It is very pleasant and gives one a warm fuzzy to play any kind of simple blame game. The theory stated in this thread that "3rd world countries conditions are such because western countries..." is patently ridiculous. A tiny minority of the world's population has enjoyed "first world" life quality for a tiny period of time. But some of us, with nice intentions, lift our head from our silken pillows long enough to gasp that it is we who are guilty of causing someone else to not have enough. The conditions of India have been the way they are for, well, a long damn time, longer than our "first world cultures" have existed by a magnitude of scale.
Ergo, we might contribute to a problem, but suggesting the first world "causes it" is about as funny as Spike Lee suggesting that "white men invented slavery". A cursory look at history shows ample evidence that white men experienced slavery for the first time as a slave, but obviously thought highly enough of the idea to do it better. Ah, progress.
It is predictable that the word "exploit" is used without any attempt to address the context. As others have mentioned, distasteful "exploitation" exists everywhere, but is an entirely subjective matter, perhaps best considered in the light of Maslow's heirachy of needs. Our culture says "ick" to the same child labor it was built upon, because, well, we have time enough in the day to think about it.
The bottom line is that Nike is probably already ahead of the curve on this, more so than the Russian extortion-funded factory across the street from its facility. Popular western culture wrestles with the idea, while its doubtful these women and children have anywhere better to be, the real alternatives being participating in far more distasteful/injurious activities in the street.
It is quite repugnant to me, that, in fact, the "liberal" mentality (as shown by many of the participants of the WTO demonstrations) is not that there is a moral or ethical crisis at stake, as much as an assault on the foundation of their labor organization. While selling themselves as Knight Protectors of the Moral Imperative, they attempt to solidify their union empires by politicking better than anyone else.
The basic problems facing the thrid world economies everywhere is, unfortunately for the liberals and socialists, the liberal and social parties in their governments. A developing economy has an impossible enough task for itself allocating resources to develop infrastructure (including education classified as work force infrastructure). It shouldn't and generally doesn't try to manage things like minority rights and child labor. The gov'ts that do so invariably end up with a Mugabe type of character like Zimbabwe.
Child labor is a social issue that each culture will deal with in its own way, in its own time.
Slashdot Mirror
It is very pleasant and gives one a warm fuzzy to play any kind of simple blame game. The theory stated in this thread that "3rd world countries conditions are such because western countries..." is patently ridiculous. A tiny minority of the world's population has enjoyed "first world" life quality for a tiny period of time. But some of us, with nice intentions, lift our head from our silken pillows long enough to gasp that it is we who are guilty of causing someone else to not have enough. The conditions of India have been the way they are for, well, a long damn time, longer than our "first world cultures" have existed by a magnitude of scale. Ergo, we might contribute to a problem, but suggesting the first world "causes it" is about as funny as Spike Lee suggesting that "white men invented slavery". A cursory look at history shows ample evidence that white men experienced slavery for the first time as a slave, but obviously thought highly enough of the idea to do it better. Ah, progress. It is predictable that the word "exploit" is used without any attempt to address the context. As others have mentioned, distasteful "exploitation" exists everywhere, but is an entirely subjective matter, perhaps best considered in the light of Maslow's heirachy of needs. Our culture says "ick" to the same child labor it was built upon, because, well, we have time enough in the day to think about it. The bottom line is that Nike is probably already ahead of the curve on this, more so than the Russian extortion-funded factory across the street from its facility. Popular western culture wrestles with the idea, while its doubtful these women and children have anywhere better to be, the real alternatives being participating in far more distasteful/injurious activities in the street. It is quite repugnant to me, that, in fact, the "liberal" mentality (as shown by many of the participants of the WTO demonstrations) is not that there is a moral or ethical crisis at stake, as much as an assault on the foundation of their labor organization. While selling themselves as Knight Protectors of the Moral Imperative, they attempt to solidify their union empires by politicking better than anyone else. The basic problems facing the thrid world economies everywhere is, unfortunately for the liberals and socialists, the liberal and social parties in their governments. A developing economy has an impossible enough task for itself allocating resources to develop infrastructure (including education classified as work force infrastructure). It shouldn't and generally doesn't try to manage things like minority rights and child labor. The gov'ts that do so invariably end up with a Mugabe type of character like Zimbabwe. Child labor is a social issue that each culture will deal with in its own way, in its own time.