The New York Times looks at the musical boycott of Arizona over SB 1070:

For the singer Larry Hernandez, the 2010 Billboard Latin Music Awards should have been a moment of pure celebration. But when it came time for Mr. Hernandez to accept his award as new artist of the year, he got drawn into politics, prefacing his remarks with a condemnation of the tough new immigration law that his home state of Arizona had just adopted.

“It is deplorable that they are discriminating against us just for the simple fact of looking Latino,” he said from the stage. “It’s not fair. We have to say no to that law.”

Mr. Hernandez’s name, however, is not on the list of prominent pop music performers who have declared that they will no longer perform in Arizona, one of the most dynamic markets for Latin music and culture. The boycott effort, called Sound Strike and led by the singer Zack de la Rocha of the rap metal band Rage Against the Machine, did get pledges from some big names, including the rapper Kanye West, indie rockers Sonic Youth and the trip hop duo Massive Attack. But it was light on mainstream “big tent” performers who can fill stadiums, and included no country music performers.

Read the whole thing here.

This article appears in May 27 – Jun 2, 2010.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

3 replies on “NYT Examines Musicians’ Boycott of AZ”

  1. ““It is deplorable that they are discriminating against us just for the simple fact of looking Latino,” he said from the stage. “It’s not fair. We have to say no to that law.”

    He might want to try actually READING the law, which expressly prohibits the discrimination of which he complains.

  2. I have no objection to being asked if I am here legally, so would it help the whinners if the law were amended to require that everybody get asked if they are here legally. I suspect the answer is no because it’s not the profiling that is the problem it’s the illegal entry that is at the root of this question. No matter how fairly we handle this locally, it is after all, just cleaning up the mess caused by the FEDS.

  3. So, just how *is* “reasonable suspicion” arrived at if the law really prohibits ” the discrimination of which he complains”?

Comments are closed.