Buyer Beware

[macwilkin]

I agree. We occasionally hear this but no valid proof is ever brought forward. Hopefully it isn't the company that sent me five identical spam emails this morning!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this story a bit much. In the British Army, other ranks uniforms and kit were provided by the MoD, while officers were expected to private purchase uniforms and equipment. While we all know that the government generally goes to the lowest bidder, I don't see the Victorian army choosing to purchase kilts from a firm in India over a firm in the Borders...

T.

[slohairt]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this story a bit much. In the British Army, other ranks uniforms and kit were provided by the MoD, while officers were expected to private purchase uniforms and equipment. While we all know that the government generally goes to the lowest bidder, I don't see the Victorian army choosing to purchase kilts from a firm in India over a firm in the Borders...

T.

Exactly. Officer's uniform and kilt would have been purchased before embarking for the Indian subcontinent. I could accept individual tailors providing alterations and replacements while the regiments were stationed nearby, but a military contract to a firm is highly unlikely.

As a side note: This may come as a shock to some, but my company was not founded in ancient times, nor is it staffed by equally ancient Keltoi peoples whether they be Gauls, Belgae, or Fomorians. Sorry if I misled anyone...

[Cavebear58]

12345

[macwilkin]

I didn't say that they were supplying to the forces. As you correctly say, it was private purchases by officers as they generally had to provide their own uniforms until (and including) the 1914-1918 War.

I haven't visited Pakistan, but I have been into more than one tailors' shop in India and seen photographs taken outside the same shop of officers in late Victorian times wearing uniform that was made for them there. I suspect that the perceived quality differentials were not so great in those days.

That's about the best I can provide as a source - I wasn't aware that this site was an academic one where one had to provide such things or where the word of another member had to be challenged in such a manner. My point was about two alternative choices a consumer has and was questioning whether either was more ethical than the other. It wasn't a point about the historical facts.

Regards, Graham.

Stuart Reid's Queen Victoria's Highlanders mentions regimental tailors, who were "time-served" kilt makers assigned to battalions on active service during the period. (p. 45). Whilst I have never disputed the fact that many British officers did have local tailors make uniforms for them, I have yet to see documented evidence of an Indian tailor making a kilt -- and why would there be a need, if there were "time-served" kilt-makers in their battalion? Did the photos you saw show Highland officers in particular?

I'm sorry if you are offended by asking for sources. I suppose it's part of the nature of my trade as a historian to do so. I would love to be proved wrong with a creditable source -- in fact, most historians do.

T.

[NorCalPiper]

I love how westerners tend to side step the other atrocities these companies purvey. Unethical business practices include having workers work for next to nothing in sweat shop like atmosphere, as well as child labor. But I guess if you want a good deal on a cheap sporran that just doesn't matter as long as you don't have to see it or know about it....

[Chas]

I love how westerners tend to side step the other atrocities these companies purvey. Unethical business practices include having workers work for next to nothing in sweat shop like atmosphere, as well as child labor. But I guess if you want a good deal on a cheap sporran that just doesn't matter as long as you don't have to see it or know about it....

Just because it is illegal in the US, does not mean that it is illegal everywhere. I will not be made to feel as if I am committing a cardinal sin for purchasing an article that is made legally in its country of origin. If memory serves it is the large multinationals that stand accused of exploiting third-world populations not a small company in the developing world trying to break into the western market. Nike comes to mind. 'Just do it' Well they have done it, all over the third world.

Regards

Chas

[davedove]

WE have to remember as well, that sometimes what we might consider "next to nothing" is actually several times the average income in these other countries.

Just for instance, in Pakistan in 2003 the average income was about $2000. If a company were to go in and pay all its workers $4000, that would make the workers very well off, but that's poverty level wages for us in the States.

[NorCalPiper]

"I will not be made to feel as if I am committing a cardinal sin for purchasing an article that is made legally in its country of origin."



I should have used that statement for the typical westerner who rationalizes purchases as long as they don't have to see, or witness the conditions of which it was produced. Very nice.....

[NorCalPiper]

Daredove wrote:"Just for instance, in Pakistan in 2003 the average income was about $2000. If a company were to go in and pay all its workers $4000, that would make the workers very well off, but that's poverty level wages for us in the States"

The I.L.O. wrote this about the child labor conditions in Sialkot:
FYI-Rs 800 =17US$
the children’s average work time is nine hours a day and their monthly income ranges between Rs780 and Rs1,733 (according to age and experience). ILO project manager (Sialkot) Mian Muhammad Binyamin told journalists that a majority (56.7 per cent) of the working children preferred to go to school. Some want full-time schooling, others part-time and some others vocational training.

The alarming aspect of the situation was the physical health of the working children a majority of whom had disturbed sleep. Physical punishment by parents/elders and injuries during work besides poor height, weight and pulmonary functions were part of such children’s lives.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Daredove wrote:"Just for instance, in Pakistan in 2003 the average income was about $2000. If a company were to go in and pay all its workers $4000, that would make the workers very well off, but that's poverty level wages for us in the States"

The I.L.O. wrote this about the child labor conditions in Sialkot:
FYI-Rs 800 =17US$
the children’s average work time is nine hours a day and their monthly income ranges between Rs780 and Rs1,733 (according to age and experience). ILO project manager (Sialkot) Mian Muhammad Binyamin told journalists that a majority (56.7 per cent) of the working children preferred to go to school. Some want full-time schooling, others part-time and some others vocational training.

The alarming aspect of the situation was the physical health of the working children a majority of whom had disturbed sleep. Physical punishment by parents/elders and injuries during work besides poor height, weight and pulmonary functions were part of such children’s lives.

As alarming, heart-wrenching, and morally outrageous as this may be, what would be their condition without the Rs 1200 the average child worker takes home? I doubt, over all, that their lot would be improved one bit. So, should one boycott Pakistani products on moral grounds with the increase in human misery that would create, or should one just accept the fact that we are dealing with a different culture, one that places a lesser value on the welfare of their children? I know this is probably not a popular view out on the west coast of America, but in my book paying a kid Rs 1200 to work 12 hours a day sure beats watching him starve to death on the sidewalk.

I find it interesting that people decry imperialism in all its forms, unless it is a cultural imperialism designed to make the "natives" more like the "enlightened" westerners. Then it seems to be okay.