TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

BOYCOTT

Banigoos, Clarice Sigrid Ann A.

Coronado, Nerinel M.
David, Sarah Kaye N.
Herrera, Dianne Keith
Lico, Clarissa Mae T.
Saoza, Neil Patrick
AR12FA5

Boycott as a noun is described as a group's refusal to have commercial dealings with some organization in protest against its
policies. It also refers to the way of refusing sponsors and or refusing to do business with. Boycott also known as embargo. is the
partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. Embargoes are considered strong
diplomatic measures imposed in an effort, by the imposing country, to elicit a given national-interest result from the country on which
it is imposed. Embargoes are similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to be confused
with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war. Embargo may also refer to the practice of blocking fare classes at certain
levels, and award availability on airlines. Embargoes are complex in their international meaning. In response to embargoes, an
independent economy or autarky often develops in an area subjected to heavy embargo. Effectiveness of embargoes are thus
necessarily in direct proportion to the extent and degree of international participation. Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient.
Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic systems. The latter are called closed economies. Autarky exists
whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. Autarky is not necessarily
economic. For example, a military autarky would be a state that could defend itself without help from another country. Autarky can be
said to be the policy of a state or other entity when it seeks to be self-sufficient as a whole, but also can be limited to a narrow field
such as possession of a key raw material.
A boycott is an agreement by two or more people who refuse to do business with a person or company. Unlike a single
company's boycott, or a boycott by consumers of a particular business, a group boycott is illegal under antitrust laws because it has the
effect of restraining freedom of trade. A group boycott is a per se violation of the antitrust laws; meaning that antitrust laws are
violated even if the businesses do not intend to restrain competition. The word "boycott" entered the English language because of a
dispute between a man named Boycott and the Irish Land League in 1880.To simply describe it, boycott is an organized popular
protest, named for Captain Charles C. Boycott (1832-97), a land agent in Ireland to whom this was done in 1880; an embargo is
usually imposed by a government. He was a landlord's agent, a man whose job was to collect rents from tenant farmers on an estate in
northwest Ireland. At the time, landlords, many of whom were British, were exploiting Irish tenant farmers, and as part of a protest,
the farmers on the estate where Boycott worked demanded a reduction in their rents.

Boycott refused their demands, and evicted some tenants. The Irish Land League advocated that people in the area not attack
Boycott, but rather use a new tactic: refuse to do business with him at all.

This new form of protest was effective, as Boycott wasn't able to get workers to harvest crops. And by the end of 1880
newspapers in Britain began using the word the way we know it today, not as a person's proper name, but as a tactic of protest. There
are different types of Boycott they are namely consumer boycott, group boycott, primary boycott, and secondary boycott.

Consumer boycott means a boycott adopted by consumers of both product and services to express their displeasure with the
seller, manufacturer, or provider. It is a concerted refusal of consumers to purchase the products or services of a business to indicate
displeasure with the manufacturer, seller, or provider of the product. Sometimes, customers may refuse to purchase a particular
product in order to show their dissatisfaction to the excessive price or offensive action of a particular manufacturer or producer. It
mainly focuses on the long-term change in the buying habits by bringing reform in commodity markets, or by inducing government
commitment to moral purchasing.
This law is outrageous and wrong on so many levels; it is hard to know where to start. It punishes people for expressing an
opinion, just because this opinion upsets the majority. It makes it difficult to pursue a peaceful and non-violent method of resisting the
occupation. It is discriminatory in a lop-sided manner, hindering opposition to the evils of the occupation. It aims to protect and
control the outside pressure, but surely it will only serve to highlight the countrys increasing penchant for oppression and
discrimination.
The anti-boycott laws effect is pernicious enough, but when you look at the situation it reflects, the picture becomes even
grimmer.
It is more fearful of non-violent speech, for which it has no answer, than of violence, which it can quell with overwhelming
force. In this sense, the anti-boycott law is almost a perfect encapsulation of current predicament. And it is not a good omen.

Group boycott is a concerted refusal of a group of competing businesses to conduct commercial transactions with a company
with whom they would otherwise do business. Such boycotts are illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust
Act is a landmark federal statute on competition lawpassed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that reduce
competition in the marketplace, and requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and
organizations suspected of being in violation. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels andmonopolies, and today still forms the
basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government. However, for the most part, politicians were unwilling to
refer to the law until Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (19011909).
Primary boycott is a union-organized boycott of an employer with which the unions memberships have a labor dispute. For
example, a union involved in a dispute over wages with a business may encourage customers not to buy that companys products.
Secondary boycott is a boycott of a targeted companys customers or suppliers with whom the boycotters have no direct
dispute to compel those customers and suppliers to refrain from doing business with the targeted company. Such boycotts are illegal
under the Taft-Hartley Act if organized by a union. The TaftHartley Act is a United States federal law that monitors the activities
and power of labor unions. The act, still effective, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. and

became law by overriding U.S. President Harry S. Truman's veto on June 23, 1947; labor leaders called it the "slave-labor bill" while
President Truman argued that it was a "dangerous intrusion on free speech," and that it would "conflict with important principles of
our democratic society," Nevertheless, Truman would subsequently use it twelve times during his presidency. The TaftHartley Act
amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA; informally the Wagner Act), which Congress passed in 1935. The principal author
of the TaftHartley Act was J. Mack Swigert of the Cincinnati law firm Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.
According to pbs.org, today the term is primarily used in labor and consumer disputes. A primary boycott is when a financial
statement is made by consumers or employees in refusing to purchase goods or services from a company or employer. A secondary
boycott results from pressure placed by groups on third parties to force them to join a boycott. For example, a secondary boycott exists
when workers refuse to patronize firms that continue to deal with the initially boycotted party or if workers strike an employer in order
to force him to join the boycott of another firm.
There have been numerous examples of successful boycotts in history designed to bring attention, and financial pressure, on a wide
variety of issues.

1905: Chinese boycott of U.S. goods: China boycotts the import of American goods because of the treatment of Chinese
under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

1930: March to the Sea: In March 1930 Gandhi led a boycott of commercial salt. He encouraged Indian people to defy the
British colonial government by refusing to buy salt (which had a government tax attached) and instead making their own salt
from sea water.

1955: Montgomery Bus Boycott: Rosa Parks, a 43-year-old black woman, refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white
person. Her arrest led to a massive boycott by black citizens of the Montgomery public bus system organized by a then
relatively-unknown Martin Luther King, Jr. For months, people walked, cycled or shared private cars to get around
Montgomery.

1960s: Grape Boycott: Boycotts organized by the Ceasar Chavez and United Farm Workers union brought attention to the
plight of migrant workers.

1980: Olympic Boycotts: The United States and 59 other nations refused to send their Olympic teams to the Moscow
Olympics as a protest against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 1979. Four years later, in a second
Olympic boycott, the USSR and some of its allies refused to attend the Los Angeles Olympic Games.

1980/90s: Anti-Apartheid Boycotts: Many nations and groups refused to have financial dealings with South Africa when that
country's racist 'apartheid' policy was in place. In addition, many nations refused to play some international sport against
South African national teams and many international music groups refused to play for all-white venues such as Sun City.

1997: Baptists boycott Disney: Southern Baptists voted to boycott Disney, accusing its depiction of gays and violence as
"anti-Christian and anti-family."

-According to PBS.org and Additional source: THE OXFORD COMPANION OF UNITED STATES HISTORY
One example of boycott that happened in the Philippines is the boycott of China-made products and the boycott
between Hong Kong because of the hostage incident last two years. Hong Kong people and Chinese living in the Philippines are
appealing for calm amid rising anger against Filipinos following bloody hostage taking incident last 2011 because eight tourists
from Hong Kong died when their tour bus was taken hostage by a disgruntled former policeman. One of the Hong Kong national
Victor Chan has been doing business in the Philippines for the past 35 years. Though he was dismayed at how the Philippine
authorities handled the hostage taking incident, he believes it was just an isolated episode. He believe that majority of Filipinos
are very helpful and the hostage incident is a very isolated incident and (may have) created a misunderstanding. The Philippines
has been at the receiving end of various criticisms following the bungled police rescue. Because of that Incident the Hong Kong
people and Chinese are plan about boycotting the hiring of Filipina maids, boycotting Filipino made products, boycotting travel to
the Philippines. Teresita Ang See, Secretary General, International Society for the Study of Chinese Overseas beg to Hong Kong
people and all the Chinese language speaking community all over the world, castigating the whole Filipino people the Chinese in
the Philippines have the best of the lot compared to the whole Southeast Asian countries that have Chinese language speaking
communities because we treat our Filipino brothers as brothers and they treat us the same. The Philippine government has
promised to release the results of the investigation into the bloody hostage taking incident in two weeks. Once the report is
completed, a high level diplomatic mission will bring it to Beijing and Hong Kong that will hopefully mend relations between the
two nations.
The Filipinos got an idea that they will be boycott by the Chinese because of what happened. Albay Gov. Joey
Salceda an economist and close political ally of President Aquino, said in a strongly worded speech delivered in front of the
Albay provincial Capitol in commemoration of the Philippines 113th Independence Day yesterday .He called on all Filipinos
yesterday to unite and boycott China-made products in response to Beijings bullying of the Philippines in the disputed West
Philippine Sea. He said The ordinary people of the Philippines will rise to the challenge of duty and destiny to resolve our
national predicament: Let us boycott made in China products, buy Filipino. Let us hurt them where it counts,.Salceda said, we
also can neither outsource nor consign the defense of national patrimony to other countries or seek comfort in the shield of mutual
defense treaties. He encouraging those Filipino Citizens not to buy products made in China and he also urged Filipinos
belonging to the upper-income classes to postpone their shopping binges and tours to China, Hong Kong, and Macau.Salceda said
based on official records, the country imports $7 billion worth of products from China and exports about $6 billion worth of
products, which translates to a trade deficit of nearly $1 billion in 2010.The Philippine economy, however, could be paying much

more since it is well-known that China is a major source of cheap smuggled goods which find their way into the wholesale and
retail centers of Divisoria, he said. Easily, our real imports from China could reach more than $10 billion. He said boycotting
made in China products is far more moral than shedding precious Filipino blood in those seas and islands that our heroes
bequeathed to us as national heritage.Sure, it will not bring mighty China to their knees but it would make loud and clear to the
imperial mandarins of Beijing that all Filipinos are united in their sentiment: enough to the bullying that tramples upon our
dignity as a nation, Salceda said.He said the boycott should send a strong signal to the Chinese people who share kinship in our
humanity that their rulers are committing these infringements in their name.Salceda said the backlash of such a boycott would be
minimal since the countrys exports to China can be recovered in other markets and local industries dependent on Chinese inputs
can source raw materials elsewhere.He said there is very little official development assistance as well as direct foreign
investments coming from China and the Philippines has almost zero debt to Beijing.