Protests and marches get attention. However, they are not effective without some sort of leverage. Historically, the one threat to power that would guarantee changes were economic threats. In the history books, I notice how the marches, sit-ins, and protest are played up, but the domestic economic sanctions get a brief mentioning. This is because money is the key to change and little else matters. Case in point#1 Montgomery Bus Boycott After this ordeal, demands were met. Case in point#2 Group Economics When Blacks were mistreated in White establishments, they developed their own establishments (Negro League, restaurant chains, etc). Seeing capital flee, the greedy were forced to push for integration to tap into the capital and talent pools. Case in point#3 Political Lobbyist None of these operatives march or protest, but they will fund these to facilitate distractions. Otherwise, they are leveraging money to get politicians to pass laws that favor them. What makes a boycott effective?1. Tangible demand(s) 2. Discipline 3. Time 4. Mass participation Who would get the attention? Corporations! Who would've guessed? The government is an enormous bureaucracy. Trying to get demands met would take years if not decades. Conversely, if a mass amount of people threatened to boycott a corporations product/service, the corporation would take a careful listen. This is especially true if you are part of the demographic that does major business with the company. Consider the following cases: 1. One of Walmart's trucks got into an accident and hurt another individual, but insurance didn't cover them. Never mind whose fault it was, people were so upset about the incident they contacted Walmart threatening to boycott its stores until they fixed the situation. Walmart folded like a cheap lawn chair. Why? Because so many people were threatening its bottom line. 2. The NBA banned Sterling and fined him for over $2.5 million just for making comments in private! The Clippers and many others held their protests, but this was not what pushed Sterling out. The Capitalist sized up his liability-to-Asset ratio and told him he was done. 3. The Nike boycott where company sales fell off after being accused of using child labor. The hit was pretty significant and since then, they've been trying to restore their reputation since. Final Thought While I do see the significance of marching and protesting to bring attention to contentious issues, I believe that economic threats are a far more effective tool. Boycotts have lasting effects. Marching and protesting may go into the history books, but without any type of leverage all attention and gains are short lived.
This question was already answered in my OP. The biggest demographic to solicit KFC and Schlitz Malt Liquor is not black people. Please look at the customer demographics for each of these products and get enlightened.
Refute what? BS like hands up don't shoot? Here's a huge hint. Buy body armor. It's much better than useless slogans and lame excuses.
Does not change the fact that blacks are not the real beer drinkers, much less the malt liquor drinkers. You can look to other demographics to take that mantle. So no, if there ever were a protest, the malt liquor sellers would be in no danger. LOL!!!! I know right. I keep hearing about this high IQ, but the arguments don't match. *Sigh*
Since 2010, students at the University of Missouri were dealing with racial pranks and hostile situations. It seems some complaints were made, but none taken too seriously. The students believed, rightly or wrongly, that the university officials failed to address these scenarios appropriately. Fast forward to October 2015. Students protest, even blocking the University of Missouri president's car. He laughed it off, not taking them seriously. He plays them off even up until the beginning of November. So far we have since 2010 'til the end of 2015 nothing being done about the perceived hostile educational environment. Game Changer: Black football players announce they won't practice or play until the university president is removed. This is November 8. November 9, the university president announces his resignation. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-protest-timeline/index.html
Group economics is not a bad thing. In fact it should be encouraged. What this practice does is allows the money to circulate in the community before it flies out. Circulation of the money provides a positive multiplier effect: Direct impact is spending done by a business in the local economy to operate the business, including inventory, utilities, equipment and pay to employees. Indirect impact happens as dollars the local business spent at other area businesses re-circulate. Induced impact refers to the additional consumer spending that happens as employees, business owners and others spend their income in the local economy. All in all, group economics creates wealth and jobs for the community. So what does this have to do with boycotts? Well, almost everything. To jump-start group economics in some places, the practice of doing business with outsiders should be shunned or discouraged in any way possible. Many ethnic groups make sure they conduct a certain level of transactions within their own group before they allow money to go out of their community. It can be done. One business/service at a time. [HR][/HR] I'm going to share a couple videos. Readers, please don't take offense to them, they are just demonstrating what some are doing to get those in the community to redirect their dollars. [video=youtube;jYLTcgfqA54]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYLTcgfqA54&sns=gp[/video] [video=youtube;faZZedjTyUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faZZedjTyUg&sns=gp[/video]
I need to add that the Mizzou football protest wasn't just any protest. It had dollar signs attached to it. It would have cost the university over $1,000,000 if the players sat out the game. Normal protests had yet to get the desired results, whereas the boycott got the desired results overnight.
With few exceptions, the people who brag the most about coming from a "high IQ" race aren't necessarily on the furthest right end of the bell curve themselves.
