So… did Y’all see the announcement that the Target boycott is officially over after more than 400 days of fasting and prayer?
To my ears it sounded like somebody stood up in the sanctuary, rang the church bell, and said, “Alright Saints, the fast is broken. Y’all may now return to the aisles for your throw pillows, scented candles, and them l’il $7 notebooks with the gold trim.”
And the internet immediately responded like a room full of Black aunties at a family meeting: “Now wait a damn minute . . . who said WE were done boycotting the white man?”
And that’s when the debate started.
Because the minute that announcement hit the internet, folks started arguing about what it actually meant. Outlets like Newsweek and USA Today jumped in with coverage that basically said the boycott ended, but it’s not exactly clear what concrete wins came out of it. And the next wave of responses came from activists and supporters who said, in essence: Hold up. Who said it was over?
Then social media did what social media always does. Memes started flying. Big red graphics popped up across timelines declaring, “I ain’t going back to Target,” alongside another sentiment that kept repeating itself: “Rev. Jamal Bryant ain’t the boss of me.”
In other words, the announcement didn’t just end a fast. It opened up a whole new argument about who actually gets to declare a boycott finished, and whether grassroots consumer protests can be called off by a handful of leaders once the internet has turned them into something much bigger.
Y’all got all that?
M’kay. So now, for a lot of supporters, that fast and boycott had come to symbolize a broader stand for corporate accountability, especially after Target got caught in the middle of the culture wars over DEI initiatives and LGBTQ merchandise, and then appeared to quietly retreat from some of those commitments once the political pressure intensified under the Angry Orange. The fast, for many people, was supposed to be sustained moral pressure. So when it suddenly got declared over, the natural question became: M’kay . . . so what did it accomplish? And right now what you’re watching online is basically three different conversations happening at once.
One group is saying the fast ending probably means something happened behind the scenes. Supporters of Rev. Jamal Bryant say there were tangible outcomes. At the press conference announcing the end of the fast, Rev. Jamal Bryant explained why Target had been singled out in the first place, saying the company was “the only one we invited to the cookout . . . the only Fortune 500 company with a hood nickname.” In other words, Target wasn’t just another corporation in activists’ eyes, it was a company many Black consumers believed had a closer relationship with the community.
Bryant pointed to several commitments from Target, including more than $2.1 billion in spending and grants directed toward Black businesses and organizations, roughly $18 million to the United Negro College Fund, $8 million toward Target Scholars programs, and a $10 million investment in Pensole Lewis College of Business and Design, an HBCU design school in Detroit that Bryant said had been on the brink of closure. For supporters, those commitments represent proof that the pressure campaign produced results.
Another group is far more skeptical. They’re looking around asking where the receipts are. If there were concrete wins, they say, somebody should be naming them clearly. Without that, the whole thing starts to look like symbolic activism that simply ran out of steam.
And then there’s a third group, which is probably the loudest one on social media, who have zoomed out from Target entirely. Their argument is that this moment just proves, once again, how difficult it is for modern boycotts to move massive corporations. Companies today sell to huge, diverse customer bases, and by the time a boycott gains traction online, public attention has often already shifted to the next controversy.
So what you’re seeing right now is less one argument than a pile-up of arguments. Folks are debating whether the boycott produced quiet concessions, whether it fizzled without clear victories, or whether boycotts like this even work anymore.
But I wanna talk about something deeper because right now the debate is stuck in a pretty shallow question: Did the boycott succeed or fail? I want to ask a bigger question: Why are Black communities still relying on moral appeals to corporations in the first place?
Because the truth is, for more than a century, protest campaigns aimed at corporations have often followed the same basic script. There’s moral pressure, boycotts, public shaming, and appeals to conscience. And sometimes those tactics absolutely worked.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott worked. The United Farm Workers’ grape strike and boycott worked. The boycott of Coors Brewing Company forced the company to sign union agreements and change discriminatory hiring practices. Black consumers in Jackson, Mississippi launched the Jackson Movement boycott, which pressured downtown white businesses to desegregate and hire Black employees. And in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Black shoppers organized boycotts against major grocery chains like A&P and Safeway in cities across the country, forcing companies to open stores in Black neighborhoods and hire Black managers and workers. The global boycott against apartheid in South Africa helped isolate the regime economically and politically.
None of those campaigns succeeded simply because somebody made a moral argument where somebody said, “This is wrong.” They worked because moral protest was tied to economic leverage, legal strategy, and mass collective action that threatened systems and not just brand reputations.
Today, however, something has changed.
Modern corporations, especially retail giants like Target Corporation, Walmart, and Amazon are structurally insulated from the kind of pressure that once made boycotts devastating. These companies operate across global supply chains, algorithm-driven marketing systems, and enormous consumer bases. Losing one demographic for a season rarely threatens their bottom line in the way it might have fifty or sixty years ago.
So when protest today relies primarily on symbolic moral gestures, something different happens. It risks becoming a media event rather than an economic intervention. That doesn’t mean the people organizing these campaigns are unserious or misguided. In many cases they are responding to a very real sense of betrayal. For years corporations courted Black consumers aggressively by running diversity campaigns, sponsoring racial justice initiatives, and publicly declaring commitments to equity.
Then the political winds shifted. Anti-DEI campaigns intensified. Culture-war backlash escalated. Suddenly companies that had been loudly celebrating inclusion began quietly repositioning themselves. Displays disappeared. Language softened. Commitments became vague. In that environment, campaigns like the Target fast emerge from a feeling that corporations have taken Black loyalty and Black dollars for granted.
But here’s the deeper problem for me. Corporations are not moral actors. They are profit-maximizing institutions. Appealing to their conscience assumes they have one. And the truth we keep bumping into, over and over again, is that moral appeals to racist capitalism rarely work for very long. Because racism and capitalism have never been separate systems in this country. They grew up together. They matured together. They learned how to protect each other.
American corporations have historically profited from slavery, segregation, redlining, discriminatory hiring, prison labor, and racialized consumer marketing. Even when companies publicly embrace diversity language today, those commitments remain secondary to one thing: protecting the bottom line. The moment racial justice becomes politically inconvenient, or financially risky, corporate morality tends to evaporate.
That’s exactly what we saw when companies rushed to issue statements about racial justice after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Billions of dollars in pledges were announced. Diversity statements flooded corporate websites. Executives suddenly discovered the language of “equity.”
But when the political backlash began, when anti-DEI campaigns ramped up and culture-war pressure intensified, many of those same companies quietly began backing away. Not because the morality changed, but because the incentives did. And that’s the structural problem with relying primarily on moral appeals. You can’t shame a system that was never built around morality in the first place.
Black communities generate enormous consumer power. Collectively we spend roughly $1.6 to $1.8 trillion a year, according to estimates from the Selig Center for Economic Growth’s Multicultural Economy report and research from Nielsen’s Diverse Intelligence Series. If Black America were its own economy, it would be roughly the size of countries like Spain, Australia, or Mexico.
But consumer spending, by itself, rarely translates into lasting institutional control or ownership. The issue isn’t simply that corporations betray us. The issue is that consumer activism alone does not build power.
Historically, the most effective movements combined protest with structural alternatives. The civil rights movement didn’t just boycott buses. Organizers built parallel transportation systems to sustain the boycott. Labor movements didn’t just shame companies. They built unions that forced negotiations. Earlier generations of Black economic organizing built banks, insurance companies, cooperatives, and mutual aid networks designed to circulate resources within the community.
In other words, protest was only half the strategy. Institution-building was the other half. And that’s the piece often missing from modern campaigns.
Social media doesn’t reward slow, structural work. It rewards visibility, viral moments, dramatic gestures, and symbolic protests. Those things spread easily across platforms. They generate engagement, debate, and headlines. But building cooperatives, credit unions, supply chains, and ownership networks is slow, complex, and rarely trends online. So movements today can become optimized for visibility rather than leverage. And that’s the real trap.
Because ending a fast doesn’t end the deeper struggle over corporate accountability. But if the conversation stops at whether Target was pressured enough, we miss the larger question entirely. Real economic power is not built through hashtags or headlines.
At the end of the day, Tamika Mallory and Rev. Jamal Bryant stood at that press conference and framed the Target boycott as a moral stand that produced a strategic outcome. Mallory emphasized respect and partnership. Bryant argued the issue wasn’t simply about DEI language disappearing from corporate websites, but whether Black communities were being treated with dignity and taken seriously by companies that had long marketed themselves as allies.
That framing shifts the conversation away from a scoreboard—Did Target reverse its policies? Did DEI come back?—and toward something softer: Did the company engage with us? Did they show respect? Did they invest in Black institutions? Once the metric becomes respect and relationship rather than structural change, it becomes easier to present donations, scholarships, and meetings as meaningful outcomes.
Many activists genuinely see those investments such as money for HBCUs, scholarships, and community grants as real wins. From that perspective, the goal isn’t to transform capitalism but to leverage corporate resources for community benefit whenever possible.
But many critics are evaluating the outcome using a different metric entirely. They’re asking whether Target reversed its retreat from DEI or whether corporate behavior fundamentally changed. When the answer appears to be “not really,” that’s when the skepticism kicks in. And so what you end up with is a classic disconnect between movement framing and public expectations. Once again we see how modern campaigns against corporations often end with philanthropic concessions rather than shifts in power. The company writes checks, leaders claim progress, and the underlying corporate structure remains essentially the same. In this case, ‘victory’ feels like the movement settled for symbolic returns.
Now, I can already hear somebody in the comments asking the obvious question at the end of all this: Okay, Stacey… so what are we supposed to do then?
I’m not saying that boycotts are useless. Boycotts can still be powerful tools. They can expose hypocrisy. They can rally people and force conversations. But boycotts alone are not a strategy. They’re a tactic.
Real power comes from building institutions that corporations actually have to negotiate with. That means ownership and cooperative economics. It means investment networks. It means credit unions, supply chains, media platforms, and businesses that circulate Black dollars within Black communities instead of simply passing them through multinational corporations. In other words, it means building the kind of economic infrastructure that turns a boycott from a moral plea into real leverage.
Because the uncomfortable truth is that if Black folks spend $1.6 trillion a year, but almost all of that money flows right back out of our communities into corporations we don’t control, then those companies will always have the upper hand.
They know we’re coming back. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next month . . . but eventually. And that’s the math they’re betting on. So until we build institutions strong enough to change that math, corporate America will continue to treat our protests the same way it always has: as storms to ride out rather than forces they actually have to answer to.
Thanks for reading. If this piece resonated with you, then please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Paid subscriptions help keep my Substack unfiltered and ad free. They also help me raise money for HBCU journalism students who need laptops, DSLR cameras, tripods, mics, lights, software, travel funds for conferences and reporting trips, and food from our pantry. You can also follow me on Facebook!
We appreciate you!
