Jump to content


Photo

What price fashion?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Toyin

Toyin

    Ligali Member

  • Moderator
  • 1532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Pan Africanism & Human Rights
    Female Empowerment
    African Literature, Film and Arts
    Conscious Music
    Sci-Fi

  • Are you African: Y
  • Cultural Heritage:
    Yoruba (Nigeria)

Posted 05 February 2004 - 12:01 PM

A report released several years ago revealed African Britons to be highly susceptible to advertising. This suggested that if we looked at the figures proportionally, we are greater consumers of western products than europeans themselves. The obvious result of this is that by our community purchasing clothes made by organisations that operate sweatshop factories, we are helping maintain inequality in our own countries. The worker who made those £50 trousers was typically paid 50p. Yet the sister who sewed that African top in the market only has to pay rent for her stand and material/labour costs before she makes a profit.

Should we as a community start designing, manufacturing and distributing our own reasonable priced range of clothes en mass?

Clearly not everybody would be comfortable wearing one type of African based attire but seeing that there are wide and diverse styles that could be incorporated from all over the Diaspora would this not make a fantastic fashion/political statement of social and cultural independence?

Wouldn’t African Britons also be financially better off buying simple inexpensive wraps, dresses, shirts, tops, etc suitable for most occasions whilst simultaneously benefiting from the development of a home grown industry that could be distributed via markets and for the entrepreneur… via online websites?

#2 Precious Stone

Precious Stone

    Advanced Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Art, Fashion, Reading, Writing

Posted 07 February 2004 - 09:10 PM

QUOTE (Toyin @ Feb 5 2004, 12:01 PM)
The obvious result of this is that by our community purchasing clothes made by organisations that operate sweatshop factories, we are helping maintain inequality in our own countries. The worker who made those £50 trousers was typically paid 50p. Yet the sister who sewed that African top in the market only has to pay rent for her stand and material/labour costs before she makes a profit.

That is why many designers/retailers are sourcing manufacturers abroad who operates under a sweatshop environment in order to make a profit, even though they claimed they are not aware of such conditions, as was the case with P. Diddy last September.

I think we as a community should start to manufacture over own range aimed at the mass market. With the mass market being a bit overcrowded, in order for such a venture to run successfully it would have to operate with two price points, one aimed at the lower market (mass) and the other aimed at the middle-upper market. If this is operated on a 'manufacture on own account' as you mentioned, I agree that there would be no need to use factories that operate under sweatshop conditions, and profits would be generated back into the community.

The strength of such an organisation would lie in design and marketing expertise and the ability to anticipate possible fluctuations in level of demand along with strong managerial skills.

#3 Jag

Jag

    Advanced Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 08:09 AM

Viviene Westwood Celebration - V&A Museum on now until 11 July. www.vam.ac.uk

PS - Did you know there was a Caribbean Fashion Show earlier this month ? Apparantly has aims to rival London, Milan, NY & Paris.

#4 Tahliba

Tahliba

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 24 July 2004 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE (Toyin @ Feb 5 2004, 12:01 PM)
A report released several years ago revealed African Britons to be highly susceptible to advertising. This suggested that if we looked at the figures proportionally, we are greater consumers of western products than europeans themselves. The obvious result of this is that by our community purchasing clothes made by organisations that operate sweatshop factories, we are helping maintain inequality in our own countries. The worker who made those £50 trousers was typically paid 50p. Yet the sister who sewed that African top in the market only has to pay rent for her stand and material/labour costs before she makes  a profit.

Should we as a community start designing, manufacturing and distributing our own reasonable priced range of clothes en mass?

Clearly not everybody would be comfortable wearing one type of African based attire but seeing that there are wide and diverse styles that could be incorporated from all over the Diaspora would this not make a fantastic fashion/political statement of social and cultural independence?

Wouldn’t African Britons also be financially better off buying simple inexpensive wraps, dresses, shirts, tops, etc suitable for most occasions whilst  simultaneously benefiting from the development of a home grown industry that could be distributed via markets and for the entrepreneur… via online websites?

In short yes.

However, in order to make profit, on the market, we would have to adopt the same working practices (profit making) of the competition. So who would we screw?... Our own?...And who would the profits go to?...The workers or the shareholders?

How would such an idea be organized?

@Jag

Still don't get it, do you? wink.gif

#5 Tahliba

Tahliba

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 24 July 2004 - 06:47 PM

Capital's Logic, People Resisting

by Yves Engler; May 30, 2003

There were demonstrations of 600,000 people in Paris and 90,000 in Germany this past Sunday. Strikes have paralyzed both France and Austria recently.

In Peru on Tuesday President Alejandro Toledo declared a 30-day state of emergency and sent troops into the streets to end strikes by teachers and many others.

What is happening? On the surface, the issues are pretty straightforward. In France the main issues are change to retirement benefits. Currently, public workers are able to retire after a 37.5-year contribution period, which the government wants to increase to 40 years. Germans unions are mad at Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's plan to cap unemployment benefits at 12 months for those under 55 and 18 months for those over 55. The proposal is also to make it easier for small firms to hire and fire new workers. The issues are similar in Austria. In Peru, teachers are demanding a wage increase of $60 to $260 (US) per month, which they claim is barely a living wage. Farmers want lower taxes on equipment. Underlying the strikes and demonstrations, however, is a more fundamental question. What is the point of an economy?

While the answer may seem obvious enough - to provide people with decent lives - capitalism often confuses the matter by claiming its interests and the role of the economy are the same.

Take the U.S. medical system as an example. The U.S. spends by far the most money on health care of any country in the world, about 14% of gross domestic product. The next closest country spends just over 10 percent. (www.pslgroup.com) Not only do Americans allocate a larger percentage of GDP to health care, they spend more in absolute dollars. Americans pay $4,637 on average for health coverage while Canadians, the fourth biggest spenders, shell out $2,200 (US) (Globe and Mail). This is good for segments of the economy. Pharmaceutical companies are making big bucks, U.S. doctors are some of the highest paid, fancy new technologies are being sold that purportedly do miraculous things, the hospitals are getting their cut and the insurance companies keep raising their costs, so surely all is swell.

Not really. According to the N.Y Times there are "60 million uninsured during a year (May 13)" Don't despair, however, since according to the Financial Times at least "the system is world-class (May 24)" for those with employer paid insurance. But is it?

American life expectancy is only the 17th highest in the world (www.eagle-min.com). More importantly a World Health Organization study that counted years of good health showed that the U.S. ranked even lower by that measure. "The United States rated 24th under the system, or an average of 70.0 years of healthy life for babies born in 1999." Christopher Murray, a director from WHO summarized the findings; "Basically, you die earlier and spend more time disabled if you're an American rather than a member of most other advanced countries." (www.who.com) This doesn't sound "world class" and it isn't. Unless we define "world class" as the degree to which the system is controlled by private interests.

No other industrialized country has a medical system with a greater for-profit orientation. And capital is happy, so why let early death dampen the mood.

To be fair to the U.S. medical establishment, lower American life expectancy is not solely the result of its absurd profit orientation. Nor is the medical sector the only one where the economy has lost its way in serving ordinary people.

For instance, one of the reasons for the shorter American life expectancy is the degree to which Americans work. Even though new time saving devices have been invented and production capabilities are expanding, Americans are still working longer. As a result of the weakening of the organized U.S. working class, Americans are now working 200 hours more than they did in the early 1970s (NY Times April 12). This is taking place while in europe people are working less. The average Norwegian now works 29 percent less than the average American - a total of 14 weeks per year less. In the past two decades the percentage of Americans over 65 who are still working has increased by close to 50% (La Presse) Because of a 1983 Congressional decision, by 2027 the American retirement age will officially increase to 67. This is not just happening in the U.S. The extremely pro-business Tory government in Ontario, Canada's largest province, decided to increase the province's workweek so workers could work 60 hours in a given week and not receive a dime in overtime pay.

According to the N.Y. Times, "the harmful effects of working more hours are being felt in many areas of society. Stress is a leading cause of heart disease and weakened immune system." (April 12) It's unhealthy to work so much but also why would we bother? Technological advances should lead to more leisure, not less. But somehow the mainstream press seems to miss that point.

The overwhelming dominance of "capitalist logic" is such that all too often the ills of our world are explained through the lens of what is good for a tiny minority of our population. For instance, according to a recent National Post article "productivity losses due to depression, anxiety, substance abuse and burnout run at about $33-billion a year in Canada (May 14)" Or how about those World Bank officials who complain about the devastating impact AIDS is having on African economies. Productivity losses? Impact on economies? Isn't depression damaging people's lives and aren't African children growing up without parents? But capitalism has its own logic and according to it everything that can be, should be explained in economic terms. And if it can't be explained in economic terms than surely it isn't really important. What regular people care about is all too often irrelevant.

Nevertheless, people do care. That is why a few days ago 7,000 East German steel workers voted to strike for a 35-hour workweek. Currently they work 38 hours, which gives them three hours less leisure than their West German counterparts and unemployment is high in their region so they hope a reduced workweek will help create jobs.

In France, hundreds of thousand of people care enough to hit the streets to say 37.5 years of work is enough. In Peru, millions care enough to demand a living wage. These people are acting in the self-interest of their communities, which is not the same as the self-interest of capital. They are acting sensibly, and should be supported if one considers the economy as an instrument for the community of all people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yves engler is Vice President Communications Concordia Student Union. He
can be reached at yvesengler@hotmail.com

#6 Jag

Jag

    Advanced Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 06:05 PM

@Tahliba - Yes I do get it, but I don't think you do. My one post in here was aimed at PS who is interested in such things. She's even discussed here similar events at the V&A with Trini if I recall right.

#7 Maat

Maat

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Gender:Female

  • Are you African: Y
  • Cultural Heritage:
    Guyana & St Vincent

Posted 09 April 2008 - 08:38 PM

[quote name='Toyin' date='Feb 5 2004, 01:01 PM' post='1104']
A report released several years ago revealed African Britons to be highly susceptible to advertising. This suggested that if we looked at the figures proportionally, we are greater consumers of western products than europeans themselves. The obvious result of this is that by our community purchasing clothes made by organisations that operate sweatshop factories, we are helping maintain inequality in our own countries. The worker who made those £50 trousers was typically paid 50p. Yet the sister who sewed that African top in the market only has to pay rent for her stand and material/labour costs before she makes a profit.

Should we as a community start designing, manufacturing and distributing our own reasonable priced range of clothes en mass?


It would be a good idea and I'm sure it happens on a small scale but the community needs to first of all take pride and actually wear our attire. With enough pride demand would be high enough keep the supply coming?


Clearly not everybody would be comfortable wearing one type of African based attire but seeing that there are wide and diverse styles that could be incorporated from all over the Diaspora would this not make a fantastic fashion/political statement of social and cultural independence?

It definitely would. To think when we wear our attire people step back as it is so we wouldn't even have to say a word. Politics isn't always spoken in fact I think alot more can be said with our actions than words!


Wouldn’t African Britons also be financially better off buying simple inexpensive wraps, dresses, shirts, tops, etc suitable for most occasions whilst simultaneously benefiting from the development of a home grown industry that could be distributed via markets and for the entrepreneur… via online websites?


Yes but sadly not enough of us seem to view it that way especially when price and status plays such a big role now. Often I have this argument with others who often complain that when we buy amongst ourselves it's too expensive and so they go back to the europeans who dominate the markets and keep us promoting their goods. Granted I used to be guilty of that too but there comes a time as you grow that this topic undoubtedly comes up "why don't we have our own this and that?" but at some point we need to realize when it comes to business is that we will never have our own establishments if we don't be patient and loyal enough to keep spending amongst us and trust that as long as we do that and continue to do that, our things will grow in time.

Edited by Maat, 09 April 2008 - 08:38 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users