Hey, don’t take this too seriously, but I hope you get raped and stabbed in the face.

- overeducated elitist liberal rich kid

easy, breezy. i think you’re making a false correlation between the “n” bomb, which has a well-documented and ugly history, and the term “brown people”, which really doesn’t. there are some pretty vile words used by bigots to dehumanize people from central and south america, but “brown people”, unless i’ve completely missed something, is not one of them. the “n” bomb, on the other hand, is the “n” bomb, and is a painful reminder of the way racism became, and remains, a political and social institution in our country. the racism faced by people of central and south american descent is very real, i know, but i’m not convinced that the term “brown people” constitutes this egregious insult on the same level as the infamous “n” bomb. feel free to convince me that my conclusions are totally off-base.

i understand that there is a lot of division among latinos in the US about how they identify, and that terms are usually falling in and out of use or fashion: hispanic, chicano, latin american, etc. i also understand that there’s a large cultural difference between, say, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, and that the two groups don’t always see eye to eye on these kinds of questions. if you’re really so personally offended by the term, my bad. i was mostly using the word to contrast the challenges facing immigrants to the unrecognized privileges enjoyed by folks with white skin.

fine, surrender, but understand that the bottom line is you’re kidding yourself if you believe that you wrote your original post with no opinion about the AZ legislation. you use a number of terms that are loaded with real anti-immigrant sentiment. these terms push your apparent “questions” to side with the racists. i’m not really sure why you act like this is so hard to grasp.

You know, a very relevant point in this debate is being ignored: in 1990, Arizona failed to vote forward a resolution to honor and observe Martin Luther King Day (Sen. McCain even voted against the bill to create the federal holiday in 1983, and defended Gov. Evan Mecham’s decision to rescind the state’s recognition of MLK Day). Massive boycotts followed, the biggest achievement being the state’s loss of the Super Bowl XXVII to. In 1992, the protesters won, and MLK Day was created in Arizona.

I don’t exactly know what Pink Eyes thinks would constitute a targeted boycott, but by all reports, what happened in 1990 probably wouldn’t qualify. It was a general boycott, and it cost the state millions of dollars in revenues normally acquired through tourism and entertainment, and it succeeded. Exactly what situation in which Pink Eyes feels a boycott would be effective is unclear.

I agree with Pink Eyes for noting the importance of building solidarity with the people of Arizona. He’s definitely correct to say that we need to support the organizations in Arizona that defend equal rights for all people and advocate for immigrants. But the implication that somehow it’s a gross punishment against Arizonans for bands to boycott their state is more than a little sanctimonious. Who the fuck cares? Anyone who recognizes the injustice of this situation should be more than okay with Stars skipping their home state. If you can’t live without a live performance by Stars, then fucking organize, and get that shit repealed stat. Arizonans are not helpless in this fight. Until then, rock out with your friends, and keep it underground. The idea that somehow it’s up to big touring bands to help empower people to take action is rather belittling to activism and music in Arizona.

I’m also confused about “the people” he refers to several times who need our support. Who would really be suffering under a musician’s boycott…the people most impacted by this racist legislation, or Stars fans? Who actually needs our support? The people most impacted by this racist legislation, or Stars fans? Sorry Stars fans. You lose. I’m sure there’s some overlap between the people most impacted by this racist legislation and Stars fans, but to all the white kids who are Stars fans in Arizona, suck it up. You should be more concerned about our Latino brothers and sisters facing sanctioned discrimination and harassment than when your favorite indie rock band will be back in Arizona. If this minimum of discomfort is unbearable to some, then they simply don’t care about ending racism as much as they like to pretend.

Pink Eyes is calling out the boycott strategy, but he has no real strategy of his own. The bottom line is that Stars are making a committed, ethical decision: they don’t want their talents used to raise revenues for a state that is trying to legalize discrimination. I don’t even like Stars, but I love them for doing this. I know Pink Eyes wants to present a nuanced, well-considered, academic response, but he describes no viable alternative beyond being supportive, and gives no reason to think that a boycott strategy might not be successful. Instead, he tries to act like he’s the one really looking out for the people of Arizona. A little Canadian Grandstand, I suppose. Thank God music fans in Arizona have as committed a champion as Pink Eyes, trying to make sure that no one has to suffer through a devastating lack of national indie rock tours. Seriously though, anyone who’s crying “But think of the fans!” needs a priority check.

What’s disappointing to hear from a band that presents itself as radical is that Pink Eyes gives a standard liberal response: he has great intentions, but can’t be bothered to engage in direct action to fight against injustice because he thinks there should be a better way to do this where everyone wins, and we all end up friends. I almost want to believe that he simply hasn’t stated his position clearly. If he wants to elaborate on his feelings of why a boycott would be unsuccessful, I’d be willing to reconsider that evaluation. Until then, Stars, keep fighting the power. Fucked Up, keep selling those records.