I'm just wondering if the gear in the okaystore is sweatshop free. I'm trying to buy more ethically, and with okayactivists reppin' wouldn't it make sense that it's not made at sweatshops? I wonder how this can be done though, but the gear at ratm.com is sweatshop free, so maybe the okaystore can follow suit if it isn't already?

Grace, peace, and love
Derrick

"....For if their purpose or activity is of
human origin, it will fail. But if it is
from God, you will not be able to stop
these men; you will only find
yourselves fighting against God."
Acts 5:38

you guys never let anything slip by.

angieee? tank? is this thing on?

(maybe if you hit either of them up via email)

thats an interesting question. I was joking around with a friend last night about FUBU: is the blacky black "If you be you" line made by little old Thai women making .20 a day? scary sad ironic thought. something to think about though: they move like $400 million a year in merch.

I wonder about Okayplayer though. their merch isnt produced on nearly that scale: I had a merchandising deal several years ago with a company that made shirts for major film promotions and rock bands. The only thing they did that wasn't right there in the Chicago factory,was pewter jewelry and sunglasses and shit; all done overseas.

-------
don't let niggas call you faggot
don't let faggots call you nigger
-------
MY SPACE- it's that shit, yo.

http://www.myspace.com/jubakalamka
http://www.myspace.com/deepdickollective

http://www.jubakalamka.com
http://www.deepdickollective.com
http

black owned, and made by black folks in the "community"

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

Good issue, man.

Yabbadabbadoozilla! (c) Bootzilla
http://www.funkknots.com
http://www.boondocks.net
http://www.cartoonista.com
http://www.pocho.com

"You might as well pay attention/ you can't afford free speech" -George Clinton

"People need to stop saying that there is one way to be--and then the issue will disappear." Ntozake Shange-interview in _Mother_ _Jones_

FUBU is garbage....black owned blah blah blah...they send their clothes out to third world nations to be subjugated to those inhumane working conditions while a few pseudo conscious black americans get rich....

u want to support that? i don't

Cause if I'm buying stuff to look fly in....

all things being the way they are, I would prefer to see black folks get a piece of the pie.

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

Peace and Grace to ya, k. I understand what you mean. And like shockzilla said, the whole industry is shady. But I have questions.

Is looking fly important when what makes you "look fly" makes others have to live in horrible conditions? Check out http://www.nikewages.org if you don't know what conditions these are. Really though. Forget a shirt when lives are treated like shit to make em.

Besides, where did we get your definition for "fly"? Did we decide it for ourselves, or did we get it from seeing others, or seeing it in advertisements for corporations and companies who care about "fly" when it makes em cash?

As for black-owned business getting a piece of the pie, forget a pie, if the employees of the factory can't even eat.
I'm sure most blacks are against slavery and that's what the people in third world countries who make these clothes are dang near subjected to.


I'm sure with all our surplus here in America, there gots to be options to sweatshop-made clothing. I used ratm.com's gear as an example, because they were able to make their merchandise "sweatshop-free". Hopefully there are more, and that you are succesful in finding fly, sweatshop free clothing, and that we can all be conscious of our consumerism and help push for more ethical options.
Blessings to ya k_orr.



Love out.
Derrick

You're not answering my question.

As an American, for the most part, I can not opt out of our capitalist system. I can either choose to wear nikes (or insert any shoe cheaper than 300 dollars), or I can invest 350 in some shoes that were made in Italy. (which folks have assumed provides a better working environment).

And if I am interested in black jobs, black economic power, you are suggesting that I do what?

let's dissect your post

>Is looking fly important when what
>makes you "look fly" makes
>others have to live in
>horrible conditions?

Living in horrible conditions has nothing to do with Nike Factories. You could make an argument for colonialism, but when you look at what the rest of the country is doing, in comparison factory work might be better.

check the stats for malaysia
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html#Econ

Labor force - by occupation: manufacturing 27%, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries 16%, local trade and tourism 17%, services 15%, government 10%, construction 9% (1999 est.)

27% is a big chunk. But obviously 73% of the population opted out of "slavery". (which you are really using wrong.)

Check out
>http://www.nikewages.org if you don't know
>what conditions these are. Really
>though. Forget a shirt when
>lives are treated like shit
>to make em.

They choose it. Most of their countrymen opt out of that equation. I don't mean to sound heartless, but it's still their choice, it is their government, it is their way of life. Ultimately you are implying a Vietnam scenario, we must save them from themselves. It's cultural imperialism.

>Besides, where did we get your
>definition for "fly"? Did we
>decide it for ourselves, or
>did we get it from
>seeing others, or seeing it
>in advertisements for corporations and
>companies who care about "fly"
>when it makes em cash?

Are you going to play head games now? I am familiar with the theory that we do not have any original thoughts. Where is your definition of justice coming from? How much of this do you know from personal experience, and how much of it is propaganda/advertising from a competing interest? Ultimately you can't get away from the same affliction that all of us have. So in essence it's a non argument, because it cuts both ways. There is no independent arbiter of what is right and wrong.

>As for black-owned business getting a
>piece of the pie, forget
>a pie,

I can't forget the pie, my people have to eat. Black folks starving is a lot closer to home than the mistreatment of Asians in their own country. The view is not myopic, I just have different concerns and priorities than you do.

if the employees
>of the factory can't even
>eat.
>I'm sure most blacks are against
>slavery and that's what the
>people in third world countries
>who make these clothes are
>dang near subjected to.

No. This is slavery

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_sud.htm
http://members.aol.com/casmasalc/
http://www.cincypost.com/news/haiti060300.html
http://www.caller.com/2000/august/13/today/local_ne/1823.html
http://www.anti-slavery.org/global/index.html

>I'm sure with all our surplus
>here in America, there gots
>to be options to sweatshop-made
>clothing.

I think that's a good idea, but for different reasons than you.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

...of a lot of things, especially your conception of freewill in places like malaysia. How about we dissect _your_ post?

>As an American, for the most
>part, I can not opt
>out of our capitalist system.

True. But you can try to change it.

> I can either choose
>to wear nikes (or insert
>any shoe cheaper than 300
>dollars), or I can invest
>350 in some shoes that
>were made in Italy. (which
>folks have assumed provides a
>better working environment).

That's right. You can.

>Living in horrible conditions has nothing
>to do with Nike Factories.

But *working* in horrible conditions does. And, actually, you're wrong about "living" as well. In a free trade zone, where many of these factories are located, multinational corporations are the only ones with influence over the corrupt politics. *They* are essentially in control. Also, the standard of living relates directly to labor standards (especially wage standards), so when Nike (or, more accurately, whoever Nike subcontracts to produce its apparel) comes in and lowers them, they are directly altering the standard of living in that community.

> You could make an
>argument for colonialism, but when
>you look at what the
>rest of the country is
>doing, in comparison factory work
>might be better.

In most cases, factory work *is* better. That doesn't make it acceptable. Here we have a chance to exercise _positive_ influence by implimenting higher standards. In other areas of poverty, we can't be as helpful, but by actually using our foreign investments to RAISE the quality of life and ameliorate poverty, we can help those countries tackle some of the more rooted problems.

>Labor force - by occupation: manufacturing
>27%, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
>16%, local trade and tourism
>17%, services 15%, government 10%,
>construction 9% (1999 est.)
>
>27% is a big chunk.

In fact it's the largest chunk. A good reason to attack it.

>But obviously 73% of the
>population opted out of "slavery".

What? WHAT?!!??! They aren't "opting out" of anything. Steady jobs are the most desirable thing to have in a country like that. The tragedy is that they have to settle for inhumane conditions because it's actually the best they can get! Try again on this one.

>They choose it.

Again, freewill here (and this isn't even the case in poor America) and freewill there are very different animals. That's just like Reagan's assertion that the homeless in D.C. were in that state because they wanted to be.

>I don't
>mean to sound heartless, but
>it's still their choice, it
>is their government, it is
>their way of life.

Nope. It's not their government, or their way of life when free trade zones are concerned. We're not dealing with democratic societies here, or anything that even resembles them.

>you are implying a Vietnam scenario: we must save
>them from themselves. It's
>cultural imperialism.

Not really. It would be if we imposed *our* cultural values on theirs, but we are talking about basic human rights, not "cultural" values.

Speaking of imperialism, how about our MNC's controlling their labor and commerce?

>I can't forget the pie, my
>people have to eat.
>Black folks starving is a
>lot closer to home than
>the mistreatment of Asians in
>their own country. The
>view is not myopic, I
>just have different concerns and
>priorities than you do.

This is an extremely important point. But, international action/solidarity can set precedents for domestic policy. And companies are in fact much more impregnable under our "limited liability" in the US than they are once the UN Declaration of Human Rights comes into play in Third World countries. In other words, that's where we can get them.

Alek
_____________________________________
It's Planet Asia week:

"It's off the hook, yeah we took it there..."

"This be that cold shit of course, cause I was forced by the streets to rock beats and sell source..."

"A father ain't a father till he furthers your existence..."

"In a couple of seconds you'll be feeling fondled..."

"You got a beeper, but still you comin' up with lint..."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>But *working* in horrible conditions does.
> And, actually, you're wrong
>about "living" as well.
>In a free trade zone,
>where many of these factories
>are located, multinational corporations are
>the only ones with influence
>over the corrupt politics.

Remember what happened to Subharto? His regime crumbled with an economic crisis.

Now you're talking about what the people in their own sovereign country want to do. It's not right to question their sovereignity.

>*They*
>are essentially in control.

The Malaysians have control of their own government.

Also,
>the standard of living relates
>directly to labor standards (especially
>wage standards), so when Nike
>(or, more accurately, whoever Nike
>subcontracts to produce its apparel)
>comes in and lowers them,
>they are directly altering the
>standard of living in that
>community.

If 27% of the population chooses factory work over fishing, they must have a greater standard of living because of it, right?

>In most cases, factory work *is*
>better. That doesn't make
>it acceptable.

So we have to realign the world resources until we reach some sort of mythical parity? That doesn't make sense, and it's an insult to folks who want to determine themselves.

>Here we have
>a chance to exercise _positive_
>influence by implimenting higher standards.

That might not work for their economy or society. What are you suggesting. I boycott FUBU so that they make less money now, and if the boycott succeeds they will make less money in the future?

>In other areas of poverty,
>we can't be as helpful,
>but by actually using our
>foreign investments to RAISE the
>quality of life and ameliorate
>poverty, we can help those
>countries tackle some of the
>more rooted problems.

I agree with you here, although not necessarily for the same reasons. What interest do we have in raising their pay? Sure it's nice, but why is it just? Why is it better for an American company/industry to monopolize the labor force in a foreign country? Doesn't this halt the ability for native businesses to compete for that same labor? Aren't we essentially draining that country of it's labor and resources? It's labor gentrification.

>>Labor force - by occupation: manufacturing
>>27%, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
>>16%, local trade and tourism
>>17%, services 15%, government 10%,
>>construction 9% (1999 est.)
>>
>>27% is a big chunk.
>
>In fact it's the largest chunk.
>A good reason to attack
>it.

If you peeped the site, light manufacturing was down the list, not the biggest piece of that subsection.

>>But obviously 73% of the
>>population opted out of "slavery".
>
>What? WHAT?!!??! They aren't "opting out"
>of anything.

They decided not to work in what you are characterizing as slave labor, which is most clearly not given that actual slavery exists on the globe.

Steady jobs
>are the most desirable thing
>to have in a country
>like that. The tragedy
>is that they have to
>settle for inhumane conditions because
>it's actually the best they
>can get! Try again on
>this one.

Inhumane? Maybe not up to Western standards and mores, but apparently they have options. You want to reform their country and their society based on your own understanding of what "basic" human needs are. That's not an absolute #, it's dependent on the whole society.

>
>>They choose it.
>
>Again, freewill here (and this isn't
>even the case in poor
>America) and freewill there are
>very different animals. That's just
>like Reagan's assertion that the
>homeless in D.C. were in
>that state because they wanted
>to be.

Not actually relevant. You should be talking about folks who work 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs to support their families. The reasons for being homeless are far more complex than how much money they take home.

>Nope. It's not their government, or
>their way of life when
>free trade zones are concerned.

So you're telling me, Nike goes to a south eastern asian country and corrals and chains these people to sewing machines?

> We're not dealing with
>democratic societies here, or anything
>that even resembles them.

And should we judge them as less worthy of self-determination if they aren't democratic?

>>you are implying a Vietnam scenario: we must save
>>them from themselves. It's
>>cultural imperialism.
>
>Not really. It would be
>if we imposed *our* cultural
>values on theirs, but we
>are talking about basic human
>rights, not "cultural" values.

Basic human rights are not an absolute. You have no "right" to strike, unionize, bargain collectively, et cetera. If someone stops you from organizing your folks, God is not going to come down and punish the transgressor.

>Speaking of imperialism, how about our
>MNC's controlling their labor and
>commerce?

MNC is?

>This is an extremely important point.
> But, international action/solidarity can
>set precedents for domestic policy.

give examples. No UN resolution holds any weight in this country.

>And companies are in fact
>much more impregnable under our
>"limited liability" in the US
>than they are once the
>UN Declaration of Human Rights
>comes into play in Third
>World countries. In other
>words, that's where we can
>get them.

Yeah, I'll try and pull out my UN charter next time I get pulled over by the state. Do you seriously think the US will ever kowtow to the UN?

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>MNC is ?

I think MultiNational Conglomerates (but I'm not sure myself).

k_orr, you seem to ignore the fact that Nike (and plenty of other manufacturers) know what's going on in the factories where people work for them ...

Armed security preventing people to go to the toilet...
Women being forced to take a monthly pregnancy test (and being fired when they are pregnant)...
Child labour...
Intimidation of workers organizing themselves...

There's no such thing as Western ngo's 'inventing' exploitation through sweatshops. It's there, and workers over there have a hard time fighting it, all ngo's such as Clean Clothes are doing is helping 'm.

Your references to 'us' (read Western organisations) not having the authority/right to 'impose' our human right standards on people there, makes no sense, since all Western companies have been doing the last 20-30 years (and way longer) is impose a 'foreign' economical system (and the consequent social misery and exploitation), with no respect for the local culture whatsoever.

So as consumers/products/participants in that same oppressive economical & political system we euphemistically call 'free market' I think it's crucial for us to take a stand and make it clear we disagree.

I think your view is inspired by a very extreme realism, in other words you seem to accept that it will never change.
I'm kinda different in the way that I do understand it might not change soon, but if we give up already it will only get worse for people after us.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


krewc
http://www.vinylators.com

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

The discussion is for everyone. If you guys want to take it to e-mail we can. So don't single me out as if you're only talking to me.

>k_orr, you seem to ignore the
>fact that Nike (and plenty
>of other manufacturers) know what's
>going on in the factories
>where people work for them

I'm not ignoring it. How business is conducted in another country weighs less than how black businesses do business and provide jobs in this one.

>...
>
>Armed security preventing people to go
>to the toilet...
>Women being forced to take a
>monthly pregnancy test (and being
>fired when they are pregnant)...
>
>Child labour...
>Intimidation of workers organizing themselves...

Yes it's a bad situation, but you are making it sound as if the citizens in this area are completely powerless and have no choice. As if they were slaves. But recent history has shown us that this is not the case.

>Your references to 'us' (read Western
>organisations) not having the authority/right
>to 'impose' our human right
>standards on people there, makes
>no sense, since all Western
>companies have been doing the
>last 20-30 years (and way
>longer) is impose a 'foreign'
>economical system

When did capitalism become a foreign way to do business?
And what is wrong with other countries following that model if it is a Western Idea?

We aren't forcing anything on them. They want to be like us. Tell me I'm wrong.

>with
>no respect for the local
>culture whatsoever.

So Nike makes the watch Melrose, eat Pizza, and speak in English?

>So as consumers/products/participants in that same
>oppressive economical & political system
>we euphemistically call 'free market'
>I think it's crucial for
>us to take a stand
>and make it clear we
>disagree.

I don't really see that as a stand.

>I think your view is inspired
>by a very extreme realism,
>in other words you seem
>to accept that it will
>never change.

No, the exact opposite. I believe that we in the West shouldn't be trying to influence a person's goverment or culture and replace them with our own values. I didn't agree with the gulf slaughter, nor trying to quell the violence in Somalia for oil. But I also don't believe in telling another sovereign nation how they should allocate their priorities. If our way of doing business is the right way, they will eventually find it.

I don't think the anti-sweatshop arguments have been persuasive on either a moral or practical grounds. You mean to bring the entire world labor force to an arbitrary minimum standard that not every economy can sustain.

>Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no wrong or right, it's who has the power to set the agenda.

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>The discussion is for everyone.
>If you guys want to
>take it to e-mail we
>can. So don't single
>me out as if you're
>only talking to me.

Wasn't my intention, but I did reply to YOUR post, okay ?

>Yes it's a bad situation, but
>you are making it sound
>as if the citizens in
>this area are completely powerless
>and have no choice.
>As if they were slaves.
> But recent history has
>shown us that this is
>not the case.

Please elaborate.
I don't know what you mean by 'completely powerless'.

In a certain sense I could say the same thing about the slavery in the US, where slaves weren't completely 'powerless' either, only 'detail' being that expressing or using their power automatically resulted in death or lifelong consequences at best.

When there is a lack of viable alternatives (other ways to provide your family with an income that suffices to survive) people are in a certain way forced to do certain things. So YES, choice is indeed very limited. From 'a little slavery' to 'very slavery'.

>>Your references to 'us' (read Western
>>organisations) not having the authority/right
>>to 'impose' our human right
>>standards on people there, makes
>>no sense, since all Western
>>companies have been doing the
>>last 20-30 years (and way
>>longer) is impose a 'foreign'
>>economical system
>
>When did capitalism become a foreign
>way to do business?
>And what is wrong with other
>countries following that model if
>it is a Western Idea?

Come on.
'following' that model ? That's like rewriting history.

Like all African colonized countries spontaneously chose to organize their economy by 'following' the capitalist model ...

Like they didn't have their own ways of trading, selling, ...
Like they didn't have their own agriculture ...

If they had chosen the capitalist route, they wouldn't be as poor today, with the resources they have. The Congolese rubber was stolen by my government about 160 years ago, same thing continues today with diamonds from Shaba, all concessions are controlled by either American or Belgian companies.

>We aren't forcing anything on them.
>They want to be
>like us. Tell me
>I'm wrong.

First, we tell the whole world how good life is in Western society.
Then, we're surprised people want to migrate to Western countries, and we do everything to stop them from coming (by treating 'm like shit, locking 'm up in camps, ...)

Propaganda's a bitch. Ask people in ex-East Germany how they feel about our great economical and social system.

>>with
>>no respect for the local
>>culture whatsoever.
>
>So Nike makes the watch Melrose,
>eat Pizza, and speak in
>English?

I never said that.

American soaps are so successfull cos they're so cheap (does mass production ring a bell ?). That's all it is, not cos American morals or culture would be better. But most of the US entertainment IS propaganda for US entertainment.

American cultural imperialism is rampant. And as a reaction people react to that over here.

People speak English cos of imperialistic & colonial (you'd probably call this 'historical') reasons and cos it's an easy language to learn.

However, I think more people speak Spanish and Chinese right now, so your statement is incorrect.

>No, the exact opposite.
>I believe that we in
>the West shouldn't be trying
>to influence a person's goverment
>or culture and replace them
>with our own values.

That is exactly what's happening though.
Have you ever been outside North America, and if you did, did you go outside American hotels ?

>I didn't agree with the
>gulf slaughter, nor trying to
>quell the violence in Somalia
>for oil. But I
>also don't believe in telling
>another sovereign nation how they
>should allocate their priorities.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the exact US interpretation of 'free trade'.

>I don't think the anti-sweatshop arguments
>have been persuasive on either
>a moral or practical grounds.
>You mean to bring
>the entire world labor force
>to an arbitrary minimum standard
>that not every economy can
>sustain.

Nope, maybe other people do but I don't. At least not in absolute terms. However, I do in relative terms.

And I DO believe that people shouldn't have an armed person at the job to prevent 'm from going to the toilet. However, it probably wouldn't be the best idea to tell the guy ... Understand what I'm trying to say ?

>it's who has the power
>to set the agenda.

Then I don't see your problem with people resisting sweatshop tactics ... I'm just using my power as a consumer.



krewc
http://www.vinylators.com

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

>Wasn't my intention, but I did
>reply to YOUR post, okay
>?

This is not the first time that someone has used my name as the title of a post in a general forum. Okay?

>Please elaborate.

Indonesia, President Subharto. All the fighting that goes on all over the world. You think those civil wars are about nothing? It's about control of the polity, and it is not agitation by outside western forces who want to grab the natural resources and enslave the populace.

Now does the US provide weapons, assistance, and training to things that the US admin believes in, hell yeah, but that's not the question posed.

>I don't know what you mean
>by 'completely powerless'.

You have removed the basic humanity of the people who work in these conditions by saying that they don't have a choice, despite the evidence that the vast majority of people opt out of those jobs. I can go down the line with any of the South East Asian countries and show you hard stats about how different people make different choices.

It's very American/western to believe that the common man does not support his own government. You think China is communist because of a few key people?

>In a certain sense I could
>say the same thing about
>the slavery in the US,
>where slaves weren't completely 'powerless'
>either, only 'detail' being that
>expressing or using their power
>automatically resulted in death or
>lifelong consequences at best.

Real Slavery is not akin to inhumane working conditions. I dropped links to real slavery that exists right now in a post above. Please don't try to hyperbolize the argument.

>When there is a lack of
>viable alternatives (other ways to
>provide your family with an
>income that suffices to survive)

There are a grip of alternatives.

>people are in a certain
>way forced to do certain
>things. So YES, choice
>is indeed very limited.
>From 'a little slavery' to
>'very slavery'.

You do not understand slavery then. Next you're gonna tell me poor white kids in the Appalachias are slaves to the coal mining industry.

>>When did capitalism become a foreign
>>way to do business?
>>And what is wrong with other
>>countries following that model if
>>it is a Western Idea?
>
>Come on.
>'following' that model ? That's
>like rewriting history.

So please tell me the history of Asia, and look at their government/society/economic system before and after colonialism.

I have a feeling you will find the other Malaysians exploiting other Malaysians.

>Like all African colonized countries spontaneously
>chose to organize their economy
>by 'following' the capitalist model

After independence nothing stopped them from getting rid of the western ways and returning to older practices. Perhaps because of colonization, the west set up the choices so that Monopoly style big business capitalism was the way to go. But you aren't making that argument.

>Like they didn't have their own
>ways of trading, selling, ...
>Like they didn't have their own
>agriculture ...

They did, they still do. The vast majority of farming on the continent is still subsistence, not crops for profit.

>If they had chosen the capitalist
>route, they wouldn't be as
>poor today, with the resources
>they have.

Which route did the choose then? Socialism, Communism? What economic system?

The Congolese
>rubber was stolen by my
>government about 160 years ago,

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cg.html

one of the key exports is Rubber.

Now you give me some facts.

>same thing continues today with
>diamonds from Shaba, all concessions
>are controlled by either American
>or Belgian companies.

Nationalization. It's happening all over Afrika.

>>We aren't forcing anything on them.
>>They want to be
>>like us. Tell me
>>I'm wrong.
>
>First, we tell the whole world
>how good life is in
>Western society.

And it's okay for me to say that.

>Then, we're surprised people want to
>migrate to Western countries, and
>we do everything to stop
>them from coming (by treating
>'m like shit, locking 'm
>up in camps, ...)

That's not what this is about. I'm not saying the west is the best. I'm saying that we should not impose our culture/values on another culture. Now does that mean I can't tell you about my culture, is that an imposition on you? Not at all. If you show interest in how I do things and what I value, should I turn you away?

>Propaganda's a bitch. Ask people
>in ex-East Germany how they
>feel about our great economical
>and social system.

Capitalism is not working for E. Europe, despite lots of education and natural resources. But was their previous system capable of giving them a lifestyle like ours? Is that the result of the system, or something else?

>American soaps are so successfull cos
>they're so cheap (does mass
>production ring a bell ?).

Yeah, what's your point?.

> That's all it is,
>not cos American morals or
>culture would be better.
>But most of the US
>entertainment IS propaganda for US
>entertainment.

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the platinum mining conglomerate bought off all the bling bling mc's, I doubt it, but it's possible. But I guarantee Susan Lucci, nor her writers are thinking to themselves, how do we subvert the culture of another country. The ad execs who sell the programming to foreign communication networks want to just make money. So if there is any problem with western material reaching your people, you could bust an Iran, Iraq, or Saudi and censor everything from the West. Am I mad at them for doing that?

>American cultural imperialism is rampant.
>And as a reaction people
>react to that over here.

We offer a product that no one can resist. Is that imperialism?

>People speak English cos of imperialistic
>& colonial (you'd probably call
>this 'historical') reasons and cos
>it's an easy language to
>learn.
>However, I think more people speak
>Spanish and Chinese right now,
>so your statement is incorrect.

I never said this. I don't know who you're responding to.

>That is exactly what's happening though.
>
>Have you ever been outside North
>America, and if you did,
>did you go outside American
>hotels ?

Is this an ad hominem attack? Can't you do any better.


>>I didn't agree with the
>>gulf slaughter, nor trying to
>>quell the violence in Somalia
>>for oil. But I
>>also don't believe in telling
>>another sovereign nation how they
>>should allocate their priorities.
>
>Unfortunately, this seems to be the
>exact US interpretation of 'free
>trade'.

So what are you saying?


>And I DO believe that people
>shouldn't have an armed person
>at the job to prevent
>'m from going to the
>toilet.

That's fine. But you are also telling someone else to live up to your standards.

> Understand what I'm trying
>to say ?

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it for lots of reasons.

>>it's who has the power
>>to set the agenda.
>
>Then I don't see your problem
>with people resisting sweatshop tactics
>... I'm just using my
>power as a consumer.

I'm not trying to stop you from doing what you are doing. I won't even pass judgement on the efficacy of your actions.

But are you knocking me for rocking FUBU because I want to support black business even though that same black business gets their product made by people working in sub-standard situation?

I choose to support a black business because it will benefit other African Americans trying to opt out taking a slice of the pie, and allowing us to bake our own.

This whole thing boils down to whether or not you want to support Okayplayer via buying T-shirts, or you want to protest sweatshop labor.

I think picking up that Black Thought t-shirt does more for the cause, than not picking it up.

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

k_orr, most of your argument seems to rely on this premise that BECAUSE not everyone works in a factory we should assume that a) those working in factories are happy with or have accepted the circumstances of that life, b) those working conditions are not a human rights issue because they only represent a small chunk of the workforce, c) they don't want/need help in ameliorating those conditions.

I think all of these suppositions are patently false. First, they're NOT happy, as evidenced by the enthusiasm for Int'l Solidarity campaigns displayed by sweatshop workers and union organizers (in SPITE of the very real danger to their lives involved in such cooperation).

Second, human rights issues go right across the board in most of these countries, from labor to environment to prisons/law to politics to reproduction. These are not all "choices" made by society -- like, "Oh, it's *our* government, so we choose to be poisoned by toxic emissions." These ARE human rights issues, not just issues of moral imperialism -- if you disapprove of U.S. involvement in int'l human rights, fine, but the human rights atrocities are still there. Some people will remain committed to them.






_____________________________________
It's Planet Asia week:

"It's off the hook, yeah we took it there..."

"This be that cold shit of course, cause I was forced by the streets to rock beats and sell source..."

"A father ain't a father till he furthers your existence..."

"In a couple of seconds you'll be feeling fondled..."

"You got a beeper, but still you comin' up with lint..."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

probably one of the best I've had on this board.

>k_orr, most of your argument seems
>to rely on this premise
>that BECAUSE not everyone works
>in a factory we should
>assume that

My premise is that becaue everyone does not work at a factory, the people in that country have options as to what they want to do to make a living. Thus they have not been enslaved. If 3 out of 4 people don't work in a factory, there must be options outside of factory work. You can deny the math if you want to.

a) those working
>in factories are happy with
>or have accepted the circumstances
>of that life,

I can't say whether or not they are happy at the factories, your evidence suggests otherwise. But they have decided to stay at that job, as opposed to doing another job which most of their countryman have chosen.

b) those
>working conditions are not a
>human rights issue because they
>only represent a small chunk
>of the workforce,

I think the "human rights" issue is one of relative power. We in the West can impose our conception of what a human right issue is.

Would you be saying the same thing about children who work on their family farm, often in far more dangerous conditions?

c) they
>don't want/need help in ameliorating
>those conditions.

I'm not arguing that.

>I think all of these suppositions
>are patently false. First, they're
>NOT happy, as evidenced by
>the enthusiasm for Int'l Solidarity
>campaigns displayed by sweatshop workers
>and union organizers

Okay.

>Second, human rights issues go right
>across the board in most
>of these countries, from labor
>to environment to prisons/law to
>politics to reproduction.

How is defining a human right issue? I don't agree with your arbitrary idea of how people should be treated.

These
>are not all "choices" made
>by society -- like, "Oh,
>it's *our* government, so we
>choose to be poisoned by
>toxic emissions."

We choose to put people in power that go against our interests. We either choose through the election or through complacence.

These ARE human
>rights issues,

Define what those rights are, and the authority which is to enforce those rights.

not just issues
>of moral imperialism

That's exactly what it is. If folks in Tokyo want to make the age of consent 12, that's their business(which it was at some recent point in history). I might have objections to that because I don't think a 12 year old girl can make those kinds of decisions, but that's different from what you are saying. You are suggesting that I try to influence their polity based on what I think is right. Cultural/moral imperialism.

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>
>probably one of the best I've
>had on this board.

Me too. Thanks for the time and thought.


>My premise is that becaue everyone
>does not work at a
>factory, the people in that
>country have options as to
>what they want to do
>to make a living.

I just don't follow this. Those factory jobs are the MOST desirable jobs in these communities. Everyone doesn't get one because there aren't enough jobs for everyone. In fact, there aren't enough jobs for everyone period. If you have one, you keep it. They could quit, but they'd be worse off. It's not as if every member of the community makes a separate and independent choice about exactly how they will make money. That doesn't even happen here.


>Thus they have not been
>enslaved.

Yes, wage-slavery and oppressive conditions are not the exact same thing as what we traditionally define as slavery. Up till recently, many sweatshops and agrabusinesses DID actually fit our traditional definition. Some still do.

>If 3 out
>of 4 people don't work
>in a factory, there must
>be options outside of factory
>work.

No, there must be rampant unemployment and poverty.

> But they have decided
>to stay at that job,
>as opposed to doing another
>job which most of their
>countryman have chosen.

For the majority of those workers, leaving that job (even to have a baby or receive medical treatment) means starving themselves or their families. You're proposing that 75% of the population has a reliable job which sustains them and their families. That's completely false. People are dying all the time, and even more are starving and/or homeless. These people haven't "chosen" other jobs, they have nothing.

>I think the "human rights" issue
>is one of relative power.
> We in the West
>can impose our conception of
>what a human right issue
>is.

I'll talk about this below.

>
>Would you be saying the same
>thing about children who work
>on their family farm, often
>in far more dangerous conditions?

I don't understand your point.

> c) they
>>don't want/need help in ameliorating
>>those conditions.
>
>I'm not arguing that.

I think you were, based on the fact that I proposed offering help and you rejected that proposal on the grounds that help shouldn't be offered to them -- that they have voluntarily put themselves in this position so they must want to stay in it.

>How is defining a human right
>issue? I don't agree
>with your arbitrary idea of
>how people should be treated.

More below.

>We choose to put people in
>power that go against our
>interests. We either choose
>through the election or through
>complacence.

This is a completely westernized idea. As you've said before, these are not democracies we're talking about. They don't choose their governments in any realistic sense. And "complacence?" What have recent revolutions done for Latin America? Also, it's hard to be much besides complacent when you have to concentrate all your energy on survival.

>Define what those rights are, and
>the authority which is to
>enforce those rights.

Below... if I ever get there.

>
>not just issues
>>of moral imperialism
>
>That's exactly what it is.
>If folks in Tokyo want
>to make the age of
>consent 12, that's their business(which
>it was at some recent
>point in history). I
>might have objections to that
>because I don't think a
>12 year old girl can
>make those kinds of decisions,
>but that's different from what
>you are saying. You
>are suggesting that I try
>to influence their polity based
>on what I think is
>right. Cultural/moral imperialism.

Not the same. These are U.S. corporations doing the damage, and doing it with our money. We have a right to hold them accountable according to our standards.

Okay, here goes. I think that this whole issue of our perception of human rights vs. their perception is a dicey one. That's why int'l solidarity campaigns tend to be mobilized in response to calls for HELP from sweatshop workers in factories in the Third World.
In general, we try to define universal/basic human rights as going beyond cultural differences. Of course, this can never be perfected because we will always be forming those priorities from the moral standpoint of our personal culture. However, the UN does incorporate 185 nations, so when it makes a universal declaration, it's made with the (theoretical) consensus of a pretty diverse cultural group.

As I said before, we're talking about survival and reproduction. If starvation and death really could be proven to be vital to their culture (as perhaps lower age consent was proven to be in Japan), I (for one) would back off. But I've seen no evidence of this (apart from your unconvincing assertion that they don't quit their jobs so they must want to starve), and I don't think I will ever see that evidence.

Alek

_____________________________________
It's Planet Asia week:

"It's off the hook, yeah we took it there..."

"This be that cold shit of course, cause I was forced by the streets to rock beats and sell source..."

"A father ain't a father till he furthers your existence..."

"In a couple of seconds you'll be feeling fondled..."

"You got a beeper, but still you comin' up with lint..."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>Indonesia, President Subharto. All the fighting that goes on all over the world. You think those civil wars >are about nothing? It's about control of the polity, and it is not agitation by outside western forces who
>want to grab the natural resources and enslave the populace.

You should be a US government spokesperson, really.

The fighting in Indonesia is exactly about people fighting a US installed and supported minority regime that monopolises the natural resources and does enslave the populace.
The agitation by outside Western forces took place a long time ago, and of course undocumented in the 'official' press to make people believe it didn't happen at all.

>Now does the US provide weapons, assistance, and training to things that the US admin believes in, hell >yeah, but that's not the question posed.

Unbelievable … like both aren't related.
So the murder of Salvador Allende in Chile, Lumumba in Congo, the support for Contras in Nicaragua,
the Pig Bay invasion in Cuba, the financing of right wing terrorist groups in Italy after WWII, …
were just 'innocent' US initiatives, only cos the US administration believed they were 'the right thing' to do ? And that's not imposing a view/ideology/politic ? Was your population ever consulted about this ? Were the people in the countries I mentioned consulted ?

>You have removed the basic humanity of the people who work in these conditions by saying that they >don't have a choice, despite the evidence that the vast majority of people opt out of those jobs. I can >go down the line with any of the South East Asian countries and show you hard stats about how >different people make different choices.
>It's very American/western to believe that the common man does not support his own government. You >think China is communist because of a few key people?

No, it's very American to believe that 'the common man' (a concept I do not believe in) in client states has a democratic government, when in reality it only serves business interests in exchange for material wealth for a select few.

You seem to assume that most governments in poor countries were elected democratically, where the candidates represent the different interests in society (and not just financial or economical interests) so that people actually have a choice.

You seem to ignore that plenty of countries has legislation that only consolidates the current economical system, thereby making alternatives illegal or at least discouraging people trying to make a change.
Examples ? A ban on unions, military and police violence against citizens, institutionalised racism.

>In a certain sense I could
>say the same thing about
>the slavery in the US,
>where slaves weren't completely 'powerless'
>either, only 'detail' being that
>expressing or using their power
>automatically resulted in death or
>lifelong consequences at best.

Real Slavery is not akin to inhumane working conditions. I dropped links to real slavery that exists right now in a post above. Please don't try to hyperbolize the argument.

Who's using his standards to define the problem now ? Aren't you the same person saying that Western definitions shouldn't be applied to the whole world ? Yet you seem to think you know the difference between real slavery and inhumand working conditions. Like both wouldn't be bad.

>There are a grip of alternatives.

Correct : prostitution, robbing, theft, drug dealing, selling your children for organ transplants, (that's for unskilled people who have to resort to either this or jobs with even lower wages than Nike offers)
Sure, people work in the computer biz in Indonesia too, but you won't get that job without a decent education/degree … which depends on your parents' financial situation … which brings me back to my core argument : capitalism doesn't offer ALL people fair chances to develop their talents. It rewards a minority with material wealth at the expense of an exploited majority.

>You do not understand slavery then. Next you're gonna tell me poor white kids in the Appalachias are >slaves to the coal mining industry.

Then explain the finesses of slavery to me please.
It depends whether those poor white Appalachia kids get at least a proper share of the profit made with their work, and a proper health insurance (cos they'll definitely end up with damaged health cos of the work). If not, they're being exploited. Hope this clarifies my view.

>So please tell me the history of Asia, and look at their government/society/economic system before and >after colonialism.

>I have a feeling you will find the other Malaysians exploiting other Malaysians.

So that justifies further exploitation ? Great logic.

As a reasonable human being seeing that there's plenty of resouces on this planet to provide basic housing, food and education for all people I can't be satisfied with one system of exploitation being replaced by another one. Can you ?
The US and big European countries invests millions in the exploration of space, yet has people starving and living in what you'd call 'third world' conditions … That just doesn't make sense to me.

>After independence nothing stopped them from getting rid of the western ways and returning to older >practices. Perhaps because of colonization, the west set up the choices so that Monopoly style big >business capitalism was the way to go. But you aren't making that argument.

That would suggest that they were considered equal business partners after the independence. However, plenty of ex-colonies found themselves stuck with a Western oriented and trained elite, which didn't reflect the needs of what you call the 'common people'.
Like all colonial powers were 'happy' about their colonies declaring independence.
Neo-colonialism still exists through the IMF, World Bank and UN.

Wasn't Congo an independent state when Lumumba was murdered, with Belgian and US support ?
Do you know what happened to Ken Saro-Wiwa, who questioned and fought Shell's oil leakage, infertilizing farmer's grounds ?

>They did, they still do. The vast majority of farming on the continent is still subsistence, not crops for >profit.

Very true and nonsense at the same time.

Very true that they don't make crops for profit, since the way world trade is structured doesn't allow them to make any profit.

Nonsense cos Ethiopia exports vegetables to Europe (evidence is in my local supermarket) while that country experiences one of the most severe droughts in its existence.

So you're not well-informed I think.

>>If they had chosen the capitalist
>>route, they wouldn't be as
>>poor today, with the resources
>>they have.

>Which route did the choose then? Socialism, Communism? What economic system?

They didn't choose a route at all. Those who did opt for the socialist/communist route found themselves boycotted/invaded by US-client troops.

Most countries were pushed into a slave role, simply cos they had been pillaged and devastated by their colonial master. A select elite accepted a subservient role in exchange for material wealth for themselves.


http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cg.html
one of the key exports is Rubber.
Now you give me some facts.

It doesn't mention who benefits from the rubber export (foreign companies or the local economy). Most engineers/managers/executives are Western people, instead of training local people …
Societe Generale is one of the main Belgian companies, there's more … give me some time and I'll look it up.

>>same thing continues today with
>>diamonds from Shaba, all concessions
>>are controlled by either American
>>or Belgian companies.

>Nationalization. It's happening all over Afrika.

Of course, cos multinationals are all over Africa.


>>First, we tell the whole world
>>how good life is in
>>Western society.

>And it's okay for me to say that.

Sure, I guess it's also okay to have Western media only focusing on hunger, disaster, war, corruption, drought when reporting on Africa.
What view do Western people have of Africa ? How accurate is that view ?

I don't mind people being happy about how good life is in Western society, but the ethnocentrism that speaks from our entire society and the way we manifest it disturbs me.

>Then, we're surprised people want to
>migrate to Western countries, and
>we do everything to stop
>them from coming (by treating
>'m like shit, locking 'm
>up in camps, ...)

>That's not what this is about. I'm not saying the west is the best. I'm saying that we should not impose >our culture/values on another culture. Now does that mean I can't tell you about my culture, is that an >imposition on you? Not at all. If you show interest in how I do things and what I value, should I turn >you away?

You're talking about a theoretical, non-existent situation. In an ideal world I would agree with you, but as I mentioned we do nothing but imposing our culture/values through movies, music, ads, tv, … There's no respect or genuine interest for other cultures. And we hardly 'tell' other people about our culture, it's more like shoving it down their throats. But again : I don't expect you to realize that if you haven't been outside of the US yet, or mainly rely on the instituionalised US media.

>Capitalism is not working for E. Europe, despite lots of education and natural resources. But was their >previous system capable of giving them a lifestyle like ours? Is that the result of the system, or >something else?

So 'our' lifestyle is the standard all of a sudden ? I thought we couldn't impose our views or morals ?
The main difference between then and now is that people in East Germany had free housing, free education, a job and food.
Today unemployment reaches up to 25-30% (sometimes even 50% among -30 year olds) and they have luxury shops full of stuff noone can afford.

One of the consequences is that right wing groups (that didn't have a chance when the wall still existed) are killing immigrants (firebombs in their houses, street lynchings, …) cos they blame them for their own unemployment. That's the situation today.

I'm not saying Eastern Germany was a great place to live before the wall fell, but most people were happier then than they are now. All of this is documented in various independent films and television documentaries.

>>American soaps are so successfull cos
>>they're so cheap (does mass
>>production ring a bell ?).

>Yeah, what's your point?.

This was my point :
>>That's all it is,
>>not cos American morals or
>>culture would be better.

>I guarantee Susan Lucci, nor her writers are thinking to themselves, how do we subvert the culture of >another country. The ad execs who sell the programming to foreign communication networks want to >just make money. So if there is any problem with western material reaching your people, you could >bust an Iran, Iraq, or Saudi and censor everything from the West.

A drugdealer just wants to make money too, without considering the consequences for other people.
Again, I don't expect people who have no interest in other cultures or who specialise in making propaganda for their own culture to consider the consequences of their work for other people.
I do realize that the Susan Lucci you mention doesn't deliberately plot to indoctrinate foreign people with US views, but in reality, she is a part of that process.
But that doesn't mean I automatically have to censor it, like the US government does with non US sources.
I'm entitled to criticise it though.

>>American cultural imperialism is rampant.
>>And as a reaction people
>>react to that over here.

>We offer a product that no one can resist. Is that imperialism?

Flooding the market with a cheap product in such quantities that it practically wipes the rest away is not what I'd call 'offering a product'.


>>Have you ever been outside North
>>America, and if you did,
>>did you go outside American
>>hotels ?

>Is this an ad hominem attack? Can't you do any better.

Are you avoiding the question ? Can't you do any better.
Your reply suggests a negative answer to my question.

>>>I didn't agree with the
>>>gulf slaughter, nor trying to
>>>quell the violence in Somalia
>>>for oil. But I
>>>also don't believe in telling
>>>another sovereign nation how they
>>>should allocate their priorities.

>>Unfortunately, this seems to be the
>>exact US interpretation of 'free
>>trade'.

>So what are you saying?

That I do agree with your reasoning in a theoretical world, but unfortunately that reality looks very different.

>>And I DO believe that people
>>shouldn't have an armed person
>>at the job to prevent
>>'m from going to the
>>toilet.

>That's fine. But you are also telling someone else to live up to your standards.

You like wordplay, right ?
Except for masochists with a deathwish I don't think you'll find a lot of people liking an armed person at the job watching what they do.

>> Understand what I'm trying
>>to say ?

>I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it for lots of reasons.

Such as ?

>But are you knocking me for rocking FUBU because I want to support black business even though that >same black business gets their product made by people working in sub-standard situation?

I'm not knocking you. You do whatever you wanna do. I'm just saying what I'm doing, if you consider that an attack on your ways that's your interpretation. Some of my best friends buy sweatshop stuff and haven't changed their stance a bit since I made clear what I think about it through a song.
That doesn't make 'm less of a friend.

>I choose to support a black business because it will benefit other African Americans trying to opt out >taking a slice of the pie, and allowing us to bake our own.

I'm not sure it will though. I'd like to know how it will benefit other African Americans ? What makes you so sure the founders of FUBU aren't primarily concerned about money, instead of of supporting other African Americans ? I think the For Us By Us slogan is nothing but that : a slogan. (I also think their clothing looks terrible, but that's a whole other topic )
Just like the 'Back To Africa' vibe in hiphop late 80's/early 90's was genuine to a few people, but also a business/conformist thing.

The FUBU people where interrogated on a UK show over here, about their slogan, and they had very little interesting things to say, which makes me kinda cautious when hearing the so called philosophy behind what they do.

>This whole thing boils down to whether or not you want to support Okayplayer via buying T-shirts, or >you want to protest sweatshop labor.
>I think picking up that Black Thought t-shirt does more for the cause, than not picking it up.

Depends on what you call 'the cause' … but I wouldn't blame people for not pickig it up for this specific reason.
I bought a Com T when he performed at Paradiso, and I'll also donate money for it to Clean Clothes, since okayplayer.com doesn't seem to do so (yet). That way I think I'm doing both : supporting okayplayer AND protesting sweatshop labour. But that's my personal decision, I ain't claiming that's the right(eous) thing to do.

But I think it's only right for people to address this issue here, knowing how Tank (and Ang too I think) feel about sweatshops.

Summarizing, k_orr : I would agree with you in a theoretical world with a very different US, but that just ain't the case today.


krewc
http://www.vinylators.com

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

>The fighting in Indonesia is exactly
>about people fighting a US
>installed and supported minority regime
>that monopolises the natural resources
>and does enslave the populace.

Thus, the people of Indonesia are trying to determine who should run their country. Oddly enough nothing jumped off until the economy crumbled. Or maybe that isn't odd at all.

>The agitation by outside Western forces
>took place a long time
>ago, and of course undocumented
>in the 'official' press to
>make people believe it didn't
>happen at all.

Again, I'm not saying it's right. I believe in self determination. So if i'm against the US influencing a country's politics and economies, I'm against it in both of what I think is negative and positive.

You seem to be saying that it is bad for the US to force our views on them when it's against your interests, but it's okay when it's with your interests. I'm against involvement. I am for people being able to determine for themselves what is right in their culture.

>>Now does the US provide weapons, assistance, and training to things that the US admin believes in, hell >yeah, but that's not the question posed.
>
>Unbelievable … like both aren't related.

They aren't related. You are bringing all of these issues, and not answering my question about whether or not supporting the Roots/okayplayer is better than not supporting the sweatshop that made their goods.

>were just 'innocent' US initiatives, only
>cos the US administration believed
>they were 'the right thing'
>to do ?

You are arguing against someone else, not me. You're also avoiding my questions.

>No, it's very American to believe
>that 'the common man' (a
>concept I do not believe
>in) in client states has
>a democratic government,

The common man chooses his government whether it be communism, a repressive military regime, or democracy.

>You seem to assume that most
>governments in poor countries were
>elected democratically, where the candidates
>represent the different interests in
>society (and not just financial
>or economical interests) so that
>people actually have a choice.

People that don't live in a democratically elected country always have a choice. Hence the fights all over the globe. It's not an easy choice like Gore vs Bush. I have a lot more faith in average folks than you do.

>You seem to ignore that plenty
>of countries has legislation that
>only consolidates the current economical
>system, thereby making alternatives illegal
>or at least discouraging people
>trying to make a change.

You are assuming way too much. Political action is not just voting and writing letters.

>Who's using his standards to define
>the problem now ?

I addressed your question. Slavery is not inhumane working conditions. Don't try to color the argument with hyperbole.

>Aren't you the same person
>saying that Western definitions shouldn't
>be applied to the whole
>world ?

That's fair. is there not a difference in situations when your children are owned by someone else, versus you have a terrible job?

>>There are a grip of alternatives.
>
>Correct : prostitution, robbing, theft, drug
>dealing, selling your children for
>organ transplants,

Please, enough with the sally struthers arguments. I know a lot of folks from abroad, of differing socio-economic backgrounds, and there are plenty more options than working at Nike.

>: capitalism doesn't
>offer ALL people fair chances
>to develop their talents.

All people aren't equal. Life isn't fair. What's your point.

>It rewards a minority with
>material wealth at the expense
>of an exploited majority.

Yes, I know your a communist. But that doesn't answer my questions above.

>Then explain the finesses of slavery
>to me please.
>It depends whether those poor white
>Appalachia kids get at least
>a proper share of the
>profit made with their work,

So they should get a share of profits even though they didn't buy the machines, the rights to the land, negotiate contracts, organize folks, .... The Marx/Engels conception of work is limited. Just because you turn a tree into a chair, doesn't mean that you should get all the money from the retailer when it's sold? But this isn't about communism/socialism.

>and a proper health insurance
>(cos they'll definitely end up
>with damaged health cos of
>the work). If not,
>they're being exploited. Hope
>this clarifies my view.

So folks who start smoking today are being exploited by big tobacco, despite knowing the risks?

>So that justifies further exploitation ?
> Great logic.

What it says is that I shouldn't take my view of the world and impose it on another.

>As a reasonable human being seeing
>that there's plenty of resouces
>on this planet to provide
>basic housing, food and education

Evidence. There might be enough resources total, but they aren't equally distributed.

>for all people I can't
>be satisfied with one system
>of exploitation being replaced by
>another one. Can you

It's not a system.

>?
>The US and big European countries
>invests millions in the exploration
>of space, yet has people
>starving and living in what
>you'd call 'third world' conditions

Why should I care about my neighbor, if my neighbor doesn't care about me. Now you're sounding Christian.

>That would suggest that they were
>considered equal business partners after
>the independence.

If you control your own government, aren't you independent of all other governments? If you ask for help, then you are indebted to those who help you.

However, plenty
>of ex-colonies found themselves stuck
>with a Western oriented and
>trained elite, which didn't reflect
>the needs of what you
>call the 'common people'.

Hence the fighting in Liberia. Let them determine what is right for them.

>Like all colonial powers were 'happy'
>about their colonies declaring independence.

They might not have been, but so goes the world.

>Neo-colonialism still exists through the IMF,
>World Bank and UN.
>
>Wasn't Congo an independent state when
>Lumumba was murdered, with Belgian
>and US support ?

Support would be the key word. If there weren't folks wanting to kill him off, it wouldn't have happened. You make it sound as if the US installed their own government. There had to be complicity from the folks who lived there. It's like the argument that Europeans showed up to west Africa and just started corralling folks into ships. (which denies that Afrikans were not involved in the slave trade)

>Do you know what happened to
>Ken Saro-Wiwa, who questioned and
>fought Shell's oil leakage, infertilizing
>farmer's grounds ?

He was executed by Achaba's regime. Your point?

>>They did, they still do. The vast majority of farming on the continent is still subsistence, not crops for >profit.
>
>Very true and nonsense at the
>same time.

How is that nonsense, they are opting out of capitalism and living off their own land.

>Very true that they don't make
>crops for profit, since the
>way world trade is structured
>doesn't allow them to make
>any profit.

No, they can't get their goods to people who can pay more for them.

>Nonsense cos Ethiopia exports vegetables to
>Europe (evidence is in my
>local supermarket) while that country
>experiences one of the most
>severe droughts in its existence.
>So you're not well-informed I think.

From http://www.vso.org.uk/explore/cprofiles/ethiopia.htm

Ethiopia is one of the poorest nations on earth. Recurrent droughts and flooding in some parts of the country result in chronic food insecurity. In September 1999, it was reported that more than five million people are at risk of starvation following the severe drought. In the meantime, flooding in the east of the country in October 1999 left tens of thousands homeless. UNICEF reports that 64% of Ethiopians live below the absolute poverty line. 85% of the population lives in rural areas and most depend on subsistence farming.

How you can argue with me on facts while online is beyond me.

So you're saying that all the farming in Ethiopia is for profit, and a mixture of subsistence farming by the many, as opposed to for profit farming by the few?

>>>If they had chosen the capitalist
>>>route, they wouldn't be as
>>>poor today, with the resources
>>>they have.
>
>>Which route did the choose then? Socialism, Communism? What economic system?
>
>They didn't choose a route at
>all.

What do you mean they didn't choose a route? Not choosing, letting nature take it's course, is a choice.

Those who did
>opt for the socialist/communist route
>found themselves boycotted/invaded by US-client
>troops.

A US interest at the time was stopping the spread of communism. I'm against that, as I'm against us trying to say that we know how they need to run their businesses. It cuts both ways.

>A select elite accepted a
>subservient role in exchange for
>material wealth for themselves.

Who selects them, and how do you explain civil unrest all over the world.?

>It doesn't mention who benefits from
>the rubber export (foreign companies
>or the local economy).
>Most engineers/managers/executives are Western people,
> instead of training local
>people …
>Societe Generale is one of the
>main Belgian companies, there's more
>… give me some time
>and I'll look it up.

I'm still waiting.
>
>
>>>same thing continues today with
>>>diamonds from Shaba, all concessions
>>>are controlled by either American
>>>or Belgian companies.
>
>>Nationalization. It's happening all over Afrika.
>
>Of course, cos multinationals are all
>over Africa.

As in wildcat mining in Namibia. The death of white farmers in South Afrika...

>Sure, I guess it's also okay
>to have Western media only
>focusing on hunger, disaster, war,
>corruption, drought when reporting on
>Africa.

That's what the western media focuses on in the west. We focus on murder in the streets here.

>What view do Western people have
>of Africa ?
>How accurate is that view
>?

Is that the issue we are discussing? Does it matter, since most folks in the west aren't dealing outside of their neighborhoods?

>I don't mind people being happy
>about how good life is
>in Western society, but the
>ethnocentrism that speaks from our
>entire society and the way
>we manifest it disturbs me.

That's fair.

>>That's not what this is about. I'm not saying the west is the best. I'm saying that we should not impose >our culture/values on another culture. Now does that mean I can't tell you about my culture, is that an >imposition on you? Not at all. If you show interest in how I do things and what I value, should I turn >you away?
>
>You're talking about a theoretical, non-existent
>situation. In an ideal
>world I would agree with
>you, but as I mentioned
>we do nothing but imposing
>our culture/values through movies, music,
>ads, tv, …

How is an episode of 90210 replacing my values with those in the 3rd world? Explain it to me.

There's
>no respect or genuine interest
>for other cultures.

That's in the west, that is our problem. Abroad they care for their own. Like we care for our own. No one is celebrating Thanksgiving outside of the US and canada.

And
>we hardly 'tell' other people
>about our culture, it's more
>like shoving it down their
>throats.

If they want our money for out advertising they know what they are getting into. If our stuff is more appealing than their own culture, (it happens all over the caribbean), then what does that say about their culture versus ours. Are we to not send our material out because we are afraid folks might like it?

But again :
>I don't expect you to
>realize that if you haven't
>been outside of the US
>yet, or mainly rely on
>the instituionalised US media.

I have been outside the US, and I go to more than just CNN for my news. Why are you so condescending? Personal attacks don't further your argument.


>So 'our' lifestyle is the standard
>all of a sudden ?

Isn't that what you are arguing?

> I thought we couldn't
>impose our views or morals
>?

We shouldn't. How then is E. Europe doing bad?

>The main difference between then and
>now is that people in
>East Germany had free housing,
>free education, a job and
>food.
>Today unemployment reaches up to 25-30%
>(sometimes even 50% among -30
>year olds) and they have
>luxury shops full of stuff
>noone can afford.

Your point being? So they have less material wealth despite the Same amount of materials, people and education. Across the iron curtain, basically the same set of people have more with the same material, people, and education. If you're arguing that capitalism doesn't work, Western Europe is a good answer. All I can grasp from your example is that capitalism doesn't work overnight, nor should it.

>One of the consequences is that
>right wing groups (that didn't
>have a chance when the
>wall still existed) are killing
>immigrants (firebombs in their houses,
>street lynchings, …) cos they
>blame them for their own
>unemployment. That's the situation
>today.

What does that have to do with capitalism or communism?

>I'm not saying Eastern Germany was
>a great place to live
>before the wall fell, but
>most people were happier then
>than they are now.

Folks are usually happy with the way things were, they get stagnant. How do you then explain the thousands of Cubans who regularly leave Cuba?

>All of this is documented
>in various independent films and
>television documentaries.
>
>>>American soaps are so successfull cos
>>>they're so cheap (does mass
>>>production ring a bell ?).
>
>>Yeah, what's your point?.
>
>This was my point :

south american soaps are successful too, your point.

>A drugdealer just wants to make
>money too, without considering the
>consequences for other people.

You don't know any dealers then.

>Again, I don't expect people who
>have no interest in other
>cultures or who specialise in
>making propaganda for their own
>culture to consider the consequences
>of their work for other
>people.

How is entertainment propaganda? Is hip hop that reaches South Afrika inspiring them to do their own thing propaganda?

>I do realize that the Susan
>Lucci you mention doesn't deliberately
>plot to indoctrinate foreign people
>with US views, but in
>reality, she is a part
>of that process.

She is an innocent part then, as are the writers, and the ad execs who pitch it to foreign TV stations. Only someone in Peru is going to know what it is going to do Peruvian people. That's on them.

>Flooding the market with a cheap
>product in such quantities that
>it practically wipes the rest
>away is not what I'd
>call 'offering a product'.

That's business. we offer something at a lower price than our competitors. You could easily place tariffs/trade restrictions and charge your people exorbinant prices. Go to Japan. I've been there. Now go to interior Mexico, I"ve been there too.

>Are you avoiding the question ?
> Can't you do any
>better.
>Your reply suggests a negative answer
>to my question.

Yes. I've been to cuba, jamaica, the cayman islands, canada, border mexico, interior mexico, Japan. I've stayed in a hotel for maybe 5 days of my international travels. I have mostly stayed with friends and family in country areas. I have picked mangos for days, lead cows home, killed goats and chickens, fished. I can dig a well. I can probably build a house at this point. I've also been a law clerk for 3 years, spending lots of time interacting with child molesters, rapists, murderers, drug dealers (all alleged of course). I was a counselor for troubled youth for 1 year. I have been all over Texas in rural counties and inner cities dealing with drug addicts, high school drop outs, thugs trying to get out the game, pregnant teenagers, physically/sexually abused teens. I was a college radio dj for 4.5 years, who has organized and helped to organize many a community event in the so-called hood. My first job was at a west indian candy factory, which can be described as a sweat shop if I use your definition.

What's your resume?

But even after you drop your laundry list of what you've done for the cause, does that make the logic in your argument any better?

>That I do agree with your
>reasoning in a theoretical world,
>but unfortunately that reality looks
>very different.

If you agree with me, then what is the argument about.

>You like wordplay, right ?
>Except for masochists with a deathwish
>I don't think you'll find
>a lot of people liking
>an armed person at the
>job watching what they do.

I don't like anyone watching what i'm doing. But do we value the rights of the workers who can come and go as they please over those of the employer? If we do, why? Furthermore, what gives us the right to impose our standard on them. And do we do that because we have the power to do so, or because it's right?

>
>>> Understand what I'm trying
>>>to say ?
>
>>I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it for lots of reasons.
>
>Such as ?

- you are replacing your notion of what a good workplace is, over the ones currently in place in that country

I'm not going to summarize my arguments again

>>But are you knocking me for rocking FUBU because I want to support black business even though that >same black business gets their product made by people working in sub-standard situation?
>
>I'm not knocking you. You
>do whatever you wanna do.

What is your reasoning for me to not support people at home?
I understand your objection to sweatshops, but are you not at all interested in supporting Af. Am's and other minorities in their businesses.

> >I choose to support a black business because it will benefit other African Americans trying to opt out >taking a slice of the pie, and allowing us to bake our own.
>
>I'm not sure it will though.

The question of efficacy is another one altogether. At least we can try before we fail. Your philosophy would lead us to not trying.

> I'd like to know
>how it will benefit other
>African Americans ?

Stores, distribution, designers, and the fleeting sense of pride that comes with supporting a black business.

What
>makes you so sure the
>founders of FUBU aren't primarily
>concerned about money,

Regardless of their concerns, by buying my FUBU at the Back Pocket, I am supporting 2 minority businesses.

>a slogan. (I also think
>their clothing looks terrible, but
>that's a whole other topic
> )

yeah, I'm just using FUBU as a best case scenario, I'd rather rock PNB, but that's another topic.

>Just like the 'Back To Africa'
>vibe in hiphop late 80's/early
>90's was genuine to a
>few people, but also a
>business/conformist thing.

So we shut down the whole thing, cause we don't want it polluted by other interests?

>The FUBU people where interrogated on
>a UK show over here,
>about their slogan, and they
>had very little interesting things
>to say, which makes me
>kinda cautious when hearing the
>so called philosophy behind what
>they do.

The have to back pedal, cause for us by us, would turn off all the non-black kids who support. It's political.

>Depends on what you call 'the
>cause' … but I wouldn't
>blame people for not pickig
>it up for this specific
>reason.

Upliftment of the African American Community.

That way
>I think I'm doing both
>: supporting okayplayer AND protesting
>sweatshop labour. But that's
>my personal decision, I ain't
>claiming that's the right(eous) thing
>to do.

I'm not that wealthy, so I will allocate my resources differently than you.

>But I think it's only right
>for people to address this
>issue here, knowing how Tank
>(and Ang too I think)
>feel about sweatshops.

No doubt.

>Summarizing, k_orr : I would agree
>with you in a theoretical
>world with a very different
>US, but that just ain't
>the case today.

I actually feel more for your cause than I let on, cause this board is pretty much full of people who all agree.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>it is bad for the
>US to force our views
>on them when it's against
>your interests, but it's okay
>when it's with your interests.
> I'm against involvement. I
>am for people being able
>to determine for themselves what
>is right in their culture.

I agree. I don't know how come you interpreted my replies as meaning 'it's okay when it's with my interests' … I think it's obvious that the interests of the (in this case) Indonesian people should be served, and that they are the best judges of whatever needs to happen.

>They aren't related. You are
>bringing all of these issues,
>and not answering my question
>about whether or not supporting
>the Roots/okayplayer is better than
>not supporting the sweatshop that
>made their goods.

I personally think it's better to not support sweatshops.
If this means addressing the issue to the okaystaff or not buying gear from the shop made in sweatshops, what's the problem ?
I think there ARE (correct me if I'm wrong) companies in the US that make clothing at reasonable prices (for the consumer) in decent conditions (for the workers).

>People that don't live in a
>democratically elected country always have
>a choice.

Yes, but sometimes that choice is either conform or die. I woudn't call that choice, but rather terror.

>Slavery is
>not inhumane working conditions.

That is correct if you consider slavery an absolute term.
However, I think the actual meaning isn't static, but evolves with time and depends on the situation/culture.

And is it correct when I say that even slaves have a choice in your logic : either serve their master or die. Or am I exaggerating ?

>>Aren't you the same person
>>saying that Western definitions shouldn't
>>be applied to the whole
>>world ?
>
>That's fair. is there not
>a difference in situations when
>your children are owned by
>someone else, versus you have
>a terrible job?

Of course there's a difference.
But if your terrible job takes up 14 hours a day and still doesn't leave you enough money to live (just enough to survive) I wouldn't call that just a 'terrible' job, considering it's enormous repercussions on your life and perspectives. I would call that slavery indeed.

>Please, enough with the sally struthers
>arguments. I know a
>lot of folks from abroad,
>of differing socio-economic backgrounds, and
>there are plenty more options
>than working at Nike.

To me, the question remains if this makes it okay for Nike to do what they do in their sweatshops ?
And we ARE referring to people of a specific socio-economic background here, i.c. un- or low skilled labour. People with a different education/skill level can opt out, true. But not everyone can, due to not having (had) access to further education.

I'm not saying unskilled labour should disappear. What I do want is for the people doing those jobs to be paid and treated properly. And that is something they want themselves too.

>>: capitalism doesn't
>>offer ALL people fair chances
>>to develop their talents.
>
>All people aren't equal. Life
>isn't fair. What's your
>point.

My point is that I'm trying to look for ways to change that, and you seem to accept it.

>>It depends whether those poor white
>>Appalachia kids get at least
>>a proper share of the
>>profit made with their work,
>
>So they should get a share
>of profits even though they
>didn't buy the machines, the
>rights to the land, negotiate
>contracts, organize folks, ....
>The Marx/Engels conception of work
>is limited. Just because
>you turn a tree into
>a chair, doesn't mean that
>you should get all the
>money from the retailer when
>it's sold?

What are machines without people operating them ? I said a share, meaning 'a part'. Not all money.
All I'm saying is : if you work in a coalmine for 40 years, which is very heavy labour, and the company you work for makes enormous profit, that profit should be shared with the people who made it possible in the first place.
Such systems already exist (where people have a fixed wage, with additional bonuses when the company and/or its products does well).

>>and a proper health insurance
>>(cos they'll definitely end up
>>with damaged health cos of
>>the work). If not,
>>they're being exploited.
>
>So folks who start smoking today
>are being exploited by big
>tobacco, despite knowing the risks?

A person smoking today has the opportunity to inform him/herself about the risks.
If they choose to smoke, I think it makes no sense for them to prosecute a tobacco firm for the longue cancer they eventually develop.
On the other hand, that also means I expect tobacco companies to be honest about what they put in their cigarettes to make 'm more addictive, and to pay for the scientifical research investigating the risks.
Same story for car companies choosing to market unsafe cars cos it's cheaper to pay for lawsuits than to change the car's design.

Back to the coalmine workers : (we had a few big coalmines in Belgium, from the 50's-80's) most of these people had no idea of the potential health risks, as no research had been done at that time. When it became clear what health risks were, the government organized a system where the companies payed money for a specific insurance and payment in case of illness.

>What it says is that I
>shouldn't take my view of
>the world and impose it
>on another.

Which Western countries seem to do constantly though (at this point in time).

>>I can't
>>be satisfied with one system
>>of exploitation being replaced by
>>another one.
>
>It's not a system.

Capitalism is not a system ?

>Why should I care about my
>neighbor, if my neighbor doesn't
>care about me. Now
>you're sounding Christian.

Actually, one could consider the bible a very socialist book
But don't worry (lol), I'm not christian.

If everyone reasoned like you though, there wouldn't be no okayplayer, no usenet, no newsgroups, no benefit concerts, no volunteering, no group homes, …

>If you control your own government,
>aren't you independent of all
>other governments? If you
>ask for help, then you
>are indebted to those who
>help you.

What if you don't ask for help AND don't control your government ? Or do you blame the individual in such a position for being so ?

>Hence the fighting in Liberia. Let
>them determine what is right
>for them.

Too bad the US didn't let the Nicaraguan people determine what was right for them. Same thing in Somalia, Cuba, Chile (and most of South and Central America).

See, this is where we differ : what you'd like to see simply isn't reality : the US and it's allies does nothing but intervene in other countries.

>>Wasn't Congo an independent state when
>>Lumumba was murdered, with Belgian
>>and US support ?

>Support would be the key word.
>If there weren't folks
>wanting to kill him off,
>it wouldn't have happened.
>You make it sound as
>if the US installed their
>own government.

They did. Mobutu served US and Western interests, and was rewarded financially.

>There had
>to be complicity from the
>folks who lived there.
>It's like the argument that
>Europeans showed up to west
>Africa and just started corralling
>folks into ships. (which
>denies that Afrikans were not
>involved in the slave trade)

Agree. But the complicity doesn't change the fact that Western countries intervened and still do.
You need an initiator to have an accomplice.

>>Do you know what happened to
>>Ken Saro-Wiwa, who questioned and
>>fought Shell's oil leakage, infertilizing
>>farmer's grounds ?
>
>He was executed by Achaba's regime.
>Your point?

My point : the message of Shell & Achaba : this is what happens when you try to determine your own life and eff with our business interests.

> Those who did
>>opt for the socialist/communist route
>>found themselves boycotted/invaded by US-client
>>troops.
>
>A US interest at the time
>was stopping the spread of
>communism. I'm against that, as
>I'm against us trying to
>say that we know how
>they need to run their
>businesses. It cuts both
>ways.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying : I'm not telling Indonesian/African/ … countries/people how to run their business.
I'm telling my government/the US government how to run their business, and to stop intervening.

That's why I let Nike know I disagree with their sweatshop politics,
that's why I let companies know I don't want GMO's in my food,
that's why I let butchers know I don't want to eat meat filled with hormones, …

>>A select elite accepted a
>>subservient role in exchange for
>>material wealth for themselves.
>
>Who selects them, and how do
>you explain civil unrest all
>over the world.?

Here's one explanation of how people are selected : (taken from Noam Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Medi Mainstream" http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/chomoct97.htm)

"People who have independent ideas or who think the wrong kind of thoughts are cut out.
He talks a little, only two sentences, about the institutional structure. He asks, why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things it’s not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you don’t adapt to that, you’re usually out."

The same mechanism also goes for politics.

Civil unrest is nothing but a logical reaction to that. However, as long as that civil unrest doesn't threaten the core of the economical and political system, it can be ignored. That exact thing happens here with the rise of right wing groups : as long as the traditional political parties and companies don't feel the effects of the tension, they'll ignore it.

>>What view do Western people have
>>of Africa ?
>>How accurate is that view
>>?
>
>Is that the issue we are
>discussing? Does it matter,
>since most folks in the
>west aren't dealing outside of
>their neighborhoods?

Yes it matters, cos it determines how people will perceive an African walking in their neighbourhood/street. Yes it matters, cos it makes people travel to the Dominican Republic and Cuba and stay in their hotels with CNN, a swimming pool and the same food they eat at home, instead of meeting people and actually getting to know something different.
In short : it leaves people with a distorted view of other people, based on superficial impressions.

>>situation. In an ideal
>>world I would agree with
>>you, but as I mentioned
>>we do nothing but imposing
>>our culture/values through movies, music,
>>ads, tv, …
>
>How is an episode of 90210
>replacing my values with those
>in the 3rd world?

In the same way that girls develop anorexia, that young boys start taking steroids, that people start bleaching their skin.

>That's in the west, that is
>our problem. Abroad they
>care for their own. Like
>we care for our own.
>No one is celebrating Thanksgiving
>outside of the US and
>canada.

Foreign countries don't invade the US.
The US invades other countries and colonializes other continents with that same argument : we care about ourselves and therefor we are forced to invade/neutralize/fight this/that country, to prevent them from doing something that goes against our interests.

I know you don't want things to be like that, but 'unfortunately' that's what takes place.

>>I don't expect you to
>>realize that if you haven't
>>been outside of the US
>>yet, or mainly rely on
>>the instituionalised US media.
>
>I have been outside the US,
>and I go to more
>than just CNN for my
>news. Why are you
>so condescending? Personal attacks
>don't further your argument.

Thanks for clarifying that. Earlier responses led me to believe you didn't.
Which explains my reaction.

>>So 'our' lifestyle is the standard
>>all of a sudden ?
>
>Isn't that what you are arguing?

No.

>>One of the consequences is that
>>right wing groups (that didn't
>>have a chance when the
>>wall still existed) are killing
>>immigrants (firebombs in their houses,
>>street lynchings, …) cos they
>>blame them for their own
>>unemployment. That's the situation
>> today.
>
> What does that have to do
>with capitalism or communism?

First of all : I don't believe Eastern Germany was 'communist', since it wasn't democratic. We probably have a different definition of communism and socialism, but that's another topic.
The way it's related to capitalism is that there's a link between unemployment and fascism/development of right wing groups. Europe has seen it twice (Germany & Italy), Germany is reviving it right now.
Eastern Germany provided people with jobs, which also meant right wing groups didn't have the basis to build on. Of course the tirannic state structure didn't allow any dissidence either, which is another reason, but I don't think you can ignore the link between unemployment (or other causes affecting a person's vulnerable socio-economic situation) and rightwing groups.

>>I'm not saying Eastern Germany was
>>a great place to live
>>before the wall fell, but
>>most people were happier then
>>than they are now.
>
>Folks are usually happy with the
>way things were, they get
>stagnant. How do you
>then explain the thousands of
>Cubans who regularly leave Cuba?

Poverty (caused by a US embargo, btw).
And massive US propaganda depicting the US as the promised land.

>>A drugdealer just wants to make
>>money too, without considering the
>>consequences for other people.
>
>You don't know any dealers then.

Actually, I do. Even if some consider the consequences, they definitely don't act according to that knowledge.

>Yes. I've been to cuba,
>jamaica, the cayman islands, canada,
>border mexico, interior mexico, Japan.
>I've stayed in a
>hotel for maybe 5 days
>of my international travels.
>I have mostly stayed with
>friends and family in country
>areas. I have picked
>mangos for days, lead cows
>home, killed goats and chickens,
>fished. I can dig
>a well. I can
>probably build a house at
>this point. I've also
>been a law clerk for
>3 years, spending lots of
>time interacting with child molesters,
>rapists, murderers, drug dealers (all
>alleged of course). I
>was a counselor for troubled
>youth for 1 year. I
>have been all over Texas
>in rural counties and inner
>cities dealing with drug addicts,
>high school drop outs, thugs
>trying to get out the
>game, pregnant teenagers, physically/sexually abused
>teens. I was a college
>radio dj for 4.5 years,
>who has organized and helped
>to organize many a community
>event in the so-called hood.
>My first job was
>at a west indian candy
>factory, which can be described
>as a sweat shop if
>I use your definition.
>
>What's your resume?
>
>But even after you drop your
>laundry list of what you've
>done for the cause, does
>that make the logic in
>your argument any better?

No, it doesn't. Thanks for clarifying though.
Being someone with you experience though, I can't understand how you can remain so calm knowing what's going on.

>>That I do agree with your
>>reasoning in a theoretical world,
>>but unfortunately that reality looks
>>very different.
>
>If you agree with me, then
>what is the argument about.

That the US do intervene, contrary to what you'd like them to do.

>>Such as ?
>
>- you are replacing your notion
>of what a good workplace
>is, over the ones currently
>in place in that country

Which is a US multinational notion itself in the first place.

>I understand your objection to sweatshops,
>but are you not at
>all interested in supporting Af.
>Am's and other minorities in
>their businesses.

If supporting minorities in their businesses means supporting exploitation of another minority I won't, true.

>The question of efficacy is another
>one altogether. At least
>we can try before we
>fail. Your philosophy would
>lead us to not trying.

That was not what I meant, I explained my point of view below (FUBU's actual motivations, and how much of their slogan is actually true).

>>Just like the 'Back To Africa'
>>vibe in hiphop late 80's/early
>>90's was genuine to a
>>few people, but also a
>>business/conformist thing.
>
>So we shut down the whole
>thing, cause we don't want
>it polluted by other interests?

No, but I get cautious when people use a political/conscious message to sell something.

> That way
>>I think I'm doing both
>>: supporting okayplayer AND protesting
>>sweatshop labour. But that's
>>my personal decision, I ain't
>>claiming that's the right(eous) thing
>>to do.
>
>I'm not that wealthy, so I
>will allocate my resources differently
>than you.

LOL. I ain't wealthy either, which forces me to think before I buy ('will I be able to give the additional amount to Clean Clothes ?'). I don't buy new clothes that often in the first place, haven't bought a sneaker in 2 years, and I have a few shops that offer non-sweatshop clothing at reasonable prices, so I have a few ways out.

>I actually feel more for your
>cause than I let on,
>cause this board is pretty
>much full of people who
>all agree.

I can understand that.



krewc
http://www.vinylators.com

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

Son of a bitch, I posted this all but it didn't show up. Try again...

>Now you're talking about what the
>people in their own sovereign
>country want to do.
>It's not right to question
>their sovereignity.

This isn't questioning their sovereignty. It's RESTORING their sovereignty.


>If 27% of the population chooses
>factory work over fishing, they
>must have a greater standard
>of living because of it,
>right?

Maybe a better standard of living than some, but it remains a poor one.

>So we have to realign the
>world resources until we reach
>some sort of mythical parity?

In so many words, yes. But it's not a "mythical parity," it's new precedents about responsibility and accountability, as well as new conceptions of global awareness.

> That doesn't make sense,
>and it's an insult to
>folks who want to determine
>themselves.

You can't "determine yourself" under economic, reproductive, and physical oppression.

>What
>are you suggesting. I
>boycott FUBU so that they
>make less money now, and
>if the boycott succeeds they
>will make less money in
>the future?

No! If you read the other posts... I (and many labor activists) believe that it's not our place to choose whether those people have jobs. We only intervene when they ASK for solidarity campaigns (as in the cases of Nicaragua, Salvador, and Thailand).

>What interest do
>we have in raising their
>pay?

So they can eat. So other people can eat. So there are standards as to how a worker can be treated.

>Sure it's nice,
>but why is it just?

It's "just" that people be paid enough to not die.

> Why is it better
>for an American company/industry to
>monopolize the labor force in
>a foreign country?

It's not. However, RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE American business can help develop the local labor market by raising the wage floor and bringing in capital.

Doesn't
>this halt the ability for
>native businesses to compete for
>that same labor?

Well, in many cases the actual factory owners are local developers, but the imbalance still occurs because the vast profit still goes to the U.S. corporation and the middle men. A lot of times the local gov't pushes down on the factory owners just as hard.

>Aren't
>we essentially draining that country
>of it's labor and resources?

Sometimes.

>They decided not to work in
>what you are characterizing as
>slave labor, which is most
>clearly not given that actual
>slavery exists on the globe.


Okay, I'm going to try a semi-economic perspective (since the human rights/social responsibility didn't seem to work). Sweatshop workers sell what to their employer? "Labor power," or the capacity to work. Unlike any other commodity, labor power can't be physically separated from the laborer, so sweatshop workers MUST sell their "labor power" or it's rendered useless -- i.e. if they don't go to work they lose that commodity. If "labor power" is all they have to offer (which is the case with most uneducated/unskilled sweatshop workers), then they are FORCED to work, no matter what the conditions of the market.
A farmer can choose to enter the market or grow food for his own subsistance. An artisan's commodity can be sold for subsistance, and leaving an undesirable market still leaves the artisan with his commodity.
BUT... a sweatshop worker can never "opt out" of the market because their "labor power" is all they have. This is not a choice that they make.

>You want to reform their
>country and their society based
>on your own understanding of
>what "basic" human needs are.

That's a valid criticism. I've defined basic human needs as survival and reproduction, both of which are being severely threatened. If I was shown that, say, Honduran cultural morality didn't hold those things as basic human needs, I wouldn't fight for them. A little unlikely, though...

>>Again, freewill here (and this isn't
>>even the case in poor
>>America) and freewill there are
>>very different animals. That's just
>>like Reagan's assertion that the
>>homeless in D.C. were in
>>that state because they wanted
>>to be.
>
>Not actually relevant. You should
>be talking about folks who
>work 2 or 3 minimum
>wage jobs to support their
>families. The reasons for
>being homeless are far more
>complex than how much money
>they take home.


True. But the same Reagan rhetoric was applied to those on welfare, saying that they "choose" not to have a job.

>So you're telling me, Nike goes
>to a south eastern asian
>country and corrals and chains
>these people to sewing machines?

They used to. Now it's just barbed wire, security cameras, abuse...

>And should we judge them as
>less worthy of self-determination if
>they aren't democratic?

They "aren't democratic" in a manner that removes all possibility of self-determination.

>Basic human rights are not an
>absolute. You have no
>"right" to strike, unionize, bargain
>collectively, et cetera.

Well, I'm going to leave this one alone, except to say that I think the right to determine your own circumstances IS absolute, and those three instances speak to that.


>MNC is?

Multi-national Corporation.

>
>>This is an extremely important point.
>> But, international action/solidarity can
>>set precedents for domestic policy.
>
>give examples. No UN resolution
>holds any weight in this
>country.

Okay. Kensington Welfare Rights Union: a group of welfare recipients and poor people in N. Philly who actually USE the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights to catalogue human rights violations committed against poor people. They are trying to hold governments and institutions culpable for poverty in many situations.

>
>>And companies are in fact
>>much more impregnable under our
>>"limited liability" in the US
>>than they are once the
>>UN Declaration of Human Rights
>>comes into play in Third
>>World countries. In other
>>words, that's where we can
>>get them.
>
>Yeah, I'll try and pull out
>my UN charter next time
>I get pulled over by
>the state. Do you
>seriously think the US will
>ever kowtow to the UN?

No, that's what I was saying above. The UN Declaration pulls more weight in foreign policy, so it's a pressure point. As I said,
>>that's where we can
>>get them.


Alek


_____________________________________
It's Planet Asia week:

"It's off the hook, yeah we took it there..."

"This be that cold shit of course, cause I was forced by the streets to rock beats and sell source..."

"A father ain't a father till he furthers your existence..."

"In a couple of seconds you'll be feeling fondled..."

"You got a beeper, but still you comin' up with lint..."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>>Now you're talking about what the
>>people in their own sovereign
>>country want to do.
>>It's not right to question
>>their sovereignity.
>
>This isn't questioning their sovereignty.
>It's RESTORING their sovereignty.

Sovereignity always exists. It just not always in a democratic form.

>
>>If 27% of the population chooses
>>factory work over fishing, they
>>must have a greater standard
>>of living because of it,
>>right?
>
>Maybe a better standard of living
>than some, but it remains
>a poor one.

Poor relative too? I would much rather be a fisherman than working in a factory.

>In so many words, yes.
>But it's not a "mythical
>parity," it's new precedents about
>responsibility and accountability, as well
>as new conceptions of global
>awareness.

Based on?
What if it conflicts with cultural practices?

>> That doesn't make sense,
>>and it's an insult to
>>folks who want to determine
>>themselves.
>
>You can't "determine yourself" under economic,
>reproductive, and physical oppression.

National self determination, not individual determination.

>No! If you read the other
>posts... I (and many labor
>activists) believe that it's not
>our place to choose whether
>those people have jobs.

which is what you are essentially doing, but not with that intention, but with that knowledge.

>We only intervene when they
>ASK for solidarity campaigns (as
>in the cases of Nicaragua,
>Salvador, and Thailand).

No quarrel with that. If the governor can call Pres. Bush for help, it's okay for others to act. We should have a policy of non-involvement.

>>What interest do
>>we have in raising their
>>pay?
>
>So they can eat. So
>other people can eat.
>So there are standards as
>to how a worker can
>be treated.

They're eating now. What they have to have steak?

>>Sure it's nice,
>>but why is it just?
>
>It's "just" that people be paid
>enough to not die.

Hyperbole.

>> Why is it better
>>for an American company/industry to
>>monopolize the labor force in
>>a foreign country?
>
>It's not. However, RESPONSIBLE and
>ACCOUNTABLE American business can help
>develop the local labor market
>by raising the wage floor
>and bringing in capital.

It's humanitarian to do so.

>Doesn't
>>this halt the ability for
>>native businesses to compete for
>>that same labor?
>
>Well, in many cases the actual
>factory owners are local developers,
>but the imbalance still occurs
>because the vast profit still
>goes to the U.S. corporation
>and the middle men.

So the local developer can raise prices.

>Okay, I'm going to try a
>semi-economic perspective (since the human
>rights/social responsibility didn't seem to
>work).

It doesn't work for me, cause it's basically an imposition of our will over theirs.

Sweatshop workers sell
>what to their employer? "Labor
>power," or the capacity to
>work. Unlike any other
>commodity, labor power can't be
>physically separated from the laborer,
>so sweatshop workers MUST sell
>their "labor power" or it's
>rendered useless -- i.e. if
>they don't go to work
>they lose that commodity.
>If "labor power" is all
>they have to offer (which
>is the case with most
>uneducated/unskilled sweatshop workers),

Here's where we differ. Many of these so-called uneducated unskilled workers, are also doing other jobs. Subsistence farming, cooking, service, fishing, are all unskilled/low skills jobs. It's not like the Us where if you don't have a formal education you can't support your family. (and even that is a misconception based on what it means to support a family).

then they
>are FORCED to work, no
>matter what the conditions of
>the market.

> A farmer can
>choose to enter the market
>or grow food for his
>own subsistance. An artisan's
>commodity can be sold for
>subsistance, and leaving an undesirable
>market still leaves the artisan
>with his commodity.

The unskilled worker exists with the rational actor.

>BUT... a sweatshop worker can never
>"opt out" of the market
>because their "labor power" is
>all they have. This is
>not a choice that they
>make.

The person who becomes a sweatshop worker has options.

>That's a valid criticism. I've
>defined basic human needs as
>survival and reproduction, both of
>which are being severely threatened.

I'm not going to argue it cause i don't know the breadth of your statement.

> If I was shown
>that, say, Honduran cultural morality
>didn't hold those things as
>basic human needs, I wouldn't
>fight for them. A
>little unlikely, though...

hmmm.

>>So you're telling me, Nike goes
>>to a south eastern asian
>>country and corrals and chains
>>these people to sewing machines?
>
>They used to. Now it's
>just barbed wire, security cameras,
>abuse...

evidence on the former.

>>And should we judge them as
>>less worthy of self-determination if
>>they aren't democratic?
>
>They "aren't democratic" in a manner
>that removes all possibility of
>self-determination.

We have different ideas of what it means to determine one's self.

>Well, I'm going to leave this
>one alone, except to say
>that I think the right
>to determine your own circumstances

Right only exists if you can back it up.

>Okay. Kensington Welfare Rights Union:
>a group of welfare recipients
>and poor people in N.
>Philly who actually USE the
>UN Declaration of Universal Human
>Rights to catalogue human rights
>violations committed against poor people.
> They are trying to
>hold governments and institutions culpable
>for poverty in many situations.

How they will prove this in our system is beyond me? Or rather how they will be remedied for these violations is what i'm wondering.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

I typed this all and lost it AGAIN. Fuck.


>Sovereignity always exists. It just
>not always in a democratic
>form.

The basic definition of sovereignty is self-government. These people don't have that. Not to mention no recourse to the law.


>>Maybe a better standard of living
>>than some, but it remains
>>a poor one.
>
>Poor relative too? I would
>much rather be a fisherman
>than working in a factory.

This is irrelevant. The conditions in sweatshops ARE unspeakable. I think I see your point about our subjective judgements regarding human circumstances, but that's really all we have. Those (like me) who are committed to helping humankind in the best way possible can only make those subjective judgements and act on them. It's our only option.

>What if it conflicts with cultural
>practices?

What cultural practices value starvation and death? If you can show me one, great (well, not great, but...), but I don't see that in any of these cultures.

>National self determination, not individual determination.

How can "self-determination" be anything but individual?

>>No! If you read the other
>>posts... I (and many labor
>>activists) believe that it's not
>>our place to choose whether
>>those people have jobs.
>
>which is what you are essentially
>doing, but not with that
>intention, but with that knowledge.

Definitely not! No one wants to close these factories. We want to improve them, and also help the communities develop their own manufacturing industry, instead of just supporting ours. That's more jobs.

>We should have a policy
>of non-involvement.

Okay, non-involvement is complex. Military non-involvement is one thing. Political non-involvement is another. Religious/cultural non-involvement is yet another. Economic non-involvement another. Human rights non-involvement (which you seem to be advocating) is yet another. I think we just disagree about this.

>
>>>What interest do
>>>we have in raising their
>>>pay?
>>
>>So they can eat. So
>>other people can eat.
>>So there are standards as
>>to how a worker can
>>be treated.
>
>They're eating now. What they
>have to have steak?

I hope this is a joke. Please tell me you understand how widespread starvation is in places like El Salvador.

>>> Why is it better
>>>for an American company/industry to
>>>monopolize the labor force in
>>>a foreign country?
>>
>>It's not. However, RESPONSIBLE and
>>ACCOUNTABLE American business can help
>>develop the local labor market
>>by raising the wage floor
>>and bringing in capital.
>
>It's humanitarian to do so.

It is. Is humanitarianism bad?

>>Well, in many cases the actual
>>factory owners are local developers,
>>but the imbalance still occurs
>>because the vast profit still
>>goes to the U.S. corporation
>>and the middle men.
>
>So the local developer can raise
>prices.

Nope, they can't. Remember that the whole idea of offshore outsourcing is to minimize labor and production costs. Factory owner in Mali charges too much. Go to Costa Rica.

Plus, the governments and int'l organizations control land development in free trade zones, not the factory owners.

>Here's where we differ. Many
>of these so-called uneducated unskilled
>workers, are also doing other
>jobs.

All of which suck, and are also controlled just as strictly by local governments.

>>That's a valid criticism. I've
>>defined basic human needs as
>>survival and reproduction, both of
>>which are being severely threatened.
>
>I'm not going to argue it
>cause i don't know the
>breadth of your statement.

Meaning what? These threats to human needs are happening across the board.

>We have different ideas of what
>it means to determine one's
>self.

Clearly.

>>Okay. Kensington Welfare Rights Union:
>>a group of welfare recipients
>>and poor people in N.
>>Philly who actually USE the
>>UN Declaration of Universal Human
>>Rights to catalogue human rights
>>violations committed against poor people.
>> They are trying to
>>hold governments and institutions culpable
>>for poverty in many situations.
>
>How they will prove this in
>our system is beyond me?
> Or rather how they
>will be remedied for these
>violations is what i'm wondering.

Good question. In the past, they used their redefinition of human rights and their novel approach to a "welfare union" to petition/demand shelter and food from their municipal governments in Kensington and Philly as a whole. More recently, they've brought their concerns to the Democratic National Convention and a tour throughout the eastern seaboard.

How successful they've been is debatable (I guess), but they've gotten housing and jobs for hundreds of families. Not too shabby.

Alek


_____________________________________
It's Planet Asia week:

"It's off the hook, yeah we took it there..."

"This be that cold shit of course, cause I was forced by the streets to rock beats and sell source..."

"A father ain't a father till he furthers your existence..."

"In a couple of seconds you'll be feeling fondled..."

"You got a beeper, but still you comin' up with lint..."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

you misunderstand the role that both colonialism and the world economy play in this equation.

The economy in many of these countries is still disrupted from colonialism, and hostile economic practices from the post-colonial period and days of robber barons 'n such

the world economy, in the sense that multi-national corporations either set up shop in some areas 10, 20 years ago at times of worker surplus, or hire a local to do so who then undermine local economy so that their's is the only job to be had.

Your reliance on statistics only demonstrates your insecurity in philosophy. Cats who live in the city don't "choose" to not be agriculturalists--there are no farms in the city.

You also know fully well how this cat was using the term "slavery" and if you don't, no offense, but you seriously need to re-enroll in high school or a BA program in literature.

I can't believe someone would respond to this old ass thread. but being that I never back down from a discussion.

>you misunderstand the role that both
>colonialism and the world economy
>play in this equation.

Please explain it to me then.

>The economy in many of these
>countries is still disrupted from
>colonialism, and hostile economic practices
>from the post-colonial period and
>days of robber barons 'n
>such

Evidence, explanation, facts... I'm waiting.

>the world economy, in the sense
>that multi-national corporations either set
>up shop in some areas
>10, 20 years ago at
>times of worker surplus, or
>hire a local to do
>so who then undermine local
>economy so that their's is
>the only job to be
>had.

So you're suggesting that a MNC is somehow destroying fishing and subsistence agriculture in South East asian cities in order for their only choice to be working in a factory?

As opposed to them offering a wage that is more attractive than subsistence farming or fishing, or any of the other traditional economic activities in South East Asia?

>Your reliance on statistics only demonstrates
>your insecurity in philosophy.

I rely on numbers because you can't argue on this topic without bringing in context. There is this unsaid assumption that western society has come into asia, corrupted the people, and have now enslaved them so that we can buy Polo's at the discount stores. World economies are far more complicated than anyone here is willing to admit, but since they follow the party line of rocking afros and dashiki's, listening to the roots, and being a Vegan, I run into almost fanatic resistance.

>Cats who live in the
>city don't "choose" to not
>be agriculturalists--there are no farms
>in the city.

Most folks who live in the cities, moved their from the country. Furthermore, nothing stops them from moving back. And on top of that, if you look at all the vocational options in any of these countries, light manufacturing (cause that's what we're talking about) is a very small percentage. And more importantly, as a people, they are okay with it, and choose those jobs. Their standard of living is different, as is their way of life. You want to impose your ideas about what work should be about from some arbitrary notion of what human decency is.

>You also know fully well how
>this cat was using the
>term "slavery"

He was using it incorrectly. More importantly real slavery is still going on today, but folks will concentrate on more trivial issues, like a recasting of a working environment from a western point of view.

and if you
>don't, no offense, but you
>seriously need to re-enroll in
>high school or a BA
>program in literature.

Is that the best you can do, come at me with a personal attack. This would be 4th time this thread. Please deal with the facts and the argument.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>So you're suggesting that a MNC
>is somehow destroying fishing and
>subsistence agriculture in South East
>asian cities in order for
>their only choice to be
>working in a factory?

Here we go again. Can we draw a distinction between the labor force and subsistence farmers? I think it's of value (since sweatshops are a labor issue) to frame this in the context of MNC's in the labor world/labor market.
As such, oh hell yess they destroy the labor market. For one thing, they basically ARE the labor market, and their crooked dealings with local/national governments insures that it stays that way. As sad as it is, they set the standard in all the commmon areas of labor rights -- wage, health, liberty, etc. When they set it (and hold it) so horrendously low, it stays that way. By now, Free Trade zones have completely degraded any fair labor standards one might expect in even the poorest countries.

>There is this unsaid assumption
>that western society has come
>into asia, corrupted the people,
>and have now enslaved them
>so that we can buy
>Polo's at the discount stores.

Basically, that's what happened.

> World economies are far
>more complicated than anyone here
>is willing to admit,

I hope you're not including me. As I've said again and again, there is corruption and oppression all down the line. It's just that the top of the tree is the MNC, and they're the ones we have access to where we live.


but
>since they follow the party
>line of rocking afros and
>dashiki's, listening to the roots,
>and being a Vegan, I
>run into almost fanatic resistance.

Again, that's not me. I'm vegetarian.

>Most folks who live in the
>cities, moved their from the
>country.

Yes, to get the BETTER factory jobs. The fact that a factory job beats farming doesn't excuse human rights violations in the factories.

Furthermore, nothing stops
>them from moving back.

Yeah, because they've got all that disposable income, mobility, security, access... Give me a break.

>And on top of that,
>if you look at all
>the vocational options in any
>of these countries,

"ALL the vocational options?" I know you're up on your statistics, or you seem to be, but come on. Job markets are static in these countries. There's no diversified labor. Why do you think their economy is so bad?



>And more importantly,
>as a people, they are
>okay with it, and choose
>those jobs.

Yeah, those workers in Kukdong seemed okay with getting fired and beaten. And those Chentex workers were okay with going to jail on fake charges. I can just imagine: "Well, this factory has barbed wire, but this one has abusive foremen and no bathroom breaks. Which should we *choose*? Oh wait, you're pregnant, I guess we better go with the one that doesn't fire you when you have a baby."


>Their standard
>of living is different, as
>is their way of life.

Einstein.

> You want to impose
>your ideas about what work
>should be about from some
>arbitrary notion of what human
>decency is.

So work IS about physical abuse? Work IS about starving? Oh...Wait, then would work be about getting fired from work too?

>He was using it incorrectly.

I agree with that, but...

>folks will concentrate on more
>trivial issues,

Don't start. "Trivial?" You try to support a child after just getting fired. As a matter of fact, try your starting one of your own precious *subsistence farms* with no money and a newborn baby.

>like a recasting
>of a working environment from
>a western point of view.

Can I ask what it was being "recast" from? What's the original conception of a working environment that you see being tread on by moral imperialism?

I'm sorry this is a little harsh, but "trivial" just got to me.
Jesus.




Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

...you act like it's a simple thing to completely change your occupation. Like it's easy to simply quit a factory and begin farming or fishing. You need capital in the forms of:

- land
- equipment
- currency
- labor

As unskilled (and unpaid) workers, the last one is the only one that can even be realistically provided, and even that's not immediate because you need TRAINING.

I think your perception of flexibility in these economies is drastically misguided.

Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

We're not talking about business owners, we're talking about employees. None of these things apply to the people you're talking about.

I think your understanding of choice in these economies is misguided.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>We're not talking about business owners,
>we're talking about employees.

But you're suggesting that employees in factories can BECOME (effectively) the proprietors of a farm, regardless of whether they're marketing products or not.

>I think your understanding of choice
>in these economies is misguided.

What do you mean by "choice?"


Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

farm hands.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

...then they're not "subsistence farmers."


Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>Here we go again. Can
>we draw a distinction between
>the labor force and subsistence
>farmers?

If we're talking about a people in a lesser developed nation, that's really their 2 main options. There isn't a lot of free public education, or any of the other social services we take for granted in the Western World.

You folks keep talking about choice, and realistically the kid coming up in Ho Chi Minh city doesn't have the option of going to high school and then on to college. There are no laws that stop his parents from putting him to work. It's a completely different society, with different ideas about who should work, what they should do, what is even possible for them to do, et cetera.

> As such, oh hell
>yess they destroy the labor
>market. For one thing,
>they basically ARE the labor
>market,

Stats, evidence, accounts, All I'm hearing is arguments, none of which I readily believe on it's face. The only thing that has been presented has been someone's recollection of what they have read. I'm looking for links. Convince me.

The social science data suggests to me that there are options. Unfortunately the economy of the country can't offer anything "better" than what MNC's can. Whose fault is that? How do you even break down that dynamic? What is going on in that country? How does that correlate with the history of that nation and it's economic practices? In most cases, we are dealing with countries that want a Western style economy, but have never had anything close to it. So things like Child labor, safe working conditions, et cetera aren't even on their horizon. They haven't had time to think about it, or their populace is not willing to fight for it.

>>There is this unsaid assumption
>>that western society has come
>>into asia, corrupted the people,
>>and have now enslaved them
>>so that we can buy
>>Polo's at the discount stores.
>
>Basically, that's what happened.

Specifically what happened in a specific country.

>I hope you're not including me.
> As I've said again
>and again, there is corruption
>and oppression all down the
>line. It's just that
>the top of the tree
>is the MNC, and they're
>the ones we have access
>to where we live.

I'm not convinced that the MNC's are doing something wrong, but rather are taking advantage of an indigenous economic model.


>>Most folks who live in the
>>cities, moved their from the
>>country.
>
>Yes, to get the BETTER factory
>jobs.

So the MNC is helping out that economy?

The fact that
>a factory job beats farming
>doesn't excuse human rights violations
>in the factories.

It's a cost benefit analysis. Would it be better that the factory not be there?

>Furthermore, nothing stops
>>them from moving back.
>
>Yeah, because they've got all that
>disposable income, mobility, security, access...
>Give me a break.

Like they had disposable income, mobility, and security to move to the city in the first place.

>"ALL the vocational options?" I
>know you're up on your
>statistics, or you seem to
>be, but come on.
>Job markets are static in
>these countries.

I very much doubt that.

There's no
>diversified labor. Why do
>you think their economy is
>so bad?

Bad economy is a relative. Standard of living is relative. How does that relate to the "wealth" of a nation?


>Yeah, those workers in Kukdong seemed
>okay with getting fired and
>beaten. And those Chentex
>workers were okay with going
>to jail on fake charges.

As if word doesn't spread?
>
>
>>Their standard
>>of living is different, as
>>is their way of life.
>
>Einstein.

Yeah, it's the theory of relativity.

>> You want to impose
>>your ideas about what work
>>should be about from some
>>arbitrary notion of what human
>>decency is.
>
>So work IS about physical abuse?

It can be.

> Work IS about starving?

It can be.

> Oh...Wait, then would work
>be about getting fired from
>work too?

Possibly. I'm sure you've read accounts of American Managers in S. East Asian factories who tried to get them to work the American way. It failed horribly, for all sorts of reasons. I'm thinking of the Apple's experience in Singapore in particular. I'll post a link later. But imposition of our cultural values upon their society is not necessarily a good thing for either side.

>What's
>the original conception of a
>working environment that you see
>being tread on by moral
>imperialism?

Whatever they have right now is what they want. If they want something else, it will change. We can show examples of how we do things, but that might not be the best way for them. There are all sorts of unfair business practices all around the world. For instance, in Japanese businesses, merit means nothing, and most businesses operate in a kerietsu. (sp?). Perhaps there are religious concerns or other cultural factors in the work place that we don't know about.

There are places in Florida, California, and Texas, where you can find children working in the fields. How do you weigh workplace conditions vs eating?

>I'm sorry this is a little
>harsh, but "trivial" just got
>to me.
>Jesus.

You Xtians. always up in the mix.

praise God
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>
>>Here we go again. Can
>>we draw a distinction between
>>the labor force and subsistence
>>farmers?
>
>If we're talking about a people
>in a lesser developed nation,
>that's really their 2 main
>options.

I was saying that I think it'd be VALUABLE to stop talking about alternatives that are NOT really in the labor market we're talking about. Subsistence farming doesn't even fall into our argument about "relative labor standards," because there's no employer-worker dynamic.

>You folks keep talking about choice,
>and realistically the kid coming
>up in Ho Chi Minh
>city doesn't have the option
>of going to high school
>and then on to college.

True.

> There are no laws
>that stop his parents from
>putting him to work.

Not one that's enforced anyway.

>It's a completely different society,
>with different ideas about who
>should work, what they should
>do, what is even possible
>for them to do, et
>cetera.

Agreed. I'm completely willing to accept the difference in conventional labor. But, since you're so wedded to statistics, can you give me some REAL evidence that starvation, job insecurity, cruelty, etc. are "ideas" that these cultures have about labor (other the crap logic that "it must be what they want because that's the way things are").

>>As such, oh hell
>>yess they destroy the labor
>>market. For one thing,
>>they basically ARE the labor
>>market,

>Convince
>me.

Okay. In free trade zones in say, Nicaragua. Who contracts them? Local (or sometimes national) politicians. Who gets the contracts to build and operate factories/businesses? U.S. MNC's. I wonder why that is? It might be because these governments and developers are entirely corrupt and simply say to the MNCs:

Who's going to pay me the most money to let you have the contract? Who's going to support my political 'campaign?' If I make a new law that lowers labor cost/standards/environmental regulations/etc. will you bring your business to my free trade zone?"

That's how it happens in Nicaragua. Same with Mexico. Same with most of Central America and lots of Southeast Asia. So are there any other jobs in the labor market? No. Do these factory owners determine the wage/benefit standard? Yes. Do they control the labor market? Yes.

>The social science data suggests to
>me that there are options.

Great. We're not talking about fishing for your family. We're talking about labor, which is: selling your capacity to work (in the case of unskilled workers, this is just a quantity of time) in exchange for CURRENCY. What other "options" are there besides this oppressive labor?


>Unfortunately the economy of
>the country can't offer anything
>"better" than what MNC's can.
> Whose fault is that?

A whole bunch of actors, but it's not the fault of people born into poverty and disenfranchisement. How do you expect them to change their circumstances? They don't live in a representative democracy, or anything like it. And revolution (which doesn't really work all that often) requires mass education.

>So
>things like Child labor, safe
>working conditions, et cetera aren't
>even on their horizon.
>They haven't had time to
>think about it, or their
>populace is not willing to
>fight for it.

What kind of statement is this? Do you even know what you're talking about? Their populace has been fighting "it" for as long as we've been there. It's a COMPLETELY unequal fight, though. Just because they're not winning (and we're getting there -- now disclosure is a precedent, but before we didn't even know where these factories were).

>Specifically what happened in a specific
>country.

You know this as well as I do. I explained what happens above.

>I'm not convinced that the MNC's
>are doing something wrong,

Well then I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. Go join Freeman and Roger Smith and Reagan in the "free market."

>but
>rather are taking advantage of
>an indigenous economic model.

Yeah, kind of like Europeans took advantage of a convenient labor resource in Africa. And the thing is, it's NOT an indigenous economic model. It's an American model that's been imposed on those countries. And "imposed" is a weak word for it.

>>Yes, to get the BETTER factory
>>jobs.
>
>So the MNC is helping out
>that economy?

Hell no. As I've said a million times, just because they're the best jobs available doesn't mean they're an aid to the economy. And even if they were (which in a few limited ways would be if they didn't intercept all the profit on the way down to the worker), that wouldn't excuse their human rights abuses.

>It's a cost benefit analysis.
>Would it be better that
>the factory not be there?

In the long run, yes. But that assumes that the political structure/dynamic which brought the factory there in the first place would also be gone. Since that's not going to happen, removing the factory isn't going to help. Selling it to the workers might. So (of course) would improving and monitoring it.
>Like they had disposable income, mobility,
>and security to move to
>the city in the first
>place.

They don't need as much. They're actually getting currency in city jobs.

>>Job markets are static in
>>these countries.
>
>I very much doubt that.

Based on what? Have you perceived a whole lot of social mobility in say, Honduras or Mali or Thailand? There's no education or job opportunity --->> no social mobility.

>Bad economy is a relative.

Well, if the purpose of the economy is to feed/shelter/reproduce the people in its country, then yes; these qualify as bad economies.

>Standard of living is relative.

See above.

>>Yeah, those workers in Kukdong seemed
>>okay with getting fired and
>>beaten. And those Chentex
>>workers were okay with going
>>to jail on fake charges.

>As if word doesn't spread?

Meaning what? Do you know about Kukdong and Chentex and Mil Colores and Thai Kreng Durables? Does anyone? I don't think word has spread very far.

>>So work IS about physical abuse?

>It can be.

>> Work IS about starving?

>It can be.

>> Oh...Wait, then would work
>>be about getting fired from
>>work too?

>Possibly.

Why are you having this discussion? Why are you on this board if you conceive of starvation and oppression as possibly necessary components of labor?


>I'm sure you've read
>accounts of American Managers in
>S. East Asian factories who
>tried to get them to
>work the American way.
>It failed horribly, for all
>sorts of reasons.
> But imposition of our
>cultural values upon their society
>is not necessarily a good
>thing for either side.

Well, I don't consider basic survival or liberty a "cultural value." I consider it a universal value. But you seem to think that human rights doesn't matter to these cultures, so I'm done arguing with you about that.

>Whatever they have right now is
>what they want.

Are you really putting this forth? Do you see how ludicrous that sounds, especially on an "Activist" board?

>If
>they want something else, it
>will change.

That idea worked well for: no one.

>We can
>show examples of how we
>do things, but that might
>not be the best way
>for them.

I agree with this. However, the fact that organized labor is completely (and often violently) stifled in these countries means that workers have no say in what the "best way" might be. They aren't in a position to change anything about their work environment.


>There are
>all sorts of unfair business
>practices all around the world.

Okay, then. Let's ignore sweatshops.



>Perhaps there are
>religious concerns or other cultural
>factors in the work place
>that we don't know about.

Evidence? (that lack of money, health, safety, liberty stem from "religious concerns")

>>Jesus.

>You Xtians. always up in the
>mix.
>praise God

Jewish, sorry.

Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>I was saying that I think
>it'd be VALUABLE to stop
>talking about alternatives that are
>NOT really in the labor
>market we're talking about.

I'm not sure where we keep missing each other, but as far as I can tell, the vast majority of people in these countries don't work in light manufacturing.

How come they choose to work in a situation that they don't like?

According to you, they work in these "horrible" conditions because that's where the best money is. And for one reason or another they are seemingly trapped in these jobs because they are poor and having children.

>Subsistence farming doesn't even fall
>into our argument about "relative
>labor standards," because there's no
>employer-worker dynamic.

There need not be, we're not talking about labor. We're talking about citizens in their own country deciding what to do to make a livelihood. Before the MNC's they were doing something. But the MNC's seem to offer more opportunity than their other options. So for the precious few that can't these jobs, it's an improvement over everyone else's life.

While you are concentrating on so-called bad conditions in the workplace, I'm wondering about the 3/4ths of people who aren't lucky to have these jobs. It seems to me your focus is in the wrong place. I don't know if that has come across clearly in this discourse.

At the very core of these societies, without western interference, there are situations that you and I would find unbearable. This is not the fault of colonialism or MNC's. It's not like they were living in Utopia and the Commodore Perry showed up and forced them to smoke opium. If anything at all, they should be greatful that Americans are so greedy and shortsighted that they outsource their manufacturing.

Looking at the deplorable conditions in these factories seems trivial to me, in light of the context that they are in.
>
>Agreed. I'm completely willing to
>accept the difference in conventional
>labor. But, since you're
>so wedded to statistics, can
>you give me some REAL
>evidence that starvation, job insecurity,
>cruelty, etc. are "ideas" that
>these cultures have about labor

You want evidence of starvation, job insecurity and cruelty before the MNC's got into those countries? That's pretty easy to come by. I'll hit you off tomorrow.

>Who's going to pay me the
>most money to let you
>have the contract? Who's
>going to support my political
>'campaign?' If I make
>a new law that lowers
>labor cost/standards/environmental regulations/etc. will you
>bring your business to my
>free trade zone?"

Did Nicarauga have a chemical industry prior to the western chemical company coming in?

Does Nicarauga have any provisions for data privacy at this point?

How developed is the societal infrastructure of Nicarauga?

Why MNC contracts are messed up in Central/latin America is more complicated than you are leading on.

>That's how it happens in Nicaragua.
> Same with Mexico.
>Same with most of Central
>America and lots of Southeast
>Asia. So are there
>any other jobs in the
>labor market? No.

The people were doing something prior to the arrival of these corporations. Whatever it was, it still remains an option. The people who work at these places go of their own volition. They might not realize the consequences or conditions, but they choose to remain at those jobs after they face those conditions.

>Do these factory owners determine
>the wage/benefit standard? Yes.
> Do they control the
>labor market? Yes.

They can't control the labor market. I'm sure there is probably collusion amongst the employers to keep the wages low, but they aren't corralling folks and forcing them to work. The people keep coming back.

>Great. We're not talking about
>fishing for your family.
>We're talking about labor,

But in order to survive in these countries prior to industrial development, what did they do? Why must they go to work for Dow Chemical, when last year they were busy in the Indian Ocean.

choice.

which
>is: selling your capacity to
>work (in the case of
>unskilled workers, this is just
>a quantity of time) in
>exchange for CURRENCY. What
>other "options" are there besides
>this oppressive labor?

Are you arguing that the labor conditions in all of the jobs in these areas are monolithic?


>A whole bunch of actors, but
>it's not the fault of
>people born into poverty and
>disenfranchisement.

Those are relative to western standards. If your environment can't support your populace, bad things happen. Starvation, diseases, et cetera. Is it our duty to determine the fate of a people who's decided to follow a self destructive path?

>How do you
>expect them to change their
>circumstances?

How is not a question I can answer. That's a question for their society to decide. What should be the median standard of living for our people? Do I determine that from here? I'm against imperialism. And an MNC is not imperialism.

They don't live
>in a representative democracy, or
>anything like it.

Again, the sovereignity of any government lies in the people. When the people get fed up, they get guns and try a different power alignment. And furthermore democracy is a relatively new idea in many of the areas we are talking about. It isn't necessarily the best form of government for every possible culture. You should read some of the constitutions of these countries. Their bills of rights will go much further than ours, because those are generally new ideas in those cultures.

And
>revolution (which doesn't really work
>all that often) requires mass
>education.

It requires force. The mass could care less.

>What kind of statement is this?
> Do you even know
>what you're talking about?

Yes.

>Their populace has been fighting
>"it" for as long as
>we've been there.

How long have we been there? 40-50 years? How long have those ideas of "freedom, justice and equality" been there, 40-50 years?

>>Specifically what happened in a specific
>>country.
>
>You know this as well as
>I do. I explained
>what happens above.

That's just it, I don't know it as well as you do. I"ve only been to one anti-sweatshop site. But talking to folks who've lived in those countries, and really looking at the MNC side of the equation, I'm not sure who's really at fault.

We have a lot of similar things going on here in the states, in terms of big corporations and small local governments doing a quid pro quo. Dell, a computer company based here, just signed an agreement with Ft. Worth to open up a repair center. They get to not pay taxes for 60 years, and promise to bring 1000 jobs to the area. Who's coming up on who?

So in the case of so-called sweatshops in South East Asia, a Multinational corporation looking for cheap labor will go to these areas, set up shop, raising the economy of that nation and boosting their own profit margin. And based on the "static" labor market that you're talking about, it's an improvement for everyone involved. The fact that the working conditions aren't up to american standards really pales in looking at the total quality of life btw S.E. Asia and America.

>>I'm not convinced that the MNC's
>>are doing something wrong,
>
>Well then I'm not sure why
>we're having this discussion.

because it's educational. i'm learning about why I shouldn't go to the Gap, and you're getting..I don't know what you're getting out of this. I hope to make the case for the MNC's a little more complex than the rich white guy taking advantage of the sun people.

>Yeah, kind of like Europeans took
>advantage of a convenient labor
>resource in Africa. And
>the thing is, it's NOT
>an indigenous economic model.

So their economic is worse?

>>So the MNC is helping out
>>that economy?
>
>Hell no. As I've said
>a million times, just because
>they're the best jobs available
>doesn't mean they're an aid
>to the economy.

How can they not be. If they put more money in the country, that money then TRICKLES down to others. Right?

>that wouldn't excuse their
>human rights abuses.

It's relative. Perhaps that's how they've been doing things for years. Maybe it's expected if your late for work your employer will beat you.

>In the long run, yes.
>But that assumes that the
>political structure/dynamic which brought the
>factory there in the first
>place would also be gone.

haha.

> Since that's not going
>to happen, removing the factory
>isn't going to help.
>Selling it to the workers
>might. So (of course)
>would improving and monitoring it.

As if the workers would be run it any better.

>They don't need as much.
>They're actually getting currency in
>city jobs.

So they make more money in the city, why don't they have that much more to make it back?

>Based on what? Have you perceived a whole lot of social mobility in say, Honduras or Mali or Thailand? There's no education or job opportunity --->> no social mobility.

Social mobility and job market are 2 different things. It might not be beneficial for them to have a lot of social mobility. Again, it's for that polity to decide.

>>Bad economy is a relative.
>
>Well, if the purpose of the
>economy is to feed/shelter/reproduce the
>people in its country, then
>yes; these qualify as bad
>economies.

And they were bad before the MNC's.

>Meaning what? Do you know
>about Kukdong and Chentex and
>Mil Colores and Thai Kreng
>Durables? Does anyone?
>I don't think word has
>spread very far.

Meaning that if I work at Chentex, I'm going to tell all my friends and family about it. If they still want to work here, after My employer forced my wife to have an abortion, I don't know what to tell you.

>Why are you having this discussion?

Cause this seemingly positive idea about not supporting sweatshops, can be negative, and is far more complicated than folks are letting on. If you are against imperialism/colonialism then the question is not simple.

You could support better working conditions in a foreign country by pressuring folks here. Which really is deciding how other people should live and work.

Or you could not support better working conditions, staying consistent with not supporting imperialism, and know that others are suffering under the machine.

You can't win.

>Well, I don't consider basic survival
>or liberty a "cultural value."

Liberty is a cultural value.

>But you
>seem to think that human
>rights doesn't matter to these
>cultures, so I'm done arguing
>with you about that.

I think they are relative. In the face of survival people will do despicable things. Attacking "sweatshops" really doesn't address the core issues in these countries.

>Are you really putting this forth?
> Do you see how
>ludicrous that sounds, especially on
>an "Activist" board?

It doesn't sound odd to me.

>>If
>>they want something else, it
>>will change.
>
>That idea worked well for: no
>one.

Worked for Gandhi, Walesa, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, the folks who deposed Milosevich.

>I agree with this. However,
>the fact that organized labor
>is completely (and often violently)
>stifled in these countries means
>that workers have no say
>in what the "best way"
>might be. They aren't
>in a position to change
>anything about their work environment.

I don't believe you. History says the exact opposite.

>>Perhaps there are
>>religious concerns or other cultural
>>factors in the work place
>>that we don't know about.
>
>Evidence? (that lack of money, health,
>safety, liberty stem from "religious
>concerns")

Liberty is definitely not a religious concern.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>I'm not sure where we keep
>missing each other, but as
>far as I can tell,
>the vast majority of people
>in these countries don't work
>in light manufacturing.

Fine. A whole lot of them don't work at all. But what we're discussing is the ones that DO work in the labor market.

>How come they choose to work
>in a situation that they
>don't like?

So they don't die. Are we going in circles?

>According to you, they work in
>these "horrible" conditions because that's
>where the best money is.

yes. or at least a job and _some_ money.

>And for one reason
>or another they are seemingly
>trapped in these jobs because
>they are poor and having
>children.

exactly.


>we're not
>talking about labor.

We're not?

>We're
>talking about citizens in their
>own country deciding what to
>do to make a livelihood.

Yeah, and in a lot of cases that's labor. In the cases we're talking about (sweatshops) that's labor.

>While you are concentrating on so-called
>bad conditions in the workplace,
>I'm wondering about the 3/4ths
>of people who aren't lucky
>to have these jobs.

That's good. I personally think that attempting to instill governmental responsibility and resist U.S. imperialism will help the other 3/4.

>It seems to me your
>focus is in the wrong
>place. I don't know
>if that has come across
>clearly in this discourse.

Well, as with many of our societal problems, you can't attack them as a whole -- you have to go through an avenue (e.g. solving our own economic/racial/health problems via the avenue of education). Labor Rights/Human Rights is my avenue, and I think it's a good one.

>At the very core of these
>societies, without western interference, there
>are situations that you and
>I would find unbearable.

Agreed. Western interference is only exacerbating them, though.


>This
>is not the fault of
>colonialism or MNC's.

Well, a lot of it is, actually. These dictatorships are often the source of social inequality in Third World countries. Their greedy manipulation of the economy and oppression of the working class is what destroys society, and one big way in which they do those things is contracting with MNC's and welcoming imperialistic colonialism.

>Looking at the deplorable conditions in
>these factories seems trivial to
>me, in light of the
>context that they are in.

Well, I don't think they're trivial in the way that one death isn't trivial compared to many, and rape isn't trivial compared to murder. It's still dead serious.

>You want evidence of starvation, job
>insecurity and cruelty before the
>MNC's got into those countries?

No, I don't want evidence that it existed before, I want evidence that it was (and continues to be) an "ideal" in their society...i.e. it's a social value not to be able to eat or work.

Nicaragua had plenty of its own problems before the MNC's came in, but remember how long Nicaragua has been effectively colonized. European exploitation there is as old as the hills.

>Why MNC contracts are messed up
>in Central/latin America is more
>complicated than you are leading
>on.

I thought what I said was fairly complex. The siphoning off of profit occurs at many levels, such that the race for the bottom eventually crushes the workers. What else is involved besides politics, money, and social class?

>The people were doing something prior
>to the arrival of these
>corporations. Whatever it was,
>it still remains an option.

Ha. Probably not, given the influence of the local and national governments.

> The people who work
>at these places go of
>their own volition.

Sometimes.

>They
>might not realize the consequences
>or conditions, but they choose
>to remain at those jobs
>after they face those conditions.

Okay, let me explain something. Being unemployed here sucks. No universal health care, no Soc. Security, no nothing. That's peanuts compared with being unemployed in Nicaragua or Thailand. You can't leave your job. It's almost like committing suicide.

>They can't control the labor market.

Bullshit. They can and do.

> I'm sure there is
>probably collusion amongst the employers
>to keep the wages low,

That's true, assuming there's even more than one (which there often isn't, just different factories under the same developer).

>but they aren't corralling folks
>and forcing them to work.

Sure they are.

>But in order to survive in
>these countries prior to industrial
>development, what did they do?

Doesn't matter. It's what there options are now that's important.

> Why must they go
>to work for Dow Chemical,
>when last year they were
>busy in the Indian Ocean.

Because now they can't sell their catch independently any more. In order to fish they have to be licensed by a multinational or government run fishing company. Or if they're farming in Latin America, they've got the United Fruit Co. to contend with (or its equivalent).

>Are you arguing that the labor
>conditions in all of the
>jobs in these areas are
>monolithic?

What do you mean, "monolithic?"

>>people born into poverty and
>>disenfranchisement.

>Those are relative to western standards.

Sort of. We've got plenty of poverty and disenfranchisement too.


>If your environment can't
>support your populace, bad things
>happen. Starvation, diseases, et
>cetera. Is it our
>duty to determine the fate
>of a people who's decided
>to follow a self destructive
>path?

We decided it FOR them when we invaded their country with our outsourced, unpaid labor! We decided it FOR them when we bought off their governments or sponsored their revolutions!

And if we didn't decide for them, then it was their dictators. Not the working class.

>How is not a question I
>can answer. That's a
>question for their society to
>decide.

Okay, well I'm trying to help them decide.

> I'm against imperialism.
>And an MNC is not
>imperialism.

Well we'll just disagree about that.

>Again, the sovereignity of any government
>lies in the people.
>When the people get fed
>up, they get guns and
>try a different power alignment.

Where do they get guns? How do they organize?

>And furthermore democracy is
>a relatively new idea in
>many of the areas we
>are talking about.

True.

It
>isn't necessarily the best form
>of government for every possible
>culture.

True.

>You should read
>some of the constitutions of
>these countries. Their bills
>of rights will go much
>further than ours, because those
>are generally new ideas in
>those cultures.

Sometimes. Not other times.

>And
>>revolution (which doesn't really work
>>all that often) requires mass
>>education.

>It requires force. The mass
>could care less.

By education, I guess I meant organization.

>>Their populace has been fighting
>>"it" for as long as
>>we've been there.
>
>How long have we been there?
> 40-50 years? How
>long have those ideas of
>"freedom, justice and equality" been
>there, 40-50 years?

Oh hell no. And by "we" I mean imperialists. Simon Bolivar? That wasn't 40-50 years ago.

>So in the case of so-called
>sweatshops in South East Asia,
>a Multinational corporation looking for
>cheap labor will go to
>these areas, set up shop,
>raising the economy of that
>nation and boosting their own
>profit margin.

Implementing low wage standards, destroying the environment, giving immense amounts of wealth and resources to the elite government does not "raise the economy."

>And based
>on the "static" labor market
>that you're talking about, it's
>an improvement for everyone involved.

No it isn't. They create a static labor market, and they insure it as well.

> The fact that the
>working conditions aren't up to
>american standards really pales in
>looking at the total quality
>of life btw S.E. Asia
>and America.

Maybe. Here's where I think subjectivity comes in. I'm not going to judge whether certain things (such as industrialization and big politics) are good or not. Ditto with processed vs. unprocessed food, culture, civic law, etc. In a lot of those ways they're probably better off.

But I see liberty (in the broad sense, not the American one) as a constant. Same with survival.

>i'm learning
>about why I shouldn't go
>to the Gap,

I never said that. By all means shop at the Gap. They're no worse than anywhere else. BUT, when you do go, ask to make your opinion known to the manager, and talk with the employees. Raise awareness. Create non-economic pressure.

>I hope to make the
>case for the MNC's a
>little more complex than the
>rich white guy taking advantage
>of the sun people.



It certainly is more complex. I think the "sun people," or their government, is perhaps more at fault than the MNC's, but it's a shared responsibility.

>>>So the MNC is helping out
>>>that economy?

>>Hell no. As I've said
>>a million times, just because
>>they're the best jobs available
>>doesn't mean they're an aid
>>to the economy.

>How can they not be.
>If they put more money
>in the country, that money
>then TRICKLES down to others.
>Right?

See, I knew you'd be into Reaganomics. "Trickle-down" theory worked great for the working class in the eighties, huh?

>It's relative. Perhaps that's how
>they've been doing things for
>years. Maybe it's expected
>if your late for work
>your employer will beat you.

Forget this.

>> Since that's not going
>>to happen, removing the factory
>>isn't going to help.
>>Selling it to the workers
>>might. So (of course)
>>would improving and monitoring it.
>
>As if the workers would be
>run it any better.

If you knew anything about these unions, you'd know that they would.

>Social mobility and job market are
>2 different things. It
>might not be beneficial for
>them to have a lot
>of social mobility. Again,
>it's for that polity to
>decide.

Fine, it might not be. But if they don't have a lot of social mobility, then they don't have all these great "options" you're talking about. They aren't really two different things. Unless you can move beyond the unskilled, no-benefit slave labor category, you're not getting any new "options."

>Meaning that if I work at
>Chentex, I'm going to tell
>all my friends and family
>about it. If they
>still want to work here,
>after My employer forced my
>wife to have an abortion,
>I don't know what to
>tell you.

Aaaaaagh. Of course they want to work there. They don't have a job!! What I don't get is...just because some people have it worse than them, you suggest that we shouldn't help them. It's ludicrous.

>Cause this seemingly positive idea about
>not supporting sweatshops, can be
>negative, and is far more
>complicated than folks are letting
>on.

I agree about that. You do have to be careful.

>You could support better working conditions
>in a foreign country by
>pressuring folks here. Which
>really is deciding how other
>people should live and work.


Okay, I've got a great question for you. Say we implement these things. Say they form a union, get more money, are not harassed, can feed their kids. By your logic of what their society must want, are they going to say: "I reject all of this! It doesn't fit my idea of how I should work. Go back to beating me and paying me dirt, please"? Will they say that?

>Or you could not support better
>working conditions,

or you could go down and beat them yourself...

>staying consistent with
>not supporting imperialism, and know
>that others are suffering under
>the machine.

>You can't win.

I think if they gain better working conditions, and can live and eat and have families, then you've won.

>Liberty is a cultural value.

No, _American liberty_ (i.e. democracy, capitalism, etc.) is a cultural value. True liberty (in that you have the right to live and choose life) is a universal value.

>In the face of survival
>people will do despicable things.
> Attacking "sweatshops" really doesn't
>address the core issues in
>these countries.

I think it does. Or starts to, which is better than letting them die.

>>>If
>>>they want something else, it
>>>will change.
>>
>>That idea worked well for: no
>>one.
>
>Worked for Gandhi, Walesa, Mandela, Ho
>Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung,
>the folks who deposed Milosevich.

No, misread me grossly. If Ghandi went by your logic, he would say this: These people must not want independence. They don't have it now. If they really wanted it, they would already have it. I guess there's nothing for me to do."

Ditto with Mandela ("Oh, apartheid must be okay with all these people. Otherwise it would be different.")

>They aren't
>>in a position to change
>>anything about their work environment.

>I don't believe you. History
>says the exact opposite.

What? Did the workers at Chentex change their environment? Hell no. And they're the ones with the best chance, they already have a recognized union and a contract to negotiate. History says nothing like that.

Okay, economics. Trickle down doesn't work. Just because the upper class has lots of new profit, it still isn't going anywhere. Why? Because a) they don't spend it in their country and b) when they do, they spend it on themselves. They don't invest it in the country.

Organized labor and higher wages, however, give people purchasing power. THAT leads to a good economy...not lower wages and more profits at the top.



Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Bangladeshi workers in the textile industry in Penang: People or commodities?
By Anja Rudnick, Amsterdam, in Global Alternative Media Newsletter,
4 October, 1995

As a student of the University of Amsterdam and affiliated to the University of Malaya, I studied the textile and garment industry in the state of Penang, Malaysia between January-March and September-December 1994. The main focus was on developments in the sector and the effects on the labour force as a consequence of a rapidly changing (inter)national economy. We also looked into the working conditions and wages of the Bangladeshi workers, who recently are playing an important role in filling the labourgaps of the textile and garment sector as will be discussed in this paper.

Although the Malaysian textile and garment industry is small compared to other major producers in Asia, the sector is the second largest export earner of manufactured products in Malaysia. Textiles and garments contributed 6,742 million Ringgit (1 ringgit = 0.40 US$) in export earnings to the Malaysian economy in 1993. According to the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority there are about 120,000 people working in this sector. But according to some managers and academics, if the unregistered smaller factories are included, the labour force might be as high as 200,000.

Whilst the export earnings of the sector are still growing and it still is contributing substantially to Malaysia's economy, it has been facing some problems over the few years. Due to Malaysia's booming economy, economic activities are increasing dramatically and as a result, labour costs have increased. The textile and garment sector (short: textile sector) is now confronted with stiff competition from surrounding low labour cost countries like Indonesia.

Our study in Penang showed that although competition is a serious obstacle, the most serious problem the sector is facing right now is a labour shortage. Many new factories in all sectors, but especially in electronics, are opening up and at the same time government activities are increasing. All sectors are competing for labour. The textile industry is characterised as a sector with low wages and poor working conditions. Consequently, workers opt for better jobs if they get a chance.

___________________________

do these people have choices?

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

I think that we would all like to think that we have choices. When you are living in a third world country with a family of 5 making $.20/a pair of nike shoes...you think you have a choice to leave that job and get an education? These people are beyond the poverty line. As soon as children are able to work, they work in order to help the family survive. Many of these people barely have enough food to maintain energy to work. It is so easy for us to tell them that there are always choices in life, but depending on where you live in the world, it may or may not pertain to them. Look at it this way, even if you were to offer them an education and they did have the time to learn, are you even sure they would make it? Obviously, their goverment is aware of these sweatshops and they do nothing...you wondering why? GREED...."it's all about tha benjemins" Plain and simple. Their governments are being paid money to allow this to happen.

...choice, maybe, but it would be one long swim.


______________________________
asiasticONE

...Do you want to exchange articles or ideas? I mean, we can exchange articles from all over the spectrum (and all over the map), but what we're ultimately dealing with seems to be our opinions (or our mental constructions regarding labor, liberty, everything else).

I don't know whether those people have "choices." I don't think it was really proven (or addressed) in a serious way in that article. I don't know enough about that situation to make my own judgement.


Alek
____________________________
"All I want is the truth,
just gimme some truth."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

It's important for me to read accounts from a variety of sources to understand the problem.

You can approach the problem from a individual perspective or a class perspective. I submit that any single SE Asian can get out of the sweatshop loop, but as a class of people, there is no escape.

The article in question is about immigrants, some illegal, who are brought into the country to work. These "illegals" can only work at that one company, have to pay huge loans for to their employment agencies (about 2 years of work), and don't recieve the same pay and benefits as the native workers.

So in essence, in this particular instance, one nation is screwing over another one.

But what can the illegal immigrants really do? They have to live, yet there is little opportunity for gainful employment.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

...you see, there is nothing they can do. Illegal immigrants have no choice. when they come here they are forever in debt to the people who made it possible for them to get over here. the only chance is bascally through their children. if you take a look at the big picture, even when their children become successful, they will end up forever paying off their parents and their own debts. Don't get me wrong, i m sure there are a couple of people who make it out of that poverty and achieve unimaginable greatness, but that comes rare. Luck plays a great part in making this happen, having ambition doesn't do the job.

..there you go, NO CHOICE
___________
asiasticONE

>Is looking fly important when what
>makes you "look fly" makes
>others have to live in
>horrible conditions?

Important question to ask. AND an important *type* of "awareness" question to ask on top of that.

Check out
>http://www.nikewages.org if you don't know
>what conditions these are.

Or try nlc.net or clr.net for more particulars.

>As for black-owned business getting a
>piece of the pie, forget
>a pie, if the employees
>of the factory can't even
>eat.

Yes and no. Most of the time, more constructive work can be done by appealing to the black-owned businessman (on some of these same grounds) rather than dismissing him.

>I'm sure most blacks are against
>slavery and that's what the
>people in third world countries
>who make these clothes are
>dang near subjected to.

There's no "dang near" about it.

>I'm sure with all our surplus
>here in America, there gots
>to be options to sweatshop-made
>clothing.

Unfortunately, there really aren't any viable ones. That's kind of the "still" in my subject. k_orr doesn't really have the "sweat-free" option. So if you like a brand of clothing, try to convince the company (on the grounds that you, as a loyal and enthusiastic consumer would be encouraged to buy with a better -- or better-enforced -- company code of conduct) to change.

>Hopefully there
>are more, and that you
>are succesful in finding fly,
>sweatshop free clothing,

There really aren't, in my experience. UNITE clothing isn't really that fly.

Alek


_____________________________________
It's Planet Asia week:

"It's off the hook, yeah we took it there..."

"This be that cold shit of course, cause I was forced by the streets to rock beats and sell source..."

"A father ain't a father till he furthers your existence..."

"In a couple of seconds you'll be feeling fondled..."

"You got a beeper, but still you comin' up with lint..."