Risk or Care?

The paragraph is chose is on page 11. It says, "Slavery was the first significant American "public policy" that served to protect cotton growers from the perils of operating in a competitive market. For a number of reasons, relying on a competitive labor market -- rather than on captive slaves -- was a risk that growers were loath to assume, and it was also a risk that would have likely precluded the explosive growth in American cotton production."

I picked this paragraph because it bothered me. One of the words that bothered me the most was the work "protect." Having slaves didn't protect cotton farmers from a competitive market it was a benefit to be the most competitive market. If they saw the competitive market as a risk more than they saw the slaves as a risk they clearly cared more about the market. I see this in present day with companies like Nike, Reebok and Walmart. In the article that I posted titled, "Kid Labor a Matter of Ethics," it states, "Kathie Lee Gifford says she didn't know her line of outfits, sold by Wal-Mart, were made by Honduran girls paid 31 cents an hour." These big name brands are all over the United States and even many parts of the world. It is all about the money for these brands and the majority of people would agree with me when I say that I feel that these companies care more about being the best, the most competitive, and the most well known than they care about the young children working overseas in their factories. It's dissapointing in this situation how history hasn't changed. From cotton farmers to mega-stores, the similaries are amazing.

Many people have made their concerns visible in articles and documentaries like the one by Pietra Rivoli. Unfortunately cosumers will take sides with Nike, Reebok, and Walmart when respresentatives from those companies say things like, "The truth is these children, who don't live the white, middle-class lifestyle many of us enjoy in the Portland area, would often be losers. They might be homeless. They might go into prostitution. There are all kinds of worse opportunities." I can see where these company owners are coming from. All of those children have parents. They should make the parents work in the factories and at set up a prgram for the children. There has to be other options for these children. Many American are so preoccupied with their own lives that voicing their thoughts of these matters are hardly ever done. Unfortunatley people will settle for what companies say and do as a responce to those Americans who do voice their opinions. Companies will give awards about human rights. The article states, "Reebok International Ltd. gives out human rights awards, and downplays the fact that it uses some of the same factories and child laborers as Nike." Similarly cotton growing slave owners will say the same thing about owning slaves. If they didn't give slaves jobs then the slaves wouldn't eat. It the same as what companies today say.

I wonder how long is will take for the public to respond to the products and brands based on those companies labor choices rather than the actual products?