River Blue

Sustainability and Economics should not be considered mutually exclusive. Time and time again I find myself stumbling upon conversations about sustainability in the fashion industry, and how, while it seems like everyone is in agreement that the impact on our planet is not good, it continues to be rationalized by the income gained from such a transaction. My take is that we have definitely come far enough for that to no longer be a choice we have to make. 

The film “Blue River” envelops the topic of our water, generally. It discusses how we as a people have made occasional ignorant choices for the sake of profit, targeting outsourcing almost directly. It mentions China specifically being the leading country of outsourced products, as it also used to be the cheapest. This is a direct causality of the fashion industry, and how Americans' greed both for material goods as consumers, and also wealth from business professionals, has turned China, and Hong Kong, into hubs of poor working conditions, cheap garments, and most importantly, some of the most polluted water sources in the world. Interestingly enough, I didn’t hear them mention SHEIN, who most likely hadn't gotten as big of a name for its poor-quality self at the time of the film's making, though is still worth pointing out, as something they did go into was fast fashion. 

The topic of fast fashion is one I have repeatedly involved myself in. As someone who is definably lower middle class, and grew up lower class than that, my options of clothing were fast fashion or second hand, though my family growing up leaned much further towards secondhand garments, I constantly feel I need to defend both myself and the globe, from both sides of the conversation. On the one hand, I hate fast fashion. Especially now since my education has been expanded and my career relies heavily on my lack of ignorance surrounding the subject, I hate the number of people I see wearing the exact same clothing, I hate the lack of originality in their designs, but most importantly, I hate their lack of accountability. For the past few years, greener policies have been pushed forth onto more fashion brands and companies, requiring them to be smarter about where they're sourcing their garments and how they deal with their merchandise and business plans. However, we can conclude pretty easily that a lot of brands marketing themselves as becoming greener are beating around the bush, you can use as many recycled materials as you want, but if those materials are still being constructed and treated in India, not much has changed. On the other hand, I do not condone blaming (most) consumers for this. Things in general are not cheap, people do not get paid enough, and for some, fast fashion is simply a cheaper option. Speaking almost directly about SHEIN, but also consider H&M (who is not nearly as sustainable as they market, they are), Forever21, and Gap (who was also mentioned directly in the film for their poor sustainability practices), as they all cross over into about the same price range. In many cases, these brands offer the cheapest options, especially for modern styles, and many people rely on them for basic clothing purchases. That being said, I do not think it's fair to blame the sustainability practices of a brand on who is paying for them, especially in a country like the US which almost forces people to buy them from the most popular brands; capitalism. While there are cases of said brands gaining support from those who don’t need to shop there, and I am a firm believer in voting with your wallet, I find it very hard to find brands that can be consumed ethically and aren't solely directed at an upper-class audience. 

Based on info received within the film, I think the number one step to fix the amount of damage already done to the Earth is to fix where we source from. On paper, I don’t believe there should be anything ethically or morally wrong with sourcing garments from other countries. However, I think where we went wrong was basing where we sourced things from on economics, rather than products, technology, or resources available. If we are to continue sourcing products from places like China, India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Cambodia, etc., we should base it on who has cotton, who has hemp, who has technology, and who has resources we don’t. Rather than finding which country we can pay the least to do it for us, we should find which country is willing to sell it to us for the cheapest price. We're in a kind of echo chamber, in which we make decisions, specifically in the fashion industry, based on either sustainability or profit, but, as we saw in the film, this no longer needs to be a decision. 

This point is made evident in the film, in which we are first informed of different practices and treatments for garments that impact the Earth negatively. Chemicals and dyes from our garment-making facilities are the leading cause of water pollution, and one of the examples given is denim or jeans, and how the invention of stone washing and destressing was detrimental to water quality in the given country as well as air quality from pollution and C02 emissions. However, as the film progresses, we get to see evidence of our technological advancements being made in the industry, and how new methods of laser cutting and printing cut both problems to a minimum. This is a terrific example of what we should be doing. Rather than enforcing greenwashing and “Made of Recycled Materials” tags on clothing made in a factory in Honduras, we should be changing the way we actually go about every step of the process with the advancements the fashion industry is so eager to brag about but so slow to use. 

As fashion is the leading polluting industry, I find myself mulling over effectively every element brought up in “River Blue” regularly. I've found myself in many classes that push students to be educated on these factors, as, as was said in the film, new members to the industry are our best hope at redemption, and often hear the same facts about the state the Earth is in, and how the fashion industry has played a role. I definitely feel a sense of responsibility knowing I will soon be stepping into the field, and I hope I can play a role in helping to fix that. For a while I wanted my minor to be in sustainability for that reason, as this is something I take very seriously. However, I decided to go in the direction of English, as I've decided to go towards fashion journalism as my dream job because I feel one of the best things one can do in an influential position as I hope to one day attain, is calling misbehavior out when I see it. Films like this play a massive role in the evolution of the industry, especially when they specifically mention malpractice like they did with Gap and Levi’s, as it forces brands like Gap and Levi’s to directly address the issue and know that if it isn't fixed when highlighted, they will lose loyal consumers. 

All in all, the film fantastically fixates on what is happening and why, in a very detailed manner. This allows the light to shine in places it tends not to, especially for consumers not directly associated with or aware of those countries or practices. I myself was highly intrigued by the nightcrawler-ish vibe being put out, interviewing businessmen and women directly responsible for the problem and how they address it, is not something every documentary includes.