
There Are More Slaves Today Than at Any Time in Human History - rms
http://www.alternet.org/world/142171?page=entire
======
radu_floricica
I'm living in Bucharest, Romania, and I can confirm this part. A few years ago
I used to live in a somewhat less respectable part of the city (not a ghetto
by any means, the communists made sure we don't have those, just closer to the
periphery and poorer). For some reason it use to be a stop point in girl
trafficking - lots of young girls worked at the corner of the street for a few
weeks at a time. Many of them from Moldavia, and I presume going further west.
At one time I was actually offered a woman for around $200.

A few points:

\- Most girls were not slaves per se, kidnapped and hold by force. All, as far
as I can tell, were driven to this by poverty, lack of any prospects in the
village of birth or both.

\- I am not against prostitution as a job, especially since I've seen it done
successfully and with quite a bit of entrepreneurial spirit. But in some
conditions it can be worst then anything you can imagine. I am especially
suspicious of anything that looks organized. I'd guess this is a direct
consequence of it being illegal - Amsterdam seems to have managed to make it
both organized and civilized.

\- I'd have liked to make some comments about corruption, politicians and the
way things seem to be "settling in" in the last years, but it's all
speculation so I'll abstain.

------
pyre
> _My great-great-great-grandfather fought with the Connecticut artillery,
> believing that slavery was an abomination that could only be overturned
> through bloodshed.

Yet today, after the deaths of 360,000 Union soldiers, after over a dozen
conventions and 300 international treaties, there are more slaves than at any
point in human history._

This just seems like a bunch of self-promoting nonsense. His great-great-
great-grandfather didn't shed blood with the idea that after the US Civil War
was over slavery would be eliminated from the face of the Earth forever and
ever. The point was to eliminate US Government legal acceptance of slavery.

Thus slavery in the United States is now illegal, severely increasing the
costs and the risks of operating a human trafficking enterprise. That's all
that we really can do.

> _While that may sound like a very low price for human life, consider that
> five hours from where I live in New York -- a three-hour flight down to Port
> au Prince, Haiti, and an hour from the airport_

I find this a bit disingenuous. 'Just five hours away' implies something that
is a lot closer than New York and Haiti. At least he was nice enough to
qualify himself, but stating like that comes across as trying to make this
emotionally-charged rather than a rational discussion.

> _They asked for $100, and I talked them down to $50. Now to put that in
> context: Going back to the time when my abolitionist ancestors were on their
> soapbox, in 1850, you could buy a healthy grown male for the equivalent of
> about $40,000._

I see plenty of things wrong here. Is that $40K USD? Is that $40K USD in
today's money or in the value of the dollar in 1850? What does it cost to make
a living in Haiti? How far will $100 or $50 US go?

There's also the difference that when slaves were being sold for $40K is was
to put them to work in a money-making enterprise (i.e. plantations) _and_ the
slaver traders were selling them in a US market. Plantations owners weren't
shipping themselves across the seas to buy slaves directly in Africa. For that
matter, today the costs (and risks) of travel are _hugely_ less than they were
in the past.

In this example, he's going to another country and buying a child that will
make him no money (housework and personal sexual favors are not a stream of
money). Not only that, that $50 or $100 does not account for how he would them
import that child back into the US. I would venture a guess that -- especially
nowadays -- it's pretty expensive to get papers to bring a slave-girl child
into the US (at least through 'public' ports of entry like airports).

> _If you were to plot slaves on the map, you'd stick the biggest number of
> pins in India, followed by Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan. There are arguably more
> slaves In India than the rest of the world combined.

And yet, if you look at international efforts or American pressure, India is
largely let off the hook because Indian federal officials claim, "We have no
slaves. These are just poor people. And these exploitive labor practices," --
if you're lucky enough to get that term out of them -- "are a byproduct of
poverty."

Let me be clear, the end of slavery cannot wait for the end of poverty.
Slavery in India is primarily generational debt bondage, people whose
grandparents took a debt._

Places like India have grown in population since the time of slavery in the
United States. I would _really_ like to see numbers based on % of population
for these countries rather than raw numbers (and historical percentages for
comparison, obviously). India especially seems to have problems with this due
to population density and the caste-system that their society still holds on
to.

I'm interested if this is an increase in the percent of the population that
are slaves, or just an increase in the number of slaves because the population
has exploded across the board. I'll admit that it's also possible that there
is an increased demand for slaves as the Indian middle-class has taken off. I
remember reading that a lot of Indians work on visas in the US for a while,
but end up moving back to India because when their wives move over here they
are disappointed that the middle-class doesn't have servants (as one in India
would expect to have at that income level).

> _Let me be clear, the end of slavery cannot wait for the end of poverty.
> Slavery in India is primarily generational debt bondage, people whose
> grandparents took a debt._

If this is the case, I hope that he's including 'indentured servants' in the
numbers of slaves when he's looking all the way back into history. Indentured
servants were often in the same situations he's describing now (even though
most elementary school textbooks like to gloss over that fact by claiming that
the servants were 'only' there to work off a debt and they were free to leave
when they were done; conveniently leaving out the number of servants (or an
estimate) that _actually_ worked off their debt).

> _They can also get involved with Free the Slaves. And they can talk about
> the issue more. Barack Obama is still setting his foreign policy agenda. He
> needs to hear from all of us that the true abolition of slavery needs to be
> a part of his legacy._

Do you really think that any US President is going to wipe out all slavery
world-wide within a single term through only foreign policy decisions? Do you
even believe that it's possible in the short-term without some sort of
war/bloodshed?

~~~
tow21
I really don't understand what you're arguing against here.

> Thus slavery in the United States is now illegal, severely increasing the
> costs and the risks of operating a human trafficking enterprise. That's all
> that we really can do.<

No, there's quite a lot more we can do. Foreign policy is all about
influencing what goes on beyond your own borders.

> I see plenty of things wrong here. Is that $40K USD? Is that $40K USD in
> today's money or in the value of the dollar in 1850? What does it cost to
> make a living in Haiti? How far will $100 or $50 US go?

The word "equivalent" in the original article is clearly meant to convey that
it's $40k in today's money. (as would even a tiny amount of knowledge of
economic history, surely?)

I don't know how far $50 will go on the average Haitian salary, but surely
part of his point is that in this case there is a population (visiting
American tourists) for whom $50 is disposable income. It was never the case
for historic US slavery that the price of a slave was anything less than an
investment.

(And slave importation may not be the end goal. Maybe you just want a slave
for two weeks while you enjoy your holiday. Is that less reprehensible?)

> Places like India have grown in population since the time of slavery in the
> United States. I would really like to see numbers based on % of population
> for these countries rather than raw numbers (and historical percentages for
> comparison, obviously)

Well, yes, comparative numbers would be interesting. (and I'm fairly sure
nobody would be surprised to learn that there is less slavery per head of
population than previously - but does that make it any less bad?)

I don't think human misery works on the calculus you're trying to apply. One
million people in slavery are going to be fairly unhappy, whether they're
embedded in a population of 50 million or 5 billion. If the number of people
in slavery is increasing, that's bad, even if it's going down as a percentage.

> Do you really think that any US President is going to wipe out all slavery
> world-wide within a single term through only foreign policy decisions? Do
> you even believe that it's possible in the short-term without some sort of
> war/bloodshed?

Do you really think that's what he's asking for? Do you really think an
appropriate alternative is just to shrug your shoulders, put it in historical
context and do nothing?

Do you really think that if something can't be fixed immediately, or its fix
isn't immediately obvious, we should just not bother thinking about it?

~~~
pyre
> _No, there's quite a lot more we can do. Foreign policy is all about
> influencing what goes on beyond your own borders._

My point was that he was acting like the Civil War was a 'war to end slavery
world wide' and he almost comes off as surprised that a Civil War years-ago in
the US hasn't affected the slave trade on the opposite side of the planet. The
point of the Civil War (in terms of slavery) was to abolish the plantations
and make the slave trade illegal (i.e. to 'free the slaves').

Abolishing the legal trafficking of slaves is one step in the process,
obviously, but a major step nonetheless.

> _It was never the case for historic US slavery that the price of a slave was
> anything less than an investment._

This was mostly due to the cost of trafficking in the slaves. If I go down to
Haiti the slaves that I could buy there aren't shipped from the other side of
the world. If one wanted to buy a slave in Africa in the early 1800's I'm sure
it would have cost you a lot less than right off the slave boats in the
colonies. Even shipping a boatload of slaves around the world now would
probably cost _a lot_ less than it did then.

I guess what really irks me about this -- and my point -- is that presenting
the low-cost of purchasing a slave today comes across as shock-value to get an
emotional response. And the response that he seems to be going for is to get
people thinking that globally humans have de-valued human life more now than
in the past. My argument is that you can't compare the price of a slave in the
1800's to the price of a slave now and use the severe difference in price as
proof that the people of the 1800's put a higher-value on human life.

> _(and I'm fairly sure nobody would be surprised to learn that there is less
> slavery per head of population than previously - but does that make it any
> less bad?)_

Doesn't make it any less bad, but it feels very deceptive to use raw numbers
like that without presenting relative numbers. It feels like they are trying
to get people to reach the wrong conclusions, but with the right intentions.

> _I don't think human misery works on the calculus you're trying to apply.
> One million people in slavery are going to be fairly unhappy, whether
> they're embedded in a population of 50 million or 5 billion. If the number
> of people in slavery is increasing, that's bad, even if it's going down as a
> percentage._

Maybe the problem here is that I'm not mainstream enough to be the intended
audience. I feel like I want to see all of the numbers, and when numbers are
pushed off to the side, it feels very deceptive to me.

Aside from that, I feel that the best way to measure progress is whether or
not the numbers are going down as a percentage. Especially compared to the
percentage of population growth. If the number of slaves goes decreases by 2%
and the population grows by 1%, I see that as a net win. I also think that
it's unrealistic to think that we will ever get the number of slaves down to
0, though I would hope it's possible... even if it has to be on the long-long-
term.

> _Do you really think that's what he's asking for?_

He said: _He needs to hear from all of us that the true abolition of slavery
needs to be a part of his legacy._

That comes off to me as _too_ positive. That sounds like he thinks President
Obama is going to abolish slavery. 'The true abolition of slavery' will not be
part of Obama's legacy unless he actually abolishes all slavery.

I'm all for better foreign policy regarding slavery, don't get me wrong, but I
thought that this guy's message was too positive. Better US foreign policy
regarding slavery is a win as long as 1 slave gains freedom over it, but I
daresay that foreign policy alone might not make a dent in world-wide slavery
for at least a decade (though I'm really pulling that number out of nowhere;
feel free to contradict me).

In general, I'm not disagreeing with the need to combat slavery. I'm
disagreeing with some of what this guy is saying because it's coming across as
deceptive (even though the intentions may be good) and too overly optimistic
(I believe in setting realistic goals).

~~~
mr_luc
I'm curious about your reactions because I felt a similar sense of unease
while reading this article -- feeling that I was being sold something, instead
of learning something. I managed to set it aside because I encountered various
vestiges of this industry where I live in S.A., and was spurred to look into
it a bit.

    
    
      That presenting the low-cost of purchasing a slave today
      comes across as shock-value to get an emotional response.
      And the response that he seems to be going for is ...
    

I'd say that this seems at odds with

    
    
      I feel like I want to see all of the numbers, and when 
      numbers are pushed off to the side, it feels .. deceptive
    

Although, as you mention, it'd be nice to see ALL of the numbers. Still, you
could probably suss up your own percentage comparison with wikipedia.

But here he's just presenting a solid, straightforward bit of data: the retail
price.

You said that this is (or feels) a bit disingenuous -- giving us data out of
context to provoke emotion; NY isn't Haiti; it's hard to get the slaves across
borders; slaves were money-making operations in the past and aren't anymore,
which is why the price is down.

Incidentally, human slaves ARE still money-making machines, albeit less
completely than during the days of slavery. Brothels are the most
straightforward example -- in the country I live in (most of the time),
prostitution itself is essentially legal; it may be illegal, but the
enforcement is all of the regulatory type (stay-classy headline: "Officers
Check Douches In Area _Prostibulos_.")

Despite this, human trafficking is a not-insignificant component of the
prostitution industry there. Why?

The economy is getting better. A pretty young teenage girl has way, way more
options than selling her body. So the only way to get and keep 'good talent'
is, essentially, slavery that starts really young.

Now, in that context, it's clear that the retail price _is_ an important part
of the equation. If one of the ways you make money is the sex tourism industry
(either globally or regionally), clearly you've figured out how to scale
either the movement of your humans or the business of attracting customers to
you, and the price of the humans is an important data point; the fact that
it's so low, given how much harder smuggling people is than cocaine, is a
disheartening problem for those considering where to target disincentives.

    
    
      it's coming across as deceptive (even though the intentions may be good)
    

I think that it may be feel that way, but as the facts seem to be solidly
behind (essentially) everything he's saying, I'd ascribe that more to the
artificiality that comes from other sources.

Like being asked, over and over again (speaking engagements, book tours,
countless one-off interviews like this one), to try and squeeze the impact of
an important message through the needle-eye of interview questions of variable
quality.

~~~
pyre
> _I'd say that this seems at odds with_

Well, to put my thoughts into more clear terms, I felt that presenting the one
figure while 'withholding' the others is what made me feel like it was being
presented for shock-value.

> _Now, in that context, it's clear that the retail price is an important part
> of the equation. If one of the ways you make money is the sex tourism
> industry (either globally or regionally), clearly you've figured out how to
> scale either the movement of your humans or the business of attracting
> customers to you, and the price of the humans is an important data point;
> the fact that it's so low, given how much harder smuggling people is than
> cocaine, is a disheartening problem for those considering where to target
> disincentives._

1\. Don't immediately think that because there is a steady stream of women
into brothels as slaves means that they are necessarily being imported.
Trafficking in humans is relatively easy (so far as transportation goes),
until you have to cross a border/checkpoint.

2\. In the context of his Haiti example, he's being slightly deceptive by only
quoting the retail price and forgetting to include the hidden fees. Even if he
just flew down to Haiti to buy a slave, abuse him/her for a few days and then
fly back to New York, the cost of the flights and accomodations are _not_
being quoted there. Sure, if he was a Haitian, he wouldn't have those costs,
but how many Haitians have $50 USD to buy a slave? It might make sense if
Haiti has a sex-tourism industry, but I've never heard of it. (Of course, I'm
not exactly on the 'pulse' of the sex-tourism industry or anything)

> _I think that it may be feel that way, but as the facts seem to be solidly
> behind (essentially) everything he's saying, I'd ascribe that more to the
> artificiality that comes from other sources.

Like being asked, over and over again (speaking engagements, book tours,
countless one-off interviews like this one), to try and squeeze the impact of
an important message through the needle-eye of interview questions of variable
quality._

If that is the case, I feel he should work harder on his delivery of the
message. I know that it might look like I'm tearing him a new one in my
comments, but I do feel that his cause is a noble one. I feel that he does
have valueable experience, information, anecdotes to bring to the table. I
just think that he needs to refine his delivery of the message and his call
for action. I could just be getting too picky/OCD over this though.

------
chasingsparks
Debt slaves are not held by debt. Debt is merely the nominal excuse. The use
and threat of violence coupled with an insulation from or complete lack of law
drives slavery. And that is why I think it is such a pervasive problem.
Solutions that work may require carrying a bigger stick -- and using it. That
terrifies me. I abhor state military intervention, but I also abhor slavery
through violence. Most people are similar which is why they stress alternative
measures like economic disincentives and UN resolutions which don't seem to
work well.

------
rms
For anyone wondering about the credibility of this interview, Skinner's book
got blurbs from Bill Clinton and Elie Wiesel. <http://acrimesomonstrous.com/>

~~~
mahmud
Since when does a politician's blurb, and Bill Clinton's at that, add any
credibility to anything?

[http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/C...](http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/ClintonWarCriminal_Herman.html)

The blurbs often benefit their utters more than the books they're affixed to:
looking at the list of people and institutions who gave feedback on the book,
I can say a good chunk of them are karma-whoring themselves on the author's
good standing.

~~~
antipaganda
Elie Wiesel is a whore? I think you should maybe google the name before you
imply such a thing...

~~~
mahmud
I named Bill Clinton, not Elie Wiesel. Also, visit the book's site and see who
gave it feedback:

<http://acrimesomonstrous.com/>

The who's who of fascist warmongers.

------
evansolomon
_I stumbled upon a fellow in a quarry in Northern India who'd been enslaved
his entire life. He had assumed that slavery at birth. His grandfather had
taken a debt of 62 cents, and three generations and three slave masters later,
the principal had not been paid off one bit. The family was illiterate and
innumerate. This fellow, who I call Gonoo -- he asked me to protect his
identity -- was still forced to work, held through fraud under threat of
violence for no pay beyond subsistence._

My first thought was, "Wow." My second thought was, "I wonder how many people
end up in similar (very loose sense of the word) situations based on lending
that's occurred in the last 5 years.

~~~
yummyfajitas
What "lending over the past 5 years" are you referring to? Microfinance?

Or are you talking about credit card debt in the first world? In the US, the
only consequence for failing to pay your debts [1] is an inability to get
further credit.

[1] Child support debt excluded. You go to jail if you can't pay that.

~~~
diN0bot
maybe the op was just wondering what amount of slavery he could personally
have prevented. that was the thought that crossed my mind. not that "throwing
money" at a problem is a reasonable solution, but how different is my
perspective on money than "a slave." or rather, i wanted to add that
perspective to my thought process.

ps - donations to credible organizations _do_ help.

pps - somewhat relevant fiction making the rounds these days by Stieg Larsson
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stieg_Larsson> I really respect Larsson's
response to things he felt were immoral. he set out to change them. 1+
investigative journalism.

------
zandorg
Reminds me of a recent article in BoingBoing, about some Arabic city (Dubai?)
where people have to build skyscrapers to pay their way out of poverty, and
they have to drink almost-salty water instead of fresh water, in bunks, etc.

Ah Google found it on the first query 'dubai slavery salty water':

[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-
har...](http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-
dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html)

------
johnnybgoode
Some of the situations described sound absolutely terrible. While we're on the
subject, though, I want to point out that slavery is a spectrum, not a binary
condition.

I don't doubt his number, 27 million, for a certain cutoff point of who is
considered a slave and who isn't. If you move the cutoff around, though, you
can truthfully say there are billions of slaves, or maybe even zero.

------
shalmanese
"I was able to negotiate for a 10-year-old girl for cleaning and cooking,
permanent possession and sexual favors. What do you think the asking price
was?

TM: I don't know ... $7,500?

BS: They asked for $100, and I talked them down to $50."

This fails the smell test for me. at $1 per day for food & shelter, he can buy
her for less than it would cost them to keep her for 2 months.

Most likely, he was being scammed in some way. They were probably planning to
rob him and had no intention of selling the girl.

------
SlyShy
I recommend the book "A Crime so Monstrous" for people interested in learning
more on this subject.

------
alnayyir
Per capita or total?

~~~
scythe
>there are more slaves than at any time in human history -- 27 million.

Total, clearly.

------
cema
Define slave.

~~~
rms
It's repeated a few times in the interview:

>slaves are those forced to work, held through fraud, under threat of
violence, for no pay beyond subsistence

>TM: To go back to the definition: Forced to work against their will with no
escape.

>BS: Held through fraud under threat of violence for no pay beyond
subsistence.

~~~
cema
In other words, different definitions from what was used in the past. Need a
common definition for a meaningful comparison.

~~~
hughprime
I'm confused -- what was the old definition of "slave" which was so different
from "person forced to work and prevented by force from leaving"?

I'm not convinced that there are indeed 27 million people fitting that
definition at the moment, but I can't see how someone fitting that description
is anything other than a slave. (Hmm, though I suppose legitimate prisoners
can be forced to do work without being "slaves" so perhaps the definition does
require tinkering around the edges.)

~~~
roundsquare
The "held through fraud" part maybe what distinguishes legitimate prisoners
from slaves. Although, that part of the definition does seem strange, I'm not
sure if we'd always want to require that someone be held through fraud to be
considered a slave (someone chained to a post and forced to do hard labor is
still a slave in my book, but I don't see any fraud involved).

------
known

        Slaves !=  Wage Slaves

~~~
nwatson
There's a movie about modern slavery (haven't seen it, don't know the quality)
titled "Call and Response."

If you're in the Silicon Valley a group showed the movie at the Red Rock
Coffeehouse in Mountain View on September 19, 2009. I'm not sure when the next
showing is ... if you're interested contact the Red Rock or more likely the
Highway Community (<http://www.highway.org>).

