From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency re CO boycott
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:50:26 GMT


In article <1992Nov10.170350.21437@hemlock.cray.com>
axtell@cray.com (Maureen Axtell) writes:

>I have a clue, actually several.  And they come from
>observing the results of activism strategies in lots of
>causes over quite a long period of time.  It's obvious some
>things work, and some don't.

I'm not quite clear what you'e saying, I'll admit, but it
seems to me "working" is variously defined, in activist
contexts.  There are degrees of working, and combinations of
tactics, and so forth.  A well-organized opposition, I
think, has many tactics in its bag of options, and uses them
as appropriate in a variety of situations.

So it seems to me that in some of this debate over whether
to boycott things associated with Colorado suffers from
rather too much emphasis on "either/or" points of view, when
it might profit from more "both/and" points of view.

>My first clue is that I don't fight battles with strategies
>that haven't got a prayer ('scuse the pun) of winning.  CFV
>and the brethern have so much damn money behind them it
>isn't funny.  An outright boycott of everything in this
>state just isn't going to be effective.

Time and again in various activist efforts, boycotts have
proved to be very effective.  That much is indisputable, I
think.  Whether this kind of thing can be effective in the
given instance is naturally open to debate.  Even when
people have proposed "outright" boycotting of anything and
everything associated with Colorado, I think they actually
mean a selective program.

If I remember correctly, your original concern was that LGB
people or other friends could be adversely affected by a
boycott.  Even where the response has boiled pretty much down
to "tough shit," I don't think anyone features hurting our
own any more than the minimum necessary to reach objectives
that (I would say, indisputably) need to be reached.

I certainly care, and I know lots of others do too, about
what could happen to our friends there.  But it seems to me
inevitable that even if we are as selective and careful as
possible, some injuries (casualties of an ideological war,
after all) will take place.

It doesn't necessarily indicate indifference that one might
still advocate boycotting.  In the real world, you do what
you can, you do what you think you have to do, in spite of
such things.  Naturally, one tries to be aware and
sensitive; there's no point in using dynamite when a scalpel
will do the trick.

>The second clue is that the human race does not do things
>because they are correct or fair or right.  Change happens
>because the current situation is no longer comfortable.  We
>aren't going to get rights because the good citizens here
>have compassion.  The change will happen because they each
>see a benefit to having gay rights.

Isn't this a "yes but" thing?  Arguably the most potent
weapons involve money and loss of income to affected
interests.  The "benefit" of greatest leverage, in the minds
of typical Americans, is the bottom line.  Indeed, your own
argument rests on equating comfort with continuing to have
an income.

Last night I saw a brief report that Colorado skiing has
started uncommonly early this year because the snows have
been there.  I don't know for sure, but I think skiing is
one of the largest, if not the largest, tourist business in
the state.  If absolutely no one went there to ski,
thousands and thousands of people, about 10% of them our
own, would be thrown out of work in short order.  But the
state would lose billions in taxes and correlative income,
and ski-oriented interests (hotels, restaurants, the hills
themselves, the bus and air travel people, private citizens
from all over the world with time-share condos, etc) would
(I feel sure) very quickly get very militant about ending
this kind of discrimination, not because it's moral or good
or ethical, but because not to cuts their own economic
throats.

The pain of discrimination is real.  Unquestionably the pain
of fighting it is also real.  We can (and I think should)
take what steps we can to minimize what the military people
call collateral damage; but it can't be prevented completely
without sacrificing the entire campaign.  What's at stake,
namely our freedom and our very lives, is too important to
resist with only half a heart.

>And Bob, I could care less where you take YOUR money.  Right
>now, I could make a few suggestions, but they are neither
>polite nor appropriate for this forum.  I will put mine into
>positive effective After all, it IS my money.

I understand your being annoyed.  But is it really what you
want, this "it's my money" thrust?  I care where people put
their money, and I saw people having a great time skiing
down the mountain last night, under what looked to me like
wonderful conditions.  But I wish they weren't doing it in
Colorado, not now, not yet.  I'm sure lots of people would
disagree, but I see those skiers as (witting or unwitting)
co-conspirators in my oppression.

The individualism of "it's my money" is subordinated, in
my view, to the larger social goal.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
<>  <>  <> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <>  <>  <>
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47143 soc.bi:14999