Summary Of Live Free And Starve By Chitra Divakaruni

831 Words4 Pages

Reading Chitra Divakaruni’s essay, Live Free and Starve, it is clear that she opposes the law(s) stopping child labor in Third World Countries. With that being said, she uses a significant amount of anecdotes proving her point as to why child labor should be prohibited. The personal anecdotes enables the readers to relate emotionally. It serves to fortify her claim, and by providing specific examples of how this bill would adversely affect these children, which supports her argument. Divakaruni is extremely passionate about what she believes. She went through a great deal to have such strong feelings for the kids who go through child labor. “It is true that child labor is a terrible thing, especially for those children who are sold to …show more content…

This quote coming from the essay, Divakaruni’s own words, shows that because the United States has this bill, all nations ought to have this bill. But now with this being conceded, the innocent children do not have to spend this childhood years working and sweating in factories. They could “be free and happy, like American children” (Divakaruni 373). The passion from every word and sentence from Divakaruni’s passge truly illustrates that she knows enough to make a massive subject out of it. As mentioned in Chitra Divakaruni’s short biography, she spent nineteen years in her homeland before coming to the United States. She knew exactly how child labor went on in India. And it’s obvious that she knows how it is in other Third World Countries. With Divakaruni’s goal being that the issue of child labor must be known and acknowledged by others, such as the United States passing the bill, proves her emotional connection to the matter. To gather all the thoughts and feelings and successfully compose it into an article takes very much out of a person. Divakaruni must be applauded just as her “liberal friends applauded the bill” (Divakaruni 372). Back tracking to the passing of the bill being “a triumphant advance in the field of human rights” (Divakaruni 372), was it the answer? It’s questionable