http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8113986/21506105
A group of concerned citizens looking to involve Americans in the political process, get to the core of what democracy should really be about. Action and involvement that should be sparked by its citizen's not by its corporate body. The act in this video with the best intentions of exposing Target's unjust involvement in the political process, but what are the participants really asking for? If everyone stopped shopping at Target what would then materialize? What about the just products that Target sells, what would become of those vendors? What would be the implications of cutting off all shopping at Target? Is the answer to attack companies individually? Or is it to reformulate injustice at its core? Address laws that are written and conducive to an unjust political, economic, and social climate? Have citizens resorted to their only power being to feed into the consumerism and materialism that has been the environment accepted and embraced by society? Why do I have to pay for my voice to hopefully be heard? Is my inherent right of freedom of expression and speech not enough to be loud and get people to listen? Evidently it isn't. But why is this? Should we accept this and try to exercise different ways to exhibit power, or can we try harder to attack injustice at it's core? We have the information, we have the inherent right written in our laws, but will anyone listen? Can we make them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Injustice at its core is how individuals choose to treat other individuals. We can attempt to treat everyone in a just manner and see that type of behavior spread. Children are not always treated in a just manner and therefore what do they learn. Let us be loving and just to all we encounter, especially the children, as that example may be the seeds of future justice and dare I say. love.
ReplyDeleteThis whole situation with Target just infuriates me because they didn't donate that money to make an anti-gay statement - they did it for business reasons...to open a store that would create jobs and contribute to the American economy. Business doesn't always mean politics, but most of the time it does. Corporations that don't get involved in lobbying will lose out to the corporations that do, and that's just the way it is - like it or not. You're absolutely right, Danielle - we shouldn't have to boycott stores to be heard and I think the American public is inherently smart enough to understand that Target didn't intend malice with its political contributions. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be upset about Target's donation - I'm not, but I can understand why some would be. But boycotting stores that provide a great to service to our economy (and great shoes, might I add...) is just a melodramatic way for people to be a part of something bigger than they are. It's a detriment and it plain old pisses me off. And the worst part? This strategy works, and as long as it keeps corporations by the short & curlies it will keep happening. People are just too lazy to speak up and make people hear them in more creative ways.
ReplyDeleteUgh...don't get me started here.
What I don't like about companies like Target is not that they do things for profit, that is the very goal of a business obviously. What I do care about and am not okay with is that this should not be at the expense of human life, and blatant disregard of the latter. Companies, are for profit, and they need to aim for the highest possible Total Cost-Total Revenue, but there should be standards for respectful production of product abroad and here, and these should be ingrained in our laws, and policies, and not just domestic laws, but international laws and standards as well because we are talking about American companies, we have jurisdiction over those companies, therefore we have responsibility to adhere to human rights, because they exist. Standards should not be so that those who do not lobby lose out from the get-go. Profit, is a companies primary concern but it should never be at the expense of human rights or livelihood.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Tony I don't know who you are but I totally agree! Children are the future, and they are the most important tool for change. If we cannot instill good values in our future generation, we cannot ensure it will be a good one!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robin that boycotts are of limited use and that it would be great to divorce money and politics. I do think that the video is a great example of creativity, though. And as I wrote on my blog, Target may have learned a lesson from its shareholders here:
ReplyDeletehttp://environmentalgeography.blogspot.com/2010/09/bit-more-on-target.html
Of course, at the moment Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to make it impossible to find out where corporate contributions are going, apparently not trusting the free market in this instance. In other words, the Supremes took the limits off political spending but the market reacted. So now Congress -- in deference to its donors -- is ready to help hide the money trail.
I do however agree that this was a creative way to be heard, also we are not sure of the intent of these activists. They could have used this to further their own cause being GLBTA rights. Target not a great company anyway not because of specifically what these activists are complaining here but because of their utilization of sweatshops. Companies do what will make them the most money, period. The public needs to speak in a way that makes change, we need to be smart. We need to take nothing at face value and be critical of everything. With their incentive being money, I don't see the truth anywhere among their incentives. During the Vietnam War era the war was so popular corporations followed suite, they would lose business if they were pro-war. The corporations acted because it meant a cut in their profit margin, if they see that happening again their actions will shift.
ReplyDelete