... Are Sweatshops Good?
Blog Post 5
Kristof’s purpose in writing this essay was to try to
give insight to Barack Obama and his team, along with any other person who comes across this text, as to why fixing labor standards in places like sweatshops might actually hurt others. He tries to prove his point through the use of pathos. He describes not only the bad living conditions of some but also mentions their “jobs”. These people living in poverty attempt to make money by looking through garbage dumps in attempts of finding recyclables that they can sell. They hardly make any money from this and they also risk their lives while doing so. He mentions a girls named Neuo Chanthou whose sister lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran her over. People living in these conditions (for example, Pim Srey Rath) dream of the possibility of working in a sweatshop. To them obtaining a job like this is what they dream and hope for. Kristof also uses imagry in the beginning of his essay to allow us a better sense of the living conditions these people live in. In paragraph 12 of his essay he refutes the arguments of those who believe that labor conditions can improve wages and working conditions. He believes that better labor standards would make these companies want to hire less people.
Close your eyes and describe the image that appears in your
head when you hear the word sweatshop.
In my head I can imagine an overcrowded room, people lined up next to
each other all using a machine to complete their work. In this room I picture
loud noises coming from every corner of the room, the machine noises never
stop. The looks on people’s faces all look really tired. You would think that
every single person lined up at a sweatshop machine would feel nothing but
absolute hatred for this job. However, some people can’t believe how lucky they
are to have ended up working at this sweatshop. At least this is what Nicholas
D. Kristof argues in his essay, “Where Sweatshops are a Dream”. Kristof puts
together an essay that makes you question whether sweatshops might actually “help”
people.
Kristof’s purpose in writing this essay was to try to
give insight to Barack Obama and his team, along with any other person who comes across this text, as to why fixing labor standards in places like sweatshops might actually hurt others. He tries to prove his point through the use of pathos. He describes not only the bad living conditions of some but also mentions their “jobs”. These people living in poverty attempt to make money by looking through garbage dumps in attempts of finding recyclables that they can sell. They hardly make any money from this and they also risk their lives while doing so. He mentions a girls named Neuo Chanthou whose sister lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran her over. People living in these conditions (for example, Pim Srey Rath) dream of the possibility of working in a sweatshop. To them obtaining a job like this is what they dream and hope for. Kristof also uses imagry in the beginning of his essay to allow us a better sense of the living conditions these people live in. In paragraph 12 of his essay he refutes the arguments of those who believe that labor conditions can improve wages and working conditions. He believes that better labor standards would make these companies want to hire less people.
I think Kristof did a good job of getting his message
across. I think his strengths show in his use of pathos. He got message by
making the reader feel empathy for these people who actually DREAM of working
in sweatshops. I liked that he used this approach rather than using a bunch of
statistics and facts. However including some of these would not have been a bad
thing.
Level 4: I liked the well developed explanations of the main idea and rhetorical strategies.
ReplyDeleteMaybe for the next rhetorical analysis you could add some quotes from the author's article and the date of publication. This allows the rhetorical analysis to be more detailed.
DeleteSomething that stood out for me about your post was the introduction and the imagery provided. It made me want to actually close my eyes and imagen what was being described.
DeleteLevel 3 (almost 4!); Your introduction is outstanding! Overall, this is a strong, direct analysis. You delivered Kristof's main idea and purpose, included the use of the rhetorical triangle, etc. If you added your analysis to your summary to give it more depth and included the figurative language the author used, then I'd give this a 4. Good job!
ReplyDelete