Child labor is a problem in many countries in the developing world. However, it is especially devastating in China. It is very common to see young girls, rather than young boys, involved in child labor. Child labor has existed ever since China began. In the beginning child labor was not viewed as wrong. In the 20th century those opinions began to change and the first law that dealt with child labor was passed in 1923, however, this law was not strictly enforced until the Chinese Communist Party began its rule in 1949 (Schmitz, Traver, & Larson, 41). The CCP in a way made the situation better if only temporarily. They enforced the laws that needed to be in order to ensure that children had promising futures. In China, like the U.S., they believe that children are the future. They believe the government is responsible for the well being of their children. Unfortunately, the CCP was overthrown and things went back to the way they used to be. The government has still pursued laws that ensured the safety of children and made sure that they were not subjected to child labor. However, despite all their efforts child labor is still seen in China, but today they are very secretive about it.
Some say that child labor was not necessarily bad in the earlier years, but things are beginning to change. The exploitation of children in China is far worse than it has ever been. The jobs that these children are given are not very hard; the tasks are jobs that they are very capable of doing physically. However, due to industrialization, there have been many openings of new factories and mills and here the children are being exploited (Burton, 53). Child labor in China is still present today, and it is only going to get worse. However, it seems that there are a few ways that this can be prevented.
Children are the future of the world, no matter where they live. Many children in the developing world have far less educational opportunities than those in the U.S. I believe that children should have the same rights and opportunities everywhere. In the U.S. we have a great education system; we know that when we grow up we are going to have the opportunity to make a name for ourselves. Children in china and in many developing countries are destined to work in factories, under oppressive conditions, with low pay for the rest of their lives and even laws cannot change that. I think one possible solution would be to improve the educational systems in China. We all know that Chinese people are very intelligent and those kids working in factories and mills in China are just as smart. I think an improved educational system would help, but I also believe that more foreign aide would be beneficial. A lot of the kids who are apart of the child labor movement have dropped out of school to take on these jobs to support their families. I believe foreign aide would help the economy, which would in turn help the children of China.
Problems that are developing in the developing world, I believe, stem from one thing: poverty. Poverty has taken its toll heavily on women and children there forcing them to work under oppressive conditions. China, like many other countries, needs to find a way to deal with this. However, they cannot change on their own. They need the help of bigger countries, with stronger economies, like the U.S. If we do not help, no one else will. And if no one else will then children in China are going to be stuck working in factories and mills already knowing that one day their children will be working there as well.
Sources:
Cathryne L. Schmitz, Elizabeth Kim Jin Traver, and Desi Larson. Child Labor: A Global
View. Greenwood Press: Westport, CT. 2004.
Burton, Margaret. Women Workers of the Orient. Harvard University: Massachusetts.
2005.
Labels: GLR #3
Hutus and Tutsis were the two main ethnic groups in Rwanda during the time when the genocide broke out. The Hutu held the majority and the minority group was the Tutsi. All people, from both groups, were supplied with an identity card that clearly identified which ethnic group they belonged to. Both the Hutus and the Tutsis spoke the same language and had the same traditions, but the Belgians considered one group to better than the other, and this caused a great deal of animosity among the two groups. Any person that had more than ten cows, a long, pointed nose, lighter skin, and a relatively skinny body was considered to be Tutsi. The Hutus, on the other hand, were considered to be any person who had less than ten cows, more muscular features, and met an average height.
In the beginning of the movie a lot of focus is on the possible signing of the peace accord. Eventually the president signed the peace accord, which was between the Tutsi military and the Hutu militia. However, the peace accord did not last long because the Tutsi military, according to the Hutu militia, murdered the president by shooting down his plane. The death of the president was the breaking point that started the beginning of a horrific genocide that killed almost a million people.
The Hutus used the radio as a means of communication to talk about their plans of a great slaughter. In the movie Paul’s brother in law, Thomas, warned him that the Hutu militia had a signal. The signal was “Cut down the tall trees,” once the signal was given the brutal slaughter of the Tutsi cockroaches would begin. Unfortunately the signal was given and the Hutus began burning down houses and slaying innocent Tutsis men and women mercilessly. They even went as far as to slaughter Tutsi children. They hoped by slaughtering the Tutsi children that they would be getting rid of the next generation of Tutsis “cockroaches”. The Hutu not only killed the Tutsis but they also began killing their fellow Hutus, who were more moderate, because they would not kill their Tutsi friends and neighbors.
The UN military was there foremost to see that no weapons were entering the country. However you see very early in the movie that they were not doing a very good job at monitoring the weapons that came into the country. Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager at the Hotel Mille Collines, was picking up some food and alcohol from a local supplier. When they were transporting a wooden crate on a forklift the crate fell and broke revealing many machetes. Obviously they either turned a blind eye or Hutus were especially sneaky at getting weapons into the country.
I do not think that in any way the response to the devastating genocide in Rwanda was appropriate, or even helpful for the matter. Their lack of response killed many innocent people. The UN was their to help, however, what help are you going to be if you are not allowed to fire your gun? The only time that the UN military personnel were allowed to fire their gun was in self-defense. Eventually the UN troops were forced to withdraw when some of their soldiers were killed. The news media crew that was staying at the hotel during the beginning of the genocide showed live footage of the slaughtering that was taking place in Rwanda, yet, no one offered a helping hand, especially the U.S. If countries such as France, Belgium, and the U.S had intervened the genocide may have ended sooner, and many Hutu and Tutsi lives may have been spared. However, they never had the gal to stand up and take action, which resulted in a genocide that lasted 100 days and the brutal killing of more than a million people.
An appropriate response would have been any kind of intervention. It did not have to be a full intervention, but even a minimal intervention from any country would have been extremely beneficial and definitely life saving. The U.S. acted cowardly. They feared that after what happened in Somalia that the American people would not look highly upon an intervention in Rwanda. Therefore, they decided against any intervening action. However, France and Belgium were, like the U.S., extremely reluctant in offering assistance. When Paul contacted the President of Sabena, he in turn contacted the prime minister of France, but after much begging he could not get them to budge. He then called Paul and told them that they were all cowards and that unfortunately they were going to be left to fend for themselves, and that is exactly what they did. One man had more courage than three powerful countries. Paul used bribes and stored up favors to save his family and many of the refugees staying at the hotel. He had no guns, no machetes, however, he did have his integrity and he vowed not to let those people die. The U.S., France, and Belgium had no conscience because they were willing to sit back and let all these innocent people die because it did not affect them. President Clinton made a dreadful error in not sending relief to Rwanda, and now the result almost one million people are dead.
The end of the movie was the most touching part. You were able to see Paul and his family, along with many other moderate Hutus and Tutsis cross the border into a refugee camp that was already full of refugees. The heroic efforts of one man saved all those people. He sheltered them in the hotel, he constantly bribed the militia, and used his connections to by him some time to save his family and the refugees that he was protecting in the hotel. One man did all of this. Imagine if the U.S., French, and Belgian governments had sent their armies over to help contain the genocide. Would the outcome have been any different?
In many ways I think the outcome would have been considerably different. Obviously, it would not have saved every, single life, but I believe that it would have sparred a few hundred thousand. Watching this movie made me realize that even though we are a super nation and we have a lot of power we are constantly at fault because we continue to make stupid decisions. President Clinton made a comment that he did not want to send troops into Rwanda because people were still trying to deal with the events that occurred in Somalia. However, I think the real reason is because he did not want to hurt his reputation.
We have troops currently in Iraq; a majority of the public does not agree with that, yet, they are still there. President Bush does not seem to care that his popularity rating is considerably low; he is in it to win it and finish the job. Why couldn’t President Clinton do that? The American public may not have wanted the U.S. to intervene but I still firmly believe that we should have sent relief to Rwanda to stop the mass genocide that occurred. Who cares what the American people wanted? I know that sounds horrible, and very unpatriotic, but we have numerous benefits like education, health care, a stable democracy, and a strong army, and the people of Rwanda have nothing that even remotely resemble that. The movie made me think about what could have happened if we intervened and I believe the outcome would be extremely different. We’ll never know though, cause countries like France, Belgium, and the U.S. acted cowardly and left millions of innocent people to die and I believe that we are doing the same thing again in Darfur. Darfur is a repeat of Rwanda because again, we are leaving innocent people to die in a mass genocide.
Labels: GLR #2
