No animals were harmed in making these shoes

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#1
Why is it that people are so concerned about seeing "No animals were harmed in the making of _____ product" but would prefer to remain oblivious to something else that should probably be on several products we enjoy...

"Humans were harmed in the making of this product."

YouTube - 7:30 Report - Nike Sweatshops and the Sydney Olympics

YouTube - Nike sweatshops - Try not to cry

It's not just NIKE either.

Thoughts? Why is it that we care more about animals being harmed than human beings working in sweatshops?
 
Last edited:

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#2
The show disclaimers are there because some show producers used to see animals only as props and only the welfare of human actors were considered. Movies, fictional or documentary (like the videos above) don't need disclaimers about human treatment because people already could tell that it's just an act (fictional videos) or it's reality (documentaries).

I think people care about humans being harmed. The problem is they can only complain as much. With animals mistreatment in videos, you rally enough and you get Film Media to put a halt on animal mistreatment by coming up with something like a certification to pass having the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer for the film credits. What about human mistreatment?

People rally, post blogs, etc. Does it close down the sweatshops? No. What about if you boycott their products? Really, would you stop buying Nike products after seeing that video? It's also a complicated problem. There are people who defend the sweatshop especially in the place where they're common. And rich countries cannot fully say "stop it, it's bad" because some of the companies (often the mother company based in a rich country) benefit from it. It becomes hypocritical. So people would sometimes just turn a blind eye to it, same with the world (let's offer them the Olympics instead).
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#3
Well the problem is that the Indonesian workers (and other workers as well) can't really complain at all. If Nike wanted to pay civilized minimum wage amounts then they'd close up shop and pay American or European workers, leaving the third world countries with no job at all and even less money.

It's a pickle. I'm sure the Nike sweatshops actually help the countries they are in. A lot of the people that work there would be dead or dying if it weren't for Nike. So is Nike being the hero here or the villain? Or maybe a little bit of both?
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#4
Well the problem is that the Indonesian workers (and other workers as well) can't really complain at all. If Nike wanted to pay civilized minimum wage amounts then they'd close up shop and pay American or European workers, leaving the third world countries with no job at all and even less money.

It's a pickle. I'm sure the Nike sweatshops actually help the countries they are in. A lot of the people that work there would be dead or dying if it weren't for Nike. So is Nike being the hero here or the villain? Or maybe a little bit of both?
It's exploitation. They know the business offers jobs and helps the economy no matter how poor the working conditions are (great savings for the company too) and the people/government would rather accept that than have unemployment and people move to other industries like prostitution. Take it or leave it. And they know people will often take it because of their situation; they are not in the best position to bargain for better working conditions.