Fast Fashion, its Roots in Colonialism and Why you Should Care

Written By Faith Fagbewesa

George Cruikshank, ‘Tremendous Sacrifice!’, 1847

It’s the early 1800s and the European textile market is booming, dominating the global textile market including India’s own domestic ones.

The fashion industry didn’t always exist in the way we know it today. In fact, traditionally, at the heart of the garment making process was the spinning wheel, a machine that works by the user pushing the foot pedals to spin the drive wheel, this was a mechanism that would be repeated until a complete garment was produced. Spinning wheel technology was indigenous to India but continuous improvement to the wheel’s design and addition of features created what we know as the most popular version of it. Spinning wheels come in many different shapes and sizes, but they all do the same thing: convert raw materials like wool, cotton, or silk into yarn. This all changed, however, when British industrialists figured out how mechanical steam power could be used to power spinning wheels, and soon after, the textile industry was changed forever. Steam powered spinning replaced spinners and could produce garments at a much faster rate than a traditional spinning wheel could while eliminating the cost of employing spinners altogether. Industrialists capitalised on this opportunity and so fast fashion was born, the role of a spinner became obsolete and manufacturers could produce garments for a quarter of the cost they could before. Because of this, the textile industry became a vehicle for economic and political power for Britain.

The image above produced by British 19th century illustrator George Cruikshank depicts what it was like when British industrialists took over the textile industry and the economic implications this had on seamstresses. The illustration depicts wealthy ladies gawking over the cheap prices of garments at the expense and exploitation of the seamstresses. Parallels can be drawn between the exploitation of seamstresses for cheap labour the in producing of garments and the way that consumers in first world countries benefit from the exploitation of people who are forced to labour in order to barely make a living. In this way, the people at the top of our global supply chain are not any different to the “fathers of the industrial revolution”, and as consumers, well, we’re not much different to the ladies depicted in Cruikshank’s illustration who benefit from the exploitation of the poor seamstresses and are indifferent to their maltreatment.

The exploitative practices of colonial-era industrialists fostered a culture of extraction and exploitation that has only continued to shape modern production processes, and today, the fashion industry depends on workers being subjected to long hours in poor working conditions known as sweatshops, with inadequate facilities and no access to basic amenities. They are paid low wages, work for extended periods without a break, and are often exposed to hazardous chemicals without proper safety measures. When asked about what she thought about the things that happen in sweatshops in the 2015 documentary ‘The True Cost’, former sourcing manager Kate Ball-Young replied by saying that “There is nothing inherently dangerous with sewing clothes.”. And while it may be true that there is in fact no inherent danger in sewing clothes, I think it’s fair to say that Ball-Young is very much aware that the work of people in sweatshops isn’t simply just sewing clothes, but that workers in sweatshops risk their lives everyday handling toxic materials just to pump out clothes at a low cost to profit those who are at the top of the supply chain. Her disingenuous statement deflects from the real-world implications of the high demands of the industry that put the workers of the global-south at risk everyday. But of course, when given the opportunity to recant her statement after being asked the further question of the whether or not she believed that the conditions that workers in the global south were subjected to were ethical, she responded by saying “They’re doing a job, there are a lot worse things that they could be doing.”. It’s this type of disconnection which characterises many within the Western world and allows the dehumanisation of people in the global-south to take place and therefore a lack of regard for their treatment.

Fast fashion has also led to an alarming increase in textile waste. Due to the low-quality production and cheap prices of fast fashion items, people tend to dispose of them quickly without much thought about their environmental impact. Discarded clothing ends up in landfills where they take several years to decompose, compromising soil quality and releasing harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The textile industry is heavily involved in the excessive use of natural resources. The production of textiles requires vast amounts of water, energy, and raw materials, leading to increased carbon emissions and deforestation. Contemporary cotton farming practices rely heavily on pesticides and synthetic fertilisers that contribute to soil degradation and water pollution. The manufacturing process of fast fashion items is also notorious for releasing harmful chemicals and microplastics into the environment including marine life. In 2017, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), reported that an estimated 35% of all microplastics in the ocean come from the laundering of synthetic materials like polyester and nylon that fast-fashion chains commonly use as textiles. In fact, microplastics have been found in the magma coming out of volcanoes, this shows just how deeply the effects of fast-fashion have completely infiltrated our entire geological system.

What’s more is that given that microplastics have been found in the magma that emerges from the Earth’s core, they can act as a fossilised record of the effects of industry since the industrial revolution. This is important because geologists are in the process of dating the start of the Anthropocene (our current geological age/epoch characterised as the period when most geological and ecological changes in the Earth have been induced by humans), back to the early 1600s, which was when European colonialisation began, so likely around the time that British industrialists began extracting skills from enslaved people and figuring out how they could successfully use steam powered Indian spinning wheel technology to strengthen their economic and political presence, thus changing the textile industry globally ever since. If geologists date the start of the Anthropocene back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and future generations will have to microplastics in magma as fossilised records of our activity on our planet, then we really need to ask ourselves what we’re doing and if this is the mark we want to leave on the Earth. Although collectively, the implications that modern human activity has had has been detrimental, Tiktoker @imraena makes the point that the epoch which may be known as the Anthropocene (we name epochs in retrospect not durning the time in which they’re happening) was induced by the activity of not simply humans in general, but a specific group of humans, namely the British industrialists and colonialists who had a lot to gain from exploiting the natural resources of our planet and skills of indigenous people. She reveals that another reason that a proposed date for the beginning of the Anthropocene is the early 1600s is because the genocide of indigenous people carried by colonisers during this time caused carbon dioxide levels to drop significantly, marking another distinct and significant change in the Earth’s geology.

The legacy of colonialism has created a system where the exploitation of people and resources in the global south is integral to the global economy. While some companies have taken steps to improve their labor practices and reduce waste, the fast fashion model itself perpetuates a cycle of exploitation that is at odds with sustainable and ethical production. The geological impacts of fast fashion are far-reaching and cannot be ignored, and as consumers, we have the right to demand more sustainable and ethical practices from fashion brands and the responsibility to seek out quality clothing items that are made to last and donate unwanted clothing items instead of dumping them in landfills.

It is important to have a deeper understanding of the historical and structural forces that continue to shape the global economy. However, we must remember that as consumers, we also play a role by consciously choosing to buy goods that are produced under fair labor practices because we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the horrors happening within our global supply chain. Finding a solution to fast-fashion will not be a one woman job, and the responsibility of doing so surely does not solely fall on the shoulders of consumers because the big corporations and giants in the industry cause the damage that even tens of thousands of we as consumers could never do in our lifetimes. However, I do believe that it starts with us as individuals because we do have the power to disrupt the fast-fashion industry from our end, so I’ve listed some sustainable brands to shop from below:

  • Whimsy + Row

  • Girlfriend Collective

  • Organic Basics

  • Afends

  • Outland Denim

  • Yes Friends

  • Harvest & Mill


    All of the brands mentioned above have a rating of either good or great on ethical and sustainable practices from Good On You. Good On you gives comprehensive ratings of brands’ sustainablity using transparent data sources and considering their practices from the beginning to the end of their supply chains.

Links:

Faith Fagbewesa
Previous

The Deforestation of The Amazon Explained