Kristof Article-Sterling Paulson

Kristof Article-Sterling Paulson

I found this article to be very interesting, not just because of the issue being addressed, but also because of the way in which the author wrote it. I thought that it was full of thought-provoking content, but I also feel like the author alienated many readers. He seems to assume that the typical Democrat is one who is vehemently opposed to child labor laws, but he also seems to have a demeaning attitude towards them and criticizes their concerns. In doing so, he seems to make another assumption, which is that the “Democrats and warm-and-fuzzy humanitarians” who he seems to be speaking to will be receptive to this kind of criticism. He claims that they are well-intentioned but misguided and naïve in their efforts. He also claims that the Western attitude in general exacerbates the child labor law situation. His ultimate claim is that while child labor laws are a nice gesture towards children in third-world countries, they are lofty ideals that do not have the positive effect that Americans believe they do. He reasons that the ultimate way to address child labor is to address the underlying poverty that causes it.  While I found this claim and accompanying reason to be somewhat persuasive, I also think that he is treating these third-world countries as unfairly as he treats the aforementioned “Democrats and warm-and-fuzzy humanitarians.” He provides an example of a school that offers incentives to children who attend school, as well as an example of a child who must work and doesn’t have an option to attend school.  However, it seems that he uses two extreme examples as reasons to support his claim, and makes the assumption that many children will be in similar situations, or that people will be taken by these two examples. In reality, he generalizes the situation in these countries and ignores the real-life examples of children that child labor laws attempt to address, in which children with the opportunity to attend school are instead forced into work at an early age.  I believe that the article was somewhat persuasive and appears logical at first glance, but with consideration of the assumptions, claims, and supporting reasons I think that it loses its power as you see that two isolated examples are applied as broad generalizations. I was left questioning what exactly the situation is for children in many of these countries, as well as what it would be like for children without the vigilantes who fight for child labor laws in efforts that Kristof labels misguided.