Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcantelon | Hacker News Reader

It's sad how little attention contemporary slavery gets versus historical examples of slavery. It would be great if Hollywood made a movie about this (or slavery in the middle east committed by Western allies).

View on HN

Or slavery in the United States. Yep.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicagarrison/the-new-american-sla...

That's not slavery, it's kidnapping, plain and simple. It's illegal and not condoned in any way by the U.S. government or society at large, so comparing it to slavery is a bit hyperbolic. But yes, it still sucks

Since when did slavery not involve kidnapping?

Slavery isn't defined as an inherently legal practice, it simply was legal in some places at some times.

The secondarily linked story does also talk about local law enforcement being involved, so that is at least condoned "in a way", not "not in any way".

Slavery doesn't involve kidnapping if there is a legal framework for selling people (which by definition isn't kidnapping).

Are you talking about people born into slavery? Like from slave parents. Because the transition from non slave to slave is some form of kidnapping/trafficking.

The conversion of something to property is almost always a theft of some sort.

I think the Romans could sell their family members into slavery to pay off debts, etc.

Or themselves.

Debt slavery[1] doesn't involve kidnapping (by any conventional definition). It's probably the most common kind of slavery these days.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

There are people in the South Asian sub continent as well as SEAsia where families will sell other members into slavery for varying economic and social reasons. It involves no kidnapping. Sometimes it's for very menial and manual labor (tea picking, for example, next time someone enjoys some Assam tea) or are later sold into human trafficking rings.

Being illegal or not condoned doesn't make it not slavery. These enterprises often operate in gray regions of the law and find ways to blur the lines between slavery and employment, so it's important not to throw away the label just because it's not officially condoned.

World rejoices as first-worlder solves slavery problem. Millions of slaves around the world now considered free under new definition

Humans held and treated like property will henceforth not be considered slaves if their country has laws against the practice. When asked how he came upon the genius solution to the century-old problem, marknutter nodded at the portrait of former President G.W. Bush hanging above his fireplace. "I was inspired by President Bush... I mean... enhanced interrogation... genius!"

Mission Accomplished!

I'm sorry I have a strong aversion to hyperbole, but if you're going to compare the situations outlined in the article to slavery you're going to have to lump a lot of other stuff into the slavery pile as well. It's important to preserve the weight of words lest you further increase people's apathy.

I agree with this 100%. There are a lot of previously useful words that mean almost nothing today. "Slavery" is one. "Rape" is another. I know people think they're doing good when they try to expand the definition like that, but all they're really doing is taking away our capacity to describe things accurately.

This seems like pure uncivil sarcasm, rather than anything constructive. If you think that marknutter's insistence on precise useage of words causes additional harm to those enslaved (by strict or loose definition), or prevents their liberation, then why not explain that rather than sneering at him?

Yeah...

You haven't had the misfortune of having to witness REAL slavery. Real slavery is going on a walk outside the embassy and seeing a 6 year old domestic girl given a LEGAL black eye by the fist of her mistress. And there is nothing you can do about it.

That's when I learned... if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery.

Slavery has got to be the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. Worse than combat even. Because there is nothing you can do. It's just in your face. This was way back in the early 90's... and I still remember the girl look up at me afterwards... a few seconds went by... and a trickle of blood started to come from her nose.

Yeah...

I just went back to the embassy. Certain parts of Africa back then were just not tourist spots.

> That's when I learned... if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery.

Did you read the article? These women are beaten and raped and the police are helping the business owner ensure that the women remain his legal property.

Sounds like he didn't need to read the article, he's seen this first hand

But he clearly misses the point that the article is about police facilitating enslavement.

And you missed my point that you can still appeal to authorities.

As I said in another comment... you have the option to call in the Feds. I'm talking about people in situations where they have NO option to call in ANYONE. And not only them. Anyone who wanted to help them... maybe just because they witnessed it and they wanted to put an end to it... that would-be good Samaritan has no recourse either.

No Feds. Central governments could be weak, corrupt or both back then. (They still can come to think of it.)

No police. Many places HAD nonexistent police forces. Things have changed in some parts of Africa... but I don't know about everywhere.

No nothing. And it might not only be Africa. This may happen in parts of Asia or the MidEast region as well. I only WITNESSED it in Africa. There are a lot of people living some horrible lives out there. And they don't have police, or Feds or journalists to write about them.

> "Southern slave codes did make willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases.[8] For example, in 1791 the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction.[8] Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was “convicted of cruel treatment,” the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."[9]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

In theory (and depending on the year and state), slaves in America could also appeal to authorities.

Whether or not such appeals would have been effective are another matter (although it should be noted that these laws were in fact OCCASIONALLY enforced, putting this slightly outside the realm of the purely theoretical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_Uni...), but you seem to be discussing whether or not such appeals are theoretically allowed.

With that in mind, the shitty logic of this statement should be pretty clear to see:

> "That's when I learned... if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery."

> For example, in 1791 the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction.

My God, but those last three words are creepy. I mean, of course the whole enterprise of slavery is beyond creepy, so much so that it's almost too big to take in; but the idea of 'moderate correction' in the first place, and the shrugging acknowledgement that it might lead to killing, is just 'human-scale' enough for me to experience a truly visceral reaction to it. Ugh.

The option of calling the Feds isn't that helpful to an immigrant worker with very little English whose last encounter with law enforcement was being returned to their farm in a squad car with accompanying warnings though. When most people's concerns about immigrants begins and ends with the question of "but they're not going to overstay their visa or take jobs away from local people are they?" and there aren't many people around anyway it's not like they're inundated with options. Journalists don't pop by every day.

I agree that the situation you describe is slavery. But I think your definition of slavery is far too narrow. By your argument, a country in which slavery has been banned and law enforcement agents are enforcing this ban, by definition has no slavery.

Victims do not always have the option of appealing to authorities, even in countries like the United States. Victims can be threatened or restrained. And, like any other abusive relationship, that may not even occur to the victim as an option.

Slavery is defined as the treatment on human beings as property, in that people are bought and sold. Whether or not the country condones this practice is irrelevant.

We don't doubt what you saw, or that it was bad/immoral.

But let's be clear, you've essentially used this fallacy (not to mention the appeal to emotion) to support/base your point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I.e. "True slavery means that police/authorities won't intervene". It shows that you don't have a well-defined definition of slavery, or are using one that is too-constrained to the generally-accepted definition of slave/slavery. Here are a few:

[...]a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

[...]a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.

[...]a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.

Going through your definitions...

1. Yes, this person is a slave.

2. No, this person is underpaid.

3. No, this person is dependent.

According to you. The definition of the word slavery isn't nearly as specific.

Your first definition fits exactly with his example. It being legal. Drop the logical fallacy crap.

Could also be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

"Well there are places were there are NO law enforcement so all other definitions of slavery aren't as real."

You're citing the oxford dictionary. If you look at the example sentences, the latter two cases are figurative, not literal. Only the first definition refers to literal slavery.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...

However, I agree there's ambiguity. One of the additional example sentences of the first definition includes a case where the slavery was illegal.

If someone is held as a slave and effectively beyond the reach and help of the law, then it does them little good to know that their situation is technically not tolerated by society.

But citing the latter two definitions of slavery from Oxford is not a good way of making this point. Those definition are incorrect, when referring to literal slavery.

Probably what most people mean when they say slave is something like "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them, or a person who is illegally held as such yet beyond the recourse of the law"

[Click on "more examples sentences" to see the broader meaning of the definitions cited]

Well, I guess you have a point if you accept that the US stoops as low as some parts of Africa in the 90's - at least you can call the police...

> "if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery"

there are parts of the US where it's very difficult to get the police to intervene. I work (indirectly) with a group that helps women and children escape from forced polygamy in groups like the FLDS, AUB, Kingston, and similar; in quite a few areas the local police are "true believers" who won't investigate members of their own group, and in fact who will work to bring escapees back to a situation that is fairly described as "slavery".

Does the FBI also ignore these cases when reported?

The problem is that embassies usually are protected spaces where the host country police cannot intervene, the embassy personnel is under diplomatic immunity and the "worst" punishment the host country can deliver is declaring the offender a "persona non grata", but this is a diplomatic affront of the highest severity itself.

No one risks international relationships for a child or a woman.

edit, as I see some downvoting: that last sentence was not meant like I'd support that system. It's just a description how the world works.

I think you are being downvoted because the parent comment was about the situation in the US, and asking if the FBI ignores it.

Your comment about embassies doesn't make a lot of sense in that context.

The question was about forced polygamy groups, not South Africa.

There was such a case with an Indian woman who was a diplomat, actually. It didn't go over well, politically.

http://world.time.com/2013/12/17/indian-diplomats-arrest-in-...

it's difficult to get the FBI involved. They tend to take on only the most extreme cases.

I HATE those guys. (Forced polygamy groups.)

So keep up the good work.

Only point I wanted to make is that you still have the option of calling in the Feds. There are no Feds in certain places. Or the "Feds" are weak or corrupt. Maybe even both if you are unlucky enough. I'm talking about being in a situation where there is no way out not only for the abused... but even for those who might want to help. There is LITERALLY... no legal recourse. In your work... you have legal avenues outside of the local police. That's my point.

> "you still have the option of calling in the Feds"

sometimes it even works. We might be able to help a tiny fraction find their way out of slavery. That doesn't make it any less slavery.

> Certain parts of Africa back then were just not tourist spots.

Glad it's caught up to your expectations.

I don't know if that was meant to be flip... but Africa has made a lot of progress since my first introduction to it. There are tour groups snow boarding in the Kalahari today. This would not have been imaginable in an era of famine, Apartheid, and genocides where a million could be killed with no one really raising an alarm about it.

> if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery.

I'm not sure this definition pans out. This would mean slavery cannot happen in a country where it's not legal.

Take an unfortunate whose been enslaved in a nation where it's legal. They're kept in a basement, chained to a table, made to work every waking hour.

One day, that nation passes a law making slavery illegal.

While this person's situation has not changed one iota, using your definition they were a slave yesterday and not a slave today.

In fact, since 1981 there is no nation in the world where slavery is legal.[1] So, using this definition strictly...slavery literally does not exist.

1. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slav...

I got a visual from this comment that I don't think I'll ever get rid of. So disturbing, sad, and enraging all at once.

Did you read the article? Yep, real slavery in the U.S.

Sure, we can play which slavery is worse than other slavery.

The Whistleblower (2010 film) is one example of a film about one of the many forms of modern slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower

Not to be confused (as I was) with the 1986 film with almost the identical name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistle_Blower

vs the one you speak of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower

I love English :) Thanks for clarifying this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com