Black Slavery Today

hydrex said:

You do have a point in that slavery in Niger isn't as reported by the press as much as aparthied was. Unfortunately that seems to be the way it goes. Either a cause gets picked up and becomes a cause celeb or it doesn't, and it reamins hidden from public view.

Click to expand...

Why dont you ask yourself why?

BlueEyesInLevis said:

Why dont you ask yourself why?

Click to expand...

I have and the only legitimate answer I can come up with is no-one that can get it into the publics attention wants to. Maybe it's political or something I have no idea.

BlueEyesInLevis said:

Ok, I'll admit that I didnt really bother more than a cursory look at your source.

I was aware of isolated cases, but NOTHING on this scale. These figures, if correct, are very alarming and need IMMEDIATE attention. I plan on forwarding the UN report to my Senator. I honestly appreciate your showing me and the rest of us this problem.

But where is my hypocricy? What issue closely related to this was I protesting?

Click to expand...

As mentioned in a thread by Nosexforher- hypocrasy is not the correct word.

As it is, I happen to have been made aware of the problem yonks ago through my membership and subscriptions with Amnesty International and did my bit of activism through this organisation (which I donate money to as well) to alleviate all human rights abuses of this kind. What I found off-putting was how you were skewering the issue in a way that was not rational, and that seemed steeped in a less than well thought out agenda, as pointed out above by several posters of a variety of political persuasions. It is one thing to argue black on black slavery is bad, it is one thing to argue that white on black slavery is bad, it is another thing to argue that black on black slavery somehow justifies the occurance of white on black slavery, or that black on black slavery lessens the importance of white on black slavery, or is directly the same as the other. If you truly believe that Niger slavery is as seismic, or historically important to Western black people as the white on black slave trade, then you are making some slightly racist assumptions along the lines of "if you're black then you're still an African- and I don't give a fuck where in Africa you're from, the problems there are partly your fault and you should be dealing with them." Black people everywhere are different with different priorities, different histories etc.

It would be commendable if you take action on this cause, but for reasons stated above do not accuse black people of being 'hypocrites' if they happen to lack an interest in it, and do not claim that white on black slavery is the monozygotic twin of black on black slavery.

GirlMidnite said:

As mentioned in a thread by Nosexforher- hypocrasy is not the correct word.

As it is, I happen to have been made aware of the problem yonks ago through my membership and subscriptions with Amnesty International and did my bit of activism through this organisation (which I donate money to as well) to alleviate all human rights abuses of this kind. What I found off-putting was how you were skewering the issue in a way that was not rational, and that seemed steeped in a less than well thought out agenda, as pointed out above by several posters of a variety of political persuasions. It is one thing to argue black on black slavery is bad, it is one thing to argue that white on black slavery is bad, it is another thing to argue that black on black slavery somehow justifies the occurance of white on black slavery, or that black on black slavery lessens the importance of white on black slavery, or is directly the same as the other. If you truly believe that Niger slavery is as seismic, or historically important to Western black people as the white on black slave trade, then you are making some slightly racist assumptions along the lines of "if you're black then you're still an African- and I don't give a fuck where in Africa you're from, the problems there are partly your fault and you should be dealing with them." Black people everywhere are different with different priorities, different histories etc.

It would be commendable if you take action on this cause, but for reasons stated above do not accuse black people of being 'hypocrites' if they happen to lack an interest in it, and do not claim that white on black slavery is the monozygotic twin of black on black slavery.

Click to expand...

"monozygotic"

WOW I think I love you.......either that or I just had an orgasm.

hydrex said:

"monozygotic"

WOW I think I love you.......either that or I just had an orgasm.

Click to expand...

I would have too, but "yonks" put me off.

BlueEyesInLevis said:

My point, which has yet to be addressed, deals with the hypocricy of those who marched, boycotted, demanded sanctions and divestiture from South Africa over the clearly less horrid practice of aparthied; yet now remain silent as they find some esoteric difference between "racial" and "economic" slavery.

Click to expand...

There was more outrage about South Africa because the West had substantial leverage in South Africa--without such leverage Mandela would have died in prison and apartheid would be in force today. Most Americans with any sort of moral sensibility were disgusted by our support for the Nationalists--and yeah, I'm sure that the recent American experience with homegrown apartheid, brought to an end no thanks to people like you, had much to do with the attention the issue received here.

Your thread title gives the game away. You don't really care about the issue; you're a redneck here to sling shit.

Ishmael said:

OK, I'm going to step in here.

The trafficing has been going on for centuries and the most documented recently is the Asian trafficing of sex workers into Thialand.

But, your statement regarding the US as a destination for 750K is wrong. You have no evidence of that. No basis in fact.

There are women trafficed into the US, that is a fact. They are mostly Hispanic and are put to work as prostitutes catering to the illegals. They're rounded up and shipped back where found. It exists, it is NOT condoned, and it certainly isn't to the levels you are trying to cite.

Is it slavery? Yup, no question about that. Is it slavery in the traditional sense? Not quite. It's an underground market place, not government sanctioned as it is in Niger. (Yes, I'm aware that Niger has 'outlawed' slavery. I'm also aware they've done NOTHING to enforce that law.)

A great many of the cases cited by the UN and other sources fall into a grey area of "indentured servitude." Not quite slavery, but in most respects just as odious. The difference is a fine line and most of those arrangements are entered into willingly at first either by the women themselves, or by their families where custom dictates that custom. The women get a little more than they bargained for. Don't misconstrue my words, this is indistinguishable from slavery to the victims and is just as deplorable. But there are a great many places in the third world where this is a customary practice.

Then again, I see no difference between the 'pimp-whore' relationship and slavery either. And in that respect I would imagine your 700K number might have some merit. But most of the whores working for pimps in this country are home grown, we didn't have to resort to importation. The same is probably true in your country.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the problem is the same as in the UK, we have a real problem in Europe with people trafficking, I used the US as an example to show how widespread the problem is.

I was quoting a UN statistic on the 750k number over the course of trafficking a decade.

Here is a statistic from a UN web page "...A recent CIA report estimated that between 45,000 to 50,000 women and children are brought to the United States every year under false pretenses and are forced to work as prostitutes, abused labourers or servants."

Most of the women agree to travel under the false conception that they will be waitresses, or that they will have a degree of independence and an opportunity to earn for themselves. They are unaware of the reality that faces them which they will be unable to escape. This is what makes what happens next- human bondage without basic defined rights- slavery. Like other slaves, their masters feel at liberty to kill or maim them if they attempt an escape.

White slaves are in many ways, invisible slaves/involuntary workers because they may not speak English or Spanish, and they do not 'appear' to be an obvious ethnic group. Most of the women primarily transported to the US are Asian and then from the former soviet block. This is a fact. Some women also come from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ethiopia, and are 'recruited' in a similar fashion as E.European prostitutes.

BlueEyesInLevis said:

My point Peregrinator (and thank you for being civil) is there seems to be a double standard when it comes to "cause celebre"s. You call my pointing it out a cheap shot. Why is it a cheap shot?

To me slavery, whatever the motivation, is worse than apartheid, but the silence from those who were the most vocal on apartheid are now silent and for the life of me I cannot understand why. It seems you wonder as well. Please name one single university or national organization calling any attention to this issue. Please.

I would bet that less than 10% of the American population has any inkling that slavery survives today. And I'd also bet you that 90% of the population knew that SA practiced apartheid back in 1980. WHY?

It is my OPINION that black leaders here arent interested in the issue because there are no whites involved.

Now, before you slam me for my opinion, at least offer a better explanation for the lack of outrage over slavery today. And when you do tell me honestly that there would still be this silence if whites were involved.

Click to expand...

(You're welcome.)
The cheap shot was in the way you framed the thread as an attack on liberals, rather than as information about something bad happening. You might simply have said, "Slavery is happening in Niger, and that sucks" and then encouraged people to write their senators, or something.

I get your point. Girlmidnite pointed out that AmnestyInternational is doing what they can to educate people about it; that's just one group. I think we've pretty much covered the topic of causes celebres and how fickle the populace is about them. You could look at starvation worldwide and ask why the "we are the world" crowd has been silent for nearly two decades now. You could ask why the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame. There are contradictions and hypocracy everywhere; I really believe it comes down to people only having so much energy to spend on activism. I know making a living seems like it takes up most of mine.

Here's a good link to an org that seems to be the real deal, trying to get the word out:
http://www.antislavery.org/index.htm

Here is a course listing at Boston University:Comparative Slavery

As far as your opinion about why the black leaders aren't involved, okay, you're entitled to guess what's in their heads just like anyone else is. I know Jesse Jackson was part of the protests against the sins of Shell in the Niger Delta, which is in Nigeria and not Niger, confusingly enough, but is awful damned close. For all we know he is doing something, but maybe not being public about it. I can't tell you honestly anything about a hypothetical situation. I can point to the lack of attention that other posters have pointed out for white slavery, though, and say that white-owner-black-slavery must still be practiced somewhere in the world, and I'm not hearing about it at all. If it exists, your "silent racist black leaders" are silent about it, too.

Wrong Element said:

There was more outrage about South Africa because the West had substantial leverage in South Africa--without such leverage Mandela would have died in prison and apartheid would be in force today. Most Americans with any sort of moral sensibility were disgusted by our support for the Nationalists--

Click to expand...

I think this is the crux of it, WE. We had some leverage in SA, but no one has any in Niger, because the place is as poor as it gets. If we cut off aid, a fair chunk of the population would just starve to death, and the bad guys would continue as they are. It's not like there's a whole bunch of American corporations in there, investing and profiting. SA was a very different story. You can't "divest" unless you've "invested."

GirlMidnite said:

As mentioned in a thread by Nosexforher- hypocrasy is not the correct word.

As it is, I happen to have been made aware of the problem yonks ago through my membership and subscriptions with Amnesty International and did my bit of activism through this organisation (which I donate money to as well) to alleviate all human rights abuses of this kind. What I found off-putting was how you were skewering the issue in a way that was not rational, and that seemed steeped in a less than well thought out agenda, as pointed out above by several posters of a variety of political persuasions. It is one thing to argue black on black slavery is bad, it is one thing to argue that white on black slavery is bad, it is another thing to argue that black on black slavery somehow justifies the occurance of white on black slavery, or that black on black slavery lessens the importance of white on black slavery, or is directly the same as the other. If you truly believe that Niger slavery is as seismic, or historically important to Western black people as the white on black slave trade, then you are making some slightly racist assumptions along the lines of "if you're black then you're still an African- and I don't give a fuck where in Africa you're from, the problems there are partly your fault and you should be dealing with them." Black people everywhere are different with different priorities, different histories etc.

It would be commendable if you take action on this cause, but for reasons stated above do not accuse black people of being 'hypocrites' if they happen to lack an interest in it, and do not claim that white on black slavery is the monozygotic twin of black on black slavery.

Click to expand...

Show me any of my words that support this sentence... "It is one thing to argue black on black slavery is bad, it is one thing to argue that white on black slavery is bad, it is another thing to argue that black on black slavery somehow justifies the occurance of white on black slavery, or that black on black slavery lessens the importance of white on black slavery, or is directly the same as the other."

You seem to be arguing that white on black slavery is worse to black people than black on black slavery. Is that correct? Tell me why I am racist if I dont hold whites in greater contempt for participating in slavery than blacks doing the very same thing.

BlueEyesInLevis said:

Show me any of my words that support this sentence... "It is one thing to argue black on black slavery is bad, it is one thing to argue that white on black slavery is bad, it is another thing to argue that black on black slavery somehow justifies the occurance of white on black slavery, or that black on black slavery lessens the importance of white on black slavery, or is directly the same as the other."

You seem to be arguing that white on black slavery is worse to black people than black on black slavery. Is that correct? Tell me why I am racist if I dont hold whites in greater contempt for participating in slavery than blacks doing the very same thing.

Click to expand...

JUST BECAUSE....that's why.

LOL...ohh NOW I understand! Thats more sense then you've made in a month LT...thank you.

BlueEyesInLevis said:

Show me any of my words that support this sentence... "It is one thing to argue black on black slavery is bad, it is one thing to argue that white on black slavery is bad, it is another thing to argue that black on black slavery somehow justifies the occurance of white on black slavery, or that black on black slavery lessens the importance of white on black slavery, or is directly the same as the other."

You seem to be arguing that white on black slavery is worse to black people than black on black slavery. Is that correct? Tell me why I am racist if I dont hold whites in greater contempt for participating in slavery than blacks doing the very same thing.

Click to expand...

To the enslaved, slavery still feels terrible no matter who is doing it- I have never been enslaved (though attempts have been made) however I imagine it is equally degrading no matter who is doing it. However historically, and transculturally for other black people-in the diaspora, it is less relevant in their day to day lives than white on black slavery which skewered and determined the formation of their cultural and historical identities, and also, the way white people perceived black people, like white people, black people would be less intruiged by black on black slavery unless they have an interest in human rights. So yes, more black people have been directly and indirectly affected by white on black slavery, than the slavery in Niger. The point isn't "white people are more evil than black people"- I do not doubt that human evil belongs to all. However, white on black slavery to Western black people from the Americas and Caribbean is a greater evil than black on black slavery. Read above again if you do not understand why.

My argument that you cited was compacting your logic, in fact, despite excellent responses to your thread, you have not absorbed or attempted to understand any of the postulations put forward to your thread. You are probably no more racist than anyone else- however, in this case, the way you are arguing reminds me of when some white guy asked me out of the blue "why can black people call us honkies but we can't call them niggers?" (p.s. I have never heard a black person use the word honky- like you, he had assumed something of out collective logic and had assumed it falsely.)

you must mean white slavery. Whites are working everyday and paying taxes that goto blacks that do not work.

BlueEyesInLevis said:

From the BBC
Niger rapped over slavery denial

Click to expand...

Am I the only one that saw, "Nigger raped over slaves"

marshalt said:

Am I the only one that saw, "Nigger raped over slaves"

Click to expand...

Never seen or heard about it.

freetheslaves.com

and someone tell me where the word slave came from. White on white slavery crazy

........................