When Jackvance started his Dixie Chick boycott thread, he said something to the effect of, trying to intimidate people into silence is something that should not happen in America. Although his thought process may have been very well intentioned, he comes across as someone who is naive and immature. Because the fact of the matter is that intimidating boycotts are more American than baseball and apple pie.

Let us not forget the very first boycott this country ever had. Need a hint? How about the Boston Tea Party. It was the start of the most effective boycott that has ever taken place!

The very first boycott I personally ever took part in was in the late 60's, and refused to eat grapes at the behest of Caesar Chavez who was trying to form a farm labors union. Although it took a decade and more, there is little doubt of the success of this particular economic intimidation.

I have been boycotting Carl's Jr (although I hardly ate their anyway) for the last 10+ years, as they pour a heep of corporate profits to fund right to life organizations.

I also stand by PETA's boycott of Nieman Marcus stores for selling fur.

The Dixie Chick boycott is pretty insignificant when you look at some other boycotts that have far greater international ramifications. Many people are boycotting Mitsubishi as they are contributing to the distruction of the rain forest. An Exxon/Mobil boycott is currently being practiced worldwide because the company is feverishly working against the Kyoto Environmental agreement. There are also boycotts against Nike, Kraft, Werheyser, Disney, KFC, Dow, Denny's and even Blockbuster has people boycotting them for the way they edit their movies.

Some boycotts are silly and sporadic, while others are more serious and organized. Contrary to Jackvance's less sophisticated mindset, boycotts are one of the very few options where the average person on the street can actually influence an outcome. McDonalds and Burger King have changed they way they cage their chickens and treat their cattle due to PETA boycotts and protests. Due to the pressure of a boycott of their products, Staples has phased out all paper products from endangered forests, including those which contain old growth groves. Proctor and Gamble has also responed after an economically devastating boycott, and no longer are they using animals for the testing of some of their products. Many universities that have had boycotts aimed in their direction have responded, and divested themselves of any tobacco stocks that were in their portfolios for years.  

And of course what Jackvance started as a thread, the Dixie Chick boycott. Could it be that the majority of the TER community voiced their protest against this boycott because they actually believe boycotts shouldn't be allowed in America, or is it because the roots of the Dixie Chick boycott were fostered out of a somewhat conservative consciousness. It is good to hold a belief that you truly believe in, but it isn't necessarily good when being hypocritical about it (eg. all those boycotts are fine, but this one comes from conservatives so this boycott is bad). Just because a group of people that feel strongly about something that you may disagree with, does not make it a mob mentality. However, I will concede this last point if we dispense with the term polititical parties and just call it the Democratic mob or Republican mob.

Jackvance, you may feel boycotts intimidate people into silence and should not be allowed to happen in America. Here is some wisdom from someone that has a little bit wider polititical perspective, freedom of speech is a right that should never be abridged here in the great old capilalist USA. But even more of a right in the great old capitalist USA is where one can spend (or not spend) their money and then tell everyone with their freedom of speech why the did or didn't spend their dollars in a certain way.
 

I think the manner in which you wrote down your thoughts is somewhat inflammatory, but on the whole, I think your comments like "...boycotts are one of the very few options where the average person on the street can actually influence an outcome" are right on the mark!

-Hoot.

Inflammatory? Wow, that is a rather strong word. It was not meant to come across that way. It actually was a lack of tolerance on my part. I guess there has been an occasional time or so in my life when I have failed to hide my impatience when responding to besotted generalizations that really have no basis in fact. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and your other comments.

Nicole,

No one got banned from the airwaves.  Some (many?) radio stations made the business decision to not play their records.  That is not banning in any way.  I understand you disagree vehemently with what the radio stations did --- but it was not banning.

-Hoot.  

-- Modified on 5/29/2003 2:37:11 PM

Justapplayer wrote:

"I have been boycotting Carl's Jr (although I hardly ate their anyway) for the last 10+ years, as they pour a heep of corporate profits to fund right to life organizations.

I also stand by PETA's boycott of Nieman Marcus stores for selling fur."

These are fundamentally different issues, and help illustrate my point about the Dixie Chicks.

In these examples, you are taking concrete action to counter their actions.  The outcome will be either (a) financial pressure will ultimately alter their behavior; or (b) at least my money isn't fowing through to their contributions to those causes.  

I applaud those kind of action-based initiatives.

But the Dixie Chicks boycott is not action based.  No soldier's lives will be spared, no Iraqi civilians will be spared, and none of the tough moral issues of unilateral preemptive strikes will be allayed by boycotting a musician.

The boycotts you describe focus conscience on a desired outcome.  There is no outcome to the Dixie Chick boycott that contributes to freedom or liberty.  It's strictly a feel-good endeavor and for people in the previous thread to attribute the boycott to some pro-American outcome is dangerous.  The only action outcome it can possibly cause is for celebroties to hesitate next about voicing their honest opinions and I just don't see how this contributes to the experiment of democracy.

Let’s be sure of what mob means before we jump aboard and try to spin an emotionally charged issue into something that supports our views.

According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition a mob is defined as the following:

Mob, N. [from L. mobile vulgus – the fickle crowd.]
1. A crowd or multitude of people, rude, tumultuous, and disorderly; also, any crowd.
2. A disorderly assembly – Had every Athenioan citizen been a Scrates, every Athenian assembly would have still been a mob.  – Madison
3. the masses; common people collectively: a contemptuous term.
4. a gang of criminals. [slang]
5. in Australia, a flock or herd, as of ducks, cattle, etc.
Syn. – populace, rabble, canaille

mob, v.t.; mobbed, pt.,pp.; mobbing, ppr.
1. To crowd around and attack
2. to crowd around and jostle, annoy, etc., as in curiosity or anger.

Mob, v.t.
1. to wrap in a cowl or veil so as to conceal the face, as with a cap. [Obs.]

You said that a mob can be two people, that is incorrect since a crowd is comprised of more than two people.
What this seems to boil down to plain and simple is that you vehemently disagree with how the Dixie Chicks were treated, and you have it in your mind that they were subjected to a mindless attack by a mob of mindless, hateful automatons driven by the need to censor, oppress, and otherwise humiliate the DCs.

That is your prerogative. However bear in mind that the people that began calling radio stations had a clear and simple agenda, which was to tell them that they didn’t like what the DCs said, and would not listen to their station as long as they were playing their music. This is in no way shape or form mob behavior, or mob mentality. Once several stations were influenced to stop playing their music (you read the article I sent you a link to several weeks ago and as I remember were surprised to learn that the stations did not arbitrarily stop playing their music, but responded to an overwhelming listener response to what the DCs had said) others joined in as a business decision, under the guise of showing solidarity for the president and the war.

Let’s face it, the radio stations were looking a simple profit and loss, they could care less about the music and the political statement, unless the politics of supporting the DCs would be unprofitable. At that point in time it was. I watched a lot of activity on the holding companies stocks at that time, it was a simple matter, at least in my opinion, of dollars and cents. For that matter, so was the “boycott” which had the immediate and short term effect of causing the DCs record sales and popularity to dip.

At that point I would have had some respect for the DCs if they would have said we stand by what we said, instead of waffling when their record sales dropped. After all, they had a right to say what they wanted, and if they actually had the courage of their convictions I feel they would have been better served by flipping everyone the finger and saying “blow it out your ass, we meant what we said and we have a right to say it!”  But . . . they backpedaled while the heat was on, and when things calmed down they waffled again and said they “really” hadn’t retracted what they said.

Whatever, to me, they’re useless and uninteresting musically, and personally, and don’t deserve the attention they’re getting.  Hmmm, I think I’ll organize a boycott of Albertsons because the stopped carrying my favorite charcoal! I actually have to use  . . . choke mesquite charcoal tonight! What is the world coming to?????


HPG

You may want to re-read my message. I think you are somewhat confused. I did not refer to any boycott as being frivilous, least of which, the tea boycott in the 1700's. In fact, I even went to the extent of calling it the most successful boycott in our nation's history.

I made a concerted effort to show that some boycotts are so important that they are international in scope. The only  boycotts that I mentioned in my post that I personally didn't consider to be earthshattering (and still yet never referred to them as frivilous) was the Dixie Chick boycott and the Blockbuster boycott. I thought I effectively communicated this. If not, I apologize, and would appreciate if you would point out where I treated the subject of any boycott in a flippant manner. In fact, I went to the other extreme and basically said that the right to boycott is an integeral part of our democratic process.

I disagree with you on another point. You said we would not get anywhere if we all boycotted one another. Well my fair hair headed lady, that is exactly what takes place everyday all over America, and in fact, the world. There were some very organized boycotts that I mentioned in my original message that were highly successful and got results. But, there are also a whole slew of less organized boycotts (some just consisting of a few people.) There may be some people that boycott Jane Fonda movies, another group boycotts Halle Berry movies, still another group boycotts Roman Polanski movies, while some people in Carson may be boycotting a Baskin Robbins ice cream shop. Each of these groups in there own way are standing on principle. They are all actively trying to send a message in a non violent manner. The impact and/or success of these little boycotts are difficult to determine. However, the wheels of industry aren't coming to a sreeching halt, commerce continues, so what are you talking about?

As for your other comment. I agree that the reaction/overreaction to a volatile idea when several individuals are involved could perhaps lead to a mob-type mentality. But for you to suggest that this is the case with two people.... well, I guess we are all entitled to our own individual perspective. You are well within your rights to call the exchange of ideas between two people about a volatile subject a sort of mentality of a mob. I just prefer to call it a conversation over cocktails.

Each to their own. Peace.

After I heard that the Dixie Chicks were the brunt of the New Right's conservative "you can't question our Commander in Chief" form of political correctness (thus de-facto opposing their opposition's right to debate, obviously in order to have a quicker path to winning that debate -- the last resort of all those who hold a position they can't figure out how to defend adequately) ... I promptly went out and bought a Dixie Chicks album.

The music is abominable, by the way. At least, in my opinion. But that's another debate entirely.


-- Modified on 5/29/2003 6:30:31 PM

The reporter that Bush called "a real asshole" was by the consensus of the press just that,  A REAL ASSHOLE!

To every action there is a reaction.  Most of this is people who like Bush and are sick of hearing the limousine liberals bash him, and we're bashing back!

The hatred aimed at Bush and those of his conservative philosophy from the left is unbelievable!  Where is your outrage at that?  

If the Dixie Chicks never sell another CD or concert ticket they would really be destroyed.  Those poor girls would have to budget themselves to live off of the 50+ million each is reportedly worth.  

And if you think that the backlash hasn't hurt them, well Lipton dropped them pretty quickly!  Their careers will never reach the prominence it had before miss big mouth got a case of diarrhea of the mouth.

You can call it freedom of speech, blah, blah, blah, I call it stupidity.   What she did was mix politics with business and the result is her base now knows she is not one of them.  Time will tell how soon those fans forget.

Personally, there are only a few boycotts that I am passionate enough about to get myself involved. However, I am all for anyone who boycotts another person or company for whatever reason. If protests are non violent, I feel they are a fundamental right. Whether I find all boycotts or protests to be sensible is another matter entirely.

If one person or a group of people finds another entity offensive, for whatever reason, it is well within their democratic right to boycott or protest that person or company. Now, if the boycott is somewhat successful the person or company can stop saying or doing what is found to be offensive and continue rolling along and taking in the money. There is an alternative however, the person or company can tell those who are boycotting that they deeply believe that whatever they are saying or doing is not offensive and they are not going to stop. This may cause some economic downsizing for the person or company, but they maintained their principles and integrity.

Throughout our illustrious nation's history, countless people and organizations have given up enormous amounts of money, or even their lives, for the sake of a principle. Of course if they don't really believe in what they are saying or doing, it is just easier to give in to the boycott and stop the economic loss.

You said that expecting a boycott to have a pro-American outcome is dangerous. I find it difficult to respond to that, other than to say the entire world is in a more dangerous place. Unfortunately 9/11 has effected our collective psyche as a nation far more than anyone of us can truly realize. For the next several years I think we will find that periodically certain situations and circumstances will arise that will manifest itself in ways that may be somewhat surprising and compelling, which just a few years ago may not have had any impact. I think for some time to come all bets are off on what we can expect. How we conducted or reacted to situations in the past, may give little or no insight how we will respond now and in the future. It may be difficult for some to really grasp this concept. However, life moves on and eventually we will adapt. Let's just hope normalcy returns soon.

a forum for venting all your bottled-up TER angst, expressing your deep-felt and uniquely-skewed political views, trashing everything and anything to do with country music ... and of course ... the salacious but obligatory obscure sexual practices of Richard Gere as well as the myriad ways to have phun with furry little mammals!

[tongue way-in-cheek]

-- Modified on 5/29/2003 10:05:38 PM

Nicole,

You and I just aren't going to agree on this (use of the word banning in a commercial enterprise).  So noted.

-Hoot.

folks of the error of your ways.

When someone makes a political statement, and someone else chooses to boycott instead of countering their arguments with reasoned arguments of their own, they are choosing to stifle the other person's view with an action that has no content other than "fuck you, I disagree with you".  No point, counterpoint (as we are doing now), no reasoned discussion.
When we disagree with someone, we shouldn't say "shut up!", we should say "speak up", and encourage them to speak their views, so that we can counter them with our own views.  Boycotts don't do that.  Is it really that tough to understand?

The point is that in a democracy we discuss the issues openly, and encourage each other to express our views.  As far as I can tell, the boycotters of the Dixie Chicks were not doing that.

Those who have opposed my views have consistently used the language of retaliation toward the Dixie Chicks rather than of reasoned discussion.  They speak about the "way the world works" and say that people should understand that if they behave "stupidly", they will be made to suffer the consequences.  They couch this in the language of "personal responsibility".  And so bullies will always say that their victims "brought it on themselves", and should have understood what would happen if they do not act the way the bullies want them to.

I think a lot of people feel the way you do about how things are fundamentally different in the post-9/11 world.

The triviality of a boycott of the Dixie Chicks in a nation about to go to war.

I agree with JV, your last paragraph is particularly interesting and well written.

I can't remember the guy's name, but there's "so-and-so's" law that states that in general, humans overestimate the short-term impact, and underestimate the long-term impact of any phenomena.

I think that applies here very well--that our emotional response to 9/11 initially was pretty predictable, but wore of very quickly, really.  What remains to be seen is all the intriguing, unexpected ways in which 9/11 will affect our national psyche in the long term.

Where I address your allusion to mob mentality. When people individually (no matter how many)call into geographically disperse radio stations with a clear agenda of stating they are in effect boycotting that station, or turning off the radio when their music comes on, this indicates a clear, specific and logical agenda. Whether you agree or disagree with that agenda, it is not, and cannot be interpreted as mob, mob-like, or mob mentality.

I will concede however that the reporters crowding around the three DCs, and anyone else of particular note are clearly a mob with a mob mentality. I would even go so far as to call them a rabble!

HPG

It is a double edged sword, IMHO.  I also agree with HootOwl. But as another poster so eliquently put it;

 "The boycotts you describe focus conscience on a desired outcome.  There is no outcome to the Dixie Chick boycott that contributes to freedom or liberty.  It's strictly a feel-good endeavor and for people in the previous thread to attribute the boycott to some pro-American outcome is dangerous.  The only action outcome it can possibly cause is for celebroties to hesitate next about voicing their honest opinions and I just don't see how this contributes to the experiment of democracy."

And that is it in a nutshell for the effect the DC's boycott had snowballed into was and is something more dangerous that, as well intentioned people may have been and perhaps without realizing it, their demands began trampling on their very own liberties.  With the vehement backlash from the public, the media responded in kind with other artists that had anti war views and/or artists that recorded songs with an antiwar message to it.  That comes dangerously close to a censorship frenzie not unlike the kinds that it was compared to in the thread below in past history and that many of those same people that backlashed vehemently believe were wrong.

What is done is done, but there are lessons to be learned from it all.  Was demanding that their music be pulled from the airwaves a right thing to do?  Did it not trample on the rights of those that were in agreement?  Did they actually want all artists with anti war views boycotted in the same manner?  Does it open the door for the media to continue doing the same with other issues in which ones views may not be a popular view?  How innane can it get?  This artist smokes, I don't agree...pull it?  It conflicts with my views on religion...so pull it?  They don't support my president, so pull it?  

We all know what it is like to be a minority.  For Hells sake, we are all here and practice in a hobby that is considered taboo.  If a celebrity was found doing the same, should they be pulled and chastised in the same manner because popular views don't quite mesh?

What role should media outlets play in such political debates?  Don't they and those around them hold them to a higher standard in being fair and unbiased (yes, I choke on that to some degree too!)?  Would a fair answer be that in the future that media make a statement that although the views of the artist may not be their own that they will give fair air play in order to not infringe on others rights and liberities? Hell, HBO and others put the same disclaimers on some of the material they show.  If the content matter isn't something that one agrees with, they go else where and return when it does.  They are quite successful.  Is that nieve thinking?

Hypocritical many, including myself, may be.  I did not agree with the statement made by the DC's and it angered me too.  I did and do not agree with the anti war sentiment, but do believe that they had and have the fundamental right to state their views without the reprecussions that I saw take place.

Perhaps that is why this is such a passionate subject, for it isn't very cut and dry, but do feel it important that we ask ourselves these questions and contemplate.  Be careful what you ask for.....you just may get it and trifold.

Lauren

It is beyond me how you are going to convince anyone of your viewpoint if you continue to frame those who disagree with you as bullies.  Do you think they see themselves as bullies?  Have you really considered their point of view?

I think you have a better chance of putting people on the defensive with your semantics, and keeping passions inflamed, than having an instructive dialogue.

-Hoot.

ReOL, A REPLY TO YOUR POST

Justaplayer wrote:

"You said that expecting a boycott to have a pro-American outcome is dangerous. I find it difficult to respond to that..."

Just to clarify, my point was that boycotts are either "feel good" based, i.e. "at least those bastards aren't getting any of my business" or they are outcome-based, i.e. "I hope my voice influences their behavior."

In the examples shown above, the boycotts were in pursuit of a change in action--that a company would stop contributing to some cause, stop polluting, etc.  Even if your voice doesn't change their behavior, at least you know that your proceeds aren't flowing through to the cause or ill behavior.

The Dixie Chicks boycott is not effect-based.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that--again, boycott away if it makes your life feel richer in some way.  But if you believe your boycott's goal is effect-based, you're playing a dangerous game.  The possible outcomes are:

1.  In the future, other celebs will be hesitant to share their views.  I agree fully with jackvance, that discouraging others from participating in an open dialog doesn't take us in the direction I think we all want our country to go.

2.  The Chicks will succumb to pressure and artifically retract their statement to get their record label off their back.  What does that accomplish?  Again, forcing people to back away from their beliefs--not actions, but beliefs--through economic pressure doesn't take us down the right road.

I don't see any outcome that does anything positive.  It won't serve to sway Natalie's opinion about George-- "Oh yeah, that's right, I just remembered he's my personal hero now, because my sales are down."  The only action-outcome it can produce is get people to shut up, and like JV stated at the start of this whole thing, that doesn't support our troops, it doesn't advance liberty, it doesn't move the dialog to the next level.

Nicole,

Lauren’s questions were just that, questions.  Questions do not supply facts or articulate arguments.  They just leave several unanswered questions to the reader.  By extension her argument does not provide any facts to back it, just more questions.

The questions weren’t answered, only posed. No one on this board can say for certain what the ultimate outcome of the boycott will be, although I suspect that it will be  minimal on the overall profit/popularity of the DCs given that their concerts have had full attendance since their comments were made.

I don’t really want you to change your mind, only to have you see that trying to control or validate what people can and cannot express via boycott, or civil disobedience, or letter writing campaigns, or even organizing a march to the capital is far worse than any boycott. You would in fact be quashing their right to express themselves freely, and also preventing them from learning a lesson as individuals; and also as a collective group, that such actions may carry consequences they did not have foresee because they did not fully consider the results of their actions.

Here’s the question I would ask.

If you could wave your hand and dominate everyone’s will and change everyone’s mind who wanted to start a boycott you don’t agree with, would you?  

HPG

I don't buy for half a heartbeat that the majority of people who called in initially had malicious or "teach em a lesson" intent. I've not read or seen anything that convinces me to the contrary.  When the media got hold of the situation, and did their spin on it is in my opinion when things took a left-hand turn.

As for boycotting, it is still an effective tool of the populace that does not have the access to the media that celebrities do. It is a device for balancing out the influence, which can be exerted by someone with a place of power in the public eye. Just as elections, recalls, and petitions are used to make change when the majority of the public sees fit to do so.

Regardless of your position on the boycott you have a right to your opinion and open expression of it here on the TER boards. “What if “questions about the boycott of providers, or hobbyists here are speculative at best and don't prove a thing. If a provider who has read my posts doesn't want to see me and wants to organize a boycott against me based on my posts, so be it. I have no problem with that. There are others who will be willing to pick up in the void that is resultant.

Personally, if someone is slinging vicious personal attacks on myself or other people (hobbyists, providers or staff), compromising privacy, or just plain being mean-spirited on a frequent basis I would personally ask staff why they’re still on the board. If I didn’t like what I heard, I would post an item on the discussion board articulating my position and staff’s position. If staff were to take umbrage to that and bans me as a result, so be it. Them’s the breaks.

HPG

I would not be a happy camper listening to their diatribe! I would have paid good money for them to entertain me! Not preach to me! - I can get much better quality of that on radio talk shows. So if I wish to boycott them it's my prerogative! Also, please remember the so-called equality myth: yes - we were created equal but that's where it ends! Dixie chicks and others, et al, have more rights than I do - they can speak on a stage to thousands of people (many of them unwilling participants) and yet I don't have that right to do the same! So where is the discussion? - boycotting is one of the very few effective tools we have!

and you want to boycott them to shut them up, right?  Am I understanding your viewpoint correctly?

and there is no way that they can play everything - even in a whole year! - so are they "banning" what they don't play?

up yourself (using words and ideas)?

up yourself (using words and ideas)?

From an earlier post:

"The stuff about how the Dixie Chicks had access to the media which the boycotters didn't is whining, but beyond that it misses the point.  Having discussions with your friends, neighbors, and colleagues about the issues is what this is all about.  When a public figure makes a comment that I disagree with, I sure as hell don't go into "reprisal mode" and try to personally punish them for making the comment.  I take what they said as a starting point for discussing the issues with the other people in my life".



-- Modified on 5/30/2003 9:28:09 PM

almost as much as I enjoy a good physical intercourse =B-0

I get a charge out of taking a counter point, even if it is unpopular to do so. Our debate teams used to draw topics, then positions from a box and then we had to extemporaneously formulate a position, argument and supporting facts and dramatis personae on the fly. That was a load of fun.

I still enjoy pulling a card and arguing one side or the other.

HPG

They hunt each other down and go out with a BANG!!!


HPG

are James Carville, chief Clinton strategist in the '92 campaign, and Mary Matalin, a strategist for George Herbert Bush when he ran for reelection the same year. Another "mixed marriage" that seems to have nicely weathered political differences would be Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger(sp?)[I intentionally stayed away from the spelling vs. intelligence thread for mortal fear of being referred to as an arrogant elitist by you and/or IAS.]

supposed profession?

It's quite simple to cut and paste your posts into Word, or any other Document Processor and run spell check. Once you've let the machine do the work, you can cut and paste it back into the message box.  Viola, artificial intelligence!

HPG