Slavery - A 21st century evil

[Raja.Pakistani]

what's sadder than enslavement is people who allow themselves to be enslaved, instead of popularly resisting through all means necessary (physically, and through wit and even some deception)

Are you talking about those guys who love to be dominated by women or vice versa

on serious not most of the time peoples became slaves without any choice..for example in past if army of one side got defeated in war then peoples( especially young women) and belonging of opposite side were considered as property and trophies

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

well, that used to be the fallout of war; now there are geneva conventions, though even to this day not all of them are respected (even by world powers that claim to represent them)

 

[bubble123]

must one? I think it is more important to focus on the present than the past..


But it was the Arabs who pretty much dominated the slave trade for more than a thousand years
"Historians estimate that between 10 and 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 650 and 1900."
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
Then the Europeans (who bought them mostly from arabs) dominated it for about 300 years.

And as you can see in the link now it is an almost worldwide problem. Very widespread in the developing world.

Ahhh my dear ol Wikipedia. even if one is to believe what ur link says then one must wonder how many Europeans traded in just 300 years that permanently changed the demographics of entire continents.

 

[Unbeliever]

One must not wonder, one can read the articles I posted from Al Jazeera. -.-
Approximately 12 Million.
Both instances of slave trade were equally evil, I do not relativize and neither should you.. This is about the present problem not about who was "more evil" in the past.

Also you sound like a 60 year old school teacher with your disdain for wikipedia.. It is absurd and outdated.

Wikipedia was already as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica in 2005...
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

The wikipedia link is also massively sourced when it comes to the numbers, so yeah they are as accurate as you will find them comparing reliable history textbooks on the subject. Also as you may have noticed because of the different numbers in different sources there is a large range given (10-18 million) not an exact number...

How about you stop playing your childish "one must wonder"- Games and actually read up on the links? Very annoying behavior.

 

[gambit]

Lol your own definition of slavery qualify many peoples as slaves..many peoples are forced to work without any choice, without their will because of their circumstances.. what you will think about a kid who is selling flowers or doing shoe polish on road in India? what yo will think about a employer who has no choice but to work for a boss who is paying him very less than what he deserve. What you will think about a person who is unable to repay his debts and sold himself or his kids into slavery to the creditor as a means of repayment. What about those father who sold one of his kid so that he can feed rest of the childrens

What about those husbands or wives who are forced to live in a relationship by their circumstances or for sake of their childrens? Many will say marriage is slavery..many consider job is slavery..many consider they are slaves of their government as government treat them in a way they dont like...

You are treading a very fine line between giving a legitimate argument and entering the absurd, but for now, you do have valid points. However, the accepted definition of slavery still include the physical enforcement against one's will into labor for another's benefits as primacy to qualify as 'slavery'. A slaver is someone who does the physical capture of someone else and proceed to sell the victim for a profit. A slave master is someone who purchased the abducted for his own benefits. This is a far cry from advertising or inducing someone to work for you at a wage.

An employer has to pay wages in the form of accepted currency and the employee is responsible for his own affairs once he is off duty. On the other hand, a slave master is responsible for every aspects of his slaves' lives, from feeding to housing to entertainment to family issues. The bottom line, and one that the early US learned, is that once an industrialization revolution or evolution begin to take root and to supplant pure manual labor in an agrarian society, slavery became a financially losing proposition, let alone its immorality to consider. That is why despite all the condemnation at the US for institutionalized slavery and the charge that the US was built by slaves, the practice was never as profitable as a whole beyond the agrarian South. The failure of slavery in the US, both in financial and moral terms, was inevitable once industrialization began.

On the other hand, if economic conditions instead of raw physical coercion compelled a person into doing something he does not like in order to earn a wage to pay for his own affairs, then this is where one can reasonably argue that this is an alternate form of slavery, perhaps less worthy of condemnation but a form of coercion still did occurred to compelled, not induced, a person into doing something he does not want. As economic conditions and opportunities expands, compelling reasons become less external and more internal for anyone to enter into a superior-subordinate relationship that he does not like in order to earn a wage to pay for his own affairs. All of us in our younger days have 'been there done that' in order to survive outside the family and to advance into areas where we enjoy working and living. Anarchists and communists have condemned this is a form of slavery where the chains are made of money and property.

Bottom line is this: If you do not want to be obligated to anyone in anyway, be it from the physical chains or the virtual bonds of money, and to remove the possibility of both, then go live in the wilds.

 

[gpit]

Indeed, modern enslavement is hideous. It is not appear in developing world such as in part of Asia and Africa, it also happens in developed world but in a subtler form. Wall Street enslaved a great deal of Americans in some degree: People worked day and night only wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied, as the banks and corporations that grow up around them first use inflation and then deflation.

I agree Germany is perhaps more respectful on this aspect than others.

 

[gambit]

Indeed, modern enslavement is hideous. It is not appear in developing world such as in part of Asia and Africa, it also happens in developed world but in a subtler form. Wall Street enslaved a great deal of Americans in some degree: People worked day and night only wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied, as the banks and corporations that grow up around them first use inflation and then deflation.

I agree Germany is perhaps more respectful on this aspect than others.

We have working solutions for past versions of slavery. Anarchists and communists have zilch for their interpretations of modern 'slavery'.

 

[bubble123]

One must not wonder, one can read the articles I posted from Al Jazeera. -.-
Approximately 12 Million.
Both instances of slave trade were equally evil, I do not relativize and neither should you.. This is about the present problem not about who was "more evil" in the past.

Also you sound like a 60 year old school teacher with your disdain for wikipedia.. It is absurd and outdated.

Wikipedia was already as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica in 2005...
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

The wikipedia link is also massively sourced when it comes to the numbers, so yeah they are as accurate as you will find them comparing reliable history textbooks on the subject. Also as you may have noticed because of the different numbers in different sources there is a large range given (10-18 million) not an exact number...

How about you stop playing your childish "one must wonder"- Games and actually read up on the links? Very annoying behavior.

My problem is not with what those articles say. They are probably right.

My Problem is with ur(Europeans) Holier than thou attitude. U guyz did everything in ur time from slavery to drugs, from colonization to genocides of indigenous ppl(and not billion of years ago,just a century back), even today discrimination against Muslims is progressing at an alarming rate and is probably gonna end up with a situation similar to Jews and Hitler.

So instead of taking care of the whole goddamn world(and in the process pretending that u give a damn) it would be better for everyone that if u try to remove evils from your own society so that another genocide doesn't happen.