I suppose first I should address "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." Singer provides some interesting ideas to giving up our luxuries and using our excess money to give to poverty in other countries, but the fact of the matter is that there is virtually NO ONE who is going to be willing to do this. Just asking my family about it, my sister became distraught when I told her that would include giving up her cell phone. Her eyes grew large and she exclaimed, "WELL WHAT IF I GET LEFT AT CROSS COUNTRY? HOW WILL MOM KNOW TO DRIVE ME HOME?" I chuckled and responded, "Kater, this means no car either.." She scoffed at me and said that not having either of these things would just not do. The average teenager and adult alike would never agree to a sacrifice THIS DEMANDING. However, I don't believe that this makes us unmoral. The mortality of it all is whether or not you donate, and if you're willing. Most teenagers you ask would, with a definite answer, say that they would donate if given the chance. I can give my definite yes to this question, but I can also give my definite no to giving up my luxuries. Giving up completely seems a little bit rash to me, probably because I, like most people, ENJOY my luxuries. That's why I own them. Cutting back on these luxuries, I believe, is a more appropriate solution.
Taking a look at the second article, however, provides a kind of uneasy feeling for me. I hate the fact that there are so many children serving as indentured servants, but it's not America over where they live. It's a total different culture and environment. These children are provided with shelter, education, food, and wages to help pay for their contracts. I don't like the fact that they have unbelievable damage to their eyes and lungs just so they can complete these tasks, but as opposed to prostitution, violence, and theft, I think I prefer the indentures... However, Divakaruni brings an interesting idea to the table: What if you work hand in hand with the government to get these children the necessities that they need such as schools and food when they are released from they these indentures? Well there's only one million things wrong with this. Are the governments willing to agree with this? Will they agree and then not implement the institutions they originally agreed to? Will they not release the children period, and just say that they have? I mean, if you really think about it, what these kids are getting may be the best they're ever going to get. They may not be able to get anything more.
Looking at it from another stand point, it's not really the United States business. The US tends to but it's head into places that it tries to come in and teach the American way to countries that don't have the wealth, agriculture, or culture of America what so ever, and the people in these countries usually do not appreciate the United States being there and uprooting everything they know and usurping all that they believe in. But then again, if the United States doesn't butt in, the country that we're trying to correct isn't going to simply up and say, "Well, this is definitely not working so let's try something else!" or "Well, this probably isn't the right thing to do, but WHO CARES?" As seen in World War II with Hitler, if you don't stop a dictator, he or she isn't going to stop doing what he or she is doing. They're going to keep trucking on doing their thing until someone throws the red flag.
So, based on these ideas, I'm completely torn on this article too.
Both articles are extremely well written, and the examples provided give you a good idea of what you're really looking at when you peer into the controversial issues of what's happening in other regions of the world. The solutions, however, aren't so well crafted.
No comments:
Post a Comment