- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
A few years ago there a boycott (probably continuing until today) of wigs (shaitels) produced with human hair in the Republic of India. The controversy was due to the fact that a leading source of hair was a temple (clearly a Bais Avodah Zarah, idol and all). Pilgrims would come to the temple, have their hair, and depending on whose interpretation you belived, either sold the hair to a vendor to get money to give to charity in honor of the idol, or donated the hair to the idol (whose keepers then sold it to the vendors). — People refused to buy such the wigs made with the hair, even though they had to buy more expensive wigs made elsewhere, or use a substitute good (inferior wigs made with something other than hair, hats, etc.). That is a boycott.
Refusing to buy a product because it is too expensive is just price discrimination, and is a normal part of the law of supply and demand which is one of the basic rules of economics.
This is also not a boycott.
A boycott is when you refuse to buy a product or service for a reason unlrelated to the product or service. People who think a wig is avoda zara are not boycotting; they don’t want the product.
When Jews do not buy German products because they murdered half of us, that is a boycott.
When French do not buy Israeli products because they hate Jews, that is a boycott.
When animal people do not buy fur products, that is not a boycott. When animal people do not buy non-fur products because the company also makes fur products, that is a boycott.
That’s my definition.
I agree with popa about the wigs, but I’m not sure I accept his definition. His definition would exclude the Borsalino boycott, but I think that probably is a boycott, because the point was to get people who would buy it at even at the current price to buy a different hat instead. This is related to the product, because the purpose is to lower the price of, or to not have bochurim go out of their budget to buy, this product, and it is certainly related to the price of this product. I think it might still be a boycott, because it’s not a natural avoidance of the product, but rather, a contrived one.
Wiktionary’s definition of boycott: To abstain, either as an individual or group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organization as an expression of protest.
Google definition: withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.
Dictionary .com definition: to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: “to boycott a store.”
Nu the new definition of a boycott is occupy or I am representing the 99%
Occupy Israel Boycott PLO
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.