Word is Bond

X-corcise Your Wardrobe!

   Mon, March 10, 2008 - 6:53 PM
How do we get out of the consumerist cycle of exploitation? We start by fessing up to the problem and admitting our own participation in it. From there, we can come up with creative solutions to this social and spiritual dillemma.

When I was in high school I remember a boycott being called on products coming out of South Africa. This was back when apartheid was in full-effect and Nelson Mandela was still in prison. The boycott caught the attention of an entire generation of consumers and I can recall not buying the then-in-fashion Rebok sneakers (I was an avid breakdancer and my entire crew joined the boycott). It was one of my earliest exposures to activisim and conscious consumerism.

As things are now, I do avoid purchases from retailers that employ unfair labor practices. It ain't all that easy. I can remember the disappointment going through racks and finding something that looked great, but having to put it back when seeing the label.

Gap, Bannana Republic, Old Navy, Target, Nike... the shitlist goes on... but I had a special issue when doing my second hand shopping.

I passionately endorse second-hand thrift shopping. Many second hand stores raise money for non-profit organizations. Goodwill, Salvation Army, Out-Of-The-Closet, and local operations like Community Thrift (big money for AIDS research) take the dread out of clothes shopping knowing that profits go to helping humanity and not to exploiting it. I remember years ago finding a clean, almost new pair of Nike's that fit me perfectly. I was in a quandry: Do I buy these shoes made in slave labor conditions or do I remain abstinent?

I considered the pros and cons. I realized that Nike was not going to make profit off of this purchase, but that I would be wearing the product, in effect, providing free advertisement and preceived endorsement. I put the shoes on. Damn, they felt good! (-and you know how difficult it is to find shoes that fit second hand). My solution came to me in that moment: Buy the shoes and tear off the logo!

I bought the shoes at an outrageously low price then took them home and proceeded to attempt to cut the swoosh off with an exacto blade. What I found was that these things are manufactured to REALLY make it hard to remove the label! The stitching was intrigal to the whole structure of the shoe! Well, not one to be thwarted from my intentions, I grabbed a black sharpie marker and drew a large "X" across the swoosh. I kinda liked how it looked! I then started to "X" all of the logos (and there were a few). People would ask me what the hell was that about. I got to tell them about Nike's messed up labor practices and about getting them at a non-profit second hand. People liked the idea. By the time I made it into the SF Art Institute as a student, the aesthetic was perfected and it became a part of my style as well as my statement.

It is years later and I still "X" my labels. I feel that the second hand sale of a garment "exorcises" the corporate evil out of it and that the "X" is simply a manifestation of the exorcism and demonstrates a counter-endorsement and an anti-advertisement.

Recently a guest at Harbin noticed the "X" on my label and thought it was ultra cool. She said it had that "D.I.Y." aesthetic that her kids were into. It was then that I realized that I just might be on to something.

I want to popularize this practice. Being the activist that I am I want to tell as many folks about it as I possibly can. This includes you reading this blog entry here. Perhaps there will eventually be a website and maybe a YouTube vid, but this is a decent place to start.

So, what you need is a black Sharpie "laundry marker"
Just draw an "X" over the offending logo or label and Wallah! Your second-hand clothes are purified of the evil they were made of! (This also goes for the first-hand purchases you've made before going second-hand)

So, you can now "cross your T (shirts)" and feel free from financing the greed and corporate exploitation!



6 Comments

add a comment
Mon, March 10, 2008 - 8:16 PM
...

Sensei,

Wow, I thought I was the only one ... i'm not so much into the X, but I black out logos on clothes I purchase (on the rare occasion that I actually purchase clothes), because I don't want to be really associated with any particular brand (and besides, I go for basic black, and those damn logos just ruin the _effect_ <smile>). With respect to thrift shopping -- kudos there as well. Spend less, save more ...

However, I really feel that I must fess up as well and point out one small phrase (but rather core to your post here) that I think needs clarification, and that is:

"knowing that profits go to helping humanity and not to exploiting it"

First, some background. I'm a music composer, code geek, and I think GWB is the worst excuse the USA has had for a president in generations. However, i'm also an economics geek (mostly macroeconomics), so I must point out that, while sweatshops are very often horrible places to work (and the corporations that build them should definitely be held accountable for them), they also provide employment opportunities for legions of extremely poor people who have very few such opportunities, and while the pay is an absolute pittance by our standards, it is a job for them where they had none before, and often pays far more than local shopkeepers can afford to (assuming the locals even _had_ jobs to offer). Sweatshops are horrible places to work, surely ... but look at this from the perspective of someone who is dirt poor and has to feed their family -- that sweatshop job is very often the only means available of putting food on the table. While I don't like the idea of people working in terrible conditions any more than anyone else, I have to ask myself what needs to be assuaged more -- my conscience, or their hunger?

We, as citizens of wealthy countries, _really_ need to be aware not only of how much we consume (and as a minimalist, I prefer to limit what I purchase, and as an economics geek, I prefer to save as much as possible, because over-consumption is a _big_ problem in the USA), but of how good we have it in general. This means realizing that there is a _world_ of difference between the lives we live and the lives of many, many people far less fortunate in other parts of the world. I would love to see everyone in the world make a living wage by my standards, but idealism is always several steps at best, and several miles at worst, ahead of realism. If we really want to help, we need to be aware of, and adapt our strategies to, both.

Regards,

John

Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com

Tue, March 11, 2008 - 2:45 AM
disagree.
Thanks John. I appreciate the thoughtful response. Respectfully, I must also disagree.

While we (that is, the industrialized US) are somewhat removed from the context and reality of the cultures and countries that employ people in these sweatshops, we do know that even in the relative economic context of many of these countries, these textile manufacturing companies still offer low wages, exploiting the desparation of these people. What myself (and a whole lot of others) are pissed off at is the unfairness not only to those workers overseas but also the unfairness to workers here. There is a reality to this situation that few people take into consideration. We think that WE are providing jobs for the poor by buying our cheap (or overpriced) clothes, but there will always be something else. Factories setting up shop in agricultural towns simply throw off the pre-existing balance. Moving away from an agrairian way of life is not really an improvement.

Apart from this, there is also migration. Workers will go where there is work. I came up on Steinbeck novels and one thing those stories show is that as fucked up as things can get, the history of migration has been predicated on need. Its been a part of human history from the get-go.

Many people here like to think that the money they spend on clothes are going to employ these people but the fact is that they get so very little of the take that its nothing to feel good about. I know this is uncomfortable to think about, but its what we MUST think about. The textile industry is simply one single industry that has this fucked up way about things and it might seem we have no choice, but I'm not settled on that.

But I know that's not most people here. I know that they sleep soundly at night believing that the blankets and sheets they sleep upon were manufactured by happy little elves working up in the north pole for Santa Clause... or something just as ludicrist.
Tue, March 11, 2008 - 10:00 AM
...

Sensei,

Economics rule #1: Everyone acts to maximize their own utility (read: everyone wants to make their lives better)

Tell me -- if these sweatshops offer low wages even with respect to their local economic context, why are there people working there? How did these sweatshops manage to get these workers, if other local employers in the area pay higher wages? How did these sweatshops manage to entice workers to work there, if their agrarian lifestyle was meeting all of their needs? Do you really think that these people are thinking "you know, my life is a farmer is really good, but I want to work in that sweatshop where it will be very bad," or "you know, my brother has a bookstore, and he'll pay me $5 per day, but no, I want to work in that sweatshop for $2 instead."

The point is, if there weren't a labor pool -- that is, people willing to work under these conditions (which makes one _really_ think of what their conditions must be like _without_ the sweatshop -- again, see rule #1), these sweatshops wouldn't be able to find workers. Because you know, life as a farmer in Vietnam, western China or Argentina must be really good ... you know, back to the land, lead a simple life, raise livestock, etc. It all sounds very idyllic in many ways, but without filtration and water purification systems, you'll likely suffer from dysentery or any of the other myriad of diseases that plague so many underdeveloped parts of the world, and without hospitals, you're more likely to die as a result of said disease. Without roads and a well-developed transportation system, you'll never get yourself _to_ the hospital (assuming there is one) or your crops to market, and without a fiscally responsible government and sound economic program, there wouldn't _be_ a market (or, most likely, a hospital). Again -- our perspectives of farming life are based on life here -- farmers in other parts of the world experience something _completely_ different. To use your analogy, some may sleep well at night thinking that farmers in Vietnam are living this beautiful, halcyon life, awakening to birdsong every morning, frolicking in the meadows every afternoon after doing their chores and tending their crops, and going to sleep with a full belly by the side of a gentle, babbling brook every night. That's fantasy -- the reality is much, much worse.

Regards,

John

Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com


Tue, March 11, 2008 - 3:05 PM
I actively remove labels when they are visible because I don't want to look like a walking advertisement.

I just wish those with passions like yours could start a clothing line that was more ethical and yet affordable (not cheap, just affordable). I am also an odd size and have a really rough time of it especially in second hand shops, not complaining about my figure mind you. Just that I am in my 30's and the sizes available that fit me are for teeny girls that have not developed hips or otherwise just too immature for me, or not practical for a variety of kicking motions. ;) (for some reason that is really important to the MA partner of mine.)

Sometimes I score though. Found a Sweater coat made in the US in natural earth tones for like 3.00. And although I don't like synthetic fabrics- it has been a great investment- everyone likes it.

I also focus on longevity of the fabric- thus will invest in silk, wool etc. For health and other reasons.

What I do to a sewing machine is torture- for it. LOL So that will never be an option to make clothes. I suppose I should work harder on resources.

Our household is just fortunate that the work we do doesn't require approval of fashion savvy.

Plenty of room to think ethically when shopping- thanks for the reminder. :)
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 4:50 PM
John
Your argument that the agrarian lifestyle does not support the people is a bogus argument.

The issue with people moving into the cities to avoid starvation, is NOT about the agrarian lifestyle not meeting their needs, but rather that the governments are controlling more and more land and taking it away from the people. The people are being forced into increasing slavery in sweatshops (at pennies on the dollar of end profit's).

Much of the land now serves NAFTA agreements, aka corporate profit's. Study the happening's in Mexico and Brazil especially. Ever have a Starbucks coffee? Starbucks ALONE is making the Mexican government rich beyond belief while the land that once supported the people is being confiscated FROM the people. First the people of Mexico lived collectively and sharred the farms, then wealthy families in Mexico came to control the land, now it's the Mexican government that wealthy Mexican families have sold their farms too and moved to the USA and elsewhere.
Thu, July 2, 2009 - 6:54 PM
Thanks Ciara...
That is yet another evil that Starbucks perpetrates (along with agressively overwhelming independent neighborhood cafes and financing Israel). I have moved to a rural area and have found that the government meddles in private affairs in some pretty nasty ways.