It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Laughs, too late for me ... perhaps I should have said that some believe ALL Arizona residents (regardless if that is how you believe/support or not) should assume the responsibility of blame for the haters, discriminators and racial profiling. She's not responsible for the blame of say her neighbor if he's a hater, discriminator or in favor of racial profiling just because she lives there as well. She's not one of them (just because she lives there) nor will she carry the burden of blame for their beliefs/actions.

Sorry, I even reread that last one.

I'm curious, at what point are bystanders complicit? Is there any point? Or is it the case that provided that you never pull the trigger yourself, even if you just stand by and watch it repeatedly, you're still not in the least bit complicit?

Cheers
Aj

[DomnNC]

Hmm, I didn't realize that only people who reside in Arizona could make a comment, you yourself do not live in Arizona but you have made plenty of comments concerning the situation as well. I saw what I perceived to be a lack of understanding in what someone was saying, which by the posts being made was a clear indication of such so I posted what I thought the poster was trying to say, which if you see her comment, I was correct. I didn't come here to beat on some people like others have by their comments whether anyone intended to do so or not, it is still being done with the blanket statements being made about people residing in Arizona as a whole.

[Novelafemme]

http://http://www.npr.org/templates/...ryId=130833741

On my way to class right now but wanted to share this link (if it hasn't already been shared previously)...some scary shit!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Hmm, I didn't realize that only people who reside in Arizona could make a comment, you yourself do not live in Arizona but you have made plenty of comments concerning the situation as well. I saw what I perceived to be a lack of understanding in what someone was saying, which by the posts being made was a clear indication of such so I posted what I thought the poster was trying to say, which if you see her comment, I was correct. I didn't come here to beat on some people like others have by their comments whether anyone intended to do so or not, it is still being done with the blanket statements being made about people residing in Arizona as a whole.

Huh? Who is saying that only people who reside in Arizona can comment? Where is this coming from? The good people of Arizona elected, with full knowledge of where they stood, politicians who support a law that is an invitation to racial profiling. They also elected a governor who told blatant lies about beheadings in the desert as a means of creating the impression that Hispanic immigrants are a grave security threat. Now, did every single Arizonan do vote for Ms Brewer? No. That doesn't change the fact that she was elected in a vote that was, as far as I am aware, was free and fair and would pass UN muster.

At some point, Americans have to recognize that we ARE, in point of fact, responsible for what happens in our nation and even if we do not see ourselves as responsible that doesn't mean that others are obliged to enable our illusions. Were ordinary Germans--not SS, not SA, not Gestapo, not Wehrmacht just the average tinker, tailor, baker, etc.--responsible for what happened in their country between 1933 and 1945? Yes, as a matter of fact they were. Were ordinary Russians responsible for what happened in their country between 1917 and 1990? Yes, again, they were. Are ordinary Americans responsible for what happens here? Yes, we are. If someone voted for Ms Brewer, they gave their tacit approval of her policies including SB 1070. If someone didn't vote at all, they gave their tacit vote to Ms Brewer (because in not voting you vote for whomever ends up winning by default). If someone voted against Ms Brewer they clearly registered their protest.

This seems relatively straight-forward. We actually ask very little in way of civic participation in this country. The only thing you *have* to do is pay taxes and serve on juries. That's it. You don't have to vote. You don't have to do any kind of national service--military or civil. One result of this is that we have a stunningly unengaged polis and our politics actually reflect that. SOLELY on the basis of her paranoid and fantastic lies about beheadings in the desert, Ms Brewer should have been humiliated at the voting booth but that's not what happened. She won and did so handily. Why? Because only 47% (rounding up, the actual number is 46.494%) of registered voters actually bothered to vote. What's sad is that for a mid-term election that's a little above the national average! What's pathetic about it is that there was no real danger to voting. In Iraq, in 2005, 2006, 2007 elections were held and each year there were real and credible threats to people who turned out to vote. Car bombs were a daily part of life in the major Iraqi cities and still people turned out to vote. Their voting percentage was in the upper 80% range! We, as Americans, should be deeply embarrassed by this. A nation with NO democratic tradition, under credible--hell likely!--threat of violence manages to turn out almost their entire eligible voting population. Our nation, with a 200 year democratic tradition and no credible threat of violence can't turn out half. And we wonder why our nation is so screwed up.

[DomnNC]

The point is that the people who reside in Arizona who posted in this thread have said, more than once, they voted and they DID NOT vote for her or her policies and they feel like they are still being slammed and grouped in with those who DID vote for her by all the "blanket" statements being made about people who reside in Arizona as a whole. They registered their protest with their vote as you just said but are still being held accountable for every other Arizonians vote. Just because they believe that a boycott is not the answer for their state does not make them bad people or complicit in what has happened by other peoples votes.

Btw, I am a registered voter and I do vote in every election. You can't take a gun to other complacent voters heads and make them go to the polls. I agree that a lot of voters need a swift kick in the ass to get to the polls. There could have been a different outcome in Arizona if every registered voter did go to the polls but it is not our place to heap condemnation and group blame upon those that in fact did go vote and vote against the current administration there thereby registering their protest.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

The point is that the people who reside in Arizona who posted in this thread have said, more than once, they voted and they DID NOT vote for her or her policies and they feel like they are still being slammed and grouped in with those who DID vote for her by all the "blanket" statements being made about people who reside in Arizona as a whole.

Except people keep bending over backwards to make it clear that they aren't saying that the people HERE believe the law to be just. Now, I am curious if a boycott and/or mass exodus of Hispanics is NOT the answer, what is? Let's grant, for the moment, that a boycott isn't the way to deal with this? What then? Obviously we know how this turns out at the ballot box--the backers, proponent and apologists for this law win. So if money continues to pour into Arizona then there is no economic consequence to be paid for this law. So politicians who backed the law pay no political price and the state, as a whole, pays no economic price. At that point what is there to discourage Arizona from passing an even more draconian law?

That pretty much leaves the mass exodus of Hispanics which I still hold would probably be the *most* effective form of protest. At first, one might witness the spectacle of Arizonans singing "na na na, na na na, hey hey hey, good-bye" and that would probably go through the wave. After that, well, it starts to have an economic effect. Suddenly there are a lot fewer people doing everything from washing dishes to teaching classes. As I said yesterday, when they leave their dollars go with them. Tax revenues decline. The tourism and hospitality sectors of the economy will be hit particularly hard as they lose cheap labor.

I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

They registered their protest with their vote as you just said but are still being held accountable for every other Arizonians vote.

No, they are not. They are choosing to take a very justified critique of this law and the Arizonan politics that birthed it in a personal fashion. I'll try--again--to explain the distinction.

"In 1940, America was a fundamentally racist country."

Now, according to the logic being deployed here, I have just claimed that every single American living in the borders of this country in December 1940 was a racist. I have insulted--personally--every single American living at that time. Except I haven't. My parents were alive in 1940, both of them turned 18 that year. They were the *targets* of racism but they were not, themselves, racism. Does that mean that America wasn't a fundamentally racist country? No, the statement still stands because the *laws* of America mandated segregation in public accommodation, the military, etc. One can make the observation that America was a racist nation in 1940 and *still* not be saying something that any given person alive in 1940 was a racist. Likewise, one can say that Arizona has passed a law that is an invitation to racial profiling without saying that any given Arizonan is in favor of racial profiling.

Just because they believe that a boycott is not the answer for their state does not make them bad people or complicit in what has happened by other peoples votes.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the good people of the Birmingham Bus Company did not think that the Birmingham Bus Boycott was the answer for the problem of blacks sitting in the back of the bus. I'm going to also suggest that the good people of the Woolworth's company didn't think that a boycott of the Woolworth's lunch counter was the right way to deal with that manifestation of segregation. The targets of a boycott NEVER think that it's a good idea--that's kind of the whole point of a boycott is to motivate people to change the conditions that precipitate the boycott.

However, I'm all ears. If a boycott isn't the answer and a mass exodus of Hispanics isn't the answer, what is?

Btw, I am a registered voter and I do vote in every election. You can't take a gun to other complacent voters heads and make them go to the polls. I agree that a lot of voters need a swift kick in the ass to get to the polls. There could have been a different outcome in Arizona if every registered voter did go to the polls but it is not our place to heap condemnation and group blame upon those that in fact did go vote and vote against the current administration there thereby registering their protest.

So at what point--if any--are people responsible for what happens in their locality? To use another (fairly) recent example; there used to be a country called Yugoslavia. When the Soviet empire dissolved, Yugoslavia broke up. What followed was, by even the most strict definition, a genocide of Bosnian Muslims and Croats by Serbs. I'll spare the gory details but suffice to say that in just one city, Sarajevo, which was under siege for over a year, atrocities took place daily. Serbs who were NOT involved, who wore no uniform, knew of the atrocities and did nothing to stop them. Using current American zeitgeist logic, the only people who should feel even the most trivial pang of guilt are those who pulled the trigger.

Cheers
Aj

[apretty]

my expert opinion:

i lived there, i still own a house there and i still think boycotting the beautiful state of arizona is a great idea. though, moving away is probably safest if you present 'brown' in any way.

[DomnNC]

"I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings."

So am I to assume that since you are so horrified by it and any other person who is horrified by it that does NOT live in Arizona are going to leave the comfy confines of their homes where this isn't an issue, move to Arizona and start a grass roots movement to get Brewer and her cronies tossed from office in the next election?

We can all raise our collective voices and scream at the injustice of it from whatever state we live in, does it do any good? NO, because the people in Arizona were elected by the majority and they will be in office until they are ousted on their rear ends by the said same collective majority!

And no, the comments here have not been "bend over backwards" to ensure that the posters from Arizona have not made to feel like they are being targeted by these posts.
Cody stated he didn't vote for Brewer, some took exception to some of his terminology, Cody even stated he was half Native-American with blue eyes. Another poster implied with their post that he was lying about it. Did I see you as a moderator take that person to task, did another moderator step in and say, whoa wait a minute, that was a little unjust and unfair? NO that was not done, what was done was more criticism was hurled his way because of wording that he used even after he stated time and again that he wasn't a supporter of this policy, so much so to the point that he just disengaged altogether. What if he was a supporter, the amount of criticism heaped upon him lost him from the discussion when something could have been said to persuade him to change his vote at the poll in the next election was lost. That is never a good thing.
He mentioned "the look" and was taken to task for using those words, forgive me but isn't racial profiling all about "a look". If they look to be Hispanic, black, purple, yellow, green whathave you what racial profiling is all about? It was completely unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

People seem to forget that during these economic hard times that some people cannot afford television, radios, newspapers, or treks into a nearby larger city where one may learn of political activism and what is going on in their own back yard. Not all people are as educated as you, as I, as the person to your left or to your right, that does not give us the right to take an air of superiority over any one when there is a discussion going on. And yes, that is the road this discussion is taking, making some feel less than when there is no need for that when they have stated they did NOT vote for these idiots and they refuse to have their feet held to the fire with the majority who did.

Please, keep the topic to the current situation, I'm fully aware of past atrocities of people before my time and your time. It just muddles, confuses and blurs the lines of the current situation.

So if those that are so indignant and horrified about the situation perhaps as I said you should pack up the comfy confines of your current home, move to Arizona and start a grass roots effort to oust the current political regime, however you should be prepared to move to the other 22 states who are NOW also considering adopting legislation similiar to Arizona's to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants.

I don't know what the answer is and I'm pretty sure you don't either, no one does, otherwise the situation would have already been corrected. I do know that bankrupting a state is not the answer, it only creates a whole host of other issues.

I've had my say about when now, all I did was happen upon the thread and was kinda taken aback by some of the commentary directed towards other members of this site and misinterpretation of a post.

[apretty]

wtf, mexicans didn't bankrupt the state.

and that was pretty much me blowing my entire load--i don't really have a lot of energy/extra time to argue over blatant racism (which you know, as i write that statement--sounds pretty fucking privileged of me to 'opt out' and i am owning that, this conversation makes me tired.)

[The_Lady_Snow]

There are NO green, purple, or pink people targeted by this heinous law.

I as a traveler in Az had to lie (left my purse in SD) about my status in this country. I used my tricks and made myself look white.

I get offend with good right when white folk describe POC with terms such as "that look"


If you are deflecting for Cody by saying he can't afford the TV he clearly haz interwebs! He could of read ALL THE FACTS posted in this thread


How one can live in denial I can't understand, wait I
can. White skin gives one privileges I'll never get

True story

[QueenofSmirks]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

...That pretty much leaves the mass exodus of Hispanics which I still hold would probably be the *most* effective form of protest....

I'm actually reading post by post, oldest to newest of today's post, so I may have a lot more to say on this later, but for now I want to say that I actually agree with this. To me, this puts the power in the hands of the people who are being discriminated against and allows them to make their own choices, and by doing so, effectively hurts the people trying to cause them harm. I'm all for this type of action.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by QueenofSmirks

I'm actually reading post by post, oldest to newest of today's post, so I may have a lot more to say on this later, but for now I want to say that I actually agree with this. To me, this puts the power in the hands of the people who are being discriminated against and allows them to make their own choices, and by doing so, effectively hurts the people trying to cause them harm. I'm all for this type of action.

To me this is just a boycott by another name. As I said before, I do not think you or Cody or any other person posting on this thread supports SB 1070 or thinks that racial profiling is a great idea. That said, SB 1070 exists, the law in question puts a big 'racial profiling welcome here' sign at the border of Arizona and I do not think that it helps if there are NO consequences to be paid. If Arizona gets away with this and banning, for all practical purposes, the teaching of any form of ethnic studies then other states will be emboldened to do something similar.

As far as voting, only 46.49% of Arizonans who were eligible voted a month ago. What that means is that 53.51% of Arizonans, by not voting, voted for Brewer by default. Not voting is always a tacit vote for whomever ends up winning the election. Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about you or Cody I'm talking about Arizona as a polity and the results of the choices that Arizona has made. A majority of eligible voters were comfortable enough with the prospect of Ms Brewer as governor to not vote.

That doesn't mean that I look down on Arizonans, I don't. It doesn't mean that I think that all Arizonans are racists or think that racial profiling is the best thing to happen since oxygen. It means simply that more than half of all eligible Arizona voters failed to exercise their right to vote and are thus responsible for what happens.

It is sad that you and other Arizonans of goodwill will be caught up in this.

Cheers
Aj

[Nat]

As a person who doesn't live in Arizona, SB1070 is concerning to me because

1. I live in Texas and if Arizona gets away with this sort of blatant, threatening and harmful discrimination, it's likely to spread.

2. I'm invested in this country's purported protection of civil rights, and Arizona's violation of those rights threatens the future of this country.

3. I am a human being and I care about human beings who are being violated, threatened and harmed by the government. It's not okay with me, and I don't know why it would be okay with anybody else either.

I understand why Latinos would be leaving Arizona, and I do hope Arizona suffers for the loss. I think I would leave too, because I would feel threatened, isolated, afraid and at risk.

To pick up and leave your home - it's a big deal. It's expensive, it's destabilizing. It means losing connections, support, friendships. For a person to feel the need to move, to uproot their family, to quit jobs in this terrible economy, in order to escape state-sanctioned racial discrimination - these people are making great sacrifices - not simply protesting something they disagree with. It's tragedy due to state-sponsored injustice, not simply protest.

If Texas experiences a mass exodus of Latinos due to a similar law, it won't be Texas anymore to me.

When people who have privilege stand by silently and shrug their shoulders when things like this happen to people with less privilege, they are lending their tacit agreement to these laws - which is all that's needed to turn this country into a much uglier place. I don't understand how any person could defend SB1070 or think it's okay that Latinos are leaving the state in droves because their safety is so threatened.

I think it's really ironic that the majority of Americans who talk about the threat of big government are largely the same people (mostly white people) who have no issues with government overstepping its bounds and violating the civil rights of people of color.

-------------------------------------------------

By the way, today's a great day to call your senators and voice your support of the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) act to help young people at risk of deportation obtain temporary residency and have a chance for conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. *

Http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

[dreadgeek]

There were two more points I wanted to make on this subject.

1) A number of posters have suggested that anyone upset about SB 1070 should move to Arizona so that they can vote against the bill. There's only one problem: SB stands for Senate Bill. This was a bill passed by the Arizona legislature not by popular referendum. The critique several of us have leveled at the voters of Arizona has to do with them electing a governor and a number of state representatives who supported the bill and, in doing so, giving their explicit approval of that bill. Which leads to the core point: why on Earth should people not living in Arizona move there when 53.51% of Arizonans didn't bother to vote! The numbers I'm working with aren't something I pulled out of the thin air, those numbers are available on the web.

The numbers I used came from here: http://www.azprogress.org/content/vo...lowest-yuma-co

So it seems to me that the people who should be pushed to the polls aren't those of us who live outside of Arizona and have no interest in relocating but those who live INSIDE Arizona who were comfortable enough with the prospect of Ms Brewer being elected (she was appointed governor when Napolitano left for Washington) that they stayed home. Which is, as has been said a number of times now, a vote for whomever wins by default.

2) This idea that boycotts are bad. If you really believe that then you need to seriously question any reflexive admiration you might express for Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason why you know the name of Parks is BECAUSE her action of asserting her dignity and being arrested for it, precipitated the Birmingham Bus Boycott. Was the Birmingham Bus Boycott an attempt, as one poster has characterized the Arizona boycott, an attempt to kill the families of Birmingham Bus company workers? Martin Luther King came to national prominence *because* of the boycott. As I said a few days ago, I'm sure that if you had polled the workers and families connected to the Birmingham bus company in 1955 you would have heard that they were opposed to the boycott even if they thought that blacks should be able to sit anywhere. They would have said that there must be some OTHER way to get the bus company to change policy (without actually saying what that might be) and if blacks were just a little more patient one day, in the full measure of time, justice would be had.

While we're on that subject, boycotts and strikes work because business owners want to keep making money. They will change unjust policies or, in this case, lobby the government to do so. If Nevada passes such a law (and I hope that the Nevada legislature will learn from the lesson of Arizona) let them. And let Nevada face a tourism boycott. Nevada's economy rises or falls on tourism and tourism alone. Suck the tourism out and you've sucked all of the oxygen out of the Nevada economy. I think that as hotels in Vegas and Reno saw their bookings dry up and particularly as conferences moved from Vegas to other cities in, say, California or Utah or Oregon that the chamber of commerce would make their displeasure known to the legislature in a heartbeat. The bill wouldn't survive the ink drying.

There is a reason why plutocrats hate strikes and boycotts--they can be *very* effective. I realize that after 40 years of labor being decimated in America, we no longer realize what the Europeans do--that striking is an effective way to get business to behave itself--but perhaps we need to relearn that lesson.