Spirituality - Page 4

Silver Cheetah · 11-30-2001, 03:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
[qb]
There are some things I think are over looked in the discussion of western manufacutrers useing 3rd world labor to make thier goods[qb]

I think so too...... MagiK man, here are some of them... [img]smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I’m going to answer this in several chunks, as it’s going to be just too long for one post. Sorry MagiK, but this isn’t something I can answer with a short throwaway comment. Please bear with me! Part 2 coming shortly.... After my friend has had her fill of tea and gossip... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Your take on East/West labour/product relations is similar to that of many people I know. Unfortunately, it by no means tells the full story.

You seem to be blaming the governments of third world countries for the conditions in which workers producing the goods we use work and live. Many governments are repressive regimes under which appalling human rights abuses take place, and you are completely right to target those governments. But that’s only half the story.

A fair share of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the multi-national companies, who in many cases are involved with some of the world’s most violent, human rights abusive regimes in countries like Burma, Indonesia, Columbia, Nigeria and Chinese occupied Tibet. ]

The leader of the party that actually won the Burmese election in 1990, (a result completely ignored by the oppressive and human rights abuse junta that currently runs the country) condemned foreign investors for propping up the junta. She said that companies operating in Burma are profiting from state run slave labour camps. To this day, companies operating in Burma benefit from the conditions obtaining there, - some are actually in partnership with the military junta. (She made these comments after being released from prison, where she spent six years.)

A call to Canadian multinational Ivanhoe Mines, from a Canadian union and the Canadian Labour Congress:

“We urge you to re-evaluate your direct business relations with the Burmese military junta in light of this global consensus. It is the position of the global labour movement that it is impossible to do business with the Burmese government or in Burma without subsidizing forced labour and other human rights violations. Certainly in the case of Ivanhoe’s partnership with the military junta, foreign investment is directly propping up the regime.”

I’ve used Burma as an example (In some ways, not an ideal example, as the Burmese human rights situation is one of the worst worldwide). Unfortunately, it is not an isolated example as far as the abuse of human rights go. In four developing countries out of five, the share of wages in manufacturing is considerably BELOW what it was in the 70s and the early 80s (but at least they got some wages. In Burma, many do not. It's called slave labour). Human rights abuse is not only rife, it is the norm.

The influx of corporate production facilities to third world areas are NOT improving situations for the native people who work for those companies. Things are not getting better, in fact, they are getting worse. And as long as multinational companies are not regulated as to what they are allowed to do in third world countries, they are likely to continue to do so. Why are large companies allowed to behave in the way they do by Western governments? It is because everything has been allowed to become subordinated to the prevailing 'free trade' ideology.

Have you heard of the ‘free trade zones’ (also known as Export Processing Zones)? You must have – there’s loads on the US/Mexico border, where I believe they are called maquiladoras.

EPZs exist in many third world countries, and employ (over 27 million people. They are tax free areas where many factories exist side by side, making products for the West. There are no import or export duties on the zones. Most of them are gated. Nike, Gap, IBM...... and many others – manufacture product within the zones.

EPZ’s were first set up to help developing country economies. At least, that was the original idea behind them. The way it works is Western companies who manufacture in the zones get a 'tax holiday' for a fixed period, usually between five and ten years. No income tax is paid, and no property tax.

NO INCOME TAX - that means no contributions are made to the overall development of the country in which production is taking place at incredibly low costs which allow the companies involved to cut prices and make huge profits. No investment in the country is asked for at all during this initial tax free period. It was set up that way to attract foreign investors, who would stay in the country and hopefully eventually provide huge boosts to domestic industry, including the transfer of technology.

Unfortunately, except for three countries (one of which is Singapore), this hasn’t happened. The big companies take advantage of the tax breaks alright, but when their time is up, they up sticks and away to the next zone in another country, where , guess what? They are able to take advantage of a whole new load of tax breaks. In other words, they do it all over again. Great for them, not so great for prospects of the the developing countries, who have given something to get something, but have ended up getting very little.

Export processing zones are little worlds within countries where (as is well documented!) working conditions are worse than in the country as a whole. Pay is lower and hours are longer (up to 20 hours a day. Refusal to work overtime can mean instant dismissal without pay), and health and safety conditions are worse. Yet unions are not allowed to organise in the zones, with very few exceptions.

The big companies do NOT want unions in their manufacturing units, as that would run the risk of driving up pay, and adding health and safety related costs.

Human rights abuses are rife. Children are still working in some export processing zones. The largest majority of workers are young woman, and there is a general policy of ‘discouraging’ women from becoming pregnant (job loss follows). Pregnant women are less productive, and tire more easily. They are not cost effective.

Its just not true to say that big multinationals are blameless in what is going on. They are not completely to blame, no, certainly not. But they have to take their fair share, in my opinion.

As individuals, each of us has a standard of behavior that we try to meet, no? Most of us would be horrified at the idea of ‘using’ another human being in a degrading fashion, exploiting their energy and their labour. Treating them like objects, rather than people. But this is what is being done in our name, and to provide us with the goods that we buy.

The glossy adverts never mention where the product comes from and what is done to obtain it. No. Instead, they are full of images of the ideal body, the ideal sex life, the ideal life style. A lifestyle that many people in the West will never achieve, but which the adverts prod them to continually aspire to. How many people are perpetually unhappy because of all the things they want, and are told are desirable, but which they're unlikely to ever afford. (No wonder crime is booming.)

Personally, I boycott the bastards cheerfully and with gusto, and will continue to do so until they start with some ethics and morals. In what is a very christian country, it's all wrong that our biggest financial entities should be allowed to operate, either at home or abroad, with complete disregard for human welfare, unless those humans happen to be shareholders.

Okay, I haven’t finished.... End of the first half.......... Next I want to make some points about the lack of regulation of McCapital

Silver Cheetah · 11-30-2001, 03:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:

That's a good thing, but unfortunately a lot of people can't do this. Somewhere along the way they become consumed with materialism. Having the latest (fill in the blank) is more important than spending time with the children or going with friends. They tell themselves it's because that in this world, if you don't have a brand spanking new computer or car or XXX brand shoes, you just don't rate as worthwhile. What they have in essence done is cashed in part of their humanity. They have foregone their spirituality.

Sorry this is so long. And so rambling. Maybe I'll actually get my thoughts together and make some sense later.....

What a stunning post. Nothing rambling about it! I read every word with avidity. Thanks, Garnet.

Mouse · 11-30-2001, 03:43 PM

Garnet and SC, without being patronising, may I congratulate you on the way you express your beliefs - logically and coherently. It is a pleasure to read such well reasoned propositions.

Just one small point, please do not equate all those who wear the "swoosh" or buy name brands with brainwashed, spiritually bankrupt stereotypes. It is possible to have nice material possessions and still have morals and a spiritual compass as well

Silver Cheetah · 11-30-2001, 03:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
Garnet and SC, without being patronising, may I congratulate you on the way you express your beliefs - logically and coherently. It is a pleasure to read such well reasoned propositions.

Just one small point, please do not equate all those who wear the "swoosh" or buy name brands with brainwashed, spiritually bankrupt stereotypes. It is possible to have nice material possessions and still have morals and a spiritual compass as well

Thanks Mousie! [img]graemlins/kiss.gif[/img]

Re your second point - my apologies if I come across that way. What you say is, of course, quite true. (Take note I don't boycott people because they wear name brands! However, I do like to make them aware of information which I have and which they may not be in possession of. They are then free to evaluate it, and make their own minds up on what course of action to take, if any, based on their own findings... )

Garnet FalconDance · 11-30-2001, 04:00 PM

Agreed, oh furry crooner. Having and using the big brands does not preclude spirituality in all cases or even in most cases! It's only a percentage of the spectrum--just as it's only a percentage who wish they had the advantages and turn bitter at their perceived lack of self worth when they do not have all the goodies.

And thank you!

Tabitha Silverwill · 11-30-2001, 06:04 PM

On a glib (ish) note:

My strong sense of spirituality means that I can forgive the individuals in the faceless corporations, who happen to market the trainers I choose to wear to the gym, in hopes of attaining the perfect body, to please (in addition to MY self confidence) and gain the approval of strangers in the street whose opinions have no importance whatsoever, unlike those of my family and friends who love me unconditionally and the man who loves my mind and personality way before he loves my body.

Saying all that though, still does not mean I can be comfortable knowing that underpaid, exploited individuals are effectively forced to put shiny purple trainers on my feet. Similar to the loving and respecting animals point but still eating meat, albeit slightly guiltily.

This, or another thread should maybe consider the concept of vanity and who we are actually being vain for. Do I wear make up for my self confidence and pleasure or for the approval of others? Can vivisection be justified? When is it right to wear the pelt of an animal for cosmestic purposes. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Waffling on again but they are interesting points to posit.

Silver Cheetah · 11-30-2001, 06:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Tabitha Silverwill:
On a glib (ish) note:

My strong sense of spirituality means that I can forgive the individuals in the faceless corporations, who happen to market the trainers I choose to wear to the gym, in hopes of attaining the perfect body, to please (in addition to MY self confidence) and gain the approval of strangers in the street whose opinions have no importance whatsoever, unlike those of my family and friends who love me unconditionally and the man who loves my mind and personality way before he loves my body.

Saying all that though, still does not mean I can be comfortable knowing that underpaid, exploited individuals are effectively forced to put shiny purple trainers on my feet. Similar to the loving and respecting animals point but still eating meat, albeit slightly guiltily.

This, or another thread should maybe consider the concept of vanity and who we are actually being vain for. Do I wear make up for my self confidence and pleasure or for the approval of others? Can vivisection be justified? When is it right to wear the pelt of an animal for cosmestic purposes. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Waffling on again but they are interesting points to posit.

They certainly are! Why not open a thread debating some of these topics? To reply to your last 'rhetorical' question re the pelt of an animal for cosmetic purposes, my answer to that would be 'never'. But then, I'm a vegan, so its a pretty predictable answer.... [img]smile.gif[/img]

AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe · 12-01-2001, 12:18 PM

I'm in the same boat, sort of. This girl I've been seeing for about 10 months is about 12 years older than me. i mean weve been together awhile and we were starting to get more serious. so she breaks it off because she can't handle the fact that I'm that much younger than she is. Talk about a steaming load of crap. Everything else in the relationship was great. We were best friends and great lovers but she just couldn't handle it. Talk about some vanity.

AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe · 12-01-2001, 12:23 PM

in resolution to my story after i realized how vain she was i realized that she wasn't the person I thought she was, and that I really didn't want to have any sort of relationship with someone like that. So even though she still wanted to have something with me I gave her the boot. I don't need to associate with people like that.

12-01-2001, 03:03 PM

Az....ummm whats that got to do with spirituality and materialism? Your point elludes for me...I mean it sucks that your relation broke up..but her reasoning is hers to make and it is too bad if you don't agree with her..but it takes TWO people to make a relationsip work, and if she said your age was the reason...well I would bet that that particular comment was a half truth, maybe one made to spare your feelings.

11-30-2001, 03:21 PM	#31
Silver Cheetah Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: July 26, 2001 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 1,781	quote: Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: [qb] There are some things I think are over looked in the discussion of western manufacutrers useing 3rd world labor to make thier goods[qb] I think so too...... MagiK man, here are some of them... [img]smile.gif[/img] BTW, I’m going to answer this in several chunks, as it’s going to be just too long for one post. Sorry MagiK, but this isn’t something I can answer with a short throwaway comment. Please bear with me! Part 2 coming shortly.... After my friend has had her fill of tea and gossip... [img]smile.gif[/img] Your take on East/West labour/product relations is similar to that of many people I know. Unfortunately, it by no means tells the full story. You seem to be blaming the governments of third world countries for the conditions in which workers producing the goods we use work and live. Many governments are repressive regimes under which appalling human rights abuses take place, and you are completely right to target those governments. But that’s only half the story. A fair share of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the multi-national companies, who in many cases are involved with some of the world’s most violent, human rights abusive regimes in countries like Burma, Indonesia, Columbia, Nigeria and Chinese occupied Tibet. ] The leader of the party that actually won the Burmese election in 1990, (a result completely ignored by the oppressive and human rights abuse junta that currently runs the country) condemned foreign investors for propping up the junta. She said that companies operating in Burma are profiting from state run slave labour camps. To this day, companies operating in Burma benefit from the conditions obtaining there, - some are actually in partnership with the military junta. (She made these comments after being released from prison, where she spent six years.) A call to Canadian multinational Ivanhoe Mines, from a Canadian union and the Canadian Labour Congress: “We urge you to re-evaluate your direct business relations with the Burmese military junta in light of this global consensus. It is the position of the global labour movement that it is impossible to do business with the Burmese government or in Burma without subsidizing forced labour and other human rights violations. Certainly in the case of Ivanhoe’s partnership with the military junta, foreign investment is directly propping up the regime.” I’ve used Burma as an example (In some ways, not an ideal example, as the Burmese human rights situation is one of the worst worldwide). Unfortunately, it is not an isolated example as far as the abuse of human rights go. In four developing countries out of five, the share of wages in manufacturing is considerably BELOW what it was in the 70s and the early 80s (but at least they got some wages. In Burma, many do not. It's called slave labour). Human rights abuse is not only rife, it is the norm. The influx of corporate production facilities to third world areas are NOT improving situations for the native people who work for those companies. Things are not getting better, in fact, they are getting worse. And as long as multinational companies are not regulated as to what they are allowed to do in third world countries, they are likely to continue to do so. Why are large companies allowed to behave in the way they do by Western governments? It is because everything has been allowed to become subordinated to the prevailing 'free trade' ideology. Have you heard of the ‘free trade zones’ (also known as Export Processing Zones)? You must have – there’s loads on the US/Mexico border, where I believe they are called maquiladoras. EPZs exist in many third world countries, and employ (over 27 million people. They are tax free areas where many factories exist side by side, making products for the West. There are no import or export duties on the zones. Most of them are gated. Nike, Gap, IBM...... and many others – manufacture product within the zones. EPZ’s were first set up to help developing country economies. At least, that was the original idea behind them. The way it works is Western companies who manufacture in the zones get a 'tax holiday' for a fixed period, usually between five and ten years. No income tax is paid, and no property tax. NO INCOME TAX - that means no contributions are made to the overall development of the country in which production is taking place at incredibly low costs which allow the companies involved to cut prices and make huge profits. No investment in the country is asked for at all during this initial tax free period. It was set up that way to attract foreign investors, who would stay in the country and hopefully eventually provide huge boosts to domestic industry, including the transfer of technology. Unfortunately, except for three countries (one of which is Singapore), this hasn’t happened. The big companies take advantage of the tax breaks alright, but when their time is up, they up sticks and away to the next zone in another country, where , guess what? They are able to take advantage of a whole new load of tax breaks. In other words, they do it all over again. Great for them, not so great for prospects of the the developing countries, who have given something to get something, but have ended up getting very little. Export processing zones are little worlds within countries where (as is well documented!) working conditions are worse than in the country as a whole. Pay is lower and hours are longer (up to 20 hours a day. Refusal to work overtime can mean instant dismissal without pay), and health and safety conditions are worse. Yet unions are not allowed to organise in the zones, with very few exceptions. The big companies do NOT want unions in their manufacturing units, as that would run the risk of driving up pay, and adding health and safety related costs. Human rights abuses are rife. Children are still working in some export processing zones. The largest majority of workers are young woman, and there is a general policy of ‘discouraging’ women from becoming pregnant (job loss follows). Pregnant women are less productive, and tire more easily. They are not cost effective. Its just not true to say that big multinationals are blameless in what is going on. They are not completely to blame, no, certainly not. But they have to take their fair share, in my opinion. As individuals, each of us has a standard of behavior that we try to meet, no? Most of us would be horrified at the idea of ‘using’ another human being in a degrading fashion, exploiting their energy and their labour. Treating them like objects, rather than people. But this is what is being done in our name, and to provide us with the goods that we buy. The glossy adverts never mention where the product comes from and what is done to obtain it. No. Instead, they are full of images of the ideal body, the ideal sex life, the ideal life style. A lifestyle that many people in the West will never achieve, but which the adverts prod them to continually aspire to. How many people are perpetually unhappy because of all the things they want, and are told are desirable, but which they're unlikely to ever afford. (No wonder crime is booming.) Personally, I boycott the bastards cheerfully and with gusto, and will continue to do so until they start with some ethics and morals. In what is a very christian country, it's all wrong that our biggest financial entities should be allowed to operate, either at home or abroad, with complete disregard for human welfare, unless those humans happen to be shareholders. Okay, I haven’t finished.... End of the first half.......... Next I want to make some points about the lack of regulation of McCapital __________________

11-30-2001, 03:27 PM	#32
Silver Cheetah Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: July 26, 2001 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 1,781	quote: Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance: That's a good thing, but unfortunately a lot of people can't do this. Somewhere along the way they become consumed with materialism. Having the latest (fill in the blank) is more important than spending time with the children or going with friends. They tell themselves it's because that in this world, if you don't have a brand spanking new computer or car or XXX brand shoes, you just don't rate as worthwhile. What they have in essence done is cashed in part of their humanity. They have foregone their spirituality. Sorry this is so long. And so rambling. Maybe I'll actually get my thoughts together and make some sense later..... What a stunning post. Nothing rambling about it! I read every word with avidity. Thanks, Garnet. __________________

11-30-2001, 03:43 PM	#33
Mouse Ironworks Moderator Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,788	Garnet and SC, without being patronising, may I congratulate you on the way you express your beliefs - logically and coherently. It is a pleasure to read such well reasoned propositions. Just one small point, please do not equate all those who wear the "swoosh" or buy name brands with brainwashed, spiritually bankrupt stereotypes. It is possible to have nice material possessions and still have morals and a spiritual compass as well __________________ Regards Mouse (Occasional crooner and all round friendly Scottish rodent)

11-30-2001, 03:53 PM	#34
Silver Cheetah Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: July 26, 2001 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 1,781	quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Garnet and SC, without being patronising, may I congratulate you on the way you express your beliefs - logically and coherently. It is a pleasure to read such well reasoned propositions. Just one small point, please do not equate all those who wear the "swoosh" or buy name brands with brainwashed, spiritually bankrupt stereotypes. It is possible to have nice material possessions and still have morals and a spiritual compass as well Thanks Mousie! [img]graemlins/kiss.gif[/img] Re your second point - my apologies if I come across that way. What you say is, of course, quite true. (Take note I don't boycott people because they wear name brands! However, I do like to make them aware of information which I have and which they may not be in possession of. They are then free to evaluate it, and make their own minds up on what course of action to take, if any, based on their own findings... ) __________________

11-30-2001, 04:00 PM	#35
Garnet FalconDance Mephistopheles Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: deep within the sylvan splendor.... Age: 60 Posts: 1,443	Agreed, oh furry crooner. Having and using the big brands does not preclude spirituality in all cases or even in most cases! It's only a percentage of the spectrum--just as it's only a percentage who wish they had the advantages and turn bitter at their perceived lack of self worth when they do not have all the goodies. And thank you! __________________ "Nature tells every secret once." Ralph Waldo Emerson

11-30-2001, 06:04 PM	#36
Tabitha Silverwill Dungeon Master Join Date: August 11, 2001 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 91	On a glib (ish) note: My strong sense of spirituality means that I can forgive the individuals in the faceless corporations, who happen to market the trainers I choose to wear to the gym, in hopes of attaining the perfect body, to please (in addition to MY self confidence) and gain the approval of strangers in the street whose opinions have no importance whatsoever, unlike those of my family and friends who love me unconditionally and the man who loves my mind and personality way before he loves my body. Saying all that though, still does not mean I can be comfortable knowing that underpaid, exploited individuals are effectively forced to put shiny purple trainers on my feet. Similar to the loving and respecting animals point but still eating meat, albeit slightly guiltily. This, or another thread should maybe consider the concept of vanity and who we are actually being vain for. Do I wear make up for my self confidence and pleasure or for the approval of others? Can vivisection be justified? When is it right to wear the pelt of an animal for cosmestic purposes. Hmmmmmmmmm. Waffling on again but they are interesting points to posit. __________________ <p>Regret nothing.

11-30-2001, 06:50 PM	#37
Silver Cheetah Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: July 26, 2001 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 1,781	quote: Originally posted by Tabitha Silverwill: On a glib (ish) note: My strong sense of spirituality means that I can forgive the individuals in the faceless corporations, who happen to market the trainers I choose to wear to the gym, in hopes of attaining the perfect body, to please (in addition to MY self confidence) and gain the approval of strangers in the street whose opinions have no importance whatsoever, unlike those of my family and friends who love me unconditionally and the man who loves my mind and personality way before he loves my body. Saying all that though, still does not mean I can be comfortable knowing that underpaid, exploited individuals are effectively forced to put shiny purple trainers on my feet. Similar to the loving and respecting animals point but still eating meat, albeit slightly guiltily. This, or another thread should maybe consider the concept of vanity and who we are actually being vain for. Do I wear make up for my self confidence and pleasure or for the approval of others? Can vivisection be justified? When is it right to wear the pelt of an animal for cosmestic purposes. Hmmmmmmmmm. Waffling on again but they are interesting points to posit. They certainly are! Why not open a thread debating some of these topics? To reply to your last 'rhetorical' question re the pelt of an animal for cosmetic purposes, my answer to that would be 'never'. But then, I'm a vegan, so its a pretty predictable answer.... [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________

12-01-2001, 12:18 PM	#38
AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe Hathor Join Date: October 11, 2001 Location: At My Computer Age: 43 Posts: 2,217	I'm in the same boat, sort of. This girl I've been seeing for about 10 months is about 12 years older than me. i mean weve been together awhile and we were starting to get more serious. so she breaks it off because she can't handle the fact that I'm that much younger than she is. Talk about a steaming load of crap. Everything else in the relationship was great. We were best friends and great lovers but she just couldn't handle it. Talk about some vanity. __________________ Now the swinging bridge<br />Is quieted with creepers. . . <br />Like our tendrilled life. -Basho

12-01-2001, 12:23 PM	#39
AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe Hathor Join Date: October 11, 2001 Location: At My Computer Age: 43 Posts: 2,217	in resolution to my story after i realized how vain she was i realized that she wasn't the person I thought she was, and that I really didn't want to have any sort of relationship with someone like that. So even though she still wanted to have something with me I gave her the boot. I don't need to associate with people like that. __________________ Now the swinging bridge<br />Is quieted with creepers. . . <br />Like our tendrilled life. -Basho

12-01-2001, 03:03 PM	#40
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Az....ummm whats that got to do with spirituality and materialism? Your point elludes for me...I mean it sucks that your relation broke up..but her reasoning is hers to make and it is too bad if you don't agree with her..but it takes TWO people to make a relationsip work, and if she said your age was the reason...well I would bet that that particular comment was a half truth, maybe one made to spare your feelings.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)