THE VIEW FROM HERE-I saw the movie, Chávez, last weekend—a superb production that is well-written, acted, and directed. It showcases an important part of our history (that began in California but eventually affected the entire country and world) and transformed our way of thinking. The boycott helped pass laws that supported the changes desperately needed both on the farms (for growers and laborers) and in the markets. This movie is definitely a must-see, worthy of Oscar consideration!
It reminded me of the years I boycotted table grapes. My problem (among many) is when an official boycott is concluded, I keep at it long after it is over. Sorta like punishing the company or individual that provoked lahuelga in the first place.
In watching Chávez, I felt so much a part of the action that I wanted to shout out the slogans and boo the evil players, one of whom was then-Governor Ronald Reagan who arrogantly displayed his audacity, disdain, and insensitivity as he ate grapes while being interviewed on screen about the farmworkers’ movement and strife. Nixon lent his support to the growers as well (and see what happened to him). During other scenes in the film, I felt compelled to clap slowly and then faster and faster as union people do (but did so more quietly, of course).
I loved another scene, whose dialogue is worth quoting, that represented a time (1970) five years after the boycott began, when one of the grape-growers turned to César Chávez as they were signing a contract granting much improved conditions for the farmworkers: “Remember, a Croat put up a good fight.” Chávez responded with a great deal of pride, “Yes, and remember a Mexican beat you.”
The contract was a triumph for both the Filipino and Mexican workers (who had joined together to form one strong movement). It would be another five years before national legislation would grant the farmworkers further protections.
I was so used to boycotting table grapes over that ten-year period that it took me even more years before I would purchase that fruit of the vine again.
Sometimes, I start my own embargos because I don’t want my hard-earned dollars in any way to support the biases and prejudices that my boycott targets.
Take Mel Gibson (please do) and his movies with their anti-homosexual bent (such as Braveheart). What about his anti-Semitic and anti-female rants? It seems to me that anyone (unless they are totally oblivious) who patronizes his films is tacitly agreeing with his narrow-minded sentiments. Just sayin’.
Back in the day when I was in the Peace Corps in Brazil, the Nestlē Company intruded itself on the poor and hungry under the guise of making an attempt to ameliorate their conditions. We were supposed to “educate” them about the superiority of using baby formula instead of breast milk (OMG).
The problem is that when formula is used, mothers’ milk dries up. When the mothers start to run out of formula, they often dilute what is left to make it last longer and when all the formula runs out and there is no money to purchase more, the mothers can no longer breast feed and the babies become dramatically malnourished. As a consequence, the children suffer from Marasmus and Kwashiorkor, afflictions they will never be able to overcome—becoming physically and mentally deficient for the rest of their lives.
A world-wide boycott of Nestlē ensued, lasting long enough for the company to see the “evil of its ways” and stop the formula practice. Its post-boycott history was spotty, however. I stopped using its products for years (I am afraid that because there are so many subsidiaries, I might unknowingly be using some of them). At any rate, I am still boycotting.
I boycotted J. C. Penney for a long time as well. Also back in the day, Penney would not knowingly hire Jewish associates. My Jewish mother had become a sales clerk there and soon learned that she had to hide her religion from her bosses. One supervisor told her that if Jesus were a Jew, she would not be a Christian. Well, my mother told her that she was Jewish (“I didn’t mean you” was the obligatory response) and soon left for another job. There was also an intermittent boycott for various reasons against this chain of stores, so I didn’t shop there until it changed its practices.
When I first heard of Chick-fil-A, I was in praise of its commitment not to be open on the Christian Sabbath Sunday as that would have been in conflict with its Fourth Commandment belief. I applaud the idea of standing up for one’s principles as long as those guidelines don’t infringe on the welfare of others.
However, when I learned of its anti-LGBT philosophy which affected its practices and campaign contributions, I drew the line. I cannot patronize a restaurant that so openly impinges on the well-being of others. Remember what the 1954 Supreme Court decision said, “Separate is inherently unequal” because of the psychological effect that that categorizing notion has on the “unequal,” victimized, and demeaned among us. Hence, whether the issue is racist, sexist, religious, or that of sexual identification, I cannot abide patronizing any such companies.
I would not boycott Chick-fil-A simply because of its Christian beliefs. I do not eat there, however, because it is attempting to impose its less-than-Christian values on its customers and the world around it. Personally, I would rather patronize Moo Cluck Moo in Michigan than buy a sandwich from the Chick corporation.
I won’t shop Lowe’s because it withdrew sponsorship of an Arab-American reality show (there is always Home Depot). Walmart continues to be on my list as well as the Ritz Carlton and Marriott hotels for their low pay and often sub-human treatment of their employees. Those hotels, incidentally, are even known to engage in sweatshop practices for their laundry services.
Did you know that Ralph Lauren is on record for allowing horrific practices for obtaining angora? The fully conscious rabbits have their fur literally and gruesomely torn out of their skin, right down to their raw, bleeding flesh. The Boy Scouts of America still do not allow LGBT leaders for its troupes (and only recently have allowed openly LGBT boys into its programs). Macy’sproudlypartners with products affiliated with the Donald Trump brand—he openly and enthusiastically continues to berate our President in the most racist and condescending terms. In recent news articles, it has become known that Trader Joe’s has an ongoing practice of squeezing out the middle man and driving him out of business whenever TJ’s has the opportunity.
Mickey D’, in particular, and many other fast-food restaurants in general, refuse to pay their employees a living wage (hence some recent nationwide work actions). No longer are such staff “merely” high school students, earning pocket change, but a majority are trying to support themselves and/or their families or endeavoring to acquire a higher education on starvation wages. The Chávez movie emphasizes the theme that those who work the fields to feed others should be able to afford to feed their own families—just so should fast-food workers (and all workers for that matter) be able to support and feed themselves and their families.
Granted, I try to avoid stores that are not unionized but have also decided that if said stores take good care of their employees, I find it appropriate to patronize them as well. Unions are responsible for a wide spectrum of changes in the working world from which all of us benefit whether we are union laborers or not. Yet, if non-union stores follow union conventions with regard to their employees, then we ought to support them for their best practices.
Take Costco with its starting salary higher even than the proposed minimum-wage increase that the President has urged. By the way, if you buy your petrol there, you can save about 20¢ a gallon for high-quality fuel. In doing so, you can also avoid patronizing certain other oil companies, like those run by the Koch brothers. Those two and others like them insist on taking us all back to the Dark Ages. They dump millions into campaigns to suppress the vote and repress women’s rights while using fracking practices to extract oil which, as we have witnessed only too recently, are in large part responsible for many of the temblors we have experienced lately (like the 5.1 magnitude in Orange County. Are we next?).
Look at Enterprise Rent-a-Car. All of its staff must have college degrees and can swiftly move up to higher, better-paying positions. Target goes out of its way to hire the disabled.
Kudos to all those enterprises and their corporate leaders and to all the other stores that support similar policies.
Remember Circuit City? I was part of the nationwide action against a corporation that fired thousands of employees because they were making “too much money.” It replaced the knowledgeable, seasoned workers with clerks (essentially off the street) who had little technical background. The customers reacted negatively to the policies and practices. You see what happens to stubborn corporate bosses—Circuit City is out of business! Other companies have stepped in to bridge the gap. It should be clear that sensitivity to both worker and customer needs must be a priority if a company is to succeed in the long run.
Chávez teaches us that it is worth the struggle, the fight, the inconvenience to do better by the people who make our standard of living possible. Such a standard must be accessible to them as well. Remember what Dan Marino said in a commercial some time back? “I take care of the hands that take care of me”—a good concept for all of us to put into practice.
(Rosemary Jenkins is a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance. Jenkins has written Leticia in Her Wedding Dress and Other Poems, A Quick-and-Easy Reference to Correct Grammar and Composition and Vignettes for Understanding Literary and Related Concepts. She also writes for CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 28
Pub: Apr 4, 2014
