Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!ism780c!tim@ism780c
From: tim%ism780c@ism780c.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: good news...
Message-ID: <2125@ism780c>
Date: Sat, 3-May-86 04:36:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.2125
Posted: Sat May  3 04:36:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 17:06:23 EDT
References: <398@bambi>
Lines: 35

In article <262@gc49.UUCP> smithrd@gc49.UUCP (Randy D. Smith) writes:
>In article I write:
>>
>>For example, if I found out that the supermarket I shop at ( Ralphs ) was
>>helping to support apartheid, I would take my business to another
>>supermarket, and let Ralphs know why...
>
> Not a good analogy.  (1) Ralphs is presumably a *NON-GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED*
> business concern.

Suppose I buy a share of Ralphs stock ( if such a thnig exists ).  Should
that give me the right to blockade a Ralphs store because I don't like
corporate policy?

Since U.C.B. is a state school, I think that the problem needs to be
dealt with at a state level.  Thus, I think that the way to fight
U.C.B. investment in South Africa ( or other state investment in
S.A. ) is to convince the legislature that the people do not want
tax money used for such things.

In particular, I think that people organizing blockades could do a lot
more to end apartheid by collecting signatures on a petition to send
to the legislature.  Or by working to elect legislators who agree with
them on divestment.

> Were picketers of businesses that discriminated against blacks in
> the 60s wrong?  Should they have limited themselves to a simple
> economic boycott, as you seem to be suggesting?

The original article said that it was a blockade at U.C.B., not a
picket line.  A picket line is fine, since those who happen to not
agree with the picketers are not infringed upon.

-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim