From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Subject: Re: Amnd.2 Boycott is Counterproductive.
Organization: CIRES, University of Colorado
	<1993Jan21.234941.19089@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: co
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:14:53

In article <1993Jan21.234941.19089@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <EJH.93Jan21095317@khonshu.colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
   >I think you're missing the real target of the boycott, which is not
   >Colorado, but every other state. Since something like 12 states now
   >have organizations working for something like A2, it seems to me quite
   >possible that a perceived economic hardship in Colorado because of A2
   >will influence the voters and politicians of other states.  The smart
   >politicians and businessmen will come out against their local version,
   >claiming that economic hardship will follow.

   So, you are supporting the boycott, since it can be used in a rather
   cynical political maneuver in other states? And any benefits or harm
   in Colorado are irrelevant, since you are simply using Colorado is
   a tool for political gains?

Read my post more carefully next time. I said I didn't support the
boycott. How could I? I live here and for the moment don't have the
financial wherewithal to leave.

   >And finally, why should any gay-rights activist care about the
   >individual people of Colorado?

   In which case, why should anyone in Colorado care about gays? Perhaps
   a better solution would be each caring about (or at least not
   trying to actively hurt) the other.

From the point of view of the gay rights activists Colorado has
already clearly shown that we don't care about gays.

   >Do you care that the boycott of South
   >America probably hurt plenty of people who never discriminated against
   >blacks, or were working for their benifit?

   That was exactly my reason for opposing the South African boycott: It
   hurt the blacks and anti-apartid whites. (In addition to hurting
   the economy in general, which makes/will make life much harder on
   anyone trying to solve that country's problems.)

Is it better to just continue business as usual? Any fight for freedom
in recent history has involved pain and suffering. I don't think you
want to say that people should not go with what their conscience tells
them just because if they do it might hurt someone. You have to do
what you think is right, and let the chips fall where they may. In
South Africa things would be just the same as they were 10 years ago
without the boycott; instead they have made a commitment to change. I
doubt very much that it would have happened without the sanctions.

   >There's bound to be innocent
   >victims in any boycott, but that doesn't mean that boycotts shouldn't
   >be used.

   I think it does, but I especially object to this attitude that
   hurting innocent poeple is perfectly fine, in the name of a good 
   cause. That's exactly what the Crusaders were thinking, when they
   massacared entire cities. 

Nice example. Totally irrelvevant of course. It was over 600 or 700
years ago, it wasn't a boycott, and the whole concept of people
participating in large groups to sway governments peacefully had not
yet been formulated. Also the motivations for the crusades were
condiderably less pure. No matter what you might say about the
misguided nature of the boycott, certainly those who support it are
not coming to Colorado to loot Denver and rape women.

How about Ghandi's boycotts and stikes against the British in India?
Many many people on both sides were badly hurt by that. Many deaths
and beatings resulted, and much economic hardship. Do you think Ghandi
was wrong?

What is the alternative to boycott? Almost anything you do to try and
stop injustice will hurt someone in some way.

Or, to look at it another way, to contribute to the discrimination is
to hurt people too. If you had big investments in S.A. you were hurting
the blacks there by economically supporting their oppressors. If
everyone had done that, there wouldn't have been the economic and
social isolation that now is forcing S.A. to commit to dismantle
aparthied. 

--
	Don't blame me, I voted against Amendment 2!

Edward Hartnett				ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu

Newsgroups: co.general