Poverty ~ Reading Response Blog

Poverty. Forced labor. Child labor. What do you think when you hear these words? Do you cringe? Do you become enraged? Do you immediately condemn the way these issues are treated in Western culture and demand a proper change? Like many others, including myself, you probably have some very strong feelings when it comes to these issues and what should be done to combat them. Two writers, Divakaruni and Singer, elaborate on their own opinions regarding world poverty in their respective articles, "Live Free and Starve" and "The Singer Solution to World Poverty". Their thoughts on poverty and the struggles accompanied by it are very unique and differ widely.

Divakaruni addresses primarily the issue of child labor in her article. She criticizes the U.S. House bill that prevented the import of resources and goods from countries that permitted the use of child labor, saying that although this decision might seem logical to the average rich, free, white American, most child laborers have no choice but to sacrifice their liberty if they want to eat. She argues that the bill, which could potentially "lead to the unemployment of almost a million children", does not take into account the laborers' willful trade-off of their basic freedoms in exchange for the even more basic needs, such as food, water, and shelter. Divakaruni tells the story of a boy named Nimai who used to work in her family's household when she was still a child. Nimai made his wage doing menial chores like dusting, sweeping, running to the market, or pumping water from the well; hardly an "ideal" existence for a ten-year-old boy, but Divakaruni says that nonetheless he would "walk a little taller" past "the many children...by the mud roads, their ribs sticking out through the rags they wore". Nimai might have not experienced childhood the way a free individual would have, but still, Divakurani says, it's better than starving.

Personally, however, I have to wonder if Divakurani's solution of maintaining child labor is not but simple-minded and poorly thought through. I may, indeed, have a bias as an already free American, but I believe it is possible for a child to both be free and have the necessities to live at the same time. Tackling the level of poverty on a national basis in these third-world countries would prevent a child from ever having to struggle just to live in the first place. I agree with the author's statement that "a bill like the one we've passed has no use unless it goes hand in hand with programs that will offer a new life to these newly released children". If America were to help expand the educational opportunities for these children and work to increase their literacy level, as well as providing some of the basic necessities they lack in the mean time, I believe we would have a more well-rounded approach to combating child labor.

Singer's thoughts about poverty would likely appear as the more conventional of the two when presented to an American audience. His approach takes the more mainstream route - "donate more" - but to a more drastic degree. "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities," he states, rather matter-of-factly, "should be given away". Not too much of a radical idea there. What may appear radical to some, however, is the level of giving he asks for demands from the American people: "an American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities...therefore, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000". $20,000 is an undeniably hefty sum no matter which way you approach it, but is asking for this level or generosity truly unfounded? In my opinion, it is possible to give up more of our salaries than we may immediately realize, and the lives saved are indeed a worthy cause. Even for those who cannot afford to simply hand away of sum of $20,000 can cut back on extra expenses slowly and donate the accumulated amount after saving it up. I would never accuse, however, those that are unemployed with families or those on welfare of murder for outright refusing to donate their money. I may, perhaps, carry bias in that regard, as for much of my life my own mother has been unemployed and I sympathize with the financial struggles of the families that have been hurt by our economy. I think, though, that even those approaching this article without any bias could agree that sometimes saving lives entails real sacrifice, and there is no harm in encouraging more selflessness in today's American culture.