Decolonize sustainable + ethical fashion.
Happy Tuesday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily! As fashion week approaches, Isiah reminds us of the true cost of "sustainable" fashion. Take today as an opportunity to review where you shop for clothes and consider making more ethical decisions.
Thank you all for your support. This newsletter is made possible by our subscribers. Consider subscribing for $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community.
Nicole
Ps – be sure to sign up for 28 Days of Black History.
TAKE ACTION
Shop at brands that are transparent about their labor practices. Check their websites for more information and consult lists found all over the internet.
Take your money to fashion brands that are owned by people of color. BIPOC women are exploited the most in the industry, and it’s important to support brands that understand and combat this issue.
Support and donate to organizations that combat the use of sweatshops like Fair Labor Association, United Students Against Sweatshops, and National Labor Committee.
GET EDUCATED
By Isiah Magsino (he/him)
Sustainability is fashion’s latest trend. All over, marketing buzzwords like “ethical” and “eco-conscious” float around the likes of ads, press releases, and influencer Instagram pages. Although bringing awareness to the harmful impact of fashion’s waste is a positive note in the right direction, many seem to exclude a significant part of the discussion: the manufacturer workers, often women of color, earning significantly less than a liveable wage.
When people think of ethical and sustainable fashion, images of white people posed in a forest or on a beach immediately come to mind. Similarly, Zara’s “Life” campaign features a white model posing with plants in various ways. When ads and campaigns center on white consumers in natural settings, this “do good” mentality is often reserved for an upper-class white audience making the scope of conscious consumerism reserved to that demographic (Restitchstance).
However, there’s a trickle-down effect of a racist system that is often overlooked. When companies exclude people of color in their advertisements, they are ultimately ignoring the fact that people of color are disproportionately affected by fashion waste and unethical practices (Restitchstance). Though many large fashion brands are pivoting to a marketing tactic that parades sustainability, they are still sourcing external textile workers from the Global South (PebbleMag). These garment workers work for 60-100 hours for as little 5,300 takas (equivalent to $63 USD) a month in hostile conditions (Fashion Revolution). The majority of these garment workers are women of color. In China, more than 70% of garment workers are women, 85% in Bangladesh, and a skyrocketing 90% in Cambodia (Fashion Revolution). In Ethiopia, H&M manufacturer workers made as little as $26 USD a month (Telegraph UK).
But, the issue is not only overseas. The exploitation of women and children of color happens in the United States, too, primarily in New York and California (Green America). Those that work in domestic sweatshops are usually immigrants from Asia and Latin American (Green America). The major retailer, Fashion Nova, was accused of paying sewers in California less than $2.77 USD in 2019 (Quartz). Collectively, they owed workers $3.8 million in back wages (Quartz).
The history of sweatshops is directly linked to global expansion. The practice began in Europe and Britain during the 1800s following the industrial revolution as manufacturers needed quick and cheap labor (glass clothing). As worker’s rights improved, companies would eventually move to Asia after World War II. European companies sought an opportunity to expand and become a global business power (glass clothing). Additionally, New York became a hotspot for sweatshops during the 2oth century. Immigrants (mostly from Eastern Europe) needed money, thus agreeing to low-wage work in sweatshops (Matterprints). Sweatshops began employing immigrants from China, Korea, throughout Southeast Asia, Mexico, Dominican Republican, and Central and South America as the original Eastern European immigrants advanced to white color jobs (Matterprints).
Nowadays, these workers cannot fight for proper worker’s rights due to their oftentimes undocumented immigrants status. As Western labor costs rise, companies are still reliant on third-world countries that do not have strict labor laws allowing large corporations to get away with sweatshop use (Matterprints). This is why the conversation about sustainability and decolonization are intertwined: the fashion industry simply cannot exist without the exploitation of people of color, mostly women and children, who are working in inhumane conditions. The conversation of sustainability must recenter itself, including the voices of people of color. Sustainability is not only a concern of material waste – but of workers’ rights. Next time a major fashion retailer prides itself in being eco-friendly, dig deeper and ask: at the detriment of whom?
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Understand that, in this day and age, words like “sustainability” and “eco-friendly” are just marketing buzzwords that often leave worker’s rights (mostly equal pay) out of the equation. Fast fashion brands like Zara and H&M are guilty of this (Green America)
Women and Children of color make up most sweatshop employees and can earn as little as $26 USD a month. (Telegraph UK)
Sweatshops have historically exploited women and children of color, which is still happening in the present day. (Matterprints)
RELATED ISSUES
12/22/2020 | Unpack the appropriation of streetwear culture.
7/24/2020 | Reduce your plastic consumption.
9/29/2020 | Learn about climate migration.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza