First, I would like to thank Chris Conte for taking the time to meet with us these past couple of weeks. Thank you Chris.
Second, I would like to raise a question to you all that I brought up in class today: What is boundary between employment and exploitation? When does exploitation get to hide under the guise of employment?
On page 520, Reader states that the early mining operations in Kemberley and Witwatersrand "established a precedent for the management of labour in Africa: it was never employment in the sense of a relationship which was mutually beneficial to the employer and the employee, but always the exploitation of an indispensable resource."
As I mentioned in class, I am generally a follower of the school of thought that sweat shops are a primary step on the ladder of development. Sweat shops offer people decent jobs when perhaps their only other options are prostitution or thievery. Although the wages may be extremely low by western standards, the people are nonetheless better off than if they did not have the sweat shop. However, historically (and currently) there have been plenty of example where these employees have been enslaved and exploited. Nike during the 1990's fell under extreme criticism because it was believed that the company exploited its shoemakers. How could a shoe that sells for $150 be made by someone who makes under a dollar per day?
Where is the line between a human rights abuse and a blessed opportunity to pull one's self out of poverty? I would love your input on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bryson,
ReplyDeleteIt is contradiction to say that blessed opportunity and human abuse can exist together in the same paradigm. But, as you asked: at which point is the line drawn between the two? While I see the argument's sake here, I have to point out that these two ideals contribute not only exactly differing outcomes, possess differing motives, and are harbored by differing actors. I don't see the differences here on a linear scale, such as those we'd typically use to address political standpoints. But rather I see these two as completely separate of one another, not varying degrees of a each other.
Its interesting, as we start Part 7 of our Africa reading Reader exposes King Leopold II and his selfish agenda which was masked by selfless devotion. As we look at these various MNCs and their outsourcing obsession we hear a lot of economic jargon in terms of how opportunity is provided to the outsourced as well as how the MNC benefits. We get people like Thomas Friedman telling us how level the economic playing field is becoming in an increasingly globalized world. But, if you ask me (and you did) I would refute all the talk of blessed opportunity as another facade for industry to hide their motives behind. I'll admit such speculations about whether or not this is good for U.S. interests or the people employed is almost entirely subjective to ones values. But for myself, I will say that I refuse to opportunity in an oppressive realm and that when one becomes employed their feelings, ideas, and grievances don't vanish. Impoverished people who become employed don't become rich people, they become impoverished people who became employed. Meaning that: it takes more than fiscal means and employment to pull oneself out of poverty. And if the employers are keeping the people within their company wealthy (meaning with any income at all) but continue to perpetuate a state of peripheral poverty, they're doing no more in the realm of improving poverty than ignoring the country all together would do. Furthermore, as I mentioned, a job does not delete the popular grievances of any particular labor force. We see this even in our own country with all of our labor unions. Unions that are formed by people with at least some degree of financial stability and employment in the name of social injustice. It is hypocritical and unethical to remove ourselves and our grievances from those of the workers in countries abroad with the excuse of employment and fiscal gain as reparation for unacceptable human condition.