Sign up, sign, sign up
March 13, 2003 5:38 AM Subscribe
Those pinko scum cheese-munching surrender monkeys over at the ever-excellent adbusters.org have started a 'Boycott Brand America' pledge. Against global arrogance? Against 'marketing'? Against war? Want to see public protest? Want to see action against oil, fast food, sweatshop labour, the media and more? Sign it. Tell your friends. One question, though: how do Americans themselves boycott America?
Well, duh--Buy Canadian. Your dollar goes a lot further. Out here, there's no contest between Seattle and Vancouver: we suck, they rule.
posted by y2karl at 6:01 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by y2karl at 6:01 AM on March 13, 2003
If I were to boycott American products I wouldn't be able to read MetaFilter. So no, thanks.
posted by sebas at 6:12 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by sebas at 6:12 AM on March 13, 2003
I believe the answer to your question is on the adbuster's site:
Empty the McDonald’s, the Niketowns and Hollywood cinemas. Clear out Disneyland. Turn off Fox, CNN and MTV. Blockade an Esso, a Texaco, a Chevron. Shut down Pepsi and Coke, Gap and Starbucks. Wherever you are in the world - including within the USA, of course - there are symbols of Brand America that you can shut out of your life.
In short: stop buying so much stuff from big corporations. Buy from local merchants, producers, artisans and farmers, etc. Paatch up your clothes when they get old instead of buying new ones. Shop at and give to thrift stores. earn to make stuff for yourself. Get broken things repaired. And so on - all, interestingly enough, stuff folks did back in World War II to support the war effort.
But it's stuff we should be doing anyway, war or not - because it is unchecked consumption and the drive of our global corporations to sell their products to everyone on the planet that is one of the causes of the war in the first place.
To quote the poet:
War ends,
we rebuild,
bandage and bury
while the next war
is begun
in a boardroom,
with a pen, and signatures,
one executive pushing
a contract across the table
to another.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:15 AM on March 13, 2003
Empty the McDonald’s, the Niketowns and Hollywood cinemas. Clear out Disneyland. Turn off Fox, CNN and MTV. Blockade an Esso, a Texaco, a Chevron. Shut down Pepsi and Coke, Gap and Starbucks. Wherever you are in the world - including within the USA, of course - there are symbols of Brand America that you can shut out of your life.
In short: stop buying so much stuff from big corporations. Buy from local merchants, producers, artisans and farmers, etc. Paatch up your clothes when they get old instead of buying new ones. Shop at and give to thrift stores. earn to make stuff for yourself. Get broken things repaired. And so on - all, interestingly enough, stuff folks did back in World War II to support the war effort.
But it's stuff we should be doing anyway, war or not - because it is unchecked consumption and the drive of our global corporations to sell their products to everyone on the planet that is one of the causes of the war in the first place.
To quote the poet:
War ends,
we rebuild,
bandage and bury
while the next war
is begun
in a boardroom,
with a pen, and signatures,
one executive pushing
a contract across the table
to another.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:15 AM on March 13, 2003
The dopes who sign this should get together with the geniuses who refuse to eat French cheese. They could start a little after-school club for the mentally-deficient, where they meet, talk, and play games of Trivial Pursuit: The Moron Edition.
posted by Ljubljana at 6:17 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by Ljubljana at 6:17 AM on March 13, 2003
And because America has made it clear that it won't listen to world opinion
What do they actually mean by 'America'? If it's the government, thats one thing. If they mean all of it's citizens, then adbusters is assuming too much. Just because the U.S. government does something doesn't mean that all of it's citizens agree with it.
posted by jsonic at 6:17 AM on March 13, 2003
What do they actually mean by 'America'? If it's the government, thats one thing. If they mean all of it's citizens, then adbusters is assuming too much. Just because the U.S. government does something doesn't mean that all of it's citizens agree with it.
posted by jsonic at 6:17 AM on March 13, 2003
sebas, MetaFilter doesn't count: it's not for sale, and if you read the adbusters site, it's clear that they're referring to major corporations, not to all American businesses. The alliance between our government, military and corporatations is failry obvious to see; our government is little more these days than a gaggle of well-paid attorneys for the interests of big corporations.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:18 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:18 AM on March 13, 2003
One question, though: how do Americans themselves boycott America?
Boycott is a method for dealings with an "other". If I don't like my neighbour, I can reduce my dealings with him to practically nil. But if the problem lies with me, or within my home, different approaches are necessary, and they'd usually involve going as directly as possible to the root of the specific problem. That's if you think your country is basically a good place with some problems worth fixing. If you don't, bail. Move somewhere else.
posted by orange swan at 6:22 AM on March 13, 2003
Boycott is a method for dealings with an "other". If I don't like my neighbour, I can reduce my dealings with him to practically nil. But if the problem lies with me, or within my home, different approaches are necessary, and they'd usually involve going as directly as possible to the root of the specific problem. That's if you think your country is basically a good place with some problems worth fixing. If you don't, bail. Move somewhere else.
posted by orange swan at 6:22 AM on March 13, 2003
I expressed my opinion of adbusters last time someone posted a link to them.
Now, they are wielding a mighty online petition, signed by such luminaries as "George W. Bush" and "gav h morningstarre 327" and "Burning Bush of the Apocalypse" and "gfdsgf".
Surely this will make them a force to be reckoned with, along with their plan to demolish AOL by spamming its subscribers, and their aforementioned involvement in a custody battle.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 6:26 AM on March 13, 2003
Now, they are wielding a mighty online petition, signed by such luminaries as "George W. Bush" and "gav h morningstarre 327" and "Burning Bush of the Apocalypse" and "gfdsgf".
Surely this will make them a force to be reckoned with, along with their plan to demolish AOL by spamming its subscribers, and their aforementioned involvement in a custody battle.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 6:26 AM on March 13, 2003
eustac: It's not MetaFilter, but my Dell keyboard and monitor connected to my Compaq Laptop connected to my (US funded) ISP that cause the troubles.
posted by sebas at 6:26 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by sebas at 6:26 AM on March 13, 2003
i'm one of the most anti-corporate folks i know, i supported no buy day or whatever the hell they called it. but this is just too broad. if the problem is with the polluters, boycott the polluters, if the problem is with the military-industrail complex, boycott them. i just see this as giving ammunition to critics and alienating the vast majority of americans who had nothing to do with Kyoto, Bush's War, or the International Criminal Court.
Ljubljana: good point about the french fries!
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 6:27 AM on March 13, 2003
Ljubljana: good point about the french fries!
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 6:27 AM on March 13, 2003
Whenever I go to Border's and see a new Adbusters magazine, I pick it up and grab a cappuccino. I intend to just peruse, but I love the photos and bits-o'-wisdom, and I always end up buying the thing. So here I am spending $8 on this magazine that is all about Not Buying Things. It's an impressive magazine, in my opinion, to incite such irony.
posted by Shane at 6:29 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by Shane at 6:29 AM on March 13, 2003
This movement's got legs, I tell ya! Refuse to take your drugs made by Eli Lilly or Pfizer -- let your depression or your cholesterol or heart condition run rampant. Stop cleaning with Windex. Stop copying with Xerox. Stop buying Dell or Apple computers. Stop using Microsoft or Apple software, or anything running on a Pentium processor. Refuse to buy Ford, Chrysler, or GM cars -- it's better to allow Honda and Volkswagen to grow huge at higher prices. Definitely do not use a cellular phone even in an emergency -- you're only enriching Verizon or AT&T. If you watch TV, make sure you live close enough to Canada to get CBC (and that you're watching it on a Sony) -- lord knows the cable and satellite companies need to be boycotted. Don't buy books from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Borders -- in fact, the only books you should read are those printed by the authors. If you fly the friendly skies, make sure Qantas or British Airways is taking you.
And remember, almost all businesses -- including sole proprieterships -- are set up as corporations these days. Basically, subsistence farming is where it's at people! That sends a message!
posted by pardonyou? at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2003
And remember, almost all businesses -- including sole proprieterships -- are set up as corporations these days. Basically, subsistence farming is where it's at people! That sends a message!
posted by pardonyou? at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2003
One question, though: how do Americans themselves boycott America?
How can I boycott Humanity? Help me here, folks. And please don't tell me what TC Boyle once said: [paraphrasing] "Bury yourself up to your neck in the compost heap and shoot yourself." [/paraphrasing]
posted by Shane at 6:36 AM on March 13, 2003
How can I boycott Humanity? Help me here, folks. And please don't tell me what TC Boyle once said: [paraphrasing] "Bury yourself up to your neck in the compost heap and shoot yourself." [/paraphrasing]
posted by Shane at 6:36 AM on March 13, 2003
boycott America
But if the problem lies with me, or within my home
How can I boycott Humanity?
The real question is: how to respond to people who don't follow links and read carefully?
Adbusters is not calling for as boycott of America, the nation, but of "Brand America." They explain, at the link provided above, what they mean by this.
sebas, good point about the computer equipment. It's a dilemma with which I can relate. Do I want to give up my computer? Is Apple a corporation that's part of the problem? They're certainly behaving like a big, soulless coirporation in some cases. I partly chose Apple precisely because they weren't as much of a monster as Microsoft, but if they're resorting to the same practices, then should I continue? Or should I bite the bullet, learn how to build my own machine and use Linux?
I don't think anyone can escape corporate products entirely, but I don't think that is Adbusters' point. I think that their point is to show the intimate connection between our consumption and our attitudes about it and war.
if the problem is with the polluters, boycott the polluters, if the problem is with the military-industrail complex, boycott them.
How do I boycott the military industrial complex? No one bothered to ask me if it was okay to stockpile nuclear weapons or build excessive Stealth Bombers. I don't own a gun.
As for polluters, if you use electricity, then aren't you a polluter? Most electricity still comes from fossil fuels or nuclear reactors - this is part of the point: the way to boycott the polluters is to use less electricity, right?
almost all businesses -- including sole proprieterships -- are set up as corporations these days.
That's not the point - it's the global corporations Adbuster's is targeting. Small ones are usually more accountable to communities because they can't ignore their immediate consumer base as easily.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:39 AM on March 13, 2003
But if the problem lies with me, or within my home
How can I boycott Humanity?
The real question is: how to respond to people who don't follow links and read carefully?
Adbusters is not calling for as boycott of America, the nation, but of "Brand America." They explain, at the link provided above, what they mean by this.
sebas, good point about the computer equipment. It's a dilemma with which I can relate. Do I want to give up my computer? Is Apple a corporation that's part of the problem? They're certainly behaving like a big, soulless coirporation in some cases. I partly chose Apple precisely because they weren't as much of a monster as Microsoft, but if they're resorting to the same practices, then should I continue? Or should I bite the bullet, learn how to build my own machine and use Linux?
I don't think anyone can escape corporate products entirely, but I don't think that is Adbusters' point. I think that their point is to show the intimate connection between our consumption and our attitudes about it and war.
if the problem is with the polluters, boycott the polluters, if the problem is with the military-industrail complex, boycott them.
How do I boycott the military industrial complex? No one bothered to ask me if it was okay to stockpile nuclear weapons or build excessive Stealth Bombers. I don't own a gun.
As for polluters, if you use electricity, then aren't you a polluter? Most electricity still comes from fossil fuels or nuclear reactors - this is part of the point: the way to boycott the polluters is to use less electricity, right?
almost all businesses -- including sole proprieterships -- are set up as corporations these days.
That's not the point - it's the global corporations Adbuster's is targeting. Small ones are usually more accountable to communities because they can't ignore their immediate consumer base as easily.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:39 AM on March 13, 2003
how do Americans themselves boycott America?
Leave. Refuse to pay the salaries of those who do not serve your interests. Refuse to purchase the products of corporations who fight humanity. It isn't that hard. Why is standing up for one's beliefs considered so idealistic?
i just see this as giving ammunition to critics and alienating the vast majority of americans who had nothing to do with Kyoto, Bush's War, or the International Criminal Court
... because taking responsability for what our government does is such a far out request.
posted by fiz at 6:45 AM on March 13, 2003
Leave. Refuse to pay the salaries of those who do not serve your interests. Refuse to purchase the products of corporations who fight humanity. It isn't that hard. Why is standing up for one's beliefs considered so idealistic?
i just see this as giving ammunition to critics and alienating the vast majority of americans who had nothing to do with Kyoto, Bush's War, or the International Criminal Court
... because taking responsability for what our government does is such a far out request.
posted by fiz at 6:45 AM on March 13, 2003
Boycott Michelin Tires. Fuck the French.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:47 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by ParisParamus at 6:47 AM on March 13, 2003
How can I boycott Humanity?
The real question is: how to respond to people who don't follow links and read carefully?
Maybe ignore them when they're making a joke/point? Nah! No snarkiness involved in that!
(I like Adbusters and would like to boycott Humanity.)
posted by Shane at 6:52 AM on March 13, 2003
The real question is: how to respond to people who don't follow links and read carefully?
Maybe ignore them when they're making a joke/point? Nah! No snarkiness involved in that!
(I like Adbusters and would like to boycott Humanity.)
posted by Shane at 6:52 AM on March 13, 2003
Maybe ignore them when they're making a joke/point? Nah! No snarkiness involved in that!
Eh? It was a joke? Sorry Shane - not intending snarkiness - I actually just didn't get it. Care to elaborate?
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:55 AM on March 13, 2003
Eh? It was a joke? Sorry Shane - not intending snarkiness - I actually just didn't get it. Care to elaborate?
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:55 AM on March 13, 2003
Heh. Maybe we could all boycott Korean dog meat.
Now that's an easy resolution to agree to.
posted by tapeguy at 6:56 AM on March 13, 2003
Now that's an easy resolution to agree to.
posted by tapeguy at 6:56 AM on March 13, 2003
Right on, ParisParamus. Especially because some of the French are great at fucking. :)
But "seriously". For all you idiots that think your boycotts will make any difference at all, I propose that you enhance the power of it further:
* Quit your job with American Companies. Work only for non-American companies.
* Don't just buy anything American, also don't SELL anything to any American
* Don't accept any financial aid from any American Govt. Agency, University, or UN programme financed by America
* Default on your mortgage with American Banks
* Destroy all your credit cards backed by American Banks
* Withdraw all your money from American Banks, in nice large C-notes, and make a large bonfire around which you can sing Cumbaya.
posted by reality at 6:57 AM on March 13, 2003
But "seriously". For all you idiots that think your boycotts will make any difference at all, I propose that you enhance the power of it further:
* Quit your job with American Companies. Work only for non-American companies.
* Don't just buy anything American, also don't SELL anything to any American
* Don't accept any financial aid from any American Govt. Agency, University, or UN programme financed by America
* Default on your mortgage with American Banks
* Destroy all your credit cards backed by American Banks
* Withdraw all your money from American Banks, in nice large C-notes, and make a large bonfire around which you can sing Cumbaya.
posted by reality at 6:57 AM on March 13, 2003
...how do Americans themselves boycott America?
By turning off the television.
posted by moses at 7:01 AM on March 13, 2003
By turning off the television.
posted by moses at 7:01 AM on March 13, 2003
Actually, the best way for an American to boycott America and its policies is to stop paying taxes -- or at least the relative portion of taxes that would go to fund such things as war and "global arrogance." Good luck with that. I'm sure you're principled enough that you're willing to go to jail rather than fund what you despise.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:06 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by pardonyou? at 7:06 AM on March 13, 2003
For the six hundredth time:
The campaign is not about boycotting America, but "Brand America".
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:09 AM on March 13, 2003
The campaign is not about boycotting America, but "Brand America".
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:09 AM on March 13, 2003
dell computer - motherboards from taiwan, optical drives from japan, lcd from korea, assembled in mexico.
apple - built in singapore.
intel - made in malaysia.
ford, gm, chrysler: many models made in canada or mexico.
honda - accord and civic (best-selling models) made in the US.
---
screw it. it's just too hard to keep track of what's "american" and what's not anymore...
posted by bhayes82 at 7:13 AM on March 13, 2003
apple - built in singapore.
intel - made in malaysia.
ford, gm, chrysler: many models made in canada or mexico.
honda - accord and civic (best-selling models) made in the US.
---
screw it. it's just too hard to keep track of what's "american" and what's not anymore...
posted by bhayes82 at 7:13 AM on March 13, 2003
fwiw, i WILL be boycotting any restaurant that serves me "freedom" fries rather than french fries.
posted by bhayes82 at 7:17 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by bhayes82 at 7:17 AM on March 13, 2003
No, adbusters' stated intention is to hurt the American economy by hurting U.S. companies. The companies you listed are all U.S. based (except, of course, for Honda -- and DaimlerChrysler, which has dual headquarters in Stuttgart and Auburn Hills, Michigan).
posted by pardonyou? at 7:18 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by pardonyou? at 7:18 AM on March 13, 2003
There's this test that goes something like this:
The 1st line says "read this all the way through before doing anything". In bold. Underlined.
Then follow a series of instructions like "jump up and down on one leg", "make monkey sounds", "throw things at each other", etc.
The last instruction, of course, is "ignore all the previous instructions, just sit quietly and wait for the others to stop making fools of themselves".
When I took it, 1/3 of us sat there trying not to laugh out loud at the other 2/3.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
posted by signal at 7:19 AM on March 13, 2003
The 1st line says "read this all the way through before doing anything". In bold. Underlined.
Then follow a series of instructions like "jump up and down on one leg", "make monkey sounds", "throw things at each other", etc.
The last instruction, of course, is "ignore all the previous instructions, just sit quietly and wait for the others to stop making fools of themselves".
When I took it, 1/3 of us sat there trying not to laugh out loud at the other 2/3.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
posted by signal at 7:19 AM on March 13, 2003
I wasn't aware that the Amish did recruiting.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:26 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:26 AM on March 13, 2003
Their concept of "Brand America" is pretty damn irrelevant.
Show me evidence that McDonald's, Disney, Nike, MTV, Pepsi, etc. have come out in support of the war and I'll think about it.
posted by Foosnark at 7:34 AM on March 13, 2003
Show me evidence that McDonald's, Disney, Nike, MTV, Pepsi, etc. have come out in support of the war and I'll think about it.
posted by Foosnark at 7:34 AM on March 13, 2003
I announce a fatwah declaring Jihad on their little boycott.
Really.
Can't you people all just get along and stop making pronouncements and get on with your lives?
(and to my Muslim friends out there, I'm not really declaring a Fatwah or a Jihad, I'm just being ironic. Seriously. Put down that Kalishnakov.)
And doesn't boycotting Brand America really mostly hurt the poor folks who are working overseas (hint: overseas means not in America) as per Bhayes' point?
posted by swerdloff at 7:40 AM on March 13, 2003
Really.
Can't you people all just get along and stop making pronouncements and get on with your lives?
(and to my Muslim friends out there, I'm not really declaring a Fatwah or a Jihad, I'm just being ironic. Seriously. Put down that Kalishnakov.)
And doesn't boycotting Brand America really mostly hurt the poor folks who are working overseas (hint: overseas means not in America) as per Bhayes' point?
posted by swerdloff at 7:40 AM on March 13, 2003
pardonyou? -
that's the problem. when you hurt the parents, the children suffer too. if the american-based company loses profit, it starts to cut jobs -- and the first ones to go are low-pay assembly workers. with production spread all over the world, everybody hurts.
remember the whole fiasco with nike's sweatshops? people tried to boycott, but this caused a bigger problem -- the workers lost their jobs. as harsh as it sounds, a $2-per-day income is better than no income. on the positive side, it did cause more awareness of the problem... but have things changed?
posted by bhayes82 at 7:42 AM on March 13, 2003
that's the problem. when you hurt the parents, the children suffer too. if the american-based company loses profit, it starts to cut jobs -- and the first ones to go are low-pay assembly workers. with production spread all over the world, everybody hurts.
remember the whole fiasco with nike's sweatshops? people tried to boycott, but this caused a bigger problem -- the workers lost their jobs. as harsh as it sounds, a $2-per-day income is better than no income. on the positive side, it did cause more awareness of the problem... but have things changed?
posted by bhayes82 at 7:42 AM on March 13, 2003
Show me evidence that McDonald's, Disney, Nike, MTV, Pepsi, etc. have come out in support of the war and I'll think about it.
I think the point is not that those companies support the war, but that American globalism helped cause it.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:49 AM on March 13, 2003
I think the point is not that those companies support the war, but that American globalism helped cause it.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:49 AM on March 13, 2003
Do you see where I'm going with this?
signal: Yeah, you don't know how to have fun. Who wouldn't have some fun with a test like that while the know-it-alls sit quietly basking in their 'superiority'.?
posted by PenDevil at 7:51 AM on March 13, 2003
signal: Yeah, you don't know how to have fun. Who wouldn't have some fun with a test like that while the know-it-alls sit quietly basking in their 'superiority'.?
posted by PenDevil at 7:51 AM on March 13, 2003
More to the point: boycotts can sometimes be effective, but this boycott is equivalent to attempting to hit a target a hundred yards away by butting on a blindfold, spinning around until dizzy, and then randomly firing a shotgun off at 45 degree angles, or even just straight up in to the air.
There are whispers, I hear, of Islamic-world boycotts: these could surely do a great job of hurting Coke and Pepsi, and might even serve as a self-help tool to facillitate the sort of Islamic World economic renaissance which will be necesssary to undermine support for terrorist agendas.
posted by troutfishing at 8:01 AM on March 13, 2003
There are whispers, I hear, of Islamic-world boycotts: these could surely do a great job of hurting Coke and Pepsi, and might even serve as a self-help tool to facillitate the sort of Islamic World economic renaissance which will be necesssary to undermine support for terrorist agendas.
posted by troutfishing at 8:01 AM on March 13, 2003
I think the point is not that those companies support the war, but that American globalism helped cause it.
The point is: "because the symbols of America are its corporations and their brands"
This is a pretty big leap. "America" isn't supporting the war, "American corporations and their brands" aren't supporting the war. Many of the American people aren't even supporting the war. The President is. If you want to boycott or protest the war fine, but don't assume that the President IS America or is even American corporations. Adbusters (interesting note, spell check suggests "abusers" for this word) has an agenda against corporations, they are making a leap to join the issue of the war with the issue of globalization and they simply aren't joined (with the arguable exception of the connection to the oil industry)
posted by Pollomacho at 8:03 AM on March 13, 2003
The point is: "because the symbols of America are its corporations and their brands"
This is a pretty big leap. "America" isn't supporting the war, "American corporations and their brands" aren't supporting the war. Many of the American people aren't even supporting the war. The President is. If you want to boycott or protest the war fine, but don't assume that the President IS America or is even American corporations. Adbusters (interesting note, spell check suggests "abusers" for this word) has an agenda against corporations, they are making a leap to join the issue of the war with the issue of globalization and they simply aren't joined (with the arguable exception of the connection to the oil industry)
posted by Pollomacho at 8:03 AM on March 13, 2003
that's the problem. when you hurt the parents, the children suffer too. if the american-based company loses profit, it starts to cut jobs -- and the first ones to go are low-pay assembly workers. with production spread all over the world, everybody hurts.
Yes, that's exactly the problem, and exactly what makes adbusters' "boycott" idea so stupid. Of course simpletons find it easy to rail against "evil corporations," since they don't appear to understand that a corporation -- no matter how big it is -- is really just a conglomeration of employees. Hurting the corporation hurts the employees -- and usually those lower on the org chart are the most fungible and therefore the easiest to sever (sorry, but it's true). Any American that would want to boycott American companies is guilty of cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Let me put it another way -- a Fortune 100 company puts food on my table, puts a roof over my head, provides me with low-cost health insurance (which comes in handy when I need to buy a wheelchair or anti-seizure medication for my five-year-old daughter), contributes to my retirement, etc., etc. And it does so for 200,000 other people around the world. Needless to say, I find any attempt by pissants like adbusters.org that would endanger that security in order to make some tenuous point about "American globalism" incredibly fatuous. But hey, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree -- that's what makes America such a great country (oops, I probably shouldn't say that out loud here).
posted by pardonyou? at 8:05 AM on March 13, 2003
Yes, that's exactly the problem, and exactly what makes adbusters' "boycott" idea so stupid. Of course simpletons find it easy to rail against "evil corporations," since they don't appear to understand that a corporation -- no matter how big it is -- is really just a conglomeration of employees. Hurting the corporation hurts the employees -- and usually those lower on the org chart are the most fungible and therefore the easiest to sever (sorry, but it's true). Any American that would want to boycott American companies is guilty of cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Let me put it another way -- a Fortune 100 company puts food on my table, puts a roof over my head, provides me with low-cost health insurance (which comes in handy when I need to buy a wheelchair or anti-seizure medication for my five-year-old daughter), contributes to my retirement, etc., etc. And it does so for 200,000 other people around the world. Needless to say, I find any attempt by pissants like adbusters.org that would endanger that security in order to make some tenuous point about "American globalism" incredibly fatuous. But hey, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree -- that's what makes America such a great country (oops, I probably shouldn't say that out loud here).
posted by pardonyou? at 8:05 AM on March 13, 2003
screw it. it's just too hard to keep track of what's "american" and what's not anymore...
That's the problem. The companies that Adbuster are targeting might have started in the US, but now they are global corporations, which have no loyalty to America, or to the American worker. There really is no such thing as an American company any longer.
posted by Beholder at 8:15 AM on March 13, 2003
That's the problem. The companies that Adbuster are targeting might have started in the US, but now they are global corporations, which have no loyalty to America, or to the American worker. There really is no such thing as an American company any longer.
posted by Beholder at 8:15 AM on March 13, 2003
I think adbusters is being taken way too seriously. I understand where they're coming from -- don't buy coffee at Starbucks, buy it at the locally owned coffee shop -- but it's a concept that's never going to get out of the backyard. It's the equivalent of asking a bunch of vegetarians to sign an petition that says organic salads are good.
The people who should be cutting back on their corporate consumption are never going to read adbusters in the first place, and if they do they'll simply snicker, sip their Starbucks and obliviously go to lunch at TGIFriday's.
posted by Atom12 at 8:17 AM on March 13, 2003
The people who should be cutting back on their corporate consumption are never going to read adbusters in the first place, and if they do they'll simply snicker, sip their Starbucks and obliviously go to lunch at TGIFriday's.
posted by Atom12 at 8:17 AM on March 13, 2003
Any American that would want to boycott American companies is guilty of cutting off his nose to spite his face.
That is an excellent point, and it is partly why Adbusters' main campaign probably won't go anywhere, because Adbusters is merely advocating a boycott, and they're not offering suggestions for alternative means of livliehood for all the people whom the boycott would affect.
I'm thinking of Gandhi here, and the way he encouraged Indians to boycott imported cloth by encouraging them to spin their own.
Adbusters is good mainly in that they diagnose a serious problem, but the solutions they offer end up bieng fairly one-deminsional sometimes.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:22 AM on March 13, 2003
That is an excellent point, and it is partly why Adbusters' main campaign probably won't go anywhere, because Adbusters is merely advocating a boycott, and they're not offering suggestions for alternative means of livliehood for all the people whom the boycott would affect.
I'm thinking of Gandhi here, and the way he encouraged Indians to boycott imported cloth by encouraging them to spin their own.
Adbusters is good mainly in that they diagnose a serious problem, but the solutions they offer end up bieng fairly one-deminsional sometimes.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:22 AM on March 13, 2003
Can't these people do something that will actually make a difference? Such as turning their website grey for a week, leaving their headlights on during the day, or holding up a sign that says "make love, not war?"
Better yet, fly on over to Iraq and turn themselves into human shields?
posted by bondcliff at 8:27 AM on March 13, 2003
Better yet, fly on over to Iraq and turn themselves into human shields?
posted by bondcliff at 8:27 AM on March 13, 2003
I don't know about their website, I don't know about this thread, but adbusters latest issue on the newstand was enough to make my blood boil. It contains as much propaganda as Saddam spews daily to "his people". Body parts, blood and "american" atrocities. ..and of course they failed to mention the other side of the story.
I know, they aren't journalists. They have a mission.
On topic, I agree with Atom12, they are preaching to their own choir.
posted by tomplus2 at 8:27 AM on March 13, 2003
I know, they aren't journalists. They have a mission.
On topic, I agree with Atom12, they are preaching to their own choir.
posted by tomplus2 at 8:27 AM on March 13, 2003
There are whispers, I hear, of Islamic-world boycotts: these could surely do a great job of hurting Coke and Pepsi.
Somewhat related: a recent Reuters story about Muslim Up, Mecca Cola, and their attempt to reach the anti-American consumer. (Previously talked about here.)
posted by Ljubljana at 8:39 AM on March 13, 2003
Somewhat related: a recent Reuters story about Muslim Up, Mecca Cola, and their attempt to reach the anti-American consumer. (Previously talked about here.)
posted by Ljubljana at 8:39 AM on March 13, 2003
There are whispers, I hear, of Islamic-world boycotts: these could surely do a great job of hurting Coke and Pepsi, and might even serve as a self-help tool to facillitate the sort of Islamic World economic renaissance which will be necessary to undermine support for terrorist agendas.
Dear Islamic world: decreasing international trade will not create an economic renaissance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Take a good look at two countries which have had to decrease their trade with the west, Cuba and, um, Iraq... Not exactly economic powerhouses.
If the Islamic world wants to advance economically, they don't need to boycott, but to create. For some hints on how a third world nation can do that, take a good look at the experience of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea since WWII.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:42 AM on March 13, 2003
Dear Islamic world: decreasing international trade will not create an economic renaissance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Take a good look at two countries which have had to decrease their trade with the west, Cuba and, um, Iraq... Not exactly economic powerhouses.
If the Islamic world wants to advance economically, they don't need to boycott, but to create. For some hints on how a third world nation can do that, take a good look at the experience of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea since WWII.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:42 AM on March 13, 2003
If the Islamic world wants to advance economically
My understanding of the issues leads me to believe that the Muslims to whom your statement is addressed do not consider economic "advancement" that requires adopting industrial/capitalist methods to be an advancement at all.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:51 AM on March 13, 2003
My understanding of the issues leads me to believe that the Muslims to whom your statement is addressed do not consider economic "advancement" that requires adopting industrial/capitalist methods to be an advancement at all.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:51 AM on March 13, 2003
Do you really think adbusters has any more propaganda than the latest edition of Chatelaine, Time, or Sports Illustrated?
Adbusters just makes their propaganda blatantly obvious by making it different from the propaganda you've come to love and accept.
Take a look through any magazine and start looking at its advertisements with a critical eye. What messages are they sending? Are these messages positive or negative? Do they support or challenge stereotypical thinking? Do you support or oppose the message they portray?
Adbusters is all about becoming more aware of your environment, and the ideas and habits businesses (and especially big business) try to put into your brain.
Outrageous? Only if you enjoy being an unthinking sheep.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:00 AM on March 13, 2003
Adbusters just makes their propaganda blatantly obvious by making it different from the propaganda you've come to love and accept.
Take a look through any magazine and start looking at its advertisements with a critical eye. What messages are they sending? Are these messages positive or negative? Do they support or challenge stereotypical thinking? Do you support or oppose the message they portray?
Adbusters is all about becoming more aware of your environment, and the ideas and habits businesses (and especially big business) try to put into your brain.
Outrageous? Only if you enjoy being an unthinking sheep.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:00 AM on March 13, 2003
eustacescrubb: for once, I agree with you.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:16 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:16 AM on March 13, 2003
Only if you enjoy being an unthinking sheep.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner in the "Holy Fucking Shit I Can't Believe He Used That Idiotic Phrase in an Adbusters discussion" contest. Let's move on to the next thread where we'll wait expectantly for someone to call Bush a shrub.
baaa. baaa.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:23 AM on March 13, 2003
Ding ding ding, we have a winner in the "Holy Fucking Shit I Can't Believe He Used That Idiotic Phrase in an Adbusters discussion" contest. Let's move on to the next thread where we'll wait expectantly for someone to call Bush a shrub.
baaa. baaa.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:23 AM on March 13, 2003
bhayes82 - 'remember the whole fiasco with nike's sweatshops? people tried to boycott, but this caused a bigger problem -- the workers lost their jobs. as harsh as it sounds, a $2-per-day income is better than no income. '
Care to back that one up? They should be paying compensation to the workforce.
The globalised nature of the production of the majority of consumer items means that the work may well be done OS, but the lions share of the profits are all US.
It is difficult to extracate oneself from the web of cross-ownership (flash) and interdependence that the larger companies have built up, but it is possible.
To avoid aiding the military-industrial complex, step one is to divest any investment in any arms manufacturer, step two is to divest any investment in any company that has shares in any arms-manufacturing company (don't forget pension funds, investment funds, etc.) and step three is to not purchase anything from any company which has any ties with any arms manufacturer, whenever possible.
'October 2002...AM General, American Molds & Hickling Engineering, Environmental Tectonics, Harris Corporation, SAIC, JPS, Kollsman, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon and Sikorsky had products on display. Official delegations to that event included Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria and other nations that the Bush regime wants to destroy. Yet, there they were—those patriotic Americans from the US weapons industry, selling the same American-made components and weapons that young US service men and women will likely use in the conflicts that are certain to come in 2003.'
The oft repeated fallacy that businesses give employment to their employees, is balanced by the fact that the employees would get work from whoever was offering it. Jobs/tasks/services/work will always be done, as long as there is a demand for it. I thought that we were supposed to welcome competition in the business sector - if a company is not offering a product that you want (in this case 'ethically sound' products) then don't buy from that company.
It is difficult to find un-biased information, given that 'Six corporations dominate the media internationally. They are (in order of size): AOL Time Warner, News Corporation (Fox, New York Post, etc.), Viacom, The Walt Disney Company, Bertelsmann, and Vivendi Universal. (Information from mediachannel.org). '
Big business doesn't care for you, so why should you care for big business.
What Beholder said.
posted by asok at 9:49 AM on March 13, 2003
Care to back that one up? They should be paying compensation to the workforce.
The globalised nature of the production of the majority of consumer items means that the work may well be done OS, but the lions share of the profits are all US.
It is difficult to extracate oneself from the web of cross-ownership (flash) and interdependence that the larger companies have built up, but it is possible.
To avoid aiding the military-industrial complex, step one is to divest any investment in any arms manufacturer, step two is to divest any investment in any company that has shares in any arms-manufacturing company (don't forget pension funds, investment funds, etc.) and step three is to not purchase anything from any company which has any ties with any arms manufacturer, whenever possible.
'October 2002...AM General, American Molds & Hickling Engineering, Environmental Tectonics, Harris Corporation, SAIC, JPS, Kollsman, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon and Sikorsky had products on display. Official delegations to that event included Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria and other nations that the Bush regime wants to destroy. Yet, there they were—those patriotic Americans from the US weapons industry, selling the same American-made components and weapons that young US service men and women will likely use in the conflicts that are certain to come in 2003.'
The oft repeated fallacy that businesses give employment to their employees, is balanced by the fact that the employees would get work from whoever was offering it. Jobs/tasks/services/work will always be done, as long as there is a demand for it. I thought that we were supposed to welcome competition in the business sector - if a company is not offering a product that you want (in this case 'ethically sound' products) then don't buy from that company.
It is difficult to find un-biased information, given that 'Six corporations dominate the media internationally. They are (in order of size): AOL Time Warner, News Corporation (Fox, New York Post, etc.), Viacom, The Walt Disney Company, Bertelsmann, and Vivendi Universal. (Information from mediachannel.org). '
Big business doesn't care for you, so why should you care for big business.
What Beholder said.
posted by asok at 9:49 AM on March 13, 2003
pardonyou:
I can see your point there but to be honest, it is not that convincing. Perhaps I'm just a bit bitter that the fortune 500 companies locally just took my consumer money, packed up, and left for Mexico laying off nearly 3,000 employees in three years. So I'm not convinced of a direct corellation between consumer spending and low-ranking worker employment.
But I think there is another factor at work here. I find it ironic how much "let the market decide" is chanted as a mantra until a group like adbusters proposes to use the market to change the political orientation of businesses. Why is the decision to not buy from Wallmart because the local store is claustrophobic and disorganized (with the potential loss to employees) different from the decision to not buy from Wallmart because of their poor labor record? At least one of the basic philosophical points behind adbusters is that politics should be as important in consumer decisions as price, performance, quality and customer service.
The other side to the boycott is putting money in the hands of groups that you support. The dollar I don't spend at McDonald's is replaced by the dollar I do spend to help the local deli expand the resturaunt and employ additional cooks and waitstaff. A business losing market share due to a boycott has a number of options. They can attempt to recapture that market share by changing how they do business, they can ignore that market share and focus on growth elsewhere (Disney in response to the Religious Right), or they can die off letting other companies try to meet the market need (Arthur Anderson.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:00 AM on March 13, 2003
I can see your point there but to be honest, it is not that convincing. Perhaps I'm just a bit bitter that the fortune 500 companies locally just took my consumer money, packed up, and left for Mexico laying off nearly 3,000 employees in three years. So I'm not convinced of a direct corellation between consumer spending and low-ranking worker employment.
But I think there is another factor at work here. I find it ironic how much "let the market decide" is chanted as a mantra until a group like adbusters proposes to use the market to change the political orientation of businesses. Why is the decision to not buy from Wallmart because the local store is claustrophobic and disorganized (with the potential loss to employees) different from the decision to not buy from Wallmart because of their poor labor record? At least one of the basic philosophical points behind adbusters is that politics should be as important in consumer decisions as price, performance, quality and customer service.
The other side to the boycott is putting money in the hands of groups that you support. The dollar I don't spend at McDonald's is replaced by the dollar I do spend to help the local deli expand the resturaunt and employ additional cooks and waitstaff. A business losing market share due to a boycott has a number of options. They can attempt to recapture that market share by changing how they do business, they can ignore that market share and focus on growth elsewhere (Disney in response to the Religious Right), or they can die off letting other companies try to meet the market need (Arthur Anderson.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:00 AM on March 13, 2003
Very well put, KirkJobSluder. And you too, asok.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:32 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:32 AM on March 13, 2003
But I think there is another factor at work here. I find it ironic how much "let the market decide" is chanted as a mantra until a group like adbusters proposes to use the market to change the political orientation of businesses.
I'm certainly not claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions based on whatever factors they choose -- including allegiance to adbusters. If a company is not acting ethically, or even if you don't like the color of their logo, by all means, don't buy their products -- if enough people agree with you the market will react. I'm saying I think a generalized boycott of "American Brands" specifically intended to hurt the American economy in order to get send some message about "American globalisation" is idiotic. But hey, if you like stupid ideas, and you want to hurt your own economy, by all means, boycott "Brand America."
although, to be quite honest, I don't think "Brand America's" quaking in its shoes. Have you seen teenage girls these days? It seems like every one has a cell phone glued to her ear, Starbucks Venti Latte in hand, SUV parked outside the mall, buying the latest Avril Levigne CD. Good luck reaching that demographic, adbusters.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:33 AM on March 13, 2003
I'm certainly not claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions based on whatever factors they choose -- including allegiance to adbusters. If a company is not acting ethically, or even if you don't like the color of their logo, by all means, don't buy their products -- if enough people agree with you the market will react. I'm saying I think a generalized boycott of "American Brands" specifically intended to hurt the American economy in order to get send some message about "American globalisation" is idiotic. But hey, if you like stupid ideas, and you want to hurt your own economy, by all means, boycott "Brand America."
although, to be quite honest, I don't think "Brand America's" quaking in its shoes. Have you seen teenage girls these days? It seems like every one has a cell phone glued to her ear, Starbucks Venti Latte in hand, SUV parked outside the mall, buying the latest Avril Levigne CD. Good luck reaching that demographic, adbusters.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:33 AM on March 13, 2003
"America" isn't supporting the war, "American corporations and their brands" aren't supporting the war. Many of the American people aren't even supporting the war. The President is. ... don't assume that the President IS America or is even American corporations.
there's no contest between Seattle and Vancouver: we suck, they rule.
our government is little more these days than a gaggle of well-paid attorneys for the interests of big corporations.
Feel free to disagree -- that's what makes America such a great country (oops, I probably shouldn't say that out loud here).
the vast majority of americans who had nothing to do with Kyoto, Bush's War, or the International Criminal Court.
How do I boycott the military industrial complex? No one bothered to ask me if it was okay to stockpile nuclear weapons or build excessive Stealth Bombers.
i may be naive, but i have to wonder: why is it that so many of us feel like we have no say in our supposedly-democratic government? if (IF) it's true (and it does seem that way in my admittedly limited worldview) that so many of us are against so much of what's going on in government these days, why can't we change things? is no one listening? or is no one saying anything?
But if the problem lies with me, or within my home, different approaches are necessary, and they'd usually involve going as directly as possible to the root of the specific problem. That's if you think your country is basically a good place with some problems worth fixing. If you don't, bail. Move somewhere else.
orange swan brings up a great point. most americans do at least think that america is basically a good place, right? right?
fiz is right. from an idealist's point of view, this shouldn't be a problem, but it seems to be for a lot of us, despite our lofty intentions. i, for one, feel unbelievably helpless. and i don't know why, when at heart, i feel i agree with america's ideals (if only at the founding-fathers' level).
even if we were principled enough to do what pardonyou? suggests, is that what our founding fathers intended? civil disobedience is one thing, but to have to blatantly break a necessary and unrelated law to make a point? and would anyone listen, anyway? wouldn't you just be locked up as that cheap froot, and promptly ignored?
and yes, i understand that my confusion (and the quoted comments from this discussion) may be all related to the fuzzy line between the actual government and large corporations that are globalizing, but i'll figure it all out someday. and i'll get back to you.
posted by sa3z at 11:38 AM on March 13, 2003
there's no contest between Seattle and Vancouver: we suck, they rule.
our government is little more these days than a gaggle of well-paid attorneys for the interests of big corporations.
Feel free to disagree -- that's what makes America such a great country (oops, I probably shouldn't say that out loud here).
the vast majority of americans who had nothing to do with Kyoto, Bush's War, or the International Criminal Court.
How do I boycott the military industrial complex? No one bothered to ask me if it was okay to stockpile nuclear weapons or build excessive Stealth Bombers.
i may be naive, but i have to wonder: why is it that so many of us feel like we have no say in our supposedly-democratic government? if (IF) it's true (and it does seem that way in my admittedly limited worldview) that so many of us are against so much of what's going on in government these days, why can't we change things? is no one listening? or is no one saying anything?
But if the problem lies with me, or within my home, different approaches are necessary, and they'd usually involve going as directly as possible to the root of the specific problem. That's if you think your country is basically a good place with some problems worth fixing. If you don't, bail. Move somewhere else.
orange swan brings up a great point. most americans do at least think that america is basically a good place, right? right?
fiz is right. from an idealist's point of view, this shouldn't be a problem, but it seems to be for a lot of us, despite our lofty intentions. i, for one, feel unbelievably helpless. and i don't know why, when at heart, i feel i agree with america's ideals (if only at the founding-fathers' level).
even if we were principled enough to do what pardonyou? suggests, is that what our founding fathers intended? civil disobedience is one thing, but to have to blatantly break a necessary and unrelated law to make a point? and would anyone listen, anyway? wouldn't you just be locked up as that cheap froot, and promptly ignored?
and yes, i understand that my confusion (and the quoted comments from this discussion) may be all related to the fuzzy line between the actual government and large corporations that are globalizing, but i'll figure it all out someday. and i'll get back to you.
posted by sa3z at 11:38 AM on March 13, 2003
One question, though: how do Americans themselves boycott America?
Ritual suicide.
Now we'll see who's a serious activist
posted by jaded at 12:48 PM on March 13, 2003
Ritual suicide.
Now we'll see who's a serious activist
posted by jaded at 12:48 PM on March 13, 2003
Have you seen teenage girls these days? It seems like every one has a cell phone glued to her ear, Starbucks Venti Latte in hand, SUV parked outside the mall, buying the latest Avril Levigne CD. Good luck reaching that demographic, adbusters
Hey, Avril Lavigne is Canadian.
posted by mfli at 12:53 PM on March 13, 2003
Hey, Avril Lavigne is Canadian.
posted by mfli at 12:53 PM on March 13, 2003
Hey, Avril Lavigne is Canadian.
Yes, but Arista is not (warning: annoying link).
posted by pardonyou? at 1:29 PM on March 13, 2003
Yes, but Arista is not (warning: annoying link).
posted by pardonyou? at 1:29 PM on March 13, 2003
Have you seen teenage girls these days? It seems like every one has a cell phone glued to her ear, Starbucks Venti Latte in hand, SUV parked outside the mall, buying the latest Avril Levigne CD.
That's it, I'm boycotting teenage girls.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:29 PM on March 13, 2003
That's it, I'm boycotting teenage girls.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:29 PM on March 13, 2003
If a company is not acting ethically, or even if you don't like the color of their logo, by all means, don't buy their products -- if enough people agree with you the market will react. I'm saying I think a generalized boycott of "American Brands" specifically intended to hurt the American economy in order to get send some message about "American globalisation" is idiotic. But hey, if you like stupid ideas, and you want to hurt your own economy, by all means, boycott "Brand America."
Well, I agree that this boycott is not well thought-out primarily because there does not seem to be any common link among all the brands specified. It seems that they are just rebranding their buy campaign to buy local into a big anti-war statement.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:32 PM on March 13, 2003
Well, I agree that this boycott is not well thought-out primarily because there does not seem to be any common link among all the brands specified. It seems that they are just rebranding their buy campaign to buy local into a big anti-war statement.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:32 PM on March 13, 2003
« Older Farscape ends its run - or has it? | We blog gadgets! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's easy. Just support NAFTA.
posted by Beholder at 5:40 AM on March 13, 2003