Since I did not begin at the same starting position as the makers of this film, I had no chance to go along with what they're trying to say.
Cricisms of wealthy people are as old as people themselves. Saying that the wealth was obtained dishonestly or that the wealthy person is hurting people makes it easier to justify taking the wealth away.
The movie attempts to demonstrate how these companies are hurting people. Its first example is how Nike pays 'slave wages' to those who makes its shoes and clothes. That these wages are far lower than wages in America is inarguable. However, by way of context, I would've liked to have seen what the wages in that country were before Nike arrived. What was the standard of living? I saw no evidence that Nike created the poverty and that people were worse off because of Nike's presence. Is it possible that things have improved since Nike arrived? It would be possible to criticize Nike for its lack of charity, but that burden of charity is not on Nike alone. It is the burden of anyone who believes in the concept of giving to help the people where Nike is. Singling Nike out as harmful because of poor living conditions which they did not create nor have made worse is not fair.
I found this method to be consistent throughout the documentary. Milk manufacturers are criticized for using antibiotics and producing milk when more milk was not needed. What is the standard for too much milk? Perhaps charities could be organized to send the excess milk to the places where the Nike plants were located. Also, no context was given which showed how a consistent supply of milk and other foodstuffs affect the population of the United States. Are people in the U.S. living longer? Are they having a higher quality of life? I believe they are.
This section on milk showed sick cows. Are all cows in commercial dairies sick? Are cows, in general, sicker in a commercial dairy than they might be on a family farm? Then, assuming that the cows are treated poorly and that the cow's life makes it immoral to support a corporate dairy farm, how many people's lives should be damaged for the sake of those cows?
Again, I didn't come in with a preconceived idea that profit-seeking organizations are malicious. So, I found myself playing catch-up throughout the film since the filmmakers appear to assume the viewer started from that position.
Cricisms of wealthy people are as old as people themselves. Saying that the wealth was obtained dishonestly or that the wealthy person is hurting people makes it easier to justify taking the wealth away.
The movie attempts to demonstrate how these companies are hurting people. Its first example is how Nike pays 'slave wages' to those who makes its shoes and clothes. That these wages are far lower than wages in America is inarguable. However, by way of context, I would've liked to have seen what the wages in that country were before Nike arrived. What was the standard of living? I saw no evidence that Nike created the poverty and that people were worse off because of Nike's presence. Is it possible that things have improved since Nike arrived? It would be possible to criticize Nike for its lack of charity, but that burden of charity is not on Nike alone. It is the burden of anyone who believes in the concept of giving to help the people where Nike is. Singling Nike out as harmful because of poor living conditions which they did not create nor have made worse is not fair.
I found this method to be consistent throughout the documentary. Milk manufacturers are criticized for using antibiotics and producing milk when more milk was not needed. What is the standard for too much milk? Perhaps charities could be organized to send the excess milk to the places where the Nike plants were located. Also, no context was given which showed how a consistent supply of milk and other foodstuffs affect the population of the United States. Are people in the U.S. living longer? Are they having a higher quality of life? I believe they are.
This section on milk showed sick cows. Are all cows in commercial dairies sick? Are cows, in general, sicker in a commercial dairy than they might be on a family farm? Then, assuming that the cows are treated poorly and that the cow's life makes it immoral to support a corporate dairy farm, how many people's lives should be damaged for the sake of those cows?
Again, I didn't come in with a preconceived idea that profit-seeking organizations are malicious. So, I found myself playing catch-up throughout the film since the filmmakers appear to assume the viewer started from that position.