letter to Macy's regarding fur

[Guest guest]

The Macy’s Position on Fur

 

Dear—:

We have received your recent communication regarding the sale of fur in

our stores, and I want to thank you for taking the time to share your

views with us on this very sensitive and emotional topic.

 

Many people believe as you do, and many of them are acting on that

belief, declining to buy fur products or to shop in stores that sell

them. We respect these views. Clearly, such decisions made by individual

consumers function as a singularly effective barometer for determining

what will and what will not be offered for sale in a free and open

marketplace.

 

As retailers, our role is that of a buying agent for the American

consumer. It is the consumer who ultimately will determine whether fur

will continue to be a viable product in the American retail marketplace;

if no one wants to buy fur, retailers will not sell it. Right now, this

is not the case.

Unfortunately, while many people share your opinions about fur, and buy

only faux furs, which we also sell, many others do not—and they, too,

are our customers.

 

Such conflicting viewpoints only serve to underscore our belief that

factors unrelated to the workings of a free market economy are

inappropriate as determinants of retail offerings, and that prior

censorship of legitimate market offerings by retailers would subvert a

role that properly is the consumer’s in a free market process.

 

I hope you can appreciate our position on this subject, even though it

may differ from your own. Nonetheless, I appreciate having this

opportunity to respond, and thank you again for taking the time to write

to us.

 

If you have any further questions, please e-mail us at

macysmaildesk or call us at 1-800-289-6229.

 

Sincerely,

Internet Customer Service

Macy’s Department Stores

 

--

 

Reply

 

Dear Macy’s Customer Service,

I was in the midst of writing my own letter to Macy’s urging the company

to close its fur salons and refrain from selling fur—coats and trim—in

its stores, when a friend sent me a copy of your response (see above) to

her recent letter. Rather than revisiting what she (and others I’m sure)

has already said, I would like to share a few thoughts that I have on

the matter of Macys’ position on the sale of fur in its stores. I hope

that you might take a moment to hear me out and perhaps see fit to pass

my comments on to others.

 

First let me say that, personally, I have a soft spot for Macy’s. I have

turned to Macy’s in the past for kitchen items, luggage or seasonal

fashions. Macy’s is world renowned as a department store of high quality

and elegant fashion and is a retailer that customers consistently count

on.

 

Moreover, the Macy’s store at Herald Square is a New York institution,

sponsoring such family events as the annual Thanksgiving Day parade and

Santa’s village; and is a must-see hotspot for tourists from around the

world. As a Mecca of high-end consumerism, Macy’s must respond to the

needs of its

consumers in order to remain competitive. However, as the world’s

largest department store and, as such, a most influential and reputable

establishment, Macy’s has an even larger responsibility to its consumers

and therefore must be held to higher standards in its selection of

retail merchandise.

 

It is true that fur is—as you say—a “very sensitive and emotional

topic.” These words could almost be construed as dismissive, but then,

we all know that consumer-driven engines such as slavery, as well as

child, low-wage and forced labor, are also highly-charged “sensitive and

emotional” issues. And rightly so.

 

Rhetorical as it may be, I have to ask where you think we would be now

if major commercial players chose to override moral protestations or

obligations, and continued to sell merchandise procured from

institutions they knew were inherently unjust, exploitative and painful?

Slavery, forced labor, and apartheid are all systems that benefit a

marginal few. And—need I remind you?—they are market-driven systems.

People engaged in the slave trade because it was profitable; and slaves

were most definitely, as you say of fur, a “viable product in the

American retail marketplace.” Speaking of cheap labor,

European companies, such as Siemens electronics and Volkswagen

automobiles, benefited greatly from German-run labor camps during World

War II. I don’t think I need to remind you of how the apartheid system

benefited a select group of South Africans—socially and economically—nor

how it was specifically economic boycotts that ultimately brought such a

brutal system to its knees. We all know now how wrong and antiquated the

ideology was that kept these institutions in place.

 

As the “buying agent for the American consumer,” Macy’s procures

products in response to the desires of its consumers. But of objections

to the sale of fur, you say:

 

“Such conflicting viewpoints only serve to underscore our belief that

factors unrelated to the workings of a free market economy are

inappropriate as determinants of retail offerings, and that prior

censorship of legitimate market offerings by retailers would subvert a

role that properly is the consumer’s in a free market process.”

 

Let’s try applying your words to arguments against any of the abusive

scenarios mentioned above. If we take this position seriously, then we

cannot apply any “determinants of retail offerings” or hold “buying

agents” accountable for anything that they do. So, for example, we would

have to completely dismiss lawsuits seeking compensation for survivors

of German concentration camps from the banks, insurance companies, art

dealers, and industries that utilized their forced labor or profited

from their stolen bank accounts and artworks, and fraudulent insurance

policies, since, after all, these institutions were only “buying agents”

for consumers. Sure, it was a war-time economy with unprecedented

circumstances, but people would not have been exploited if it did not

benefit someone.

 

Such “factors unrelated to the workings of a free market economy”

involve the abduction of human beings from their homes and subjecting

them to egregious abuse, including incarceration, starvation, exposure

to the elements, branding, and execution. Change the phrase “human

beings” to “animals” in

the preceding sentence, and you have the precise scenario of creatures

farmed and trapped for their fur. You argue that “if no one wants to buy

fur, retailers will not sell it;” if that is so, then slave traders

would have been out of business because no one wanted to buy a human

being. We all know that consumer demand is not what ended slavery in

this country. And if we stay with animals for a moment, there is

international recognition that the ivory trade is directly responsible

for the decimation of thousands of elephants. There is a reason that an

embargo of elephant-derived ivory is in place; but even this is not

deterring every consumer.

 

One final query. Does Macy’s sell so-called “blood” or “conflict”

diamonds from mines in West Africa that are sold to fuel the wars that

plague that area? If so, then it’s news to me, and would be news to

others. If not, then how can such moral determinants be considered

appropriate in light of your argument? If you stand at one of the

perfume counters on the main floor of Macy’s and survey—let’s say—50

shoppers, asking whether they are aware of the ethical problems with

diamonds from war-torn West Africa, at least 45 of them wouldn’t have a

clue as to what you’re talking about. Because the purchase of “blood

diamonds” funds the bloody tribal warfare in which thousands of people

have been raped, maimed, and executed; thousands of young boys have been

abducted and turned into murdering soldiers; and children as young as

one year of age (this has been documented!) have been raped and

mutilated, “buying agents” are refusing to sell such diamonds. The

morals and responsibility of the buying agents is what will stop this

trade; not consumer demand.

 

In light of all this, I urge you and the powers-that-be at Macy’s to

reconsider your position that applying a moral responsibility to the

merchandise you sell subverts the workings of a free-market economy and

effectively amounts to censorship. This is a transparent and

irresponsible argument, conveniently removing any responsibility from

the hands of Macy’s. Your counterpart—Macy’s West—has wisely chosen to

close all of its fur salons and has stopped selling high-end fur trim. I

ask Macy’s East to do the same.

 

Sincerely,

Catherine Clyne

New York, NY

[Editor’s note: in reply, Mr. Brocki sent the exact same form letter

printed above.]

 

 

http://www.stealthtechnologies.com/satya/jan01/letters.html

[Guest guest]

That was a really good letter-

I was also thinking to myself, I know they use " morals " as a deciding

factor in choosing to not sell something in the first place, like

T-shirts in the juniors section that say, " Pot is great " I don't

doubt some teenagers would wear something like that or otherwise

scary to adults. How about maternity clothes in the Juniors dept?

There's lots of pregnant teens, why not be pregnant in style? Or

decorations or shirts that could be thought of as racist, pornographic

or anti-religious? I'm sure some people would buy any of those

things. I guess their PR people are just better at spinning items that

bring in the big $$$.

G