Are You Contributing to Oppression?
Posted by Doug Foltz on Feb 23, 2011 in Apple | 2 commentsThere were two people in a certain town one rich and the other poor. The rich person was a nice guy. He gave generously to his church and many non-profit organizations. He followed Jesus and had led several of his friends to follow Jesus as well. The rich man had a nice white collar job and had all the latest tech. He carried an iPhone, had a nice laptop, and rested in the evening by reading on his iPad. He watched tv on a big screen LCD with a killer surround sound system. The poor man had very little. He worked in a factory for many hours a day. The conditions he worked in were dehumanizing and the salary he received wasn’t enough to provide for his family. So, to make ends meet, the poor man’s twelve year old daughter was forced to work in the factory as well. The poor man and his daughter labored hard to make components for the latest tech that the rich man desired. Though the rich man was a nice guy, his lifestyle contributed to the oppression and dehumanization of others. Is he still a nice guy?
Do you own an iPhone, a Droid, an iPad, etc? If so you’re the rich man in the story. Several stories (1, 2) are coming out about the oppressive and dehumanizing work condition at Foxconn and other component suppliers for many of the devices we love to use. Devin Coldeway, a freelance writer for TechCrunch, recently opened my eyes to this with his post titled, “Our Great Sin”. Unlike other writers who have clearly tried to blame Apple and other device makers for the inhumane working conditions, Devin blames us, the consumer. Here’s a quote from his post:
The basic fact is this: an “ethical” iPhone would be too expensive. That’s literally all there is to it (replace iPhone with your device of choice). Everything follows from our own unwillingness to pay for the true cost of a device. People want a better world, but they don’t want to pay for it. Nothing new there, really.
To pretend otherwise is plain hypocrisy. The question is whether we are willing to take responsibility for our own immorality? We’re too cheap to care where our goods come from. Admitting to anything less is ridiculous.
There are three primary responses when confronted with incontrovertible proof of your own immorality:
- Claim moral status and adjust actions
- Claim moral status and justify actions
- Claim no moral status and continue actions

Devin provides a needed to challenge to the world and serves as a prophetic voice to those of us who follow Christ. His three options aren’t easy either. 1) Claim moral status and adjust actions. This will be tough as it would basically mean giving up all of our first world comforts and tech like cars, computers, cell phones, tv, etc. 2) Claim moral status and justify actions. Devin sees this option as pretty hypocritical. Basically how can you know that you are contributing to the oppression of people and justify your actions? He points out that most of us will choose this option though. Like the rich man in the story above, we’re nice guys after all. We didn’t personally dehumanize people. The owners of the factories in China are to blame or the companies like Apple whom the products are made for. 3) Claim no moral status and continue actions. This is the path Devin chooses. Basically he’s saying he knows its wrong, but he’s not willing to give up the technology that is a part of his everyday life. Bravo Devin for being honest.
So what option do you choose? Are there other options? I’m not sure yet where I’m at. I guess I’m deciding between options 2 and 3. Is it as black and white as Devin makes it? Are we contributing to the oppression of people with our tech?
What is our responsibility as Christians? Would Jesus be walking around with an iPhone or would he sacrifice all that in an effort to stand against oppression? This is one we need to discuss. Please comment and share your thoughts. We owe it to those who are slaving away in demoralizing factories to have the discussion.

Devil’s Advocate here: “cannot provide for his family” – is that by 1st World union labor standards? -meaning, is the author arguing for those workers to be able to rise to 1st World living standards? Is it dehumanizing to pay them anything less? What is that level/bar at which workers are dehumanized?
And what would be that family’s fate without employment?
Patrick,
I got a lot of comments back on Facebook. I summarized those and posted more thoughts today. You can find the comments and my thoughts at http://bit.ly/etgjLs