Looks like the "Racebending" boycott has the same problem that the boycott of Domino's Pizza had.

[xiphias]

Back in the 90's, the then-owner of Domino's Pizza was an outspoken supporter of such groups as Operation Rescue, and other anti-abortion groups. The pizza chain itself had no political connections; just the owner, working as a (very wealthy) private citizen. And, for the record, said person hasn't owned the chain since 1998 when he sold it for a billion dollars.

Nonetheless, when I was in college, there was a boycott of Domino's.

In deciding whether to participate in such a boycott, there were many factors to consider. First, if you were pro-life yourself, you'd probably not have a reason to participate. But even if you were pro-choice, you had to consider several issues, such as "is it fair to penalize a corporation for the beliefs and actions of its owner, who is very clear that he is doing those actions on his own, and NOT through the corporation?"

But for me, the issue was even more fundamental. I could not boycott Domino's Pizza, because boycotting something means "not using something that you otherwise might." Domino's was, at the time, absolutely revolting and impossible to eat. (To be fair, they have, since that time, improved all the way up to "bad").

Now that the reviews are starting to roll in, it looks like AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER is in the same category. Personally, I would have been willing to boycott the movie to protest its whitewashing.

But I can't, for the same reason that I couldn't boycott Domino's. The product is apparently so revolting in itself to preclude consumption.

Apparently, the movie sucks. Some of the reviews do mention the "Racebending" group and the whitewashing issue, but then go on to say that the rest of the movie sucks rocks through a straw so hard that the racial insensitivity becomes irrelevant in the just overwhelming badness of everything else.

Comments

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

I do not feel that I have any obligation to be "fair" to businesses. They have an obligation to be fair to me, and that obligation does not go both ways. Ok, yes, I can't steal from them and stuff. But if they do something to lose my business, they lost my business, I don't owe them my business.

I still won't eat at Chick-fil-a. I understand they will now allow black people to work where customers can see them, and attending the same church as senior management is no longer a requirement to advance in the company, but they lost my business long ago. I don't care if it's fair or not.

And I can say I am boycotting BP, even if I can't locate a BP station to not buy gas from, knowing full well that the stations are not owned by the people responsible for destroying the gulf of mexico and the florida shoreline.

[delerium69.livejournal.com]

I remember the Dominoes boycott. I've often been dubious of the notion that boycotts actually worked. I came to the conclusion that it generally works better for the individual to do what makes them feel powerful (the Civil Rights era boycotts are excluded from my concept on the grounds that they represented something bigger than most boycotts and actually gained attention, not to mention that they often worked). I would have stayed away from The Last Airbender on the grounds it ruined something I enjoyed. And that's my right as a consumer and a fan. The fact that the film apparently sucks and will lose money is just desserts for me. But whether it will actually bring attention to the issues of racism in film casting and production remains to be seen.

(BTW, I have a friend who, in the late 90s, worked on the campaign to boycott Nestlé due to its unsavory tactic of aggressively marketing baby formula to developing countries, where sanitary conditions made it nearly impossible to provide clean drinking to use the formula. Apparently, this campaign, which remains ongoing, has been far more successful than most.)

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

I came to the conclusion that it generally works better for the individual to do what makes them feel powerful (the Civil Rights era boycotts are excluded from my concept on the grounds that they represented something bigger than most boycotts and actually gained attention, not to mention that they often worked).

See, my take on it is "people don't understand how boycotts work, and that's why they fail," rather than "boycotts as a whole are ineffective, except for these cases where they worked really well." It has to be organized, and it has to be cohesive, and it has to be clearly communicated to the company that this is why they're losing business. If someone wants to avoid something to preserve their personal purity, that's fine for them, but it's not a boycott, and it's not a tool for social change.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Personally, I would have been willing to boycott the movie to protest its whitewashing. ... The product is apparently so revolting in itself to preclude consumption.

That's pretty much the viewpoint of my 23-year-old son, who is an ardent anime fan and Asian American.

[delerium69.livejournal.com]

Excellent point. Any campaign for social change really only works if people truly care about the subject and they are effectively reached by the organizers.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

And I can say I am boycotting BP, even if I can't locate a BP station to not buy gas from, knowing full well that the stations are not owned by the people responsible for destroying the gulf of mexico and the florida shoreline.

I'm a bit confused by this one. Since you're aware that the stations are franchises and the boycott hurts someone other than its target, then why would you boycott them?

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

One suggestion by one of the folk I've seen (http://ssj10.livejournal.com/131146.html) was to make sure to go to a movie this weekend, and just not that one. I thought that was an interesting way to make the action clearer.

I know nothing about this series, so :shrug:

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Several reasons. They buy their gas from the bad guys. I can't do business with the actual bad guys, but I don't want to do business with the end of the supply chain. Also, the name. The franchises have the BP name showing that they share the quality and values of the parent company. And last of all, the big company makes money by selling franchises. If we do business with those franchises, they can keep selling them.

Not that it really matters, I can't find a BP to bycott.