Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
I'm kind of incredulous here. Sure, one might make a case that in the beginning, the companies were acting in a certain amount of ignorance and might claim to be blameless. But once they knew, or should have known, did they offer any compensation or even a bit of compassion to the afflicted women? Did they reexamine their practices and implement changes? The women's suffering didn't just happen--it happened because the companies exploited and victimized them.
|
Keep in mind that the post you quoted was drawing a line between what happened before June 1924 and what happened after. Before June 1924 I do not think Moore has made the case that the companies had any substantial reason to believe there would be long term health affects. As such, most of the early cases had nothing to do with victimisation (or no more than was normal for the times).
As to what happens after June 1924, I'm still reading that part. Part one gets through to Aug 1925 to when the strongest evidence - to date - of cause and effect seems to have been finally discovered. But again it is necessary to remember that just because Moore is only listing girls that fell ill (and as we walk into the building with one of our victims everyone she sees has a limp or a lump) does not mean they were the only girls that worked there: it was not simple case of dial-paint-work=illness, so convincing vested interests (once the evidence started to emerge) was always going to be difficult.
The problem we face is that Moore has left most of the facts and figures out of her story, making it very difficult to gain a meaningful perspective. The only choice that Moore is giving us is an emotional response, and that's not particularly helpful in understanding what actually happened.