This was an amazing trip. Just being with all my classmates was a ton of fun but couple that with one of my favorite things in the world and that is a recipe for amazing.
We met early Thursday morning and packed everything up and headed down southeast towards the town of Green River. Once we set up camp and had some lunch we headed to a wash to put in. I jumped in a kayak (as I did each time I ran the river) as did Scott and Brennen. The kayak I had was a medium sized Dagger, a bit wider. It was stable and at the same time easy to roll. After we put in we immediately hit some rapids but they were only about a level 2, I'd say. We were supposed to grab an eddy after the rapids but as the kayakers approached the eddy, Scott got knocked over. Luckily a duckie was nearby so that they could do a T-rescue because I think the shock of the water got to him a bit. Later on we practiced some rolls and I felt pretty good about everything. I was able to roll without a problem. Brennen tried but ended up smacking his head on my kayak during the T-rescue.
The first time I went kayaking I had the philosophy to not paddle while in the rapids so that the paddle wouldn't cause the boat to move more than it normally would. This time however I realized that was wrong. Without the paddle in the water you can't control the direction too well and if you are a good paddler you won't let the cross currents alter your position too much. So I kept my paddle in the water while doing the rapids and I felt a lot more stable.
After driving the trailer once I got back in the kayak for the last run of the day. This was basically the same as the last except it was just Gardner and I in the kayaks. Everything was going great, my practice rolls were great and I was becoming more confident in approaching eddys. Then during one rapid my backend got caught in an eddy and while I was trying to paddle my way out I lost my paddle and I got hit over. I didn't feel confident enough in that moment to try the paddle-free roll - even though I can do them - so I wet exited. And I don't feel too bad about it either. Sometimes you need to do a wet exit just to remind yourself that it is always a possibility.
We did one more run the next morning with myself, Scott and Carol Ann in the kayaks. Both Scott and Carol Ann had to wet exit during the run but they tried the rolls and they felt pretty good. All in all, the trip was great and I feel much more confident in my kayaking abilities now.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
River Log: June 3
Today we went down the Provo River as a class. Carol Ann and I saddled up in an inflatable kayak and she took the back rudder position. We put in close to Deer Creek Reservoir, just below the old bridge and went down to Vivian Park. The whole trip was fairly short but fun. Carol Ann struggled a bit at first with the J-stroke that she was practicing, but got it (I think) in the end. And I had fun pulling us into 360s and such. Provo Canyon is a beautiful place and I am really going to miss it. But I am going to have a lot of fun on the rivers back east, so I think that I will manage.
I can't say that I learned too much besides how to correctly handle the eddys. The way to get into an eddy is to turn into it at the head so that you are already turning the direction that the water is going to take you (back upstream). And the way to get out of an eddy is to go to the head and then turn into the current. That way once you hit the current it just finishes your turn for you and you are heading down the river.
I can't say that I learned too much besides how to correctly handle the eddys. The way to get into an eddy is to turn into it at the head so that you are already turning the direction that the water is going to take you (back upstream). And the way to get out of an eddy is to go to the head and then turn into the current. That way once you hit the current it just finishes your turn for you and you are heading down the river.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Stewardship of the Earth
Doomsday predictions regarding the Earth and its inhabitants have surfaced periodically over the past centuries but never more frequently than now. Al Gore’s recent Nobel Prize winning documentary concerning global warming demonstrates that these predictions are capturing widespread public attention. But are these predictions so different from the early doomsday predictions of Thomas Malthus who mistakenly wrote that the exponentially growing human population would someday be supportable by the agricultural industry? In the face of all these opposing opinions and predictions, what should we be concerned about and what is our responsibility to this Earth?
Personally, I find it hard to believe many of the doom filled prognostications, but that does not mean that I disregard my responsibility to the environment. In fact, my concern for the environment is the reason I do not believe the predictions. In the models developed by many researchers starting with Malthus humans are portrayed as mindless and increasingly destructive. Population, pollution and other trends are modeled exponentially and not in an adaptive manner. I am not an expert in the environmental literature but I would venture a guess that man’s capacity to adapt to and resolve problems is underestimated. Look at all the measures that have been taken in recent years to reduce and eliminate vehicle pollution with hybrid cars and additional legislation on fuel mileage.
Because of our divinely given ability to adapt and change, to act rather than be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:14), I do believe that each human has a responsibility to alter any destructive actions. Ezra Taft Benson said that, “Surely you can see the inconsistency in the individual who insists that we be good stewards and not pollute our environment, and yet who is unscrupulous in his personal life. Again, physical and spiritual laws are interrelated. Pollution of one's environment and moral impurity both rest on a life-style which partakes of a philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry"-gouge and grab now, without regard to the consequences. Both violate the spirit of stewardship for which we will stand accountable.” I’m not sure I understand fully the doctrine of stewardship but I do know that how we treat what God has given us plays a big role in determining how we are rewarded in the next life. As with the parable of the talents in the New Testament, those who use and care for what they are given are given more, whereas the stewardship is removed from those who misuse it.
I love how President Benson puts everything into perspective. When asked why the Church concerns itself so much with the behavior of the individual while there are tragedies occurring on much larger scales his reply reveals the real answer to the ills of society: “The laws of God give emphasis to the improvement of the individual as the only real way to bring about improvement in society. Until we focus on basic principles, little progress will be made.” Progress in the areas of pollution and disregard for the environment need to begin to be resolved on a personal level. “While the resources of our planet are both perishable and renewable, time cannot be recycled. Self-centered, pleasure-seeking people will not only plunder our environment much more rapidly, but they will be less concerned about the needs of their fellow human beings” (Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson)
As stated in Doctrine and Covenants 104:17, “the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” God knows how much the inhabitants of the earth need but how we use what He has given us is vital to our temporal and spiritual salvation.
Personally, I find it hard to believe many of the doom filled prognostications, but that does not mean that I disregard my responsibility to the environment. In fact, my concern for the environment is the reason I do not believe the predictions. In the models developed by many researchers starting with Malthus humans are portrayed as mindless and increasingly destructive. Population, pollution and other trends are modeled exponentially and not in an adaptive manner. I am not an expert in the environmental literature but I would venture a guess that man’s capacity to adapt to and resolve problems is underestimated. Look at all the measures that have been taken in recent years to reduce and eliminate vehicle pollution with hybrid cars and additional legislation on fuel mileage.
Because of our divinely given ability to adapt and change, to act rather than be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:14), I do believe that each human has a responsibility to alter any destructive actions. Ezra Taft Benson said that, “Surely you can see the inconsistency in the individual who insists that we be good stewards and not pollute our environment, and yet who is unscrupulous in his personal life. Again, physical and spiritual laws are interrelated. Pollution of one's environment and moral impurity both rest on a life-style which partakes of a philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry"-gouge and grab now, without regard to the consequences. Both violate the spirit of stewardship for which we will stand accountable.” I’m not sure I understand fully the doctrine of stewardship but I do know that how we treat what God has given us plays a big role in determining how we are rewarded in the next life. As with the parable of the talents in the New Testament, those who use and care for what they are given are given more, whereas the stewardship is removed from those who misuse it.
I love how President Benson puts everything into perspective. When asked why the Church concerns itself so much with the behavior of the individual while there are tragedies occurring on much larger scales his reply reveals the real answer to the ills of society: “The laws of God give emphasis to the improvement of the individual as the only real way to bring about improvement in society. Until we focus on basic principles, little progress will be made.” Progress in the areas of pollution and disregard for the environment need to begin to be resolved on a personal level. “While the resources of our planet are both perishable and renewable, time cannot be recycled. Self-centered, pleasure-seeking people will not only plunder our environment much more rapidly, but they will be less concerned about the needs of their fellow human beings” (Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson)
As stated in Doctrine and Covenants 104:17, “the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” God knows how much the inhabitants of the earth need but how we use what He has given us is vital to our temporal and spiritual salvation.
River Log: May 22, 2008
Well, today we didn't really go on the river. We spent the day in the pool practicing our kayak skills. And as I have already taken the class and learned how to kayak it was a chance for me to review. I haven't had the opportunity to go kayaking since the class so I was itching for the chance to practice. The first time I got in the boat and tried an eskimo roll I didn't make it. I had to wet exit that time but it was good to do that to. But the next time I tried I made it up and then went too far and had to try it again but this time without my paddle. Even though I don't remember making it up much a couple years ago when I tried without my paddle I made it up this time. I was pretty happy about it.
I tried to help out others so they could get the hang of the roll but for the most part I think they needed more time. Its a weird skill and I think it just takes time to get used to it.
I tried to help out others so they could get the hang of the roll but for the most part I think they needed more time. Its a weird skill and I think it just takes time to get used to it.
River Log: May 8, 2008
Today we went out on canoes in the Provo River. The weather was great as was the company. We got to know one another as classmates for the first time and had a good time playing on the river. I went in a boat with Lauren and it was my turn at first to be the rudder in the back. We made it up the river uneventfully - I have canoed before so it wasn't new to me. But when it was Lauren's turn to steer the boat back down the river we ended up in quite a few trees. She was having a bit of a hard time with the J-stroke. I had never heard of it before that day but when Brian explained it I thought it was cool and tried it out.
While on the river we saw a muskrat, a beaver, a turtle and a bunch of fish and birds. I felt like my wildlife major friend Robby because I got really excited at the sight of them. But the best part of the whole thing was the great feeling of being on the river. I only know of one better feeling - being in the temple - than being on the river.
While on the river we saw a muskrat, a beaver, a turtle and a bunch of fish and birds. I felt like my wildlife major friend Robby because I got really excited at the sight of them. But the best part of the whole thing was the great feeling of being on the river. I only know of one better feeling - being in the temple - than being on the river.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
How to Take the Sweat Out of Sweatshops
“Recently a manufacturer of McDonald's "Happy Meal" toys was charged with employing thirteen year olds, working them sixteen hours per day for three dollars.” Then an American child ate the Happy Meal and played with the toy for a few hours until he discarded it among his hundreds of other toys. The working conditions in foreign sweatshops shock us when compared with our lives and our children. Conditions such as overtime forced up to one hundred and ten hours a week, managers shoving amphetamines (speed) in the mouths of their workers so they can work forty-eight hours straight until they collapse and employers pressuring female employees to have abortions so they don’t miss a day of work can at best be described as inhumane and criminal (Wells). Citizens of developing nations work in these conditions, forced by their impoverished circumstances, at the hand of huge, wealthy, multi-national corporations such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss. From these conditions the term “sweatshop” is derived. Conditions need to change in sweatshops, that is obvious. Yet can conditions really be improved by contending against these faceless billion dollar corporations?
Since the discovery of the sweatshop Americans have banded together to incite change. Starting with the students of Duke University who learned that their school’s paraphernalia was produced in sweatshops, anti-sweatshop consumer activist movements have since expanded exponentially into hundreds of universities and organizations across the nation (Goldberg). Consumer activism is not new; it has been around since the beginning of this nation. Indeed it could be said that consumer activism formed the United States. The face-painted “Indians” native to Boston, Massachusetts once commandeered an English vessel loaded with tea to demonstrate their displeasure with the taxes placed on tea. The famous activist Upton Sinclair followed the industrial revolution by initiating reforms in working conditions through his book, The Jungle (Wikipedia). This spirit and desire to incite change in the world is part of who we are as Americans.
But can these small groups of individual make a difference contending with Goliath corporations? Historically, activists have propelled changes in working conditions. In 1911 – around the same time as the publication of Sinclair’s The Jungle – an anti-sweatshop movement that began with the Triangle Shirtwaist fire helped move millions of unskilled laborers out of poverty and into better working conditions (Goldberg). Consumer movements have a great deal of influence because, simply enough, they are consumers. The old adage, “the customer is always right,” and the theory of supply and demand explain this influence. Consumer demand is the reason that companies exist. If the consumer demands that the product not be made by children forced to work thirteen hours a day and the company does not provide that, the company will not exist. The customer is always right. Recent events and studies have shown that consumer activism does have an impact.
Many cases exist in which consumer activism has improved working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations, specifically those of Indonesia and Cambodia exemplify activist power. Indonesia has been a hub of sweatshop production for large corporations such as Nike Inc. for many years now. Nike will be the focus of this case study because of the size of its presence in Indonesia and the renowned activist movements against it. In 1990 the average number of workers in specific factories or sweatshops devoted to footwear was 738 people. Once sweatshops were unveiled and the activist movements began, their effect has been drastic. According to a study done by Ann Harrison, an economist at the University of California Berkley, “The combined effects of the minimum wage legislation and the anti-sweatshop campaigns led to more than a 50 percent increase in real wages and a doubling of nominal wages for unskilled workers at targeted exporting plants.” In response to that, most economists would ask, “but what happened to unemployment?” Basic economic theory states that as wage, the price of labor, increases firms demand less of it and unemployment rises. So, counterintuitive though it may be, consumer activism and minimum wage laws resulted in increased wages as well as increased employment in Indonesia. And comparatively, consumer activism had a greater positive effect on wages and employment than did minimum wage. Indonesian sweatshops whose product was solely distributed domestically – thereby only affected by minimum wage laws – saw an increase in average wage of $154 between 1990 and 1996, while sweatshops whose product was always exported – affected by consumer activism - saw an increase in average wage of $263. In employment, while sweatshops with domestic distribution did not see a statistically significant rise in employment, the average number of employees in sweatshops of purely exported products rose by 362 (Harrison). These positive effects of consumer activism in conditions, wages and employment are surprising but can be explained. With the conditions and wages as poor as they were, even an increase from fifty cents to a dollar is huge and even beneficial to Nike. “As Nike increased spending on wages and expensive public relations campaigns to mend its image, its market share of the global footwear market rose by almost 50 percent.” Consumer activism can make a difference and these results show that it did in Indonesia.
As for Cambodia, the results have been similar. In the 80’s and 90’s sweatshops were widespread. However, today Cambodia is selling itself as “sweat-free.” Consumer activism has created a demand for “sweat-free” goods and Cambodia has responded by improving their working conditions in order to attract companies looking for good publicity. Cambodia’s garment industry has recently achieved the number one global ranking in working conditions and that bodes well for companies like Gap, Nike and Levi Strauss looking to improve their public image. Due to bad publicity and consumer activism these companies have responded to Cambodia’s “sweat-free” movement and have contracted their labor. Cambodia’s share of United States’ garment imports rose from 9 percent to 14 over the past few years. Consumer activism has raised production costs for Gap, Nike, Levi Strauss and other companies, yet the demand for production from “sweat-free” Cambodia has increased (Lynch). These results demonstrate that consumer activism is achieving better working conditions in Cambodia yet the principle applies everywhere. Consumers, who are always right, demanding “sweat-free” goods will get them. Indonesia and Cambodia are just two examples yet the companies who employ their labor – Nike, Gap, Levi Strauss and others – have been responding to consumer activism in the same way throughout the world by demanding improved working conditions in sweatshops.
These brand-name companies pay the higher cost of improved working conditions in order to maintain their reputation. Companies work hard to develop trust to associate with their brand. “A brand is the symbolic embodiment of all the information connected with a company, product or service. It also encompasses the set of expectations associated with a product or service which typically arise in the minds of people (Wikipedia).” A brand is not something that can be bought but must be earned. Companies like Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss are worth more than their balance sheet would indicate due to their brand. Their brand quantifiably increases their profits and any threat to that brand could be devastating. A recent article in Business Week ranked and estimated the value of brands such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss. The brands of both Nike and Gap are valued over 7 billion dollars while Levi’s brand is worth over 3 billion (Business Week Online). This is why “Nike couldn’t ignore the possibility that all those crazy kids campaigning against foul labor practices in Asian or Mexican sweatshops might have something to do with falling sales (Greider).” Nike Inc. provides an excellent example of the importance of the brand because so much anti-sweathop campaigning has been directed against Nike. Trying to protect their brand Nike created the Fair Labor Association in the 1990’s which monitors the factories of participating companies. Then in 2005 the company publicized the names and locations of their contracted factories, a huge acknowledgement of consumer activist influence (Jung). And again desperately trying to mend their image, earlier this year Nike and other companies in need of brand improvement joined with the world’s most famous humanitarian, Bono, lead singer of U2, in creating Product Red. Product Red will raise funds to fight diseases but Nike sees it as a way to look like a superhero replacing the villainous, shifty-eyed look they carry now (Milmo). Yet Nike isn’t the only company concerned about their brand; the concern is universal. Walmart’s spokeperson William Wertz wrote, “No question that such a reputation is a plus. Having confidence that a factory is doing the right things for workers in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions, etc., is important to us (Lynch).” Additionally, the importance of a company’s brand is beneficial to the consumer; it gives us a weapon. Brands force social change. “Positive social change in the developing world is happening more quickly than it otherwise would specifically because of corporations’ need to protect brand value by meeting consumers’ expectations (Hilton).” Company’s dependence on brand means that any challenge to it will demand their utmost attention.
Even with the improvements conditions are still worse than American facilities. Corporations are still outsourcing to developing nations because the wages are still much lower than those of the United States. Yet eliminating sweatshops is not the answer. “No one should defend the horrors – factories with locked doors during fires, employers who confiscate passports and harass workers, etc. – but the fact remains that, on the whole, what most opponents call "sweatshops" are actually a good thing.” As put by Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati sweatshops are a “ticket to slightly less impoverishment.” Economists, both liberal and conservative, are united in their opinion that sweatshops equal progress (Goldberg). In fact, Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote in The New York Times of 1997 that “my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few…those are precisely the jobs that were the stepping stones for Singapore and Hong Kong, and those are the jobs that have to come to Africa to get them out of back-breaking rural poverty (Hilton).” Sweatshops represent about 80% of Cambodia’s total export earnings, and when you ask a local Cambodian for their opinion they will say, as Sophia Mang did, “I like this life better. Both the farm and this are hard work but this is a better life (Lynch).” The word sweatshop may incite opposition but think of the alternatives – prostitution and hunger – and the benefits to sweatshops become immediately apparent.
There is an answer to thirteen year olds working sixteen hours a day for three dollars. The answer is consumer activism. Corporations such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss have outsourced their production to developing nations due to low cost labor but their products are still sold in the United States. Because of that, consumers have power. Consumer activist movements have shown these multi-national corporations that the working conditions of their factories are important and because the customer is always right things have improved. The evidence shows that consumer activism improves working conditions, wages and even lowers unemployment. Improvements occur because of the corporation’s dependence on their brand. “Brands are not the enemy of those wanting to make world a better place, but their greatest ally (Hilton).” Consumer activism improves working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations because consumer activism motivates brand name companies to maintain their reputation.
“2002 Global Brands Scoreboard.” 5 Aug 2002. Business Week Online. 12 Mar 2006.
“Brand.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Goldberg, Jonah. “The Know-Nothings Find a Cause.” The National Review Feb 2001: 30.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Greider, William. “Victory at McDonalds.” Nation Aug 2003: 8-36. EBSCOHost. BrighamYoung U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Harrison, Ann and Jason Scorse. “Improving the Conditions of Workers? Minimum WageLegislation and Anti-Sweatshop Activism.” California Management Review Winter2006: 144-160. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Jung, Helen. “Nike Cast Light on Factories.” The Oregonian 13 Apr 2005. ProQuest.Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
Lynch, David. “Cambodia’s Sale Pitch: Sweatshop-free products.” USA Today 4 April 2005.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Milmo, Cahal. “Ethical Shopping: The Red Revolution.” Belfast Telegraph 27 Jan 2006.ProQuest. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
“Sweatshop.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Wells, Don. “Global Sweatshops and Ethical Buying Codes.” Canada Dimension Oct 2003: 9-11. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
Since the discovery of the sweatshop Americans have banded together to incite change. Starting with the students of Duke University who learned that their school’s paraphernalia was produced in sweatshops, anti-sweatshop consumer activist movements have since expanded exponentially into hundreds of universities and organizations across the nation (Goldberg). Consumer activism is not new; it has been around since the beginning of this nation. Indeed it could be said that consumer activism formed the United States. The face-painted “Indians” native to Boston, Massachusetts once commandeered an English vessel loaded with tea to demonstrate their displeasure with the taxes placed on tea. The famous activist Upton Sinclair followed the industrial revolution by initiating reforms in working conditions through his book, The Jungle (Wikipedia). This spirit and desire to incite change in the world is part of who we are as Americans.
But can these small groups of individual make a difference contending with Goliath corporations? Historically, activists have propelled changes in working conditions. In 1911 – around the same time as the publication of Sinclair’s The Jungle – an anti-sweatshop movement that began with the Triangle Shirtwaist fire helped move millions of unskilled laborers out of poverty and into better working conditions (Goldberg). Consumer movements have a great deal of influence because, simply enough, they are consumers. The old adage, “the customer is always right,” and the theory of supply and demand explain this influence. Consumer demand is the reason that companies exist. If the consumer demands that the product not be made by children forced to work thirteen hours a day and the company does not provide that, the company will not exist. The customer is always right. Recent events and studies have shown that consumer activism does have an impact.
Many cases exist in which consumer activism has improved working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations, specifically those of Indonesia and Cambodia exemplify activist power. Indonesia has been a hub of sweatshop production for large corporations such as Nike Inc. for many years now. Nike will be the focus of this case study because of the size of its presence in Indonesia and the renowned activist movements against it. In 1990 the average number of workers in specific factories or sweatshops devoted to footwear was 738 people. Once sweatshops were unveiled and the activist movements began, their effect has been drastic. According to a study done by Ann Harrison, an economist at the University of California Berkley, “The combined effects of the minimum wage legislation and the anti-sweatshop campaigns led to more than a 50 percent increase in real wages and a doubling of nominal wages for unskilled workers at targeted exporting plants.” In response to that, most economists would ask, “but what happened to unemployment?” Basic economic theory states that as wage, the price of labor, increases firms demand less of it and unemployment rises. So, counterintuitive though it may be, consumer activism and minimum wage laws resulted in increased wages as well as increased employment in Indonesia. And comparatively, consumer activism had a greater positive effect on wages and employment than did minimum wage. Indonesian sweatshops whose product was solely distributed domestically – thereby only affected by minimum wage laws – saw an increase in average wage of $154 between 1990 and 1996, while sweatshops whose product was always exported – affected by consumer activism - saw an increase in average wage of $263. In employment, while sweatshops with domestic distribution did not see a statistically significant rise in employment, the average number of employees in sweatshops of purely exported products rose by 362 (Harrison). These positive effects of consumer activism in conditions, wages and employment are surprising but can be explained. With the conditions and wages as poor as they were, even an increase from fifty cents to a dollar is huge and even beneficial to Nike. “As Nike increased spending on wages and expensive public relations campaigns to mend its image, its market share of the global footwear market rose by almost 50 percent.” Consumer activism can make a difference and these results show that it did in Indonesia.
As for Cambodia, the results have been similar. In the 80’s and 90’s sweatshops were widespread. However, today Cambodia is selling itself as “sweat-free.” Consumer activism has created a demand for “sweat-free” goods and Cambodia has responded by improving their working conditions in order to attract companies looking for good publicity. Cambodia’s garment industry has recently achieved the number one global ranking in working conditions and that bodes well for companies like Gap, Nike and Levi Strauss looking to improve their public image. Due to bad publicity and consumer activism these companies have responded to Cambodia’s “sweat-free” movement and have contracted their labor. Cambodia’s share of United States’ garment imports rose from 9 percent to 14 over the past few years. Consumer activism has raised production costs for Gap, Nike, Levi Strauss and other companies, yet the demand for production from “sweat-free” Cambodia has increased (Lynch). These results demonstrate that consumer activism is achieving better working conditions in Cambodia yet the principle applies everywhere. Consumers, who are always right, demanding “sweat-free” goods will get them. Indonesia and Cambodia are just two examples yet the companies who employ their labor – Nike, Gap, Levi Strauss and others – have been responding to consumer activism in the same way throughout the world by demanding improved working conditions in sweatshops.
These brand-name companies pay the higher cost of improved working conditions in order to maintain their reputation. Companies work hard to develop trust to associate with their brand. “A brand is the symbolic embodiment of all the information connected with a company, product or service. It also encompasses the set of expectations associated with a product or service which typically arise in the minds of people (Wikipedia).” A brand is not something that can be bought but must be earned. Companies like Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss are worth more than their balance sheet would indicate due to their brand. Their brand quantifiably increases their profits and any threat to that brand could be devastating. A recent article in Business Week ranked and estimated the value of brands such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss. The brands of both Nike and Gap are valued over 7 billion dollars while Levi’s brand is worth over 3 billion (Business Week Online). This is why “Nike couldn’t ignore the possibility that all those crazy kids campaigning against foul labor practices in Asian or Mexican sweatshops might have something to do with falling sales (Greider).” Nike Inc. provides an excellent example of the importance of the brand because so much anti-sweathop campaigning has been directed against Nike. Trying to protect their brand Nike created the Fair Labor Association in the 1990’s which monitors the factories of participating companies. Then in 2005 the company publicized the names and locations of their contracted factories, a huge acknowledgement of consumer activist influence (Jung). And again desperately trying to mend their image, earlier this year Nike and other companies in need of brand improvement joined with the world’s most famous humanitarian, Bono, lead singer of U2, in creating Product Red. Product Red will raise funds to fight diseases but Nike sees it as a way to look like a superhero replacing the villainous, shifty-eyed look they carry now (Milmo). Yet Nike isn’t the only company concerned about their brand; the concern is universal. Walmart’s spokeperson William Wertz wrote, “No question that such a reputation is a plus. Having confidence that a factory is doing the right things for workers in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions, etc., is important to us (Lynch).” Additionally, the importance of a company’s brand is beneficial to the consumer; it gives us a weapon. Brands force social change. “Positive social change in the developing world is happening more quickly than it otherwise would specifically because of corporations’ need to protect brand value by meeting consumers’ expectations (Hilton).” Company’s dependence on brand means that any challenge to it will demand their utmost attention.
Even with the improvements conditions are still worse than American facilities. Corporations are still outsourcing to developing nations because the wages are still much lower than those of the United States. Yet eliminating sweatshops is not the answer. “No one should defend the horrors – factories with locked doors during fires, employers who confiscate passports and harass workers, etc. – but the fact remains that, on the whole, what most opponents call "sweatshops" are actually a good thing.” As put by Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati sweatshops are a “ticket to slightly less impoverishment.” Economists, both liberal and conservative, are united in their opinion that sweatshops equal progress (Goldberg). In fact, Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote in The New York Times of 1997 that “my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few…those are precisely the jobs that were the stepping stones for Singapore and Hong Kong, and those are the jobs that have to come to Africa to get them out of back-breaking rural poverty (Hilton).” Sweatshops represent about 80% of Cambodia’s total export earnings, and when you ask a local Cambodian for their opinion they will say, as Sophia Mang did, “I like this life better. Both the farm and this are hard work but this is a better life (Lynch).” The word sweatshop may incite opposition but think of the alternatives – prostitution and hunger – and the benefits to sweatshops become immediately apparent.
There is an answer to thirteen year olds working sixteen hours a day for three dollars. The answer is consumer activism. Corporations such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss have outsourced their production to developing nations due to low cost labor but their products are still sold in the United States. Because of that, consumers have power. Consumer activist movements have shown these multi-national corporations that the working conditions of their factories are important and because the customer is always right things have improved. The evidence shows that consumer activism improves working conditions, wages and even lowers unemployment. Improvements occur because of the corporation’s dependence on their brand. “Brands are not the enemy of those wanting to make world a better place, but their greatest ally (Hilton).” Consumer activism improves working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations because consumer activism motivates brand name companies to maintain their reputation.
“2002 Global Brands Scoreboard.” 5 Aug 2002. Business Week Online. 12 Mar 2006.
“Brand.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Goldberg, Jonah. “The Know-Nothings Find a Cause.” The National Review Feb 2001: 30.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Greider, William. “Victory at McDonalds.” Nation Aug 2003: 8-36. EBSCOHost. BrighamYoung U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Harrison, Ann and Jason Scorse. “Improving the Conditions of Workers? Minimum WageLegislation and Anti-Sweatshop Activism.” California Management Review Winter2006: 144-160. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Jung, Helen. “Nike Cast Light on Factories.” The Oregonian 13 Apr 2005. ProQuest.Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
Lynch, David. “Cambodia’s Sale Pitch: Sweatshop-free products.” USA Today 4 April 2005.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Milmo, Cahal. “Ethical Shopping: The Red Revolution.” Belfast Telegraph 27 Jan 2006.ProQuest. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
“Sweatshop.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Wells, Don. “Global Sweatshops and Ethical Buying Codes.” Canada Dimension Oct 2003: 9-11. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
“You can’t stop him! He is just so TALENTED!”The Effects of the Sports Media on African American Stereotypes
Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams, Texas Western – historic names that signify the immergence of the African American athlete in professional sports. Jackie Robinson became the first professional African American baseball player in 1947 debuting with the Brooklyn Dodgers. In football Doug Williams was not the first African American in the NFL, but he became the first African American quarterback to win a Super Bowl in 1988. The first team in NCAA Basketball history to start five African American players was Texas Western – and they won the championship that year. Jackie, Doug and Texas Western broke down racial barriers. Baseball before Jackie Robinson was an all-white-boys club. African Americans before Doug Williams were considered mentally ill-equipped to manage a team as quarterbacks. And no one imagined that an all-black team could win at basketball’s highest level (Wikipedia). Today baseball is black, white and every other color imaginable. In the NFL athletic African American quarterbacks like Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb are among the best at their position. All-black basketball teams are the standard in college and in the NBA. The immergence of the African American athlete has removed barriers to their progress, however stereotypes that limit of African Americans still exist in the sports media.
Sports are American rituals. It starts at a young age, playing catch in the backyard with dad, progresses to Pee-wee and Little League and high school sports. Much later, the long summer days of 18 holes at the local country club characterize the golden years of the typical middle class American. Our live are constantly influenced but sports and the sports media. For the fan, watching sports is not mere passive recreation. Most sports fans don’t just watch the game, they prepare, watch and then review. For example, studies show that a majority of NFL football fans begin their Sundays with the NFL Gameday crew on ESPN with broadcasters offering commentary, analysis and predictions regarding the upcoming games (Rada and Wulfemeyer). Through television, radio and the internet the minds of sport fans are inundated with the opinions and comments of the sports media. And exactly what are they telling us?
With the marriage of television and sports came the assimilation of African Americans into mainstream middle class American culture. African American participation in professional sports began at the same time that television became an integral part of American society. This expanded the market for sports and the possibilities of athletes – and African Americans. The sports market became another avenue to achieve the American dream, go from rags to riches with the swing of a bat or a flick of the wrist. In this meritocracy African Americans have flourished (Rada and Wulfemeyer). They are the stars. However, these stars are being typecasted. In spite of an expanded presence, the sports media continually stereotypes African Americans in one specific role: the “brute.”
Commonly, stereotypes afflict the minority. Stereotypes arise from man’s limited knowledge. They are defined as "cognitive structures that contain the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group (Fujioka)." Stereotypes arise because having intimate knowledge of every member of the human race is impossible. Instead, “we notice a trait which marks a well known type and fill in the rest by means of the stereotype we carry about in our heads.” Stereotyping is not malicious; it is an attempt to understand the world (Buchanan). However, stereotypes limit our understanding of the world. By definition, minorities are less abundant, known and understood, a definition that causes the stereotypes. Stereotypes of minorities are frequently demeaning, as demeaning as “brute”. Webster’s defines “brute” as, “of or relating to beasts; characteristic of an animal in quality, action or instinct; purely physical.” This stereotype of African Americans has existed since they were taken from Africa, subjugated and enslaved (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The “brute” stereotype of African Americans exists in spite of their emancipation and desegregation, in spite of their progress and impact on this country. The “brute” African American is perpetuated through the sports media.
Although the sports media has created an avenue for African American progress it has perpetuated their “brute” image by significantly emphasizing their athleticism and Caucasian intelligence. Since the first steps taken by Jackie, Doug and Texas Western African Americans have been a dominant force in professional sports, and the athleticism of many African Americans is undeniable and overemphasized. Broadcasters, the connection between the viewers and the action, have been shown to repeatedly emphasize athleticism while disregarding other qualities of African Americans. A study on sports commentary performed in 1985 shows that when announcers frame issues and behaviors they do so according to race-based misperceptions. Sports commentary defines Caucasian athletes as hard-working and intelligent while African Americans are physical specimens, genetically advanced super athletes. This does not mean that broadcasters are racist (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The fast-paced action and unscripted commentary creates an environment primed for racial stereotypes. Announcers are pressured to fill time by commenting about everything from an athlete’s childhood to their love life, yet studies show that these comments are significantly skewed to defining African Americans as “brutes.”
One example is the study done by doctors James Rada and Tim Wulfemeyer of college sports. Rada and Wulfemeyer studied the 1998 regular season of college football and the 1999 NCAA basketball tournament, analyzing the commentaries made by the broadcasters. Among other things, the hypotheses that African American players would receive more positive comments relating to athleticism than White player and that White players would receive more regarding intellect were tested. A statistically significant 92% of all comments regarding physical ability were directed to African Americans. Also, Caucasian players received a significantly higher percentage of comments regarding intellect. Additionally, during the basketball tournament, eighteen times references like, “The team they have on the floor right now is just so athletic,” were made about specific teams. In each and every instance the comment referred to teams with five African Americans on the court (Rada and Wulfemeyer). These results indicate the stereotype, and according to Dr. Wonsek of Hunter College African American scholastic inferiority and athletic ability are the most prevalent stereotypes of African Americans today. This sounds an awful lot like the definition of a “brute.”
Because of these unintentionally racist comments the “brute” stereotype prevails. In 1980 a study by Black Enterprise showed that although African Americans have progressed in employment and politics their image in the media is worse than it was ten years ago. The progress and domination that African Americans have achieved in sports has been undermined by the interpretation made by the media. The sports media has attributed their progress to genetics instead of hard work (Wonsek). Another study done by Andrew Billings of Clemson University showed that each success of African American quarterbacks in the NFL were vastly more likely to be attributed to their physical abilities than their minds. So even when African Americans succeed it is not because of their work ethic or their intelligence, it is because they were born as “brutes.”
Though the effects of the media are difficult to quantify, some studies have demonstrated a statistically significant effect of the media on perception. Obviously, there are many other things that influence stereotypes. Parenting, geographic location and peers are just a few of the influence on perceptions. Because there are so many influences it is impossible to isolate the effects of the media. However, the influence can be proved to exist. A study done by Yuki Fujioka compared Japanese and American students’ perceptions of African Americans. Based on the assumption that Japanese students have less direct contact with African Americans than American students, researchers compared both student groups’ perceptions of African Americans. The results first confirmed that Japanese personal contact with African Americans was significantly lower than Americans. The only contact that Japanese students had with African Americans was through the television. Then the data showed that Japanese students hold significantly more negative stereotypes concerning African Americans than American students. Additionally, Japanese ratings of African American work ethic, wealth, trust and intelligence were significantly lower than the ratings of American students. The influence of media does exist. The study shows that media does influence perception of groups especially in absence of their direct contact.
The sports media has provided an excellent medium for African Americans to progress. It gives exposure to their many abilities and enabled them to progress to middle and upper class America. Television is the most powerful marketer of African Americans. They are the stars of professional sports. However these stars are being portrayed as “brutes” by the sports media. Emphasizing African American physical prowess in comparison to Caucasian intelligence only perpetuates the stereotype that has existed in the US since the days of slavery and ignores the progress made by Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams and Texas Western. The evidence of such bias is significant. The sports media perpetuates the “brute” stereotype of African Americans by emphasizing African American athleticism and Caucasian intelligence.
Billings, Andrew. “Depicting the Quarterback in Black and White: A Content Analysisof College and Professional Football Broadcast Commentary.” The HowardJournal of Communications 2004: 201-210. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Buchanan, William. “How Others See Us.” Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science September 1954: 1-11. JSTOR. Brigham Young U.Libs., Provo. 7 Apr 2006.
Definition: Brute. 14 Apr 2006. Merriam-Webster.
Fujioka, Yuki. “Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examination oftelevision effects when direct contact is lacking.” Journalism and MassCommunication Quarterly Spring 1999: 52-76. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Jackie Robinson.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Rada, James and Tim Wulfemeyer. “Color Coded: Racial Descriptors in TelevisionCoverage of Intercollegiate Sports.” Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia March 2005. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Texas Western.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
“Washington Redskins.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Wonsek, Pamela. “College Basketball on Television: A Study of Racism in the Media.”Media, Culture and Society July 1992: 449-461. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Sports are American rituals. It starts at a young age, playing catch in the backyard with dad, progresses to Pee-wee and Little League and high school sports. Much later, the long summer days of 18 holes at the local country club characterize the golden years of the typical middle class American. Our live are constantly influenced but sports and the sports media. For the fan, watching sports is not mere passive recreation. Most sports fans don’t just watch the game, they prepare, watch and then review. For example, studies show that a majority of NFL football fans begin their Sundays with the NFL Gameday crew on ESPN with broadcasters offering commentary, analysis and predictions regarding the upcoming games (Rada and Wulfemeyer). Through television, radio and the internet the minds of sport fans are inundated with the opinions and comments of the sports media. And exactly what are they telling us?
With the marriage of television and sports came the assimilation of African Americans into mainstream middle class American culture. African American participation in professional sports began at the same time that television became an integral part of American society. This expanded the market for sports and the possibilities of athletes – and African Americans. The sports market became another avenue to achieve the American dream, go from rags to riches with the swing of a bat or a flick of the wrist. In this meritocracy African Americans have flourished (Rada and Wulfemeyer). They are the stars. However, these stars are being typecasted. In spite of an expanded presence, the sports media continually stereotypes African Americans in one specific role: the “brute.”
Commonly, stereotypes afflict the minority. Stereotypes arise from man’s limited knowledge. They are defined as "cognitive structures that contain the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group (Fujioka)." Stereotypes arise because having intimate knowledge of every member of the human race is impossible. Instead, “we notice a trait which marks a well known type and fill in the rest by means of the stereotype we carry about in our heads.” Stereotyping is not malicious; it is an attempt to understand the world (Buchanan). However, stereotypes limit our understanding of the world. By definition, minorities are less abundant, known and understood, a definition that causes the stereotypes. Stereotypes of minorities are frequently demeaning, as demeaning as “brute”. Webster’s defines “brute” as, “of or relating to beasts; characteristic of an animal in quality, action or instinct; purely physical.” This stereotype of African Americans has existed since they were taken from Africa, subjugated and enslaved (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The “brute” stereotype of African Americans exists in spite of their emancipation and desegregation, in spite of their progress and impact on this country. The “brute” African American is perpetuated through the sports media.
Although the sports media has created an avenue for African American progress it has perpetuated their “brute” image by significantly emphasizing their athleticism and Caucasian intelligence. Since the first steps taken by Jackie, Doug and Texas Western African Americans have been a dominant force in professional sports, and the athleticism of many African Americans is undeniable and overemphasized. Broadcasters, the connection between the viewers and the action, have been shown to repeatedly emphasize athleticism while disregarding other qualities of African Americans. A study on sports commentary performed in 1985 shows that when announcers frame issues and behaviors they do so according to race-based misperceptions. Sports commentary defines Caucasian athletes as hard-working and intelligent while African Americans are physical specimens, genetically advanced super athletes. This does not mean that broadcasters are racist (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The fast-paced action and unscripted commentary creates an environment primed for racial stereotypes. Announcers are pressured to fill time by commenting about everything from an athlete’s childhood to their love life, yet studies show that these comments are significantly skewed to defining African Americans as “brutes.”
One example is the study done by doctors James Rada and Tim Wulfemeyer of college sports. Rada and Wulfemeyer studied the 1998 regular season of college football and the 1999 NCAA basketball tournament, analyzing the commentaries made by the broadcasters. Among other things, the hypotheses that African American players would receive more positive comments relating to athleticism than White player and that White players would receive more regarding intellect were tested. A statistically significant 92% of all comments regarding physical ability were directed to African Americans. Also, Caucasian players received a significantly higher percentage of comments regarding intellect. Additionally, during the basketball tournament, eighteen times references like, “The team they have on the floor right now is just so athletic,” were made about specific teams. In each and every instance the comment referred to teams with five African Americans on the court (Rada and Wulfemeyer). These results indicate the stereotype, and according to Dr. Wonsek of Hunter College African American scholastic inferiority and athletic ability are the most prevalent stereotypes of African Americans today. This sounds an awful lot like the definition of a “brute.”
Because of these unintentionally racist comments the “brute” stereotype prevails. In 1980 a study by Black Enterprise showed that although African Americans have progressed in employment and politics their image in the media is worse than it was ten years ago. The progress and domination that African Americans have achieved in sports has been undermined by the interpretation made by the media. The sports media has attributed their progress to genetics instead of hard work (Wonsek). Another study done by Andrew Billings of Clemson University showed that each success of African American quarterbacks in the NFL were vastly more likely to be attributed to their physical abilities than their minds. So even when African Americans succeed it is not because of their work ethic or their intelligence, it is because they were born as “brutes.”
Though the effects of the media are difficult to quantify, some studies have demonstrated a statistically significant effect of the media on perception. Obviously, there are many other things that influence stereotypes. Parenting, geographic location and peers are just a few of the influence on perceptions. Because there are so many influences it is impossible to isolate the effects of the media. However, the influence can be proved to exist. A study done by Yuki Fujioka compared Japanese and American students’ perceptions of African Americans. Based on the assumption that Japanese students have less direct contact with African Americans than American students, researchers compared both student groups’ perceptions of African Americans. The results first confirmed that Japanese personal contact with African Americans was significantly lower than Americans. The only contact that Japanese students had with African Americans was through the television. Then the data showed that Japanese students hold significantly more negative stereotypes concerning African Americans than American students. Additionally, Japanese ratings of African American work ethic, wealth, trust and intelligence were significantly lower than the ratings of American students. The influence of media does exist. The study shows that media does influence perception of groups especially in absence of their direct contact.
The sports media has provided an excellent medium for African Americans to progress. It gives exposure to their many abilities and enabled them to progress to middle and upper class America. Television is the most powerful marketer of African Americans. They are the stars of professional sports. However these stars are being portrayed as “brutes” by the sports media. Emphasizing African American physical prowess in comparison to Caucasian intelligence only perpetuates the stereotype that has existed in the US since the days of slavery and ignores the progress made by Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams and Texas Western. The evidence of such bias is significant. The sports media perpetuates the “brute” stereotype of African Americans by emphasizing African American athleticism and Caucasian intelligence.
Billings, Andrew. “Depicting the Quarterback in Black and White: A Content Analysisof College and Professional Football Broadcast Commentary.” The HowardJournal of Communications 2004: 201-210. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Buchanan, William. “How Others See Us.” Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science September 1954: 1-11. JSTOR. Brigham Young U.Libs., Provo. 7 Apr 2006.
Definition: Brute. 14 Apr 2006. Merriam-Webster.
Fujioka, Yuki. “Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examination oftelevision effects when direct contact is lacking.” Journalism and MassCommunication Quarterly Spring 1999: 52-76. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Jackie Robinson.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Rada, James and Tim Wulfemeyer. “Color Coded: Racial Descriptors in TelevisionCoverage of Intercollegiate Sports.” Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia March 2005. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Texas Western.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
“Washington Redskins.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Wonsek, Pamela. “College Basketball on Television: A Study of Racism in the Media.”Media, Culture and Society July 1992: 449-461. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
