From the start of the movements against the transatlantic slave trade in places like Britain, the U.S., and West Africa, abstention and non-consumption (what we know as boycotts) were a popular way of withdrawing support of the slave trade. People abstained from sugar in Britain, they refused to import British slaves in the North American colonies, or they refused to export slaves in West Africa. They argued that if consumer purchases were responsible for the production of sugar by enslaved labor, then consumers could change that production by withholding their money.
But it would be even more effective if they could then actively support another way of producing that good, one that didn’t rely on slavery. Pretty soon, people began to argue that you could replace the item you were refusing to purchase on political grounds with a more ethically-sourced version: East India “free labor” sugar instead of the West India sugar produced by enslaved laborers; products like palm oil and timber from West Africa, instead of enslaved captives; and Nigerian cotton instead of Mississippi cotton.
And so people who didn’t want to support slavery with their spending sought out shops and suppliers who could guarantee the ethical origins of their goods. One of those guarantees was a label saying that a good was made by “escaped slaves.” Another was to advertise its origin in Haiti or Liberia. In shops like George W. Taylor’s Philadelphia Free Labor Warehouse, consumers who wanted to undermine the slave system could by Liberian and Haitian coffee. William Whipper’s or James Pierce’s Philadelphia stores, run by members of the Colored Free Produce Society, sold tobacco produced by Black farmers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Connecticut. “Buying Black” in this sense not only guaranteed a supply chain free of enslaved labor, but also supported the economic empowerment of formerly enslaved people around the Atlantic World.
And just like now, other companies also felt compelled to alert their customer base to their values. In recent days, a wide variety of local, national, and international companies, retailers, brands, and institutions have issued declarations of support for racial justice and a commitment to bringing that into the heart of their culture. But what does this mean for “Buying Black”? Is this just an example of woke market segmentation? Or is it a true commitment to change? And what does it mean for consumer behavior if a favorite brand commits to change: should one still feel as compelled to shop at Black-owned bookstores if a big retailer with next-day delivery issues a statement in support of racial justice? Is it enough to buy from a company that supports ethical goals, or is it more important for the consumer’s dollar to go directly to the effected community?