In a refutation of Rajeev Ravisankar’s argument, Nicholas D. Kristof shows his disagreement by adamantly stating for his reader how sweatshops can, in fact, help underdeveloped countries by providing millions of jobs. In an article entitled, “Where Sweatshops are Dreams,” published for The New York Times, Kristof speaks from his personal experience. He describes himself as someone, “who has spent years living in East Asia, and watching as living standards soared-because of sweatshop jobs.” He uses this position to paint a positive picture about the usefulness of sweatshops. In his article, he weighs sweatshops and the way they could be used to eliminate poverty against the struggle and tragedy of life for those who are forced to live and work
…show more content…
He understands that to accomplish this he will have to change the minds of Americans who are already, “repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories.” Changing the minds of an unsympathetic listener is a challenge, and Kristof attempts to make an emotional appeal to their sensitivities that will sway their opinion. He demonstrates verbally how there are much worse jobs than those in sweatshops through the personal accounts of impoverished children that have to work in smoking hot dumps, “searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound.” As a grim picture indeed, he explains to his readers how mothers worry about their children being ran down by garbage trucks, as in the case of the little sister of “13 year old Neuo Chanthou,” who was disfigured, losing “part of her hand,” when a garbage truck ran over her. The language of his emotional appeal focuses on making the audience dread the reality of the dumps. He compares them to hell with this simile, “this Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.” The sympathy we feel as readers for the plight of the impoverished people who must live and work in dumps is real and heartfelt, but this does not justify his position that a lesser form of …show more content…
If your goal was to only give the greatest number of people a minimum of what they need to barely survive, then you could accept that sweatshops could be useful. If your ultimate goal was to eliminate poverty, oppression, and stop injustice by giving everyone a more equal quality of life throughout the global community, then sweatshops would fall short in comparison. Why should people be forced to accept the lesser of two evils? Garbage dumps and sweatshops are equally unacceptable in a plentiful world where there are more than enough resources to go around. I would have to agree with Rajeev Ravisankar’s side of the argument when he talks specifically about applying economic pressure, “from labor rights activists, trade unions, student protestors, and human-rights groups,” to force companies to adopt ethical labor and human-rights practices. The simple fact is: Companies are the problem, and companies must become part of the solution if we are to stop, “the long race to the bottom.” Let us face it, they will probably never make the jump toward positive change and social responsibility unless we hit them right where it hurts; right in their pocket
He understands that to accomplish this he will have to change the minds of Americans who are already, “repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories.” Changing the minds of an unsympathetic listener is a challenge, and Kristof attempts to make an emotional appeal to their sensitivities that will sway their opinion. He demonstrates verbally how there are much worse jobs than those in sweatshops through the personal accounts of impoverished children that have to work in smoking hot dumps, “searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound.” As a grim picture indeed, he explains to his readers how mothers worry about their children being ran down by garbage trucks, as in the case of the little sister of “13 year old Neuo Chanthou,” who was disfigured, losing “part of her hand,” when a garbage truck ran over her. The language of his emotional appeal focuses on making the audience dread the reality of the dumps. He compares them to hell with this simile, “this Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.” The sympathy we feel as readers for the plight of the impoverished people who must live and work in dumps is real and heartfelt, but this does not justify his position that a lesser form of …show more content…
If your goal was to only give the greatest number of people a minimum of what they need to barely survive, then you could accept that sweatshops could be useful. If your ultimate goal was to eliminate poverty, oppression, and stop injustice by giving everyone a more equal quality of life throughout the global community, then sweatshops would fall short in comparison. Why should people be forced to accept the lesser of two evils? Garbage dumps and sweatshops are equally unacceptable in a plentiful world where there are more than enough resources to go around. I would have to agree with Rajeev Ravisankar’s side of the argument when he talks specifically about applying economic pressure, “from labor rights activists, trade unions, student protestors, and human-rights groups,” to force companies to adopt ethical labor and human-rights practices. The simple fact is: Companies are the problem, and companies must become part of the solution if we are to stop, “the long race to the bottom.” Let us face it, they will probably never make the jump toward positive change and social responsibility unless we hit them right where it hurts; right in their pocket