Angry of Brighton, continued (stupid computer broke - only limited characters when mobile posting!)
It's a strange thing these days, the idea of 'need'. People who shop in places like Primark (i'm guilty of it, but not for some time now) do so because it's cheap. And they 'need' cheap clothes. And the slave labour that is employed (regardless of what the company says to the contrary, i refuse to believe they can make profit at such prices without it-and yes i did see the tv programme about it) is ok because they 'need' the money.
So what my volunteer, and others who use this argument, is saying, is that her desire for a few new clothes on a slightly more regular basis than she would otherwise be able to afford is more important than the welfare of those who make them. Being forced to basically pawn your child (this is what happens, the parents are so poor they 'sell' there child for £20 or so, and then the child repays this debt with their labour) so that you can eat, is need. You do not need those new clothes - you can fix or alter the ones you already have, or buy second hand. There's no shortage of clothing in the world. In saying that it's ok to shop in places that employ poor ethical practices in the making or selling of their products (and that covers a multitude of evils/evil-doers), you are putting your convenience, your wallet and your desires above the suffering of people who you can't see. (There's a question on okcupid.com that asks: Would you rather you die, or 10 random people in the world? What about 1000 people? Would you rather stub your toe, or a child in india starve? Would you rather not have this new top, or a child in india starve?) Slavery was abolished here hundreds of years ago, but we still condone it as a nation through our consumer habits. Making a ridiculous justification such as 'at least they've got a job' is the fallback of millions of middle class white people in order to avoid having to care, to actually think about what they are doing, or to compromise ther own lifestyle in any way. This makes me very angry.
You are not more important than anyone else. Please give a shit.
So what my volunteer, and others who use this argument, is saying, is that her desire for a few new clothes on a slightly more regular basis than she would otherwise be able to afford is more important than the welfare of those who make them. Being forced to basically pawn your child (this is what happens, the parents are so poor they 'sell' there child for £20 or so, and then the child repays this debt with their labour) so that you can eat, is need. You do not need those new clothes - you can fix or alter the ones you already have, or buy second hand. There's no shortage of clothing in the world. In saying that it's ok to shop in places that employ poor ethical practices in the making or selling of their products (and that covers a multitude of evils/evil-doers), you are putting your convenience, your wallet and your desires above the suffering of people who you can't see. (There's a question on okcupid.com that asks: Would you rather you die, or 10 random people in the world? What about 1000 people? Would you rather stub your toe, or a child in india starve? Would you rather not have this new top, or a child in india starve?) Slavery was abolished here hundreds of years ago, but we still condone it as a nation through our consumer habits. Making a ridiculous justification such as 'at least they've got a job' is the fallback of millions of middle class white people in order to avoid having to care, to actually think about what they are doing, or to compromise ther own lifestyle in any way. This makes me very angry.
You are not more important than anyone else. Please give a shit.