In case you are not up on your country’s news, last week Arizona signed into law the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants by making the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and giving the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally (read more here). As politicans and citizens weigh in on this issue, a few musicians have also engaged themselves in the debate, as well as formulating the proper means of political dissent.
Today the music website Pitchfork reported the following:
As you may have heard, frontman Damian Abraham [of the band Fucked Up] spent a pretty good chunk of yesterday on his Twitter, debating fellow Canadian indie types Stars about the proper response to Arizona’s massively controversial and possibly unconstitutional new immigration law. When Stars announced that they’d boycott the state until the law is repealed, Abraham responded that there were better ways to express dissent. Later, he elaborated: “Why not keep playing Arizona, using the shows as an opportunity to engage the people there to get involved (they are the ones after all capable to affecting change in the state), use press ops before the show to talk about what is going on in the local media, donate some of the guarantee to nomoredeaths.org or other such groups that work on the front lines fighting draconian immigration laws…. hell even get them to table at the show.”
These musicians are taking to twitter in order to defend their position and so far here are some of the highlights:
Stars (@montrealstars) -
- “just heard Fucked Up don’t support a boycott of AZ. um…one of them has a job on fox news…so..yeah….we all have a voice! lets use it!”
- “boycotts work for many reasons . one of which is they incite discussion and debate and thought….its not about our shitty pop band……. “
- “so props to Fucked Up for taking up the argument but of course stars wont change anything….but TOGETHER people can change the world…”
Damian Abraham (@leftfordamian) -
- “Don’t get me wrong, I think the AZ immigration bill is horrible and must be repealed but I also think that indie bands boycotting the state is inane. Do Stars honestly think that by denying the state their brand of dreamy pop that they’re going to force the governor’s hand? All this does is not give the people that like your band enough credit and assumes that they are in someway supportive of the bill. Mind you, if you are Nickleback and a fan base of those types of douche bags then boycotting is a good strategy.”
- “Why not keep playing Arizona, using the shows as an opportunity to engage the people there to get involved (they are the ones after all capable to affecting change in the state), use press ops before the show to talk about what is going on in the local media, donate some of the guarantee to nomoredeaths.org or other such groups that work on the front lines fighting draconian immigration laws…. hell even get them to table at the show.”
Ultimately, I believe I side with Abraham. This is a large political issue to tackle that requires changing peoples opinions as well as activism. While Stars may moblize some of their fans to repeal this law by boycotting playing in AZ, presumably either because they want the band to come back to their state or they will care about the issue because Stars cares about the issue, they will not be able to change widespread opinion.
However, Abraham’s argument that you can “[use] the shows as an opportunity to engage the people there to get involved” seems far more effective and impactful. Concerts staged for causes are a great opportunity to raise awareness and money. In June 1996, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rage Against the Machine and many other musicians came together for a Tibetan Freedom Concert in San Fransisco. The event drew 100,000 people and raised over $800,000 for Tibetan and social justice causes. If Stars cares deeply about this issue, I believe that the cause would be better served if they try to band together with musicans for social change.
Boycotting has it place and it can be effective if done well. In 1988, the St. Louis Cardinals relocated to Arizona. Being in possession of a warm climate and excellent stadium facilities, the National Football League was eager to hold a Super Bowl at Sun Devil Stadium, home of the newly styled Arizona Cardinals. At a meeting in the spring of 1990, it was decided that the 1993 Super Bowl would be awarded to the franchise.
Meanwhile, in 1986, federal legislation creating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day came into effect. However, not all state governments recognized the legacy of Dr. King as being worthy of celebration, including Arizona. Although legislation establishing the holiday cleared the state legislature in 1989, it was nullified by ballot initiative the next year. In response to a call by Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s widow, and Stevie Wonder, a complete entertainment and convention boycott of Arizona was initiated. The band Public Enemy even released a song called “By The Time I Get To Arizona,” in opposition to the state’s reluctance to recognize the holiday. (See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7MjSXiCuuw) Under pressure from the above figures and the NFL Players Association, the NFL decided to switch the 1993 venue from Arizona to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.
The story, however, has a happy ending. In 1992, after losing millions of dollars during the boycott, the people of Arizona successfully passed a ballot initiative recognizing Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a public holiday. The next year, the NFL awarded the 1996 Super Bowl to Arizona.
Fucked Up and Stars are not Coretta Scott King, the NFL Players Association, or Public Enemy. Abraham is clearly correct that a boycott by some indie band that few people have heard of is not going to sway Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona State Legislature on such a complicated and emotional issue. But to reject a well proven political tactic, especially when it has such a potent civil rights legacy in the state, is foolish. Indeed, even Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D, AZ-7) has made recent public statements advocating for such a tactic to be used on his own home state.
Certainly, unity is required to oppose this new law. But unity does not preclude using a variety of tactics.
[...] can see Playtonic’s discussion of this issue in an earlier article from April: Musicians Debate Political Dissent. In addition to political visibility, this concert will be notable as the first Rage show in the [...]