Jeff Lawrence on sat 23 oct 99
Janet Kaiser was waxing theological:
>The very reason you stated of middlemen being the winners on the sort of
>painted ware we both speak about, is a social ill which I for one find
>distressing. It is on a par with Nike, Adidas and other well-known companies
>using "slave labour" in poor countries to produce sportswear, which sells
>for mega bucks and vast profits in the West. It is unfair and unethical and
>was the reason I pointed out they worked for pence.
>
Dear Janet,
Projecting the value system of a wealthy nation onto a third-world country
is like expecting a Chippendale side table to support a truckload of
manure. The lightweight logic of an academic liesure class doesn't hold
under the weight of a reality where pence a day keeps starvation at bay. On
my social ill scale, I rank gauzy censorious misunderstanding as much worse
than providing jobs where otherwise there would be none.
I have some ceramic items made in Mexico for less than I can make them here
in the USA, an activity you call "unfair and unethical." I wonder where all
my mega bucks and vast profits have got to. I also wonder why the Mexicans
seem so eager to be exploited even more. Again, only my opinion: profit is
only evil if one has wealthy forebears or a government job.
And what does "naff" mean, anyway?
Best regards,
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence Sun Dagger Design
jml@sundagger.com Rt. 3 Box 220
www.sundagger.com Espanola, NM 87532
vox 505-753-5913 fax 505-753-8074
Janet Kaiser on mon 25 oct 99
Jeff,
With all due respect, "theological" is something I never am. My Mother
warned me about talking about religion, race or politics and I try hard to
stick to that. However, having been rude enough to answer me on-list in the
way and tone you have chosen, that is as far as my respect goes.
May I ask if you have followed the whole "discussion"? Or do you always pick
up points you obviously take as a personal insult and then twist what is
said just to prove yours?
I had hoped both my complete message/s would impart my understanding of why
I believe *painted pots* are not considered de rigour in the West. If you
had also read Nikom's previous posting and not taken my words completely out
of context you might have understood what I was trying to say and not jump
on me in such an irrational and unwarranted manner.
I am not trying to crusade or win votes, but I am sick of money-making being
the excuse for keeping people in poverty world-wide. That is neither "gauzy
censorious misunderstanding" nor the "lightweight logic of an academic
leisure class". As for "Projecting the value system of a wealthy nation onto
a third-world country" that is the sort of hog-wash politicians usually
spout.
For your information I am neither an academic nor a dilettante. I work from
10 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. most days and nights. I get an average five hours sleep
per night.
I have had five days holiday in three years and three of those were days
spent in hospital. My only "leisure" is this discussion list. No, I am not
living from hand-to-mouth in the Third World, but I can assure you my
relative subsistence living (in this "wealthy nation") puts me in a position
to understand only too well how given a different culture and different
country, that dispite my hard work I would certainly be on the bread line.
As it is, I do not know how I will be able to afford to live in my old age.
Yes, I may be a stupid woman from the West, however it does not
stop me being a caring human being.
And as for your Mexican pots... How dare you take my comments so completely
out of context? Why are you trying to be so insulting? Not for the first
time either.
I took up Nikom's theme of Disney, Pier 1, etc. cut price buying methods. To
then twist them to suit your own self-opinionated view-point is beyond the
pale. As far as I am aware Nike, Adidas & Co. do not produce pots...
painted or otherwise.
Exploitation remains just that. And exploitation -- however you or anyone
else care to excuse, condone or applaud it -- is not right or acceptable
anywhere in the world.
And for your information: "naff" loosely means either rubbish and/or
unfashionable
(see The Oxford Dictionary). Example: "It is naff to write 'Best Regards' at
the bottom of a personally insulting letter".
Janet Kaiser - One very irate and upset woman. I will go to the kitchen and
pickle some onions. That will be good camouflage....
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Janet Kaiser was waxing theological:
>The very reason you stated of middlemen being the winners on the sort of
>painted ware we both speak about, is a social ill which I for one find
>distressing. It is on a par with Nike, Adidas and other well-known
companies
>using "slave labour" in poor countries to produce sportswear, which sells
>for mega bucks and vast profits in the West. It is unfair and unethical and
>was the reason I pointed out they worked for pence.
>
Dear Janet,
Projecting the value system of a wealthy nation onto a third-world country
is like expecting a Chippendale side table to support a truckload of
manure. The lightweight logic of an academic liesure class doesn't hold
under the weight of a reality where pence a day keeps starvation at bay. On
my social ill scale, I rank gauzy censorious misunderstanding as much worse
than providing jobs where otherwise there would be none.
I have some ceramic items made in Mexico for less than I can make them here
in the USA, an activity you call "unfair and unethical." I wonder where all
my mega bucks and vast profits have got to. I also wonder why the Mexicans
seem so eager to be exploited even more. Again, only my opinion: profit is
only evil if one has wealthy forebears or a government job.
And what does "naff" mean, anyway?
Best regards,
Jeff
| |
|
