Course:Hist 104 Assignment 3 Group 5 - Artifact - Converse Chuck Taylor
History 104 Assignment 3 Group 5 - Artifact - Converse Chuck Taylor
Converse Chuck Taylor
Our group project sought to take an ordinary everyday object and show how it is a product of “cultures of contact.” We wanted to take our artifact, analyze its details and find where it’s story begins and ends in history. The artifact we chose was a converse Chuck Taylor sneaker and we found that if we dug deep enough we uncovered a unique and interesting history. Converse began as a rubber shoe company in 1908 in Malden, Massachusetts. Since then, it expanded into selling athletic shoes, still with a rubber sole, and grew into a global business that at one time dominated the sneaker market. Their most popular shoe, since its release in 1932, has been converse Chuck Taylor. That shoe has grown to become an American icon.
For our project, we took a converse Chuck Taylor and critically analyzed it as historical artifact. In looking at the rubber sole we found that is where it's story began, in the late 18th century in the Amazon just before the Amazon rubber boom.
A Timeline of our Artifact
The Amazon Rubber Boom
The historical significance of the converse Chuck Taylor finds it’s beginning during the late 18th century in the Amazon. An extraordinary substance with peculiar properties was taken from the Americas and formally presented to the scholars and engineers of Europe by French savant Charles-Marie de La Condamine. This material was called rubber and it would prove to serve enormous importance in the technology of industrialization[1]. Although it was known to the earliest European travelers in Central and South America and used by aboriginals for centuries, rubber was not initially a valued commodity. Rubber naturally occurs as tree gum from Para rubber trees, which are indigenous to South America and found in large quantities in the Amazon valley. But the Amazon valley remained relatively isolated for over 400 years after initial contact until it was transformed by a sudden surge in demand for rubber[2]. It quickly became the primary location for finest grade rubber due to the presence of rubber trees scattered throughout its forests. The Amazon offered a limited amount of wild latex, the source substance of rubber, and until trees were germinated elsewhere crude rubber was a very expensive article of trade[3]. This time period (1860- 1910) became known as the Amazon rubber boom and it was one of the most influential periods in the regions history. The Amazon rubber trade epitomized the 19th century export economy and it would leave a lasting impression on the territory and it’s people. These changes included drastic shifts in population demographics, increased exploitation of local populations and increased participations and control by foreigner elites. The influx of capital and enhanced integration into the world capitalist system was thought to bring about positive economic and social development, but the profits were shared by only a select group of people[4]. A great source of debate amongst historians has to do with the systematic failure of the rubber exportation industry in the Amazon and how five decades of growth and prosperity in the region lead to no sustained development. Rubber would go on to be sourced from other regions, but the Amazon would remain changed by this peculiar commodity[5].
Industrialization of Rubber
There is reason to assert that foreign trade did – in various ways – contribute substantially to Europe's industrialization in the 19th century. The case of rubber has a very interesting history of how it came to be. Rubber had been originally made in Brazil but industrialization had already been in full swing in Britain by the late 19th century. In 1876, a small-scale interaction of a British man named Henry Wickham occured; this man stole seeds from the Havea Brasiliensis, which is a plant used to create rubber, right from under the noses of the Brazilian authorities[6]! An act that indirectly lead to the mass production of rubber and therefore to Chuck Taylor Converse Shoes. These seeds were brought back for cultivation in the Far East and because of this major feat Wickham was knighted. Development was rapid: by 1910 there was more Hevea brasiliensis growing in plantations in South-East Asia than growing wild in the Brazilian Amazon where it originated; by 1913 cultivated rubber swept the Brazilian product from the world market; by 1951 Brazil was even reduced to importing rubber from the very countries that has audaciously made off with it just 75 years before[7]. As rubber had begun to be known as a useful resource, the international desire for it had grown exponentially. This created an international boom for empires, mainly the British empire, to produce rubber; thus leading to the basic industrialization scheme of underdeveloped nations producing resources and developed countries producing finished products. Rubber had been and still is grown in more than twenty countries, most notably, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and India, who were the first to take up rubber cultivation on a commercial scale, the latter two being part of the British Empire at the time of cultivation. These countries continue to dominate the global rubber production sector, with a relative share of 77 per cent in rubber planted area and 79 per cent of the global rubber output[8]. Through the massive global market for rubber and its many uses leads us to the Chuck Taylor Converse shoe, one of several mass produced items requiring rubber.
The Global Consequences of an Iconic Shoe
The Converse All Star Chuck Taylor shoe has become an icon of American culture over the years. There is a strong connection to be made however, between the cultural relevance of the shoe and the conditions of globalization. The narcissism and apathy of Western culture has been flourishing more with the effects of social media, mass consumerism, and materialist values. And - the polarization is vast, with the oppressed workers on the other side of the spectrum, exploited by our companies and supported by our consumption. Individual freedom, a touted trait of modern democracies, is so closely regarded with economic freedom in today's political economy. Capitalism has exploded as the way of business and government around the world, and the ramifications are often ignored. [9] Economic globalization has improved the consumer selection for all around the world. It is vastly applauded as a positive trait in a newly connected world. Individuals can travel and work almost anywhere, and can trade and consume almost anything the world has to offer. A downfall of this new phenomenon, however, is the power of a wealthier nation to exploit a poorer one. The long-standing and still growing American shoe company Converse, has done just that. Anti-poverty activist from Vancouver, Jean Swanson, discovered for herself the conditions in a Converse factory in Reynosa, Mexico in 2001[10]. Touring with a workers union organizer, it was disclosed that factory employees made roughly five dollars a day, while prices of groceries remained comparable to those in the rest of North America. There are indeed, Converse factories in American, yet many other locations of the Converse industrial empire are not made public, and one can assume how much worse it should be in a country farther from the democratic freedoms of the West, inspiring press to go and speak for the unspoken. Converse was bought by Nike in 2003, and surprisingly enough, the allegations of underpaid work remained rampant3. Reported by Oxfam in 2011, Converse factories did not merely have severely poor working conditions, but employees also faced physical and emotional abuse.[11] Unfortunately the image of Converse's iconic shoe is less American than presumed - that is, if American is still deemed the land of civil liberties and economic opportunities!
Global Labour Policies in Garment Production and the maintenance of the "Made in the USA" logo
In regards to labour protocol, Western shoe companies have the ability to operate barely within legal limitations. A number of shoe companies acquire workers of illegal working age for their factories so that they can pay them very little, which results in a massive profit with very little in output (for labourer wages, etc.). With the acquisition of Converse, Nike Incorporated outsourced the shoe production overseas in 2001, where it was significantly cheaper to produce them while remaining competitive in the marketplace. One of the greatest issues with this mentality, however, is that the profit goes to support advertising, spokespeople (such as famous athletes) and CEOs, while the labourers can barely afford to survive. Nike Inc. sees an annual revenue of over US$13 billion, even though it employs well over half a million people in 900 factories. [12] Interestingly, Nike remains a member of a number of committees working towards better environmental policies within apparel production, and has also joined the Fair Labour Association (FLA) to ensure proper treatment of its labourers outside of the United States.
In its Code of Conduct, Converse complies with the laws that emphasize no child labour; they also ascribe to a policy of no discrimination of workers based on age or gender, and they ensure that their factories maintain a safe and hygienic working environment. However, the maximum work week is up to 60 hours, with no reference to overtime policy, and as well do not indicate what their minimum wage is, or even whether it is satisfactory as a living wage. This leads to concerns regarding their workers health, especially with the potential for mandatory overtime above and beyond the already extended workweek, and including a wage that may not be sufficient. Furthermore, the labour codes that Converse adheres to only extend to a certain length down the production chain; this indicates that, while the actual construction of the shoe is regulated by laws, the production and gathering of materials are not, meaning that there is a potential for child labour or workplace slavery (bonded, indentured or otherwise) further down the production chain.
Interestingly, while Converse prides itself on its fair-trade manufacturing processes as seen in the above Code of Conduct, as well as the ‘Made In The USA’ slogan, Nike has encountered a number of problems regarding their policies. Workers have come forward to air grievances pertaining to violations of maternity leave, harassment, and health and safety regulations [13], however many more employees who had faced further injustice remained silent due to the threat of being identified and fired by the company. After the allegations came forward, Nike selected a different auditing group who worked more positively with them [14], throwing doubt into the legitimacy of Nike’s Code of Conduct and how they view their labourers. Similarly, the knowledge of labour policies has the potential to drive consumers away from purchasing apparel produced in factories where the policies are not as enforced towards a more fairly produced brand. This is complicated, however, as the Chuck Taylor Converse is such a staple of the American wardrobe and so popular in media.
SOURCES
[1] Reisz, Emma. "curiosity and Rubber in the French Atlantic." Atlantic Studies 4.1 (2007): 5-26.
[2] Weinstein, Barbara. "Capital Penetration and Problems of Labor Control in the Amazon Rubber Trade." Radical History Review 27 (1983): 121.
[3] Barham, Bradford L., and Oliver T. Coomes. "Reinterpreting the Amazon Rubber Boom: Investment, the State, and Dutch Disease." Latin American Research Review 29.2 (1994): 73-109
[4] Weinstein, Barbara. Capital Penetration and Problems of Labor, 121
[5] Barham, Bradford, and Oliver Coomes. "Wild Rubber: Industrial Organisation and the Microeconomics of Extraction during the Amazon Rubber Boom (1860-1920)." Journal of Latin American Studies 26.1 (1994): 37-72.
[6] Dean, Warren. Brazil and the struggle for rubber: a study in environmental history. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[7] Dean, Brazil and the struggle for rubber, 1987.
[8] Viswanathan, P. K. "Sustainable Growth of China's Rubber Industry in the Era of Global Economic Integration Resolving Contradictions of Resources Development and Industrial Expansion Strategies." China Report 44, no. 3 (2008): 254.
[9] Gallant, Lanika. "Product (RED): The Case Against Consumerism as a Form of Aid." Undercurrent Journal: The Canadian Undergraduate Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 10, Issue 1 (Spring/Summer 2013).
[10] Swanson, Jean. Poor-bashing: The Politics of Exclusion. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2001. Print.
[11]Wayne, Leslie. "For $305 Million, Nike Buys Converse." Business Day. New York Times. , 10 July 2003. Web. 25 November 2015.http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/business/10NIKE.html
[12]Wells, Don. (April 2007) Too Weak for the Job: Corporate Codes of Conduct, Non-Governmental Organizations and the Regulation of International Labour Standards. Global Social Policy 7:1. 51-74.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.