Divakaruni's essay focuses largely on an issue that has arisen from the much wider problem of poverty: child labor. The majority of America would agree that such practices are disgusting and unethical, yet most of the industries in America import goods from countries with these practices still in use, and thus they inadvertently support it. For years people have been calling to end the importing of goods manufactured by children (or for that matter, slave labor, which accounts for nearly all the cocoa production in the world.) Divakaruni shows us a different side of the issue, though. She demonstrates how for these children working in the harsh environments, the choice is between factory work or starvation. She tells the story of a young boy who was hired by the author's mother, and says of him,
"Every year, when we went to visit our grandfather in the village, we were struck by the many children we saw, ... their ribs sticking our through the rags they wore. Whenever Nimai (the boy)passed these children, he always walked a little taller. And when he handed the bulk of his earnings over to his father, there was a certain pride in his eye. Exploitation, you might be thinking. But he thought hi was a responsible member of the family."Nimai's choice was to be one of the children on the street starving and begging, or as a ten year old be put to work doing physical labor in an attempt to help support his family. It's a choice every child in that world must face. Divakaruni goes on to say that banning practices like child labor by refusing to import the goods does nothing if it just puts them our of work and costs them their food. Other actions must be taken, such as the establishment of public education. Divakaruni's unpopular opinion shows what is true, not what we feel is "right." Or immediate judgement is to try and "free the slaves." But as she aptly puts it, the choice is between forced labor and food, or to "Live Free and Starve."
The more mainstream of the two is Singer's opinion, or rather his critique of the way most of the western world lives their lives. He laments the fact that in our culture, people would much rather spend their money on extravagances like dining out or entertainment when across the world, children without the chance to have such a life are starving. He focuses on the fact that one if one family gave up dining out for one month, the money saved could support a child through the most crucial four years of development and keep them fed. He likens the situation to the following theoretical scenario:
"Bob ... has invested most of his savings into a ... valuable old car, a Bugatti. ... One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks his Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees a runaway train ... running down the track. Looking farther ahead, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. He can't [save] the child, ... but he can throw a switch [to] divert the train down the siding to his Bugatti. Then nobody will be killed-- but the train will destroy his Bugatti."
In what seems to be a rather extreme act, Bob lets the train kill the boy to save his expensive car. However, Singer shows us his actions are not so extreme. Every time we splurge, we make a decision that the fulfillment of our desires outweighs the life of another child somewhere in the world. Honestly, he's correct. It's not something anyone enjoys thinking about, and it's certainly something everyone avoids discussing. The computer I am using right now to right this costs what could have been a decade of freedom from starvation for a needy child. The clothes I wear, the books I read, the food I eat, yes, all of it could have possibly saved a life, and at this point I will never know.
No comments:
Post a Comment