In this class, we looked at the history of what Boycotting was, how it originated, how the meaning has shifted, and how it is used today.
We started with a history lesson. In the 19th century, all land in Ireland was owned by 10,000 people, 0.2% of the population, and of them 750 owned half of that land, nearly all English. Charles Boycott of the 39th Foot, born 1832 Norfolk, moved to Mayo during this time, to act as debt collector for such a land lord, British Lord Crichton of Erne. Dissatisfied with his yield, he raised the rent, leading to many people unable to live and work on his land.
Local activist Michael Davitt and the Land League, founded October 1879 in order to counter such exploitative actions, mobilised in defense of the workers of Lord Erne. They advocated for the 3 Fs, Fair rent, Fixtity of tenure, Free sales, and were working with MP Charles Stewart Parnell of the Irish Parliamentary Party, holding 60 of 652 seats, nearly all of Ireland’s Parliamentary seats.
As part of their activism, under help from the IPP and the LL, locals ostracised Boycott in October 1880 and refused to work Lord Erne’s fields. Orangemen (loyalist and protestant activists) and Royal Irish Constabulary men picked crops instead for Lord Erne, to offset the lack of work, and scab the strike. Paid for by Erne, it cost £10,000 to harvest £500 (€1,200,000 for €60,000 in today’s money) This expensive practice led to Boycott leaving by December 1880, and the rent was not raised.
This practice spread in Ireland, and was copied all over, “Boycotting” their own lands in order to combat excessive rent. Parnell and Davitt were brought to court, but the case was dismissed. Dual ownership of land was introduced, and the three Fs were signed into law.
It is important to note how it wasn’t a sporadic movement. There was a singular event, an achievable goal, a small time-frame, pressure of having to get the crops harvested immediately, and institutional support. The practice nonetheless spread outside of Ireland.
The Tobacco Boycott of the late 19th century took place in a Persia that had been in turmoil. It had been defeated in multiple wars, and the Qajar dynasty was weakened. Shah Naser al-Din Qajar gave British man Baron Julius de Reuter control over roads, telegraphs, mills, factories, extraction of resources all for 5 years and 60% of the revenue, but was pressured to abandon the agreement by the nobles of Persia. In 1890, he tried instead to give full tobacco control to British Major G.F. Talbot. In 1891, people rise up, including wealthy merchants and the Ulema, the priest class. In December 1891, a fatwa is issued against the use of tobacco. This caused an immediate decline in both production and consumption of tobacco. The British found it too tenuous and unprofitable, and removed themselves, returning ownership to Persians.
Again important to note how the religious support worked as an effective institutional backing for this movement, and the fact wealthy merchants partook greatly increased its success.
Looking further to the Chinese exclusion act signed in 1882 we witness a Boycott fail. The act banned Chinese immigrants for 10 years. It severely hampered post war construction attempts, and the economy stagnated with lack of cheap immigration. A popular boycott was initiated in China of American goods. Not noticed much by American markets, nor even by Chinese markets. Eventually, it was renewed in 1892 and not overturned until 1943, clearly the Boycott had a negligible effect, hardly greater than the effect of not having the immigrants in the first place. No institutional support, no time-frame, no achievable goal, and the economic power of Chinese immigrants was already taken away by the ban.
Boycotts did continue to be successful in the future. Montgomery Alabama, 1955 December – 1956 December saw Rosa Parks arrested for not surrendering her seat on the bus to white passengers. A citywide boycott by the Montgomery Improvement Association, which it was anticipating and preparing for. They advocated for; 1) courteous treatment by bus operators 2) passengers seated on a first come first served 3) black bus employees.
Buses subsequently lost business, as they had diminished revenue. Black taxi drivers charged bus rates in order to help maintain the longevity of the Boycott and help black workers get to work. Martin Luther King’s home was firebombed, leading to an outpouring of support in the rest of the country. 88 leaders and carpooled drivers were indicted and King spent 2 weeks in jail.
Eventually, Browder v. Gayle was brought before the courts, and segregated busses deemed unconstitutional, as per the public pressure from the publicity it had acquired nation-wide.
Once again, broad institutional support, a reasonable time-frame, and careful planning can be witnessed. It was not done on a whim. 9 months prior, Claudette was arrested, a 15 year old student who was pregnant at the time. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) deemed her unfortunately not sympathetic enough for nationwide support, and went with Rosa Parks instead. (Her case was still supported by the NAACP legally, simply they did not publicise it as much )
It is not always obvious if Boycotts were successful. The Anti-apartheid movement started in 1959 saw 27% of people boycotted apartheid goods by 1980 in England. And they achieved Democratic elections in South Africa by 1993. Olympics withdrew invitation 1964 to South Africa after interior minister Jan de Klerk insisted no racial integration. 68 nations supported this Boycott, mostly in Africa. By 1988 all apartheid sport banned. But was this due to Boycott pressure? And when we apply it to modern movements, how do we know it is having an effect? We must discuss it more.