Integrity is an important ethic for all of us to uphold, but it seems as though there are many times when the line is not so clear and people cross it. Perhaps they see how… More
While quoting Wikipedia is not considered academic, I like their definition of boycott:
A boycott is an act of voluntary and intentional abstention from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social, political, or environmental reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behavior.
There are many examples of boycotts leading to massive social change: the Montgomery bus boycott, the boycott of British goods in India and the great Salt March, the grape boycott of the United Farm Workers, the divestment from business interest in South Africa, as well as a number of consumer-driven boycotts aimed at promoting fair business practices.
Ethical Consumer reports that in 1791, after Parliament refused to abolish slavery, there was a massive boycott of sugar produced by slaves which led to a drop in sales of sugar between a third and a half. “In an early example of fair trade, shops began selling sugar guaranteed to be have been produced by ‘free men’.”
My point here is that we can rant and rave all we want about the problems that plague society, but when we log off our social media sites and go to the store or the mall without consciousness and support the very entities that we purport to be fighting against, they win. When we succumb to capitalist greed because we want that latest greatest thing at the lowest cost possible, we unconsciously support a system that preys on low and middle income people. The value menu saves you a buck on a burger, but what are we putting in our bodies. Excessive packaging can makes products more attractive, but what is it doing to the environment? We choose chemically-based products and pesticide-ridden and GMO-altered foods, because of cost, convenience, and because everyone else is buying them. I know, because I make these same decisions on a daily basis, often with a great lack of consciousness myself.
But as Shelly and I were sitting on our balcony sipping our coffee discussing the weight of the world as we normally do every morning, we began thinking we do have the power collectively to make change. We can use perhaps the most lethal weapon available to us, our dollar. When consumer spending habits change, businesses respond. It may cost a little more, but ultimately, if it becomes regular practice, prices may in fact level off.
As an example, Campbell’s has recently launched an organic line of soup. They state that organic eating is top of the mind year round and that 53% of Americans ages 18-29 are actively trying to include organic foods into their diet. A 2015 Cone Communications/Ebiquity CSR study found “Global consumers have high demands for companies to address social and environmental issues, but they now also understand they have an obligation to make change, as well. It’s critical for companies to understand the nuanced drivers, barriers and opportunities that resonate among discerning global audiences.” Stated more simply, businesses will respond if we put our dollar where our mouth is. While capitalism may prevail, we have the power collectively to control it.
So, spend with mindfulness, reuse, recycle, walk more, drive less, plant a garden, support local organic farmers & small businesses, remove chemicals from our homes, incorporate essential oils into your life, use sustainable products, and boycott when necessary. Boycotts can be used on both sides of the aisle as well, as evidence by the recent #boycotthawaii campaign by Trump supporters in response to a Hawaii’s federal judge requesting a restraining order to put a hold on the the revised travel ban. Such a boycott is aimed at hurting Hawai’i’s tourism economy, its largest single contributor to the state’s gross domestic product. I personally hope the boycott is successful. Tourism is not sustainable for the people of Hawaii or our ‘āina. If successful, this boycott could help us better understand how we can have a more self-sustaining economy that is in line with the many values that the people of Hawai’i hold near and dear to their hearts, mālama ‘āina, mālama honua, aloha, kuleana, and po’okela, to name a few. So yes, #boycotthawaii!
Posted by my loving and incredible partner, Shelly
Redemption Song…We forward in this generation
My husband Mike likes to talk to cab drivers and Uber drivers and airport shuttle drivers… if your driving us, he wants to talk with you. His father was a driver here on Oahu, as well as a gifted story-teller, and I think Mike realizes the depth of both information and history that these amazing people hold. I actually like that he likes to talk to our drivers. It makes the trip much more interesting and you never know what you might learn.
Last week we were in Florida attending a conference for our Young Living business. We decided to stay in the convention center where the conference was going on and we decided not to rent a car since we would be busy much of every day. When you stay at a conference center without a car you are pretty much held hostage. They charge you crazy prices for mediocre (at best) food and…
View original post 817 more words
Last week, I had my students write about research methods based on readings from the book, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Luhiwai Smith. As a community-based, participatory researcher, her words make sense and I would like to recommend her book to any course on research methods. Specifically, she examines the interconnection between research and imperialism in the creation of knowledge and “truth.”
Those who hold power also controls “truth.” We see this in the creation of national, state, and local policies and even our social service programs. When those in power hold perspectives that are incongruent with the reality of those without power, this can be truly dangerous. The same can be said with research. When we as researchers, individuals who hold power to a degree, develop our research questions, collect data, and interpret those responses without critically analyzing the biases and assumptions that underlie our work, we have the potential to reinforce imperialistic thoughts and practices among the populations we hope to serve.
Here is a simple example. A few months ago, I was involved in a conversation with people from a State agency who were interested in research on Native Hawaiians in the foster care system. Native Hawaiian children comprise about 49% of all children in the foster care system in Hawaii and these investigators were interested in conducting research on how we can help them identify how we could recruit more Native Hawaiian foster parents.
One question came to mind…Of the percentage of foster parents in the system, what percentage are currently Native Hawaiian? A simple question I thought given the subject. They did not know. Well, I responded, if Native Hawaiians make up about 20% of the State’s population and there are 49% of Native Hawaiian children in foster care, you would need Native Hawaiians, who are also among the State’s poorest and most disenfranchised, to participate at more than twice the rate of any other ethnic group. Perhaps Native Hawaiians are already participating within the range of their proportion to the population? If that is the case, then the question should not be why more Native Hawaiians do not foster children, but why the heck are there so many Native Hawaiian children in foster care!
There was a brief silence and then the meeting resumed. My point was not fully acknowledged and I never heard back from these individuals. What were the biases of these individuals toward Native Hawaiians? How does it relate to imperialism and research? Questions to ponder. I’d love to hear your examples.
From a student in my Decolonizing Social Work course based on the movie Rabbit Proof Fence. Check it out!
I watched “The Rabbit Proof Fence” about the stolen generations for an assignment this week. I had known about the intentional destruction of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Tasmania, but watching the story unfold in film drives home the point so vividly. I think we as a culture we can more easily write off cultural oppression when we see it as accidental, versus organized annihilation as found in this story, jewish persecution, or Native American massacres at the hands of Europeans. Stories like this one, however, leave little room for interpretation. What is also saddening for me is to think of the moral causalities caused by bad science and misplaced faith. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, eugenics was thought by many to be scientific fact. Hitler credited part of the Nazi “final solution” to the American eugenics movement. The children taken against their will, the families…
View original post 452 more words