A Torch that Inflames a Stepped-On People Reveals a Hero in its Shadows

The Olympic torch is expected to arrive in India around the end of April. India is home to a huge Tibetan expatriate population along with their spiritual leaders, the Dalai Lama as well as the Karmapa (both contenders). Many Tibetans have been born in India and have never been to Tibet. India, which is tentative in its dealing with China, has tried to walk a fine line between offering refuge to those in need and at the same time curtailing them from voicing dissent with China openly. More on India's tightrope walk in another post.

Many were hoping that one of the reigning stars of Bollywood, Amir Khan- a man who is less conventional than most of the other top actors, would take a stand against the violent crackdown in Tibet by refusing to carry the torch as formerly agreed upon. Well, so far, Khan has said that he will be carrying the torch with a prayer for the Tibetans in his heart. Perhaps, he will still see fit to make a stronger gesture of support than this. Or maybe not.

Meantime another hero has emerged. He is the Captain of the Indian football team- Baichung "The Scorpion" Bhutia. Bhutia hails from the state of Sikkim*. Bhutia is a Buddhist and his refusal to carry the oppressive torch (yes, it is an Olympic torch but it also shines the light brightly on China's actions) is not only symbolic but a much needed shot in the arm for the Tibetan struggle even as the Indian government has prevented any marches or demonstrations against China. The Indians even detained about 100 Tibetans to prevent them from marching to the Chinese border. Bhutia was quick to point out that he was not asked by any group or person to pull out. "I sympathise with the Tibetan cause. This is my way of standing by the people of Tibet and their struggle. I abhor violence in any form. I feel what is happening in Tibet is not right and in my small way I should show my solidarity." Go Baichung!!

[* China used to claim Sikkim but agreed to recognize it as a part of India in return for India recognizing Tibet as a part of China (how long this recognition on China's part lasts will determine how long India will continue to suppress overt anti-China demonstrations within its boundaries). What is surprising is that the Indian government even feels that it needs China's recognition. After all the Sikkimese chose to be part of the Indian union in a referendum in 1975 by a vote of 97.5% in favor! Last I heard, no such referendum had been held in Tibet. India's stance seems to show how keen it is to avoid a direct confrontation with China. In the last such confrontation, fomented by the Chinese, India took a drubbing.]

Too Posh To Push? Not if You Care for Your Mite

The c-section rate in the USA is now 25% and climbing. This means that at least every fourth birth is being carried out in a hospital by a doctor who is cutting open a woman's womb to bring the baby out. And yet, it cannot be asserted by any specialist that a quarter of all births are complicated and require such a dire & invasive procedure to give birth.

A lot of factors have been suggested as being responsible for the growth in c-sections in this country. Some of these are: the older age at which women are giving birth; our busy lives and the need to control where and when the baby is born; the medicalization of a natural phenomenon for various reasons such as the convenience of the doctor, insurance providers and their desire to make money; women's fear of pain, fear of vaginal tearing, fear of incontinence; women who think childbirth will leave them loose & stretched & therefore unable to experience good sex again; the acceptance of c-sections as normal birth, the fact that many celebrities with access to the best health care are choosing it...

And where America leads the world follows- albeit slowly in some cases. C-section rates have increased the world over but some nations have also been taking steps to capture this rate and to look at birthing more carefully. Not the US however. It continues to forge ahead and blaze a trail inconsequential of the long-term affects of such a radical procedure on human society.

Do women know that giving birth naturally through the vaginal canal actually endows the infant with exposure to the good bacteria the mother has? For instance, in a German study comparing c-section and natural birth babies, it was found that the former were more prone to diarrhea in their first year as well as being much more sensitive to certain foods such as cow's milk at 1 year of age. All the babies were exclusively breastfed for at least the first four months in case one is wondering if that somehow endowed differential immunity on the babies. The reason for this difference, the German researchers think, is the exposure to the mother's good gut bacteria while the child is passing through the birth canal which helps populate the babies system and strengthen its immunity. The c-section baby on the other hand not only does not get exposed to the good flora, it actually gets exposed to the hospital germs first. (By the way, breast milk also passes maternal good bacteria to the baby, so those who give birth via c-section and then don't breastfeed their babies are delivering a double-whammy to the poor mite.) Some researchers even believe that baby girls are colonized by their mother's vaginal flora which stays with them for life and protects them from infections.

How can we continue down this path where we may be putting the health of the species at risk by stripping it of some of the advantages bestowed upon it by a natural delivery? We need to take control of our health and our birth. All those reasons listed above as contributing to the rise in c-section rates should be addressed individually. Women should be armed with knowledge.

There are special cases where medical intervention in the form of a c-section birth is warranted to save the life of the baby or the mother or both (such as a breech position where the baby might be in distress). But the reasons listed above in paragraph two are not one of them. Women can give birth naturally at an older age and without more trouble than younger women. We should not try to determine where and when the child is born. Don't be lead by the convenience of others into giving birth through a c-section. Vaginal tearing is not an inevitable consequence of natural deliveries, neither are loose and stretched muscles or incontinence- learn and practice pelvic floor exercises. C-sections are not a normal mode of birthing. They have their place but if you can experience a natural birth while at the same time giving your baby some immunity, do it!

April Says: Hey -

Wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed here. I personally have decided that it isn't until women take back what they have allowed to be stolen from them - a safe, and sacred, birth experience for themselves and their children - will the growing cesarean rate stand a chance of dropping.

I agree that some of the problem is the availability of knowledge - but much more of it, in my opinion, is our willful lack of forethought. I would argue that there is a tremendous amount of information out there for those that are looking, but most apparently choose not to look. Moreover, I think in this realm, as in many others, medical or otherwise, we have abdicated our own responsibility for decision making. And we face the consequences.

I say this not in an attempt to blame the many victims, but to instead suggest that we need a call to action.

Just some corrections and additions: I think one problem we encounter is trying to identify the appropriate selection rate for c-sections. Some places in France routinely had the rates below %6, I think, and without any decrease in maternal or infant mortality or morbidity. Specifically with regard to potential complications - well, birth is just about as safe as life gets. Breech, for example, only became a problem when physicians began to meddle in the natural process. Breech is not inherently dangerous - it is just a variant of normal. Unfortunately, just as few OBs know what a normal, unmedicated, unmedicalized birth looks like, few have seen natural breech births.

Also, a woman's vaginal tissue is, to some degree, made to tear, and to heal. Much worse than a tear is a surgical cut, which tends to take a lot longer to heal. Sadly, gone the way of the direct entry midwife has seemingly gone a lot of the knowledge about how to prevent tearing during deliveries - many, unfortunately, happen because of the protocol that forces a woman into an often humiliating position on her back, where she cannot push her baby out with tearing.

I am glad we are giving this issue time - thank you! I hope we can do more of it in the future.

Radhika replies:

Ok, I see your point about variants of normal birth (breech being one of them). I guess by normal I meant the straightforward births where one pushes and out pops a baby with no permutations or complications. I suppose the point I was trying to make there (and admittedly not very well) was that c-sections as a medical intervention are not without merit in severe cases as life-savers. But they have no place being another variant of the "normal" birth.

I also hear what you are saying about tearing of vaginal tissue. But are you sure that all vaginas tear up during birth? I didn't see my friend's vagina tear or bleed during birth. Can you write more about the tearing and healing?

Lastly, I'm not sure that we can blame the 25%-&-rising rate of c-section on willful lack of forethought alone. I really think the reigning paradigm has incredible inertia and in this case it is gaining velocity. And the reigning paradigm here is one based on medical intervention. Choosing to look for the information you mention requires additional deliberative action. Many will pass by the birth chapter without having access to this information because the majority of information they receive comes from their doctor and mainstream childbirth/pregnancy books and others who have gone through similar birth experiences. With the base rate (of those giving birth medically) being high and growing, the probability that this information will just be out there when they happen to look is shrinking. This is why someone like Ricki Lake stepping up and airing the issue at this point in time is a good thing. At the moment many women, if they ever come across someone like us airing our opinions on the issue, dismiss the ideas as clique-ish and new-agey.

Btw, had you heard about the healthy exposure to birth canal flora before? Especially the one about the little girls getting mothers' vaginal flora and keeping it for life? I hadn't. Way cool, huh?!

To which April responds:

A breech baby can just "pop" out, too. No complications, just a different way of entering the world. There are good reasons why the baby's head usually comes out first - not sure if we want to get into them here, but, again, many much of the data suggest that problems with breech delivery are often caused by who's assisting, not with the inherent nature of breech babies. But, I do think we agree - something that should be an option of last resort, to legitimately save the life of a mother or baby or both, is being abused.

All women do not tear during childbirth - sorry if I implied that. My point was that lots of women do experience some tearing, and it should not be considered abnormal. Superficial tears often heal quickly, without any complications for the woman, sexual or otherwise. Our attempts to avoid tearing, by episiotomies, for example, cause a lot more problems for women, in part because flesh that is cut with a sharp knife doesn't heal nearly as well as flesh that has torn. How the physician stitches the woman back up is yet another problem.

Sure, sure, momentum is a factor; I didn't mean to discount that. It's just that I *do* expect women to take the additional deliberative action for the sake of their own health and the well being of the baby. And, again, I am trying to not blame the victims here, but, frankly, one should at least prepare to not be a victim. I haven't seen the Business of Birth, but have heard a lot of interviews with the producer. I would love to know what fraction of birthing women enter hospitals and receive pitocin, for example. My very poor scientific study of those who are filmed for the Discovery Health shows suggest that at least half, and probably more, get it. That alone increases your probability of getting a c-section.

Wow - I feel like to some extent a revolution is necessary :) Defying the current paradigm, finding an alternative path - does that define a revolution? Sadly I think the likelihood of it happening in a culture where a huge fraction of people don't even perceive delivery by c-section as a "problem" is pretty small.

Radhika says:

I am loving this conversation. To me it is so clear that the "additional deliberative action" would be so lost on most women. Choosing baby cribs, painting a special nursery room, getting all "essential" baby implements (like stroller, pacifier, baby monitor, bottles, breast pump...), buying some "classics" like What to expect when you are expecting, taking lamaze classes, etc. etc. would be the deliberative action they are thinking of and so they would respond to you- yes, of course, I am excited and happy and making lots of effort for the baby.

Imo, this is not about deliberative action so much as what is the environment like for these women. How is it that they are not even hearing about or realizing that you can give birth healthily without any overt medical intervention? Why is it that all non-hospital births are portrayed as "emergency" and "ambulatory" in our popular culture (watch any primetime TV show)? Why is there a perception of criminal negligence or uncaring parent when one doesn't leave one's care in the hands of an Ob-Gyn? Obviously, at some point in the past this wasn't so. So how come there aren't vestiges of that more innocent and, in many ways, healthier child birthing past left in our present day culture.

When I meet women now, I am as likely as not to ask if they gave birth naturally. I used to assume that more often than not I'd get a yes. Turns out, I get a yes almost every single time. But then we talk about how exactly they gave birth and it turns out natural can mean without pain killers, it can mean lying down in a hospital setting, in can mean with painkillers but through the vagina, it can even mean c-sections without complications! It seems our understanding of natural birth has diminished to the point that it means nothing to the everyday woman. Am I making this sound worse than it is? Am I being alarmist? I am going to finish Born in the U.S.A.(Marsden Wagner) and let you know.

Upon reading all this Molly Eness said:

I would recommend "Misconceptions" by Naomi Wolfe as another perspective on this topic. ( I think I am one of the women who you asked if I gave birth naturally.) I have a sister-in-law and a young cousin who are expecting their first child now and have been thinking about this topic a lot lately. While I completely agree that a natural childbirth is preferable, I also think that the pressure to have no intervention and the fear "chickening out" when the time comes are detrimental.

To which Radhika responded:

Molly, That is a really cool comment and one sure to generate even more debate. As someone who has gone through the experience, your perspective is valuable. I want to birth naturally (as and when I get pregnant). I totally get what you are saying. I'm afraid however, that the pressure is generally from the opposite direction. The jaws that drop and the askance looks are more common when I state I'd like to try a natural, unassisted (well assisted by friends, families and maybe midwife but not necessarily doctor) birth. I have not felt any pressure from the opposite side because I am not part of any natural birth group nor are these viewpoints commonly aired. Of course, I will not deny myself medical treatment should there be a genuine reason for it but I would hate to be on my back if I felt more like squatting, y'know. I suppose, in a way, I like the Swedish example where because of the low birth rate all births are legally required to be within the hospital but where the hospitals have birthing centers which cater to the desires for the various types of birth experience people would like. While the Swedish have mandated hospital presence because they cannot afford to lose a single child in childbirth, they have still not gone ahead and taken the control away from the mother (and father). In spirit, this is the attitude that should prevail about birth.

I'll check the book out. Thanks!

Click on "Pregnant Woman" to see details and credits.

Unfairly Influencing the Mandate

I have had more than my share of emails from MoveOn recently- one even titled "Obama-mentum." Cute! MoveOn is currently running a petition campaign titled "Will the Democratic Party Live upto its Name?" Here's what MoveOn writes: You've probaly heard about the "superdelegates" who could end up deciding the Democratic nominee. The superdelegates are under lots of pressure right now to come out for one candidate or the other. We urgently need to encourage them to let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama-and then support the will of the people. Can you sign this petition to the superdelegates right away?

How disingenuous of MoveOn! Telling the superdelegates to "don't do like I do- do like I say." MoveOn did not wait to see whom the voters would choose between Clinton and Obama and then support that candidate. No, they put to work their entire machinery and resources in supporting the candidacy of Obama and asked the voters to choose him. And they see nothing strange about asking others not to interfere in the "democratic process." They must think the voter is a putz to be manipulated by them.

I can't even vote in these elections as I am not a citizen and yet, it galls me that an organization I thought well of has turned out to be just another influence-peddler. In a special editorial for the New York Times today, Geraldine Ferraro writes of the role played by superdelegates. As she correctly points out, most democrats have not made their voices heard during the primary season. Even with an invigorated primary season this year, less than 30% of democrats have likely cast their votes in favor of one or the other candidate, which would mean that going strictly by primary vote counts, the nation could end up with a democratic nominee supported by around 15% of democrats at most! Not a sweeping mandate by any yardstick. Anyway, don't listen to me, but do give Ferraro a few minutes of your time- she is certainly more knowledgeable and eloquent than I on this issue.

And most importantly, Don't do as MoveOn tells you to do. Research your candidates, think through their policy stances and vote your conscience.

The political cartoon is from the strip State of the Union by Carl Moore. This particular strip is from the 2nd of Feb., 2008.

A New Challenge to the Separation of Church and State

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated in an interview last week, with BBC Radio, that he believes adopting certain aspects of sharia law would lead to better social cohesion of the muslim community within the UK. He believes that currently muslims are faced with "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". Let me translate that gobbledy-gook into plain English. He feels that many observant muslims are faced with the dilemma of obeying either their religious imperatives, as laid out by the quran (and the sharia interpreters), or the law of the land. He believes that muslims are being oppressed by having to submit to the common English law without recourse to their own sharia courts.

There are so many concerns which need to be separated and individually addressed here. Let me start first with muslim reaction in the UK. It is one of puzzlement. After recent talks of integrating the muslim community further into the mainstream of UK life and fighting feelings of alienation amongst the younger generation, one does not know what to make of the Archbishop's statements. Some raise practical questions: How would disagreements between sharia and secular law be resolved? Given the various sects, whose sharia would gain primacy? Others ask more penetrating questions: Wouldn't adoption of the sharia law actually achieve the exact opposite effect- that of further delineating the muslim individual rather than leading to further cohesion? Sharia is not renowned for its enlightened stance on most issues even if many in the world would willingly submit to it. What about the status of women? If sharia were formalized, would this not sow the seeds of discontent among other religious communities (like the hindus, christians, buddhists...) who could then ask to follow their own religious edicts instead of the national law?

Another aspect of this issue has to deal with the fact that by introducing muslim courts one would reintroduce an aspect of life most people may have been fleeing from, in the first place, by emigrating to a secular country. Rowan Williams wears the blinders of a religious man who cannot conceive of lives that do not revolve around religious conviction alone. There are plenty of younger people who are forced into arranged marriages and "honor" rituals in the UK, who have some recourse currently in the secular law of the land. Sharia courts would be a huge disservice to them. Indeed, he goes so far as to think that the introduction of sharia courts would somehow reduce these "cultural practices" by allowing for their legal monitoring. Huh? So sharia courts would bring to the fore that which was previously a hidden "cultural practice" but how would legal monitoring serve any purpose if sharia law considered said cultural practice correct?

Another set of questions raised by the Archbishop's comments relate to his motivation. Why would he be championing muslim rights to a separate sharia court? If one were to read or hear the full-text of his conversation with BBC's Christopher Landau, one will also hear other comments such as:
"What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences". [sic]
"An approach to law which simply said that there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands our loyalties or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the court - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy. But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that".
He goes on to make more confused noises while presenting examples such as whether a catholic adoption agency would be forced to consider gay parents under equality laws. His words swing between seemingly selfless championing of religious rights to incoherent ramblings about the trampling of the religious conscience by western secular democracy. One begins to wonder whether his true motivations aren't to strengthen judeo-christian religion and ultimately the church of England's position and re-establish it as the font of legal and moral authority in the land.

The danger of undoing the separation of church (mosque, temple, synagogue...) and state is very real in many democracies. There have been attacks on secular institutions and laws before. This attack from within is unexpected and therefore, the more dangerous. Williams states that most people are torn between their religious affiliations and the law and that their religious needs (which he euphemistically calls cultural practices) should get precedence. His suggestions would certainly strengthen the religious orders but I am afraid his fiction about a more cohesive society would remain just that. Let the Archbishop note that sharia law is accepted in many parts of the world and human rights have certainly not improved in areas under sharia law comparative to areas under secular law.

Quotes were taken from news stories on the BBC.

Do Liberals Need to be Told Whom to Vote For?

For a few years now I have received emails from MoveOn. I felt that MoveOn served to fill a gap in American politics where the right wing is often loud, vitriolic and brash. The liberal side of the political arena is usually represented by slightly anemic organizations such as PBS and NPR. These organizations, in their journalistic quest to appear objective, often end up not standing clearly for or against specific policies or decisions. MoveOn, on the other hand, draws its strength and voice from its avowedly democratic leanings. It has given all those stifled by Fox, Bush & Limbaugh hope and allowed them to pump their fists in the air and get behind a cause too.

MoveOn has been working tirelessly for the upcoming elections to mobilize the votes and return a democrat to the White House. While MoveOn started as a civic action group, it has metamorphosed into a two-headed organization - a civic action group and a political action committee. MoveOn PAC has been endorsing candidates and contributing to their coffers. American politics is, as it is, too institutionalized with various interest groups, lobbies and organizations trying to influence the electoral result with money. MoveOn, at least initially, stood apart as a grass-roots email-based movement of liberally-inclined individuals. While for the last couple of years, MoveOn gave Senator Clinton a lot of ether-time and generated support for her, it has now come out and endorsed Barack Obama as the candidate it wants members to back this election year. Why would an organization that served as a conduit for liberal opinions "decide" who the democratic candidate should be for millions of liberals?

This will be a historic election in more ways than one. We have the possibility of having the first woman president or the first president of mixed race. But instead of letting the candidates fight for the hearts of the people, MoveOn wants to hand one an advantage. This is condescending in the extreme to the American liberal voter. Bringing out the liberal vote and spearheading policy movements is a good agenda. It is inclusive and it influences the electoral process in positive ways by fighting electoral apathy and encouraging political debate. But presuming to choose the right leader for a party or a nation is fractious and damaging to the political process. MoveOn PAC's actions may drive away some of the same voters its civic action group is trying to mobilize.

What's In A Name?

Nothing for a woman and everything for a man, it would seem.

Most societies around the world are patriarchal and one spouse's name is used as the whole family's name. So a woman who marries a Mann also becomes a Mann and her children are all Mann. There are a few notable exceptions. Among East Asians (most Chinese and Koreans, for instance) a woman retains her family name after marriage. Her children, however, receive the father's family name. There are also a few matriarchal societies where the husband takes on the wife’s family name (the Khasi of NE India are one example). However, as these matriarchal societies have “modernized,” many are adopting the custom of taking on their spouses name (if they are female) or retaining their own name (if they are male). It is strange that this asymmetry in naming exists across most societies. Most families even resign themselves to the fact that their family name will die out without a son and many will, therefore, try and try and try to make sons. I feel this gives people another reason to cherish sons over daughters.

Whatever the reasons behind the various naming conventions, they are outmoded and do not necessarily hold water anymore. If someone freely chooses (and I emphasize freely) to change their names to their spouses’, it should be a deliberate decision and not a default. But I know very few women who have retained their family names (ok so these names come from their fathers mostly, but c’mon, we have to start somewhere) and I know of only one male friend who changed his name to his wife’s, for reasons he clearly articulated to me. (Hats off to you Schua!) I also know another friend, whose family (himself, wife & 2 adult children- daughter & son) decided jointly to change the family name to include both parents’ last names. This was more than one-score years after the marriage, when the wife felt she should be able to retain her family name. How proud a moment for that whole family when everyone agreed and participated in that re-naming ceremony acknowledging both parents! (Go Jeanette and Tom!)

Women are achieving a lot today and deserve to be acknowledged entirely as individuals. If they choose to change their names to their spouses, then great, but by that same token, we should see more men choose to do the same. Or perhaps, we can entirely avoid name changes. After all you fell in love with the person, not the name (only, hopefully).

As for progeny, I agree with Marilyn vos Savant that kids should get both their parents name. Her solution however, is not a hyphenated name. She suggests that the male children get the father's last name and the female children get the mother's last name. There are many other such distribution rules that one could employ to ensure that both parents' names are given importance. That would be one more step towards creating a more equal society.

[Picture shows Schua with his son, Erik, at a Buddhist conference in London, 2005.]

Here's a response from my dear friend Trini:

Hey Rad great blog, I've finally been tempted to contribute my 2 pence worth! I'm pleased to say that for a society that coined the term "machismo" the Spanish approach is probably the closest to gender equality that I am aware of. Everybody has two surnames. Women (and men) keep their surnames unchanged when they marry, and all the children get a new surname based upon the first part of each parent's surname. So, e.g. when Ms Rockerfeller Skank marries Mr Busta Rhymes, all the children have the surname Busta Rockerfeller! There's still a slight inherent machismo even in this system, because the fathers name always makes up the first half of the surname, and because the children take both of the first halves (names they have essentially inherited from their grandfathers on both sides) then after a couple of generations the maternal lineage is lost to obscurity. Perhaps a fairer system would be to take the first half of the father's surname (thus emphasising the paternal line in the father) plus the second half of the mother's surname (emphasising the maternal line for the mother). I think the Icelandic system is pretty much like the one you suggested ie. male children get father's name and female children get mother's name, except its the mother's & father's first name that gets incorporated; thus men have a surname ending -son and women -dottir, eg. Magnus Magnusson is "Magnus, son of Magnus" and Bjork Guomundsdottir is "Bjork, daughter of Guomund" presumably. Actually I just looked that one up and it seems that although the mother's first name can be used, most of the time it is the father's name for both boys and girls. Shame. Basic strategy is a good one though.

Trade Fairly: Putting Consumerism in its Place

I am on the Fair Trade bandwagon. Living in Europe made me aware of the growing fair trade movement and made me appreciate how harmful our quest for "cheap" can be. Look, I appreciate value as much as the next person. Who wouldn't like to save their money and have it all too? Hmm... but what does having it all mean? Does it mean I buy every new gadget that I am told to by the advertisers?

Fair trade is a relatively new concept in the world economy and one which while itself positive, by its very existence, denotes the negative place we have arrived at where we have to demarcate positive consumerism from blind materialism. Products that are sold "fair trade" or traded fairly, try to assure the producers a livelihood that takes into account issues of sustainability, living costs for a family which include basic amenities such as water, education for children, food and health for family. But, you ask me, isn't this implied by all wages for any job around the world? The simple answer is no. Do you think that when you buy products, say from Walmart, that the Chinese worker in some factory is assured all these things? No, they are assured back breaking work at low wages, which they are grateful to have because the wages are better than they could have got had they stayed back in the rural setting with their family.

When I bring up "fair trade" with friends and acquaintances some have expressed concern. They feel that while some rich, Birkenstock wearing people may be able to purchase useless knick knacks which are overpriced, fair trade seems quite exclusive and wasteful to someone on a budget- much as organic products do still. This is not a bad argument at all. Fairly traded products do cost more than "walmarted" goods. Currently, however, very few products are widely available as fairly traded. These are chocolate, tea, coffee, bananas and in some specialty stores, handicrafts and fabrics. People can afford to spend a bit more on these few select products but what if most products were available in "fair trade" just as now organic labels are placed right besides the regular labels? I suppose then it would be only the rich, Birkenstock wearers who could afford them- or do I suppose wrongly?

If one were to take our consumption patterns as they are and ask people to buy fair-trade, then yes, few of us could afford to buy everything we buy right now. But do we need to buy everything we buy right now? For instance, we buy and buy and buy clothes. Do we really need or even use all the clothes we buy? A look on e-bay or most consignment stores will show you that a significant proportion of clothes are NWT (new with tag in e-bayese) or NWOT (new without tag). Similarly for household appliances, furnishings, sports paraphernalia (a friend got a bargain on a used-once bicycle at a garage sale for $50 a few years ago), toys, and you-name-it. We really don't need to buy as much as we do. If we were mostly buying only those things we need then perhaps, we could afford to buy most things at fair-trade prices. We could join the Birkenstock club. ;)

If you think about it, it is simple economics. Any rational producer would price their goods and services at cost+ rather than cost- (or below cost) in order to subsist and thrive. But in this completely skewed world economy, we have strange pressures that hollow out the producers of basic resources more than secondary producers & consumers. Vandana Shiva has an amazing article in Resurgence about how even as world wealth has reached new heights, poverty has remained undiminished and even grown with it. We can change the distribution of health and happiness on earth by paying more attention to our spending habits. Fair trade is one way to do it and no, you don't need to be rich to do it.

For information on pictures, please click on them and you will be taken to the copyright page.