Boycott JAPAN, ICELAND, NORWAY

maow425

MORPH3US wrote:

Oh almost forgot, "in the first place" the OP asked who would like to boycott with her, NOT what things she could boycott, so "criticising" you for not answering the original post is valid IMHO!

M

Ok. Bad choice of words. I'll try again - just for you. In one of the first posts, LizEstelle asked for a list of things from Norway that could be boycotted. - Better?

jmarko

MORPH3US wrote:

I thinkk you need to go back and read the thread before jumping to conclusions, or making up what you want to see so you can use big words to make you appear clever when in reality, they have nothing to do with what was originally said!
<snip>
Oh and I forgot, you know what they say about sarchasm!!!

Or alternatively, you could consider the point I was making. The Montgomery bus boycott, whilst important, should not be viewed in isolation. To say that it lead to the 'victory' (however pyrrhic it turned out given more recent events) of the civil rights movement in the US, ignores everything else that was going on at the time. I won't deny that it is one of those iconic moments in history but the groundswell was already there and it would have happened anyway. What was much more fundamental was the pressure that was being put on the US Government at the time behind the scenes. The problem is that in our soundbite, 20 second attention span world, teaching that part is just not practical.

jmarko

maow425

MORPH3US wrote:

!

Oh and I forgot, you know what they say about sarchasm!!!

M

No, I don't, so please enlighten me - I'd love to know what they say!

jmarko

LizEstelle wrote:

I would ask people to avoid going off topic here onto irrelevant matters such as renewable energy.

I view my chosen way, namely of boycotting goods from countries which engage in this barbaric 'tradition', as totally legitimate and, in the end, probably far more successful than any pious statements from irrelevant, fringe organisations.

I acknowledge completely the fact that numbers are critical here but I'm quite happy to make this my personal statement if nobody else shows interest. It's something I can do and I intend to do it. If others do likewise in large numbers, so much the better.

Now then, all I need now is for someone to supply a list of Icelandic/Norwegian goods which I can stick on my kitchen noticeboard. I think I'm reasonably well up on the Japanese labels.

Anyone able to help on that front? Does anyone happen to know whether Ikea stuff, for example, is sourced from Norway in any quantity..?

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the post from LizEstelle asking for the list of goods.

hth

jmarko

MORPH3US

maow425 wrote:

No, I don't, so please enlighten me - I'd love to know what they say!

Please tell me you aren't serious.....

Did you go to school!?!?

MORPH3US

jmarko wrote:

Or alternatively, you could consider the point I was making. The Montgomery bus boycott, whilst important, should not be viewed in isolation. To say that it lead to the 'victory' (however pyrrhic it turned out given more recent events) of the civil rights movement in the US, ignores everything else that was going on at the time. I won't deny that it is one of those iconic moments in history but the groundswell was already there and it would have happened anyway. What was much more fundamental was the pressure that was being put on the US Government at the time behind the scenes. The problem is that in our soundbite, 20 second attention span world, teaching that part is just not practical.

jmarko

Ok, good point well made, but I still think that the boycott played a key role in highlighting the plight of black people in America. Whether it was the defining action is not under consideration, its more a case of did it help the cause? The answer from me is a restounding YES, it certainly did no harm! In which case it could be considered that the boycott was succesfull which was the original point 30 posts back or so, boycotting doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

I still don't see the Hiroshima connection though?

jmarko

MORPH3US wrote:

Ok, good point well made, but I still think that the boycott played a key role in highlighting the plight of black people in America. Whether it was the defining action is not under consideration, its more a case of did it help the cause? The answer from me is a restounding YES, it certainly did no harm! In which case it could be considered that the boycott was succesfull which was the original point 30 posts back or so, boycotting doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

I still don't see the Hiroshima connection though?

OK. Let's leave the Hiroshima thing aside - it was merely meant to be illustrative of a circumstance where the 'defining event' was not actually the main causative event. Oh and a tiny bit provocative.

The point where the bus boycott is more interesting (and actually more supportive of my argument) is that it was a boycott of a company that enforced a policy of segregation. What I am saying and have said all along is that, if we want to boycott things, then we should only boycott and lobby companies that actually have something to do with whaling. It is fundamentally unfair, unjust and unethical to punish people who do not agree with whaling for something that they are not doing. Surely principles of justice and equity did not die with Lord Denning?

jmarko

MORPH3US

jmarko wrote:

What I am saying and have said all along is that, if we want to boycott things, then we should only boycott and lobby companies that actually have something to do with whaling. It is fundamentally unfair, unjust and unethical to punish people who do not agree with whaling for something that they are not doing.

And to an extent I agree with you on that point and have done all along....

I say "to an extent" because I agree that its unfair to target someone who may not even agree with Whaling, but on the other hand, its a means to an end. If boycotting them means they put pressure on the govt to stop whaling then it has done some good...

M

frivolous_fay

ginger_nuts wrote:

I buy a product because its the right one at the right price .I don't care where it was made . If I did I wouldn't buy anything .

Perhaps the green and ethical board isn't for you, then

jmarko

MORPH3US wrote:

And to an extent I agree with you on that point and have done all along....

I say "to an extent" because I agree that its unfair to target someone who may not even agree with Whaling, but on the other hand, its a means to an end. If boycotting them means they put pressure on the govt to stop whaling then it has done some good...

M

For someone who seems to be in favour of civil liberties, that is a really odd stance.

So all we're really arguing over is the level of damage to innocent people that is acceptable. Consider the following:

Is taking action against someone who does not support whaling that leads to their loss of livelihood an acceptable means to an end, the end being of whaling?
Is locking up someone innocent without trial an acceptable means to an end, the end being a reduction in crime?
Is bombing the underground an acceptable means to an end, the end being the withdrawal of troops from Iraq?

Instead of blackmailing them, which is in effect what you are trying to do, why not try to persuade them? Boycott the offenders by all means, persuade the others to join you.

jmarko