sign it into law.
Nestlé Boycott
The Nestlé boycott is a boycott launched on July 4, 1977 in the United States against the Swiss based Nestlé corporation. It soon spread rapidly outside the United States, particularly in Europe. It was prompted by concern about the company's marketing of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in Third World countries, which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies largely among the poor.
The potential problems with infant formula in third world countries
The promotion of infant formula over breast-feeding, particularly in third world countries, has reportedly led to several health problems among infants in these countries. There are three problems that are said to arise when poor mothers in third world countries switch to formula. First, because most formula is of the powdered variety, it must be mixed with water before it is ready to feed. Due to contaminated water supplies in some poor countries, the formula is often mixed with contaminated water, which can cause diseases in infants fed the formula.
Second, unlike breast-feeding, formula costs money, which poor families cannot easily spare. Therefore, many poor mothers use less formula powder than is necessary, so as to make a container of formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions of formula. Because of these two problems, it is recommended that poor mothers breast-feed their babies because doing so is free, and studies have shown that even mothers who suffer from inadequate nutrition can provide adequate nutrition to their babies via breast milk.
Thirdly, breast-feeding is an important route of antibodies from the mother to babies - providing partial immunity to a wide variety of diseases. Breast-fed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including pneumonia, botulism, bronchitis, staphylococcal infections, influenza, ear infections, and German measles. Breast milk is accepted as the most nutritious and appropriate food for infants, providing all the nutrients required by an infant up to 6 months of age. The composition of a woman's breast milk changes as her baby grows, ensuring it is correct for the baby's stage of development.
In addition to these direct problems, the use of infant formula also reduces rates of breastfeeding and therefore some of the other benefits of breastfeeding. There is evidence that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or cot death, as well as other diseases such as diabetes later in life, and promotes bonding between mother and baby. Breastfeeding also delays the return of fertility in most women, providing a natural contraceptive. This can be particularly important for women in developing countries who may not have access to alternative forms of contraception. Inadequate birth spacing (multiple pregnancies close together) can have negative consequences for women and their babies, particularly in developing countries where adequate pre- and post-natal care may not be available.
Unethical actions of which Nestlé has been accused
Nestlé has been accused by supporters of the boycott of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries. One major issue is passing out free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals. After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding. This forces the continued use of formula, which can contribute to malnutrition, and under worsened sanitary conditions with contaminated water, often leading to diarrhea. UNICEF alleges this situation results in the deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year. The formula, which is no longer free after the mother leaves the hospital, can for some also put a significant strain on the family's budget.
History of the boycott
Nestlé's perceived marketing strategy was first written about in New Internationalist magazine in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby Killer published by the British non-governmental organization War On Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World Action Group). After a two-year trial, the court found in favor of Nestlé and fined the group 300 Swiss francs because Nestlé could not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'.
The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in Minneapolis, USA. In May 1978, the US Senate held a public hearing into the promotion of breast-milk substitutes in developing countries and joined calls for a Marketing Code. This was developed under the auspices of the World Health Organization and UNICEF and adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. The Code covers infant formula and other milk products, foods and beverages, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable as a partial or total replacement of breast-milk. It bans the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and gives health workers the responsibility of advising parents. It limits manufacturing companies to the provision of scientific and factual information to health workers and sets out labeling requirements.
In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé and accepted the company's undertaking that it would abide by the Code, but the coordinators were not satisfied with Nestle's subsequent action and the boycott was relaunched in 1988.
In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula “ethically and responsibly”. The ASA found that Nestlé could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.
In November 2000, the European Parliament held a public hearing into Nestlé's alleged malpractices. Although management told shareholders months before that they welcomed the hearing, they refused to send a representative. At the time, Nestlé objected to a presence of an expert witness from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Later Nestlé claimed none of its 230,000 employees was available.
Current status of the boycott
The boycott is now coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action. Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries.
In November 2000 the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF and Nestlé to present evidence to a Public Hearing before the Development and Cooperation Committee. Evidence was presented by the IBFAN group from Pakistan and UNICEF's legal officer commented on Nestlé's failure to bring its policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestlé declined an invitation to attend, though it sent a representative of the auditing company it had commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.
In parallel with the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation and claim that 60 countries have now introduced laws implementing most or all of the provisions.
Many hundreds of European universities, colleges and schools, including over 200 in the United Kingdom, have banned the sale of Nestlé products from their shops and vending machines.
Other Nestlé operations targeted
Nestlé is sometimes targeted for other aspects of its operations. A Brazilian group called Citizens for Water (Cidadania pelas Aguas) has called a boycott of Nestlé in Brazil over the company's extraction of water from an aquifer in São Lourenço. Some also boycott Nestlé coffee and chocolate products in favour of fair trade alternatives. However, Partners Blend coffee, launched by Nestlé during 2005, has obtained Fairtrade labelling status, although this decision has been dismissed as a "Big Joke" by an unnamed Colombian trade union activist [5]. Baby Milk Action has also condemned this development [6].
In the Philippines, there exists a Boycott Nestle campaign due to suspected labor rights violations in a factory in Laguna province. This campaign is lead by Kilusang Mayo Uno.
Application and uses
A boycott is normally considered a one-time affair designed to correct an outstanding single wrong. When extended for a long period of time, or as part of an overall program of awareness-raising or reforms to laws or regimes, a boycott is part of moral purchasing, and those economic or political terms are to be preferred.
Most organized consumer boycotts today are focused on long-term change of buying habits, and so fit into part of a larger political program, with many techniques that require a longer structural commitment, e.g. reform to commodity markets, or government commitment to moral purchasing, e.g. the longstanding boycott of South African businesses to protest apartheid already alluded to. These stretch the meaning of a "boycott."
Boycotts are now much easier to successfully initiate due to the Internet. Examples include the gay and lesbian boycott of advertisers of the "Dr. Laura" talk show, gun owners' similar boycott of advertisers of Rosie O'Donnell's talk show and (later) magazine, and gun owners' boycott of Smith & Wesson following that company's March 2000 settlement with the Clinton administration. They may be initiated very easily using either Web sites (the Dr. Laura boycott), newsgroups (the Rosie O'Donnell boycotts), or even mailing lists. Internet-initiated boycotts "snowball" very quickly compared to other forms of organization.
Another form of consumer boycotting is substitution for an equivalent product; for example Mecca Cola or Qibla Cola, and also the call to avoid Costco, Walmart, or the diverse products of Philip Morris.
Today a prime target of boycotts is consumerism itself, e.g. "International Buy Nothing Day" celebrated globally on the Friday after Thanksgiving Day in the United States. Another example of a modern boycott is the blacklisting of the country band The Dixie Chicks after one of the members made a derogatory political comment about President Bush. Many country music stations in the U.S., most of which are Clear Channel affiliates, now refuse to play their music as a result.
The ongoing mergers and acquisitions, leading to forming oligopolies and monopolies, effectively control the supply chain, and there is a plethora of various product names from the same company where the manufacturer is not immediately obvious, leads to substantial limitations of consumer choice. For example, there are many restaurants worldwide where the choice of soft drinks is effectively limited only to products of Coca Cola Corporation, making the boycott of this subject rather impractical.
Legality
While boycotts are generally legal in developed countries, some restrictions may apply. For instance, it may be unlawful for a union to order the boycott of companies that supply items to the organization.
For United States citizens, the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. These persons are subject to the law when their activities relate to the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods or services (including information) within the United States or between the U.S. and a foreign country. This covers U.S. exports and imports, financing, forwarding and shipping, and certain other transactions that may take place wholly offshore.[2]
Citations
- ↑ Montgomery Bus Boycott: The story of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement
- ↑ U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security. Office of Antiboycott Compliance. Retrieved March 20, 2006.
- Boycott Israel Campaign. Innovative Minds. Retrieved February 18, 2006.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
Further reading
- My Soul Is Rested, The Story Of The Civil Rights Movement In The Deep South, by Howell Raines, ISBN 0140067531
- Parting The Waters; America In The King Years 1954-63, by Taylor Branch, ISBN 0671460978
- Stride Toward Freedom, by Martin Luther King Jr., ISBN 0062504908
- The Origins Of The Civil Rights Movement, Black Communities Organizing For Change, by Aldon D. Morris, ISBN 0029221307
- Eyes on The Prize, America's Civil Rights Years 1954-1965, Juan Williams, ISBN 0140096531
- Eyes on The Prize Civil Rights Reader, documents, speeches, and first hand accounts from the black freedom struggle, Ed. Clayborne Carson, David J. Garrow, Gerabld Gill, Vincent Harding, Darlene Clark Hine, p. 45 - 60, ISBN 0140154035
External links
- Badcorp.org
- Academic Boycott Resource Center
- boycott resources
- List of boycotts at EthicalConsumer.org
- PandGkills Proctor & Gamble boycott
- Baby Milk Action, the secretariat for the International Nestlé Boycott Committee
- The boycott of Israeli universities
- Protesting Coca-Cola's support for murder in Colombia
- Digital grassroots movement against big oil and gas price gouging
- Othercott - A Christian boycott of the film The Da Vinci Code
- International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
- Baby Milk Action
- Nestlé marketing profile, from Breaking the Rules Stretching the Rules, IBFAN, 2004
- Edinburgh University Néstle Boycott Campaign
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
