The happenings in the world, even in consumerist based countries, bring thought to many people who are concerned about the future, and global human rights is one of these looming obstacles. American culture clearly defines and regulates basic civilian rights, stretching to fit in even guaranteed dignity in the workplace. This model standard leads Americans to take radical stands on issues such as the existence of foreign sweatshops. The obvious difference between the living standards for low class workers in America and places such as China is hard for many American Humanists to ignore. However, many anthropological viewpoints which accepting of this clear difference in society, are also prominent in the ongoing debate about the nature of sweatshops. Many who refuse to allow the lack of dignity sweatshop workers are treated with, in China, have voiced their opinions, sending a message to the public. Proudly standing behind her opinion, Anna Yesilevsky suggested U.S Governments “deal with manufacturers that abuse labor standards by preventing the importation of their goods into the United States.” For people like Yesilevsky, the reality of the situation is sweatshops are a massive issue in human rights, and the answer clear: legal action must be taken. No mercy is shown for institutions that strip workers of rights as basic as humanity (Yesilevsky). The devastating blow to human equality that sweatshops propose not only arouse empathy from people, but drives them to influence public action against condoning or participating in the process of labor abuse, in even a consumerist form. The press for action to abolish these manufacturers is prominent in the end of this movement regarding sweatshops (Yesilevsky). However, some activist writers believe that abolishment of these institutions is less of a necessary goal, and more of an impediment for the natural evolution of beginning industrial economies. “Two cheers for sweatshops,” a