Disney Boycott: Wrong Target, Wrong Reasons

When the Dodgers got rid of pitching sensation and local folk hero Fernando Valenzuela back in 1991, some Chicano activists screamed bloody murder. They said the action was the final straw in a long line of anti-Mexican behavior, stretching back to the days when the city forcibly removed Mexican American residents from Chavez Ravine to make way for Dodger Stadium.

With the release of No. 34, the Chicano hotheads called for a boycott of the Dodgers. But as much as I hate the Dodgers, I knew the boycott was a bad idea. Fernando no longer had the dazzling stuff that had made him a Cy Young Award winner, and the Dodgers wanted only the best on their pitching staff.

The boycott went nowhere that season as 3,348,170 fans went to see the Dodgers, who won 93 games and finished second in the National League West.

I was reminded of that Dodgers boycott because another bad idea has surfaced. Some Latino activists, upset that some companies gave money to Gov. Pete Wilson and other politicians who supported Proposition 187, have called for a boycott of those firms. At the top of the list is the Walt Disney Co.

I say it’s a bad idea because it’s based on misplaced emotion, not on the type of facts that fueled the justifiable moral outrage behind successful boycotts. It also diverts energy away from the real battle: Getting Proposition 187 declared unconstitutional.

*

It’s easy for many Latinos to hate Disney and the Magic Kingdom, located in conservative Orange County, where the leaders of the pro-187 effort live. It can do some stupid things. Remember when it prohibited persons of the same sex from dancing together at Disneyland? Or when it forbade employees from wearing facial hair?

I haven’t liked Disney since the 1950s’ TV serialization of the exploits of Davy Crockett. I can remember the day when my father smacked me for rooting for Crockett to “kill all the Mexicans” at the climactic battle for the Alamo.

That was the last time this 8-year-old kid from East L.A. wore his Davy Crockett T-shirt.

But when a group of Latino activists showed up at the Magic Kingdom’s entrance to call for a boycott because the parent company gave money to the governor and other pro-187 candidates, I concluded that these Latinos have picked an unwinnable fight with a conglomerate for the wrong reasons.

The activists argue that Disney needs to be sympathetic and sensitive to the paying public, including Latinos, that flocks to its amusement parks, buys its toys and goes to see its movies.

Their reasoning, however, uses a broad brush to paint Disney as pro-187 because it gave money to Wilson. That’s guilt by association and unfair.

Disney, in fact, did not take a position on the controversial proposition. If it had done so, it would have deserved whatever happened to it as a result.

Disney officials acknowledge that they contributed to Wilson’s campaign, but they also gave money to his opponent, Democrat Kathleen Brown, who opposed 187. They saw their financial support as part of doing business in California, whose tourist industry they have a stake in encouraging.

Boycotting a company because it gave money to a particular candidate, or in this case both major candidates, in a gubernatorial campaign is not going to persuade consumers to stay away.

What the proposed Disney action lacks, more than anything else, is the moral outrage that has marked the successful boycotts of grapes and Coors beer.

Migrant farm workers led by Cesar Chavez worked for ridiculously low pay, lived in substandard housing and enjoyed none of the benefits extended to others working in the United States. The grape boycott changed that.

In the boycott against Coors, the brewery was blindsided by the outrage Latinos expressed over discriminatory practices at its Golden, Colo., brewery. Over the years, Coors has tried to make peace with various Latino groups, offering scholarships and hiring community people for grass-roots efforts to undo the damage.

But to this day, many Latinos still don’t drink Coors.

*

Because of Proposition 187, some friends of mine have made decisions to stay away from certain businesses. Henry Mendoza, for example, decided to stop going to his hair stylist because of her desire to have the measure, which she voted for, enforced against anyone who may look foreign, regardless of the person’s citizenship. Another friend, Anthony Ramirez, has done the same thing with his butcher.

To me, those are reasonable choices. But as with the fizzled Dodgers boycott, the proposed action against Disney doesn’t make much sense.

Even though I still hate the guy with the coonskin cap.