Although such practices are quite apparent in Firestone, there is a conflict on whether the company alone should take full accountability for such inhumane act, or other organizations, such as the government, is also responsible.
When one hears the word Liberia, freedom from servitude will automatically plays to mind. Liberia, as Pailey pointed out, is the “land of exile for repatriated American slaves ... a proverbial refuge from dehumanising, deplorable conditions of chattel slavery in United States” (77). It is in this place that the dark-skinned Americans are given the privilege to move in the community with less regard for social class. They are given the autonomy to cultivate the land, a choice that had been denied from them for generations, all because their looks and skin color are much different from the Caucasian groups they had served. Due to the lushness of their homeland, particular foreign investors took interest in one of the in-demand product in the market--rubber. This is where the Firestone had taken severe advantage. During the early 1990’s, Firestone struck up a deal with Liberia’s government, which had given them the right to a vast quantity of land for an annual compensation of US$60,000 (Pailey 77). The deal had been reasonable for the government’s side, since they lack the resources to fully cultivate the land on the international level--giving more work opportunity for the Liberian citizens. Despite the promise of greater glory, Firestone did not go off in a rapid pace, as predicted. Several crises had been encountered by the company, resulting to a few dilemmas on revenue delays and loan problems. In the later part, problems seemed to have piled up, leading to military outbreak and involvement in civil war (Lee and Lee 123-125). The warring political parties in Liberia not only managed to destroy the colony, in the process, it also ruined the