A Day Without... Significant Effect
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.
By Eduardo Barraza
Phoenix, Arizona – Mayo 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.
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.
Three young children displaying the
American flag pose for the. 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.
American flag pose for the. 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.
A man walk pass the sign outside
"The Home Depot" that warns
people not to contract day laborers.
Photos by Eduardo Barraza | Barriozona
"The Home Depot" that warns
people not to contract day laborers.
Photos by Eduardo Barraza | Barriozona
Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues in Phoenix, Arizona
|
| HISTORY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE Grassroots Journalism |
| Documented Dreams |
| A collection of letters written by students struggling to continue with their education due to their immigration status. The letters document the socio-economic plight of Arizona immigrant students who were brought to the United States as children, and due to their legal status are forced to abandon college or pay out-of-the state tuition. A fully bilingual book in English and Spanish; includes black and white photographs. $19.95 + $3.99 s/h Total $23.94 |
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Eduardo Barraza periodista y escritor
mexicano, editor de la revista Barriozona, y
director del Insituto Hispano de Asuntos
Sociales. E-mail: editor@barriozona.com
mexicano, editor de la revista Barriozona, y
director del Insituto Hispano de Asuntos
Sociales. E-mail: editor@barriozona.com
| Hispanic Institute of Social Issues © 2006-2011 All rights reserved. webmaster@hisi.org |
