The "Story of Stuff" Discussion: Part 3
March 10, 2008 - 10:46am
We've come to part 3 of our 7 part discussion on the Annie Leonard short film, The Story of Stuff. I want to thank everyone who has contributed so far; you've all provided some diverse perspectives and that's what I was hoping for. If you haven't already, you can check out Part 2 here, and Part 1 here.
In this 3 minute segment Annie moves on to the next step in the process of creating the material products we consume - the means of production - and in it she introduces some key concepts.
Please watch the 3 minute clip below, then provide us with your input. I'd particularly like to hear your thoughts around one or both of these points:
- I'm intrigued by Annie's non-religious use of the word "sacred" to describe a mother's breast milk. In your mind, what does it mean for something to be sacred in the way Annie uses the word? Does women's breast milk qualify as sacred? If not, why not? If so, who is responsible for keeping it sacred?
- What do you think of Annie's proposition that "whole communities" elsewhere in the world "get wasted" as a result of our insatiable desire for more consumer products? Should whole communities be considered sacred? If not, why not? If so, who is responsible for keeping them sacred?
- Jason Coker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Blog Categories
- Articles (39)
- From the Mailbag (1)
- News (59)
- Non-Profit Spotlight (5)
- Polls & Surveys (3)
- Videos (4)
- Weekly Tips (9)
- Weekly Wrap Up (8)
Items Near You
- California (89)
- Illinois (3)
- Indiana (6)
- Ohio (570)
- Tennessee (10)
Online Now
There are currently 0 users and 13 guests online.
Support Twoshirts
Give today to help us keep Twoshirts running!
10% goes back to the community to help fight poverty based on your vote. Click here to learn more.
"In your mind, what does it
"In your mind, what does it mean for something to be sacred in the way Annie uses the word?"
Well, at the risk of sounding like a brand name soap - I would have to say that it means something is pure and natural in form. Organic.
"Does women's breast milk qualify as sacred?"
I never really thought about breast milk as being sacred. I usually think of that word to describe something/someone who is holy. Something/someone to be reverenced. God anyone?:-) But because I see what she's saying, I will say it is US *not* the government who is responsible for keeping it that way. God gave us ALL our own individual bodies for each one of us to take care of and be responsible for. The government didn't give me my body so it's not their responsibility. However, we do have the FDA. Granted, it's not perfect by far BUT it's the best thing we have to regulate our food and other items. Though I do appreciate what "help" the FDA gives, their definition of what is ok for my use and consumption is not always MY definition of what is ok for my use and consumption.
It still amazes me that some will yell and scream about how it's their right to smoke and their right to drink themselves to drunkeness (and it is their right to destroy their bodies if they want to) and about how it's not the governments business to regulate certain rules to them about how to do these things. Yet, when there's a certain food or material object that has shown to be very toxic, all of a sudden most of those same people yell that the government should have been paying more attention and regulating things better. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Now to sound contradicting, that's not to say that the *local* government shouldn't step up and help us make our air and water (among other things) cleaner and safer. It's just a VERY fine line to walk sometimes. I feel like the LOCAL government should make regulations against the use of toxins and other poisionous chemicals but now it sounds like *I* want it both ways.:-) Not to mention that what are the definitions and guidlines of finding out what is toxic and poisionous and what are the guidlines of finding out just HOW bad they are. I mean for pete sakes! BLEACH is toxic AND posionous but people still clean with it.
The last questions I'll have to answer later. I have a bathroom to clean with lysol. Gee....it that considered toxic?:-)
Julie
But aren't we the government?
But aren't we the government?
Aren't the FDA, the EPA, etc. simply the formal embodiment of "us," setup so that we might protect ourselves?
"But aren't we the
"But aren't we the government?"
Well, it's supposed to be "WE the people" but the majority of the politicians are very confussed about that. Heck....many everyday American's forget that part. But I thought you wanted us to steer away from political comments.:-)
What do you think of Annie's
What do you think of Annie's proposition that "whole communities" elsewhere in the world "get wasted" as a result of our insatiable desire for more consumer products? Should whole communities be considered sacred? If not, why not? If so, who is responsible for keeping them sacred?
----------------------------------------------------------------
I can see Annie's point we she talks about certain polutants coming from factories. Nothing is 100% perfect. Nothing is 100% safe. HOWEVER, she comes off as if she believes these factories are evil in some way when in actuality, they create *thousands* of jobs. And I'm not just talking about here. I'm talking around the world. Here in America (as in other countries, I'm sure) we have come a long way as a society to establish certain rules, standards and guidlines when it comes to safty within and outside of factories. I'm not saying that problems don't exist BUT we've done a lot to make things cleaner.
As far as our factories being in other countries. Again, they create jobs for a lot of desperate people. Unfortunately, rules, standards and regulations are not the same from one country to the next....but enough of the "duh" factor.
Every piece of land should be considered "sacred" (as far as Annie's definition seems to go). The whole earth should be respected - however, we've already touched on "being good stewards of this earth". There are many places on this earth where the land is not capable (at least not for now) of producing much food to sustaine its' people. If putting a factory or two there helps out with the income then, why not? Again, there are many downsides to most everything - including this BUT I think first and foremost jobs can be created and whatever materials each factory makes can benifit that particular society as well as others.
Not all jobs are good jobs
It's true that companies create jobs for people in developing nations, but why do we assume that's always a good thing? Are all jobs good jobs?
Could it be that people in developing nations are being physically abused, paid lower than legal wages, and "punished" for refusing overtime...all so we can have cool running shoes every 6 months?
And might it not be true that some corporations are run by people who commit evil acts in the name of profit?
These are willful acts made by people who are more committed to the sanctity of their own jobs, profits, or institutions, than they are to the sanctity of people in general.
sacred
I think she feels that breast milk is sacred because if anything should be free from toxins for any reason it should be breast milk. We just put a much deeper meaning to the word. As I watch this, I keep wondering what her version of an ideal world would be. I get a picture of this country about 150 years ago. No toxins, but a life expectancy of about 40 years.
Well said Tom
"I keep wondering what her version of an ideal world would be. I get a picture of this country about 150 years ago. No toxins, but a life expectancy of about 40 years."
LOL...well said Tom. : )
"It's true that companies
"It's true that companies create jobs for people in developing nations, but why do we assume that's always a good thing? Are all jobs good jobs?"
I don't assume anything.
"Could it be that people in developing nations are being physically abused, paid lower than legal wages, and "punished" for refusing overtime...all so we can have cool running shoes every 6 months?"
Of course. I stated above that standards, rules and regulations are different from one country to the next. But that's old, old, VERY old news. What I also ment to be understood about my last statement was that human rights laws are also obviously different world wide too. Of course that's very old news as well. I'm not an expert on big business nor on factories and how they're run but common sense should tell someone at least two things:
1) At face value, a new factory/plant moving into the neighborhood will produce jobs and boost the economy which are both good things.
2) HOWEVER, just because that's the appearance at “face value”, it doesn't mean that they will produce GOOD jobs and/or SAFE jobs where the employees are treated fairly. It also doesn't necessarily mean it will be good for the economy. It could be that the factory is producing a lot pollutants that are going right into the air making it dirty to breath and making the vegetation and the rest of the environment around suffer as well. People won't want to move in and many may move out. Therefore – obviously defeating the purpose of building a good local economy.
Let me back up for a second. As far as other countries out there with factories treating their employees abusively. Tragic? Of course. However, there's not enough room or time to go into why those things are allowed to happen. It can be anything from non existing human rights laws and non existing child labor laws to corrupt governments and businesses. You know as well as I do that the list can unfortunately be endless. The thing is also that if these people quit (assuming they can), where are they going to go? Can they make a living at the life they used to lead or was that so bad to where it made them so desperate to go to the factory to begin with?
"I get a picture of this
"I get a picture of this country about 150 years ago. No toxins, but a life expectancy of about 40 years."
Yeah, really!:-)
And let's not forget....no electricity, no indoor plumbing, although there would be a nice outhouse in everyones yard! Yee-haw!:-)
Julie
I contributed my thoughts on
I contributed my thoughts on Part 2 a little later than everyone else. I've been a bit busy over the past week. You can find those thoughts here:
http://twoshirts.org/blog/jason_coker/2008/03/05/%2526quot%3Bstory_stuff...
Sacred
"I'm intrigued by Annie's non-religious use of the word "sacred" to describe a mother's breast milk. In your mind, what does it mean for something to be sacred in the way Annie uses the word? Does women's breast milk qualify as sacred? If not, why not? If so, who is responsible for keeping it sacred?"
I certainly cannot speak for Annie about why she used the word "sacred", so I can only give me my own opinion about the word. Before I get into that, I would like to point out that she was not saying that breast milk is sacred, but rather the act of breastfeeding is sacred.
Over the past two years, I have been coming to realize that the boundaries we have placed between sacred and secular are completely artificial. If you're human being... you are a spiritual, physical, and emotional being all wrapped up in a single integrated body. Since we are blended beings, any lines of distinction are of our own creating.
In the Bible, Colossians 3:17 reads, "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus." What Paul is saying to us is: Everything we do with our bodies should be considered sacred. Sacred is another way of saying Holy, or set apart. I think some folks understood holy to mean, "set apart from the world", which led to the whole sacred/secular divide. I think holy would best be understood as "set apart unto God". We are essentially God's holy vessels to be used for God's purposes. Since we are holy people, everything we do with our bodies should be considered an act of spiritual worship to God. That would include tying our shoes, walking our dog, and breastfeeding our babies.
Who is responsible for keeping breastfeeding sacred? Primarily the woman who is breastfeeding.