Note: This letter also posted to:
Peace and Environment Resource Center forums.
Adbusters has set up a new campaign called Boycott Brand America as a response to United States foreign policy. Their suggestion is as follows:
So we empty the McDonald's, the Niketowns and Hollywood cinemas. We clear out Disneyland. We turn off Fox, CNN and MTV. We shut down Esso and Texaco, Gap and Starbucks.
I need to ask the obvious question: why is Microsoft not listed?
Microsoft is the company that created and sustains the richest man in the world, often extracting considerable wealth from the poorest people and nations to do so. Microsoft has been tried and convicted but never punished of economic crimes (anti-trust) much worse than Enron or Worldcom. Microsoft is active politically in setting parts of the economic foreign policy of the United States.
I am always surprised when this brand isn't mentioned as this company has a much greater influence on American foreign policy than most of the other brands mentioned. We did not see the CEO of MTV or Gap on the Seattle Host Organization (WTO, Seattle 99), but you did see William H. Gates III, then Chairman and CEO of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft's "trade" and "Intellectual Property" agenda has factored very high in United States foreign and domestic economic policy.
Is this simply a question of convenience? Many of the brands mentioned are brands that are already not being used by the most likely audience for this boycott. Is it really a boycott if one just indicates louder that they will not use brands that they do not currently use?
To make a statement, something that is currently used should be given up. In order to be a real boycott, it needs to be inconvenient.
Many people often give convenience or lack of time/knowledge to learn new tools as their reason to not switch from Microsoft to Free/Libre and Open Source Software.
Maybe it is time to give up that perceived convenience to make a statement about something you believe in.
Comments
Re: LawMeme article [140]
by Russell McOrmond on Monday, March 17 @07:46PM
|
|
The LawMeme doesn't seem very well written, and I am not sure what their central point is at all. A consumer boycott of products from specific country-specific brands is being promoted by both sides, including from US government spokespersons suggesting a boycott of French products.
My article had a clear message: If you believe that a consumer boycott sends a message, ensure that your own participation has some strength to it by boycotting some brand that is currently being used.
Do I believe generally that consumer boycotts work? I believe that they have an affect not on the target companies, but on people who you may have a chance to express your views with if your personal activity is visable. If you say to friends "No, I can not go with you to a wedding in the United States because of a disagreement on some policy" (In my case a protest against the USA's DMCA starting in the summer of 2001).
Do I believe that the United States administration is wrong in its going to war with Iraq? I believe my view on that was made clear elsewhere such as my submission to the Canadian Departnment of Justice. My support for consistantly applied international law means that I oppose any military involvement by the United States off of its own soil, and my views on the upcoming war are entirely based on my views of the United States and not those of any other individuals or countries.
|
|
Re: LawMeme article [140]
by Russell McOrmond on Monday, March 17 @07:46PM
|
|
The LawMeme doesn't seem very well written, and I am not sure what their central point is at all. A consumer boycott of products from specific country-specific brands is being promoted by both sides, including from US government spokespersons suggesting a boycott of French products.
My article had a clear message: If you believe that a consumer boycott sends a message, ensure that your own participation has some strength to it by boycotting some brand that is currently being used.
Do I believe generally that consumer boycotts work? I believe that they have an affect not on the target companies, but on people who you may have a chance to express your views with if your personal activity is visable. If you say to friends "No, I can not go with you to a wedding in the United States because of a disagreement on some policy" (In my case a protest against the USA's DMCA starting in the summer of 2001).
Do I believe that the United States administration is wrong in its going to war with Iraq? I believe my view on that was made clear elsewhere such as my submission to the Canadian Departnment of Justice. My support for consistantly applied international law means that I oppose any military involvement by the United States off of its own soil, and my views on the upcoming war are entirely based on my views of the United States and not those of any other individuals or countries.
|
|
|
