Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

ARTICLE: “An Ancient Indian Craft Left in Tatters: Sari Weavers Struggle Amid Economic Boom,” by Emily Wax, Washington Post, 6 June 2007, p. A1.

When exposed to globalization’s competitive schemes, the mythical small farms always disappear in great numbers, and the “noble” professions like coal mining give way to less damaging careers (actually, if you grew up in a farming community like I did, you knew just how amazingly dangerous farming really is--especially for child laborers, and all farm kids are child laborers). We tend to romanticize these professions (at least, those of us who’ve never engaged in them, but me personally, I found working on a farm to be one VERY bone-wearying job), going on about “how green was my valley” and vilifying Maggie Thatcher for reducing the UK’s opportunities in the black lung-creation industry.

But there’s a reason why life expectancies rise with development, and it’s mostly about the population moving away from tough jobs, making more money, and thus getting better healthcare. It a very virtuous cycle.

Yes, some crafts get decimated in the process, but they don’t go away completely anywhere. They just stop being a main source of employment (making saris is number 2 in India, after farming).

Here’s a misguided statement:

“This is the ugly, painful side of globalization. It’s a real crisis. If India is booming, you don’t see it among weavers or farmers or other rural laborers, which is to say most of the country,” said Lenin Raghusvanshi, head of the People’s Vigilance Committee for Human Rights.

I love that quote for what it implies: globalization should create conditions under which high-labor-intensity professions flourish in the countryside. And this from a guy named Lenin!

Yes, it’s the ugly side, but it’s meant to be so. Globalization is a main trigger of rural-to-urban movement. The goal here isn’t to keep the vast bulk of Indians working the farm or weaving, anymore than America was shooting across the 20th century to have a huge chunk of its population stay on the farm. The foot-powered loom doesn’t belong in India’s future. It belongs in a museum, because it’s that level of technology and productivity that keeps 70 percent of India living on less than $2 a day with almost half of the kids malnourished.

We’ve got to stop romanticizing poverty-enablers, no matter their lengthy pedigree or even their stylistic beauty.

You know what’s beautiful about Wal-Mart? People can afford shopping there.