Speaking of communities of color, I find that this kind of anti-corporate/anti-wage slavery rallying (no matter how well-intentioned or truthful it may be) often fails to take into account the fact that the poorer segments of First-World countries depend on the cheap products that are now being made in sweatshops. Walmart uses sweatshop labor to keep its prices low in order to get the business of the people who need cheap products; businesses catering to the middle and upper classes (Starbucks, Microsoft, high-end clothing stores like Anthropologie, etc.) also utilize sweatshop labor, and make hideous profits because of it, but by-and-large the driving force behind wage-slavery is the cheap price (which, of course, leads to profit).
Obviously, the lower income brackets in the United States and Europe contain proportionately more people of color than the wealthier ones.
This is not to say that sweatshops must continue to exist, because the poor of the United States and elsewhere will otherwise have no access to affordable clothing and food. I've heard that argument before, and I personally find it despicable. The problem is that many pro-labor, pro-environment companies focus on providing expensive products for members of the upper class, while ignoring the need to ensure affordable, sweatshop- and slavery-free products are available to members of the lower class. The cause has largely become limited to the wealthy, the college-educated, and the white. And if the West is going to do its part--which we have to, since we're always going to be the receiving end of the fruits of sweatshops and slave labor--every person, in every income bracket, of every race, needs to be in a position to help.
Of course, this also entails making sure that knowledge of Third-World activists becomes as widespread as knowledge of their First-World counterparts. As it stands, too much of this movement reeks of "the White Man's Burden," albeit with a dose of compassion and varying levels of self-righteousness.
no subject
Obviously, the lower income brackets in the United States and Europe contain proportionately more people of color than the wealthier ones.
This is not to say that sweatshops must continue to exist, because the poor of the United States and elsewhere will otherwise have no access to affordable clothing and food. I've heard that argument before, and I personally find it despicable. The problem is that many pro-labor, pro-environment companies focus on providing expensive products for members of the upper class, while ignoring the need to ensure affordable, sweatshop- and slavery-free products are available to members of the lower class. The cause has largely become limited to the wealthy, the college-educated, and the white. And if the West is going to do its part--which we have to, since we're always going to be the receiving end of the fruits of sweatshops and slave labor--every person, in every income bracket, of every race, needs to be in a position to help.
Of course, this also entails making sure that knowledge of Third-World activists becomes as widespread as knowledge of their First-World counterparts. As it stands, too much of this movement reeks of "the White Man's Burden," albeit with a dose of compassion and varying levels of self-righteousness.