Thanks Jamie,
I agree that the purchasing habits of a single person are generally insignificant in the grand scheme of things and that each of us is entitled to make buying decisions on whatever basis he/she chooses.
I would further tend to agree that boycotts can (and occasionally do) have significant impact and affect social change. For instance, when striking auto workers or migrant farm workers encourage us to forego purchases of Buicks or grapes to support their efforts to establish better working situations for themselves, we can comply with the knowledge that the parties most directly involved have assumed the risk in exchange for the hope of a solution in the near future.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we have this luxury when participating in boycotts of "sweatshop goods" produced in other countries. However well meaning the intentions of Americans who organize or participate in these boycotts, these actions connote neither the active endorsement of the workers most directly affected nor the promise of a quick resolution in the relatively short term. As you have stated, when such movements are imposed on a society, they tend to eliminate (rather than improve) the work situation. It seems we flex our international economic muscle based on the tenuous promise of a possibly better future (at best) but that we do so at the expense of the present generation.
Granted, a boycott of goods produced under disagreeable conditions may help us feel less complicit in perpetuating these conditions, but does it really have a positive impact on the human beings most affected by it?
(I really do appreciate and enjoy the opportunity to discuss things like this in this forum, so I guess I, for one, am having fun.)
Thanks again for your thoughts, -Spencer Madsen
P.S. When it comes to socks, I recommend buying the most durable, comfortable pair you can find.
Jamie Groth wrote:
Spenser asked: 3) How is a sweatshop worker aided by one's refusal to buy the goods said worker makes?
They probably are not aided at all. There are examples out there of boycotts and expose' stories eventually shutting down sweatshops. The "developing" country then promtly loses millions in contracts and the workers are either unemployed or otherwise making less money.
Good could come in the long term if the "developing" country decided to enforce some real labor standards and court multi-nationals looking to be on the up and up. Or tough it out without multi-nationals and the prevailing notion of "development".
All complicated stuff...but what I pull out out of it
is that buying stuff is political. The Wal-Mart
debate is so healthy in my opinion because it involves
people examining the implications of where they put
their money. So, Spencer, the effect of my spending
on the misery or ha
ppiness of a sweatship worker is
just about impossible to determine. The effect of a
whole community or culture spending politically and
mindfully would greatly influence the world around us.
All this stuff aside, I'd take my chances not buying goods I thought were produced in sweatshop conditions. I could never see myself picking up a package of socks and thinking, "Sure, they're slaves but it's a living!"
Everyone Having Fun?
Jamie Groth
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
