Slavery: It's Not Just For The US Any More

[BPSCG]

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061200872.html)
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Tuesday added seven nations, including several key U.S. allies in the Middle East, to its human trafficking blacklist for failing to halt what it called the scourge of "modern-day slavery."

Countries on the list are subject to sanctions for not doing enough to stop the yearly flow of some 800,000 people, 80 percent of them female and up to half of them children, across international borders for the sex trade and other forms of forced and indentured labor.

Among U.S. friends getting a failing grade were Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, which along with Algeria, Equatorial Guinea and Malaysia joined for the first time perennial offenders like Myanmar (Burma), Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria in the State Department's annual "Trafficking in Persons Report."
A lot of Muslim countries in there. I'm sure the UN will be issuing condemnations any minute now.

[frank462]

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061200872.html)
A lot of Muslim countries in there. I'm sure the UN will be issuing condemnations any minute now.

Yes I am sure they will. They will condemn the United States because somehow, it must be our fault.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Hahaha, the U.N... Thats still around... Oh wait... The U.S. funds most of it...:mad:

[Darth Rotor]

Slavery: It's Not Just For The US Any More
It never was. The institution was brought over from the old World, on ships, before the slave themselves were. IIRC, the first slaves imported to what is now the US were in 1619, to Virginia, brought by Dutch slavers.

That slavery had been around as a habit since pre Biblical times in all "civilizations" to include China, was a condition worthy of correcting.

Too bad it is making a come back. This warrants looking into, and taking action. Let's start at home, and root out the sweat shops, and the illegal alien labor camps that are a slide toward private, and illegal, slave labor.

DR

[Crossbow]

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061200872.html)
A lot of Muslim countries in there. I'm sure the UN will be issuing condemnations any minute now.

Are you trying to be a Troll again?

[BPSCG]

Are you trying to be a Troll again?BTW, did you notice that the list of countries the US put on the list includes a number of "allies," and we're calling for sanctions against them? Remember that next time someone goes on about how the US is in bed with corrupt governments.

[3point14]

It never was. The institution was brought over from the old World, on ships, before the slave themselves were. IIRC, the first slaves imported to what is now the US were in 1619, to Virginia, brought by Dutch slavers.

That slavery had been around as a habit since pre Biblical times in all "civilizations" to include China, was a condition worthy of correcting.

Too bad it is making a come back. This warrants looking into, and taking action. Let's start at home, and root out the sweat shops, and the illegal alien labor camps that are a slide toward private, and illegal, slave labor.

DR


I'd guess that slavery started just as soon as one hominid worked out a way to control another by force or guile, hell, ants do it. The US Slavers were only doing something that was the norm in large parts of the world at that point, surely?

p.s. Damn you Darth*, I'm pretty sure our politics don't match at all, but you don't half talk sense most of the time.

[Beerina]

Since Western philosophy had concluded slavery was wrong (in spite of the god Yahweh being fine with it), in order for the US to continue with slaves, they had to invent a different rationale than just "we beat your city so you are our slaves now."

Hence the "inferior races" concept developed. While every culture had no shortage of politicians claiming those guys over there were inferior to us, the chosen ones of our god(s), the US really put that into high gear with flat out claims of physiological brain inferiority.

[FarmallMTA]

Since Western philosophy had concluded slavery was wrong (in spite of the god Yahweh being fine with it), in order for the US to continue with slaves, they had to invent a different rationale than just "we beat your city so you are our slaves now."

Hence the "inferior races" concept developed. While every culture had no shortage of politicians claiming those guys over there were inferior to us, the chosen ones of our god(s), the US really put that into high gear with flat out claims of physiological brain inferiority.

Ah, a MAJOR historical revisionism going on here. Yet again a liberal engages in gratuitous, ill-informed and flat made-up America bashing. This one tries to lay off phrenology and such on an America desperate to enslave the world's people. Let's shine some light of knowledge on this one.

The notions of personal/group/racial characteristics defined by facial (physiognomy) and skull (craniometry) features was documented contemporaneously in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions during the time of Pharaohs. Levantine preoccupation with tribal facial and cranial features was a chief means of both demonizing out-tribes and selecting mates for pre-arranged marriages during pre-puberty. The concept evolved into "phrenology" in EUROPE and like all things European at the time, crossed the ocean and became first an American parlor game then psuedo-science.

American slaves, like ALL those enslaved by Asiatics, Arabs, Africans, Native Americans, and Europeans throughout time since the very first enslavement were seen as unworthy of freedom, rights, control of personal destiny, or participation in an afterlife. Many excuses were used to buttress the notion, including brain characteristics, BY ALL ENSLAVERS HISTORICALLY.

To assert that American slavery was an originator of such notions is breathtakingly false, whether done so willfully or out of ignorance of history. Try to remember that the USA was NOT the first practitioner of slavery, the LAST practitioner of slavery, but by FAR, the briefest practitioner of slavery in the history of the written word world: Less than 90 years, compared to many MILLENNIUMS in the entire rest of the world.

[BPSCG]

Ah, a MAJOR historical revisionism going on here. Yet again a liberal engages in gratuitous, ill-informed and flat made-up America bashing. FarmallMTA, you may be the first person here ever to accuse Beerina of being a liberal.

[FarmallMTA]

FarmallMTA, you may be the first person here ever to accuse Beerina of being a liberal.

America bashers usually are, Ron Paul aside. Not sure why. Maybe it's because liberals like for somebody to make a living for them so they can stand around with their mouths full and criticize how they did it afterwards.

[Ranillon]

BTW, did you notice that the list of countries the US put on the list includes a number of "allies," and we're calling for sanctions against them? Remember that next time someone goes on about how the US is in bed with corrupt governments.

The fact that slavery is condoned in the listed countries isn't exactly news -- it's been an open secret for a while now.

Likewise, before we pat the US on the back for its tough line against injustice let's see just what teeth this blacklist really has. If it is nothing more than a PR stunt I won't be impressed.

[Darth Rotor]

p.s. Damn you Darth*, I'm pretty sure our politics don't match at all, but you don't half talk sense most of the time.
It's the Guinness talkling, of course. :D Politics and sense don't always match. It would be fair to say that no politician serving represents my point of view, though Kinky Friedman was close enough to get my vote for Governor in 2006. Damnit, I backed a losing horse, but it was worth it.

DR

[BPSCG]

America bashers usually are, Ron Paul aside. Not sure why. Maybe it's because liberals like for somebody to make a living for them so they can stand around with their mouths full and criticize how they did it afterwards.I think that may be the first time anyone here ever accused Beerina of being an America-basher.

FWIW, I read his post, and I don't think he says anything in there that I would construe as "America-bashing." Southern slaveholders did try to justify slavery in part by claiming that blacks were intellectually inferior. Whether or not they were the first slaveholders ever to try to justify it on those grounds may or may not be so, but I would hardly call that "America-bashing."

[Darth Rotor]

The fact that slavery is condoned in the listed countries isn't exactly news -- it's been an open secret for a while now.

Likewise, before we pat the US on the back for its tough line against injustice let's see just what teeth this blacklist really has. If it is nothing more than a PR stunt I won't be impressed.
Since the US CENTRAL Command HQ complex currently sits on Qatarese soil, and the US Fifth Fleet is HQ'd in Bahrain, I'm going to guess that your fears are reasonably well grounded. At least a small, small step in publically airing out this dirty old laundry item is being taken, however badly it still smells, and will smell, before anyone deigns to drop it into the washing machine of policy change.

DR

[BPSCG]

Since the US CENTRAL Command HQ complex currently sits on Qatarese soil, and the US Fifth Fleet is HQ'd in Bahrain, I'm going to guess that your fears are reasonably well grounded. At least a small, small step in publically airing out this dirty old laundry item is being taken, however badly it still smells, and will smell, before anyone deigns to drop it into the washing machine of policy change.

DRPurple Prose Metaphor Alert!

Agree, it will likely have no effect whatsoever; we can't get anyone to impose sanctions on Iran for developing nuclear weapons, so you can forget about slavery.

Now if it were Israel doing it, that would be a different story. The world would rise in furious indignation.

[Crossbow]

BTW, did you notice that the list of countries the US put on the list includes a number of "allies," and we're calling for sanctions against them? Remember that next time someone goes on about how the US is in bed with corrupt governments.

I asked if you were trying to be a Troll again, and I guess that the answer is:

Yes, 'BPSCG' is trying to be a Troll again.

Anyway, both the article and the US State Department document (http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/) Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2007) states that Tier 3 nations "can be sanctioned" by the USA which is not the same thing as stating that Tier 3 nations will be sanctioned by the USA. Especially when the USA is dealing with nations that have a significantly economic interest and/or strategic military interest with the USA.

I for one expect the usual duplicitous response that involves a bit of public and private moral indignation of the situation (in order to show everyone how concerned the USA is about the issue of human trafficking), but not doing anything about substantive about it (since doing so may complicate the pursuit of the significant economic and/or military issues).

[Cleon]

I asked if you were trying to be a Troll again, and I guess that the answer is:

Yes, 'BPSCG' is trying to be a Troll again.

Yep. The first few posts in this thread are nothing but half-assed attempts at trolling.

Though I gotta say, I'm almost tempted to take FarmallMTA off ignore just to watch him call Beerina an "America-basher" and "liberal." That's just too funny for words...You might as well call Shanek a Marxist.

[Darth Rotor]

Purple Prose Metaphor Alert!


Is that a gold star, or is that a "sit in the corner with Dunce Cap on head?" :confused:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Yep. The first few posts in this thread are nothing but half-assed attempts at trolling.

Though I gotta say, I'm almost tempted to take FarmallMTA off ignore just to watch him call Beerina an "America-basher" and "liberal." That's just too funny for words...You might as well call Shanek a Marxist.
WILL YOU STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY? I'M ON A HIAITUS, AND NOT EVEN IN THIS THREAD!

MODS, they are unfairly picking on Libertarians again!
Sorry, I could not resist.

DR

[BPSCG]

I asked if you were trying to be a Troll again, and I guess that the answer is:

Yes, 'BPSCG' is trying to be a Troll again.Hey, could 'you' tell me why you 'always' put my name in scare quotes, 'Crossbow'?

[Darth Rotor]

Hey, could 'you' tell me why you 'always' put my name in scare quotes, 'Crossbow'?
He's afraid of you, but he's afraid to admit it. ;)

DR

[BPSCG]

Is that a gold star, or is that a "sit in the corner with Dunce Cap on head?" :confused:

DRDepends on how hard I laugh. :)

[Crossbow]

Hey, could 'you' tell me why you 'always' put my name in scare quotes, 'Crossbow'?

They are single quotes, not scare quotes.

I think it is better sentence structure to put single quotes around handle names, therefore I have been doing it with all of my posts for the last several months. Just look at a few and you will see that I do that with everyone, not just you.

Anyway, are you still trying to be a Troll?

[Crossbow]

He's afraid of you, but he's afraid to admit it. ;)

DR

You are an extremely stupid person.

Keep it civil, Crossbow. Don't insult other posters.

[Darth Rotor]

You are an extremely stupid person.
Given your general cowardice in dealing with me, I figured you were being consistent, and afraid of Beeps as well. I guessed wrong? Fine.

I am so glad you finally found your sack and posted a response to me, that's progress. No, we won't be swapping spit any time soon, but we may be able to work our way back to dialogue now and again.

Time will tell.

I note that the hatchet burying I have offered, via PM, have all gone unanswered. What's the matter, afraid we might find some common ground?

DR

[Tony]

America bashers usually are.

Yeah, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D'Souza, and Ann Coulter sure are liberal.

[Tony]

I asked if you were trying to be a Troll again, and I guess that the answer is:

Yes, 'BPSCG' is trying to be a Troll again.

Anyway, both the article and the US State Department document (http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/) Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2007) states that Tier 3 nations "can be sanctioned" by the USA which is not the same thing as stating that Tier 3 nations will be sanctioned by the USA. Especially when the USA is dealing with nations that have a significantly economic interest and/or strategic military interest with the USA.

I for one expect the usual duplicitous response that involves a bit of public and private moral indignation of the situation (in order to show everyone how concerned the USA is about the issue of human trafficking), but not doing anything about substantive about it (since doing so may complicate the pursuit of the significant economic and/or military issues).

You're right about BPSCG trolling. Lets see the government and the corporate class put their money where their mouths are. I want to see the countries on that list put under enormous pressure, i.e. blockaded and/or heavily sanctioned, before I regard this "condemnation" as anything but a PR move.

[BPSCG]

Regarding "trolling."

I prefer to think this - and other threads I've started recently - as being provocative rather than trolling. Yes, I'm trying to get a rise out of certain people (and I certainly seem to be succeeding with this one), but it's with the intent of starting a lively discussion of issues - not for the purpose of starting a pissing contest. I obviously have my biases (unlike everyone else here), but I'm interested in the exchange of ideas. Putting something provocative out there is, I think, a pretty good way to do it.

If you don't like provocative discussions, then start your own thread. Here are a few ideas you can use for nice soothing titles that won't offend anyone:

"I Like Chocolate"
"James Randi Is Gr8!"
"Kittens Are Cute."
"Happy Birthday, <Fill In Name>"If you think I'm trolling, and don't like it, then quit complaining and stop replying.

[Tony]

I prefer to think this - and other threads I've started recently - as being provocative rather than trolling.

Think what you want, hell, there are many of your ilk that refuse to accept the science of evolution, you're still being a troll.

Putting something provocative out there is, I think, a pretty good way to do it.

You haven't put anything provocative out there. What you've "put out there" are the typical paranoid right-wing myths. For example:

A lot of Muslim countries in there. I'm sure the UN will be issuing condemnations any minute now.

You start whining about the UN for absolutely no reason. The tragedy here is the millions of people who are suffering. You took it upon yourself to exploit their misery as a device to masturbate your paranoid anti-UN views. What you call "provocative" is what the rest of us call a manifestation of extremism and of an irrational persecution complex.

[Crossbow]

Given your general cowardice in dealing with me, I figured you were being consistent, and afraid of Beeps as well. I guessed wrong? Fine.

I am so glad you finally found your sack and posted a response to me, that's progress. No, we won't be swapping spit any time soon, but we may be able to work our way back to dialogue now and again.

Time will tell.

I note that the hatchet burying I have offered, via PM, have all gone unanswered. What's the matter, afraid we might find some common ground?

DR

I have reported this post.

[jmercer]

At this time, I am calling for a general return to civility in this thread. Everyone, please remember that your membership agreement calls for that; I suggest you all focus on the argument, and not the people making the argument.

[BPSCG]

Think what you want, hell, there are many of your ilk that refuse to accept the science of evolution, you're still being a troll.Wow, such a short sentence, so much wrong with it.

For starts, I do not reject evolution; I am utterly convinced it is the most accurate model of how biology works. I am also utterly convinced that creationism and all its disguises are pseudo-science and outright frauds.

Second, even if I did believe in creationism and rejected evolution, how would it follow that a post on modern-day slavery is therefore trolling? What you've written is called a non sequitur.

You start whining about the UN for absolutely no reason. The tragedy here is the millions of people who are suffering. You took it upon yourself to exploit their misery as a device to masturbate your paranoid anti-UN views. I took it upon myself to point out that there is some hypocrisy in the world today when the US is damned by many for failing to live up to impossibly high standards, while regimes that routinely practice the worst kinds of human rights abuses get put into leadership positions in human rights committees at the UN.

What you call "provocative" is what the rest of us call a manifestation of an irrational persecution complex.:biggrin: When I feel like anyone here is persecuting me, you'll be the second to know.

ETA: FWIW, Crossbow's response in #17, despite his evident annoyance with me, is a serious attempt to discuss the issue. Observe, Tony, and learn.

[Tony]

Wow, such a short sentence, so much wrong with it.

For starts, I do not reject evolution; I am utterly convinced it is the most accurate model of how biology works. I am also utterly convinced that creationism and all its disguises are pseudo-science and outright frauds.

Second, even if I did believe in creationism and rejected evolution, how would it follow that a post on modern-day slavery is therefore trolling? What you've written is called a non sequitur.


If you took the time to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I said "your ilk" not "you".

I took it upon myself to point out that there is some hypocrisy in the world today when the US is damned by many for failing to live up to impossibly high standards

Yeah, because the US sets those "impossibly high standards". If we're going to claim the moral high ground, don't be surprised and don't whine when we're held to it. Personally, I don't think those standards are impossibly high, but it's telling that you do.

You're comparing the USA to third world hellholes and whining that we're treated differently. You have a very dim view of the US if the metric you set for our behavior is that which is set by countries like Syria. I think this country is better than that and should continue to act better than that.

while regimes that routinely practice the worst kinds of human rights abuses get put into leadership positions in human rights committees at the UN.

Ahhh, so this is the "provocative" point you were trying to make? News flash, that was old news 3 years ago. You'd be hard pressed to find someone on this board who thinks a country like Syria has any legitimacy to sit on a human rights committee, how again is that provocative? Everyone knows that the UN has issues, that isn't a startling or groundbreaking revelation to anyone. It still looked like you were trolling by beating a dead, rotten and decaying horse.

:biggrin: When I feel like anyone here is persecuting me, you'll be the second to know.

Who’ll be the first?

[BPSCG]

If you took the time to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I said "your ilk" not "you".Oh. Does my ilk include fundamentalists? Just curious to see what your perception of the world is.

You're comparing the USA to third world hellholes and whining that we're treated differently. You have a very dim view of the US if the metric you set for our behavior is that which is set by countries like Syria. I think this country is better than that and should continue to act better than that.Do you think Syria's brutality should continue to get a shrug from the rest of the world?

Who’ll be the first?Me. Duh.

[Ziggurat]

You're right about BPSCG trolling. Lets see the government and the corporate class put their money where their mouths are. I want to see the countries on that list put under enormous pressure, i.e. blockaded and/or heavily sanctioned, before I regard this "condemnation" as anything but a PR move.

Blockades are acts of war. In other words, you want to declare war on all these countries. Somehow, I don't really think you're being honest. I think you're just asking your opponents to advocate a course of action that you don't actually want yourself, or wouldn't if you thought about it for more than half a second.

[Tony]

Oh. Does my ilk include fundamentalists?


Aren't fundamentalists typically conservative republicans?

Do you think Syria's brutality should continue to get a shrug from the rest of the world?

Any evidence it does get a shrug from the rest of the world?

[Tony]

Blockades are acts of war.

And sanctions aren't?

In other words, you want to declare war on all these countries.

No, I want to see more of a commitment to human rights, both at home and abroad, from the administration than simply "condemning" known human rights abusers for abusing human rights. In short, I want to see action, not words. However, since this administration, through its actions, has shown it doesn't give a damn about human rights (how could they? Human rights is a fundamentally liberal concept, and we all know liberalism is evil, godless and unamerican), I won't hold my breath.

[Ziggurat]

And sanctions aren't?

No, they are not.

[Tony]

No, they are not.

Why not?

[Ziggurat]

Why not?

Sanctions prevent trading between those enacting the sanctions and their target. They do not directly prevent any third-party interactions - even in the case of UN-endorsed sanctions, it's still only member states of the UN which are engaging in sanctions as part of their membership activity (and states are always free to drop out of the UN). Blockades, on the other hand, DO prevent thrid-party interactions (that's rather the whole point), which is why they're acts of war. Blockades also prevent access to the high seas, which are considered international commons, which sanctions do not do.

[Diamond]

I am a liberal but I don't bash America. Perhaps you're confusing America with the Republican Party again.

[Tony]

I am a liberal but I don't bash America. Perhaps you're confusing America with the Republican Party again.

Duh. Didn't you know that the Republican Party is America?

[BPSCG]

...However, since this administration, through its actions, has shown it doesn't give a damn about human rights (how could they? Human rights is a fundamentally liberal concept, and we all know liberalism is evil, godless and unamerican), I won't hold my breath.

Duh. Didn't you know that the Republican Party is America?Tony, wipe your chin; you've got spittle all over it.

Do you find it odd that so many Muslim countries tolerate slavery and so few Christian ones don't? Why do you think that is? I mean, apart from it being Bush's fault?

[Darth Rotor]

I have reported this post.
True to form. First, from you to me, "you are stupid." Then, with my reference to offers to bury the hatchet, post reported. (Yes, it was packaged with a touch of sracasm, and a sneer.)

Let go your hatred. It's easier to hate, to paint someone as too damned hard to work with. This is rather like George W Bush and his position vis a vis Iran:

"I just can't work with these people!"

Welcome to you and GW Bush being in the same mental league. How's it taste?

DR

[Silly Green Monkey]

Do you find it odd that so many Muslim countries tolerate slavery and so few Christian ones don't? Why do you think that is? I mean, apart from it being Bush's fault?

What of India, Mexico, and Russia, who were mentioned in the BBC article:

But there was some criticism that major nations such as India, Mexico and Russia, all of which have been criticised over human trafficking in recent years, were not included in the list of worst offenders.

[Darth Rotor]

What of India, Mexico, and Russia, who were mentioned in the BBC article:
I share your concern.

DR

[Tony]

Tony, wipe your chin; you've got spittle all over it.


Ad hom noted.

Do you find it odd that so many Muslim countries tolerate slavery and so few Christian ones don't? Why do you think that is? I mean, apart from it being Bush's fault?

I see you've reverted back to paranoid wing-nut mode. Carrying on, can we expect you to finally provide evidence of your claim that the world shrugs at Syria's brutality?

[Tony]

Sanctions prevent trading between those enacting the sanctions and their target. They do not directly prevent any third-party interactions - even in the case of UN-endorsed sanctions, it's still only member states of the UN which are engaging in sanctions as part of their membership activity (and states are always free to drop out of the UN). Blockades, on the other hand, DO prevent thrid-party interactions (that's rather the whole point), which is why they're acts of war. Blockades also prevent access to the high seas, which are considered international commons, which sanctions do not do.

Thanks.

[BPSCG]

True to form. First, from you to me, "you are stupid." Then, with my reference to offers to bury the hatchet, post reported. (Yes, it was packaged with a touch of sracasm, and a sneer.)

Let go your hatred. It's easier to hate, to paint someone as too damned hard to work with. This is rather like George W Bush and his position vis a vis Iran:

"I just can't work with these people!"

Welcome to you and GW Bush being in the same mental league. How's it taste?

DR
Don't listen to him Crossbow. Heed the words of a wise man:

The alliance... will die. As will your friends. Good, I can feel your anger. I am unarmed. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete. The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.

[Darth Rotor]

Don't listen to him Crossbow. Heed the words of a wise man:
Bah, I see we have a Sith wannabe in the audience. Sorry, you are too old, per Yoda's objections, but squared. :p

DR

[bigred]

First briefly FWIW, and excuse me for getting back to the actual topic of the thread:

Try to remember that the USA was NOT the first practitioner of slavery, the LAST practitioner of slavery, but by FAR, the briefest practitioner of slavery in the history of the written word world: Less than 90 years, compared to many MILLENNIUMS in the entire rest of the world.Including, oh btw, Africa, where tribes routinely enslaved other tribes.


Now if someone would be so kind as to let me know when/if the fighting stops and discussion resumes, I'd appreciate it.

[gtc]

Australia was accussed of slavery as well. As best I can tell it was due to some employers abusing a foreign worker visa scheme.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/foreign-workers-scheme-is-slavery-says-us/2007/06/13/1181414383826.html

[PogoPedant]

I'm sure the UN will be issuing condemnations any minute now.
They've been working on it since 1949 (http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/slavery/). I'm glad to see the US taking notice too.

[Diamond]

Do you find it odd that so many Muslim countries tolerate slavery and so few Christian ones don't?

BPSCG - I'd like you to really, really THINK about the logic in that sentence

[Crossbow]

Tony, wipe your chin; you've got spittle all over it.

Do you find it odd that so many Muslim countries tolerate slavery and so few Christian ones don't? Why do you think that is? I mean, apart from it being Bush's fault?

I just have to chime in on this post because after reading a statement like this from 'BPSCG', I keep thinking about the below statement that he made the other day ...

You know what I enjoy more than anything? Other than sex, food, drink, sleeping, good music, being with my friends, skiing, and kayaking, I mean? It's carefully baiting a hook and seeing who'll chomp down on it.

...{snipped}


Anyway, if 'BPSCG' is actually trying to encourage discussion and he is not being a Troll (as he claims), then I sure hope he also heeds the Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2007) report from the US State Department as well as his incredible insights into the religious status various nations around the world as it relates to human trafficking since page 49 of this document says:


The United States is a source and destination country for
thousands of men, women, and children trafficked for
the purposes of sexual and labor exploitation. Women
and girls, largely from East Asia, Eastern Europe, Mexico
and Central America are trafficked to the United States
into prostitution. Some men and women, responding
to fraudulent offers of employment in the United States,
migrate willingly—legally and illegally—but are subsequently
subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude
at work sites or in the commercial sex trade. An unknown
number of American citizens and legal residents are trafficked
within the country primarily for sexual servitude
and, to a lesser extent, forced labor.

...

Religion and human trafficking really do not have anything to do with one another.

[Darth Rotor]

Religion and human trafficking really do not have anything to do with one another.
Tend to agree, as regards the US. What you are pointing to is the dirty little secret that the immigration bill will not, and does not, address: second and third order effects of indifference to the underground trafficking in humans.

I wish I could recall the program, but about six years ago an Asian American reporter went undercover into the New York garment sweat shops and discovered conditions approaching slave labor, minus the need to house and feed the workers. Her report was chilling. Similar exposés in Florida, over the sugar cane business and the illegals used in the cane fields, and how they are housed and abused, seem to be completely ignored in the current discussion of immigration law, enforcement, and reform.

I have seen the argument made that official indifference, or turing a blind eye, is tatamount to condoning the illegal trafficking in human beings. It's a tough argument to ignore, and seems to me a place where I'd rather see 15 billion spent, when the option is cleaning up our own house versus cleaining up AIDS in Africa. Or, to not cast Africa to the wolves, split the money: a 7.5 billion program to crack down on the flesh trade, and 7.5 billion on the President's AIDS assistance program.

Ah, but where's the profit? :mad:

Here's a flashback, and a thought on how ten years changed the GOP: can you imagine President Clinton announcing, in 1997, a 15 billion package for AIDS in Africa, wanting to double it to 30 billion, and him getting anything other than a public skinning? From both sides of the aisle, back when Congress was making progress on deficit and budget discipline, he'd have been laughed off the podium.

What the hell is going on, folks? Is everyone in DC nuts?

DR

[Flo]

I just have to chime in on this post because after reading a statement like this from 'BPSCG', I keep thinking about the below statement that he made the other day ...



Anyway, if 'BPSCG' is actually trying to encourage discussion and he is not being a Troll (as he claims), then I sure hope he also heeds the Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2007) report from the US State Department as well as his incredible insights into the religious status various nations around the world as it relates to human trafficking since page 49 of this document says:



Religion and human trafficking really do not have anything to do with one another.

I'm afraid you're partially wrong, when it comes to the official attitudes of some countries towards slavery/human trafficking: I recall one of the reasons given by Saudi Arabia for refusing to ratify the convention against slavery some years ago was that slavery is explicitely authorised under some conditions (that the slave be no muslim nor jew or christian) in the coran. This also formed the main justification for muslim slave traders all over sub-Saharian Africa for centuries, and until very recently in countries like Mauritania ...

[Flo]

Tend to agree, as regards the US. What you are pointing to is the dirty little secret that the immigration bill will not, and does not, address: second and third order effects of indifference to the underground trafficking in humans.

I wish I could recall the program, but about six years ago an Asian American reporter went undercover into the New York garment sweat shops and discovered conditions approaching slave labor, minus the need to house and feed the workers. Her report was chilling. Similar exposés in Florida, over the sugar cane business and the illegals used in the cane fields, and how they are housed and abused, seem to be completely ignored in the current discussion of immigration law, enforcement, and reform.

Same situation in several Western European countries, from sweatshops in the clothing industry in Paris to the scandalous mistreatment of African illegals in the produces fields of Southern Spain.


I have seen the argument made that official indifference, or turing a blind eye, is tatamount to condoning the illegal trafficking in human beings. It's a tough argument to ignore, and seems to me a place where I'd rather see 15 billion spent, when the option is cleaning up our own house versus cleaining up AIDS in Africa. Or, to not cast Africa to the wolves, split the money: a 7.5 billion program to crack down on the flesh trade, and 7.5 billion on the President's AIDS assistance program.

Curbing trafficking in human beings would certainly go a long way towards solving part of Africa's poverty problems, if only by forcing local governments to look for solution for its jobless youth at home ...

[sackett]

... Let's start at home, and root out the ...illegal alien labor camps that are a slide toward private, and illegal, slave labor. DR


Here in the U.S.? I haven't seen a reference to those before. I'd be interested in some sources.

The shape-up is, of course, an old and degrading practice; been in some myself. My father, a survivor of the Depression, knew all about them. I can see how the shape-up could develop into a warehouse for wetbacks.

I've opined elsewhere that we live in dirty times.

ETA: Oops, I see that I must run to catch up with the curve. Jolly good, bash on.

[Darth Rotor]

Here in the U.S.? I haven't seen a reference to those before. I'd be interested in some sources.

The shape-up is, of course, an old and degrading practice; been in some myself. My father, a survivor of the Depression, knew all about them. I can see how the shape-up could develop into a warehouse for wetbacks.

I've opined elsewhere that we live in dirty times.
I've been reading this in papers on and off for the last seven years. The TV bit on the Sweat shops in NY cued me to it.

From answers.com, a brief summary:

WORKFORCE

Although cutters are employed by the sugar growers, they are discussed here because many southern Florida plantations are owned by the large sugar mills and are therefore part of this industry in the country's leading sugar-producing state. Sugar harvesters, called cane cutters, face one of the most grueling jobs imaginable. For decades, the Florida sugar cane industry came under fire for the severe, even slave-like conditions in which the cutters lived and for illegal practices concerning wages. Most Florida cane cutters were seasonal workers migrating from the Caribbean for the harvest.

A 1991 congressional report accused the sugar cane industry of violating labor laws. In 1992, U.S. Sugar Corp., one of the largest sugar concerns in Florida, agreed to a wage increase and other improvements. Farm-worker advocacy groups were hoping to win reforms for cane cutters working at other sugar companies. However, southern Florida producers were increasingly turning to machine cutting because of the historical controversy about the treatment of immigrant labor by the industry.

Employment in the fields and in the mills is seasonal, peaking between fall and spring. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1990 total employment of production workers in the industry was 3,500 in July and 6,400 in November. One cooperative based in a single county in Florida reported employing about 900 people in 1996 on a payroll exceeding $26 million.

Hiassen's stuff I can't find, it's some years old, and I can't access the archives of Miami Herald.

A snip of his latest commentary doesn't address the sugar industry:

Those who've made it to U.S. shores have mixed luck, depending on the judge reviewing their case. Some have been allowed to stay in the United States, but many, many more have been deported.

Haiti isn't ruled by a dictatorship; it has a shaky government crippled by poverty, corruption and chaos. Despite the presence of U.N. troops, roving armed gangs terrorize the cities; in the countryside, the deadly threats are disease and hunger.

There is no place in the hemisphere more wretched or dangerous, and it's perfectly understandable why so many Haitians set out for Florida. They are not alone in this dream.

The U.S. Census Bureau says that 409,426 immigrants settled in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties between April 2000 and July 2006. That means that nine out of every 10 newcomers were from other countries, an astonishing statistic.

South Florida needs more people like the Sahara needs more sand, but our economy obviously has become reliant on foreign-born labor. No less plain is the fact that many builders, farmers and company owners will never turn down an immigrant work force.

Consequently, the government has no hope whatsoever of controlling the borders. The least we should demand, though, is an immigration policy that's humane, fair and free of favoritism.

Unaccountably, the Department of Homeland Security won't give Temporary Protected Status to Haitians awaiting deportation hearings. The TPS program was created specifically to provide haven for undocumented migrants who would face perilous conditions if sent home.

Haiti is such a violent place that the State Department advises Americans not to travel there, yet somehow it's all right to send Haitians back into the bloody chaos.

DR

[TriangleMan]

For the record, since I live in Qatar, I had no objections to what was reported in the article linked in the OP. Except one.

United Arab Emirates (UAE) should also be on the list. I don't recall seeing it there and if it isn't on the list I call B.S. because I think conditions there are no better than other Gulf states in terms of how Third-World workers are treated.

In the Gulf you see the occasional news report about some workers from South Asia who are abused, mistreated, or work for months at 70+ hours a week without getting paid. For domestic workers, usually maids from Indonesia, they could potentially face abusive employers, and if their employers want to get rid of them without paying them a quick call to the police with a claim that she stole something will whisk her off to jail where she is held until trial, sometimes more than a year later. The Indian, Sri Lankan, Nepalese and Indonesian embassies are always complaining about the situation. There is even a charity here for supporting a house where Nepalese labourers fleeing their employers can stay until a way is arranged for them to get back to their country (their employers usually have their passports, and you need an exit permit to leave the country, so the charity takes care of them while the embassy makes arrangements).

If you do a search of the Gulf News or Gulf Times websites you will find articles about treatment of Third World workers and how they can end up exploited by unscrupulous employers.

That said I'm not so sure that this is religious-based, more like unscrupulous people taking advantage of others. Indonesians are Muslims, and Palestinian, Lebanese, Pakistani and Jordanian workers can have a rough time in the Gulf as well.

[Darth Rotor]

There is even a charity here for supporting a house where Nepalese labourers fleeing their employers can stay until a way is arranged for them to get back to their country (their employers usually have their passports, and you need an exit permit to leave the country, so the charity takes care of them while the embassy makes arrangements).

This is, IMO, a gross foul. I understand that the same is true for guest workers in Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain. (May be off, but I think it is a common means of control, since the helots outnumber the local populations in most of those countries.)

The Inconvenient Truth behind Dubai's/UAE's glitzy image (Nat Geo did some coverage of this, but not enough for my taste) that I'd like to see exposed by, of all people, Tiger Woods.

He's been a big name, and gets big money in appearance money, each year at the Dubai Classic. I'd love to see him get a conscience and not go next year (like he needs the money) in the interest of drawing attention, but I don't think it's going to happen.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Tony, wipe your chin; you've got spittle all over it.

Do you find it odd that so many Muslim countries tolerate slavery and so few Christian ones don't? Why do you think that is? I mean, apart from it being Bush's fault?

Well you would need to find more comparable countries, say a couple in sub Saharan Africa for any such comparison to work. If you do that I would find it unlikely that you would find a strikeing difference.

[ponderingturtle]

For the record, since I live in Qatar, I had no objections to what was reported in the article linked in the OP. Except one.

United Arab Emirates (UAE) should also be on the list. I don't recall seeing it there and if it isn't on the list I call B.S. because I think conditions there are no better than other Gulf states in terms of how Third-World workers are treated.


How is the situation with the child camel jockeys?

[TriangleMan]

How is the situation with the child camel jockeys?
As far as I know officially the UAE and Qatar have stopped the practice but I don't know much about it. It is possible that it continues "unofficially" but I haven't heard anything. It certainly is not as prevalent as it once was when the practice was deemed acceptable.
This is, IMO, a gross foul. I understand that the same is true for guest workers in Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain. (May be off, but I think it is a common means of control, since the helots outnumber the local populations in most of those countries.)
In these countries any worker needs an exit permit, including myself. My employer did not take my passport, and I'd be out of here the moment they tried, but for labourers it is commonplace for the employer to hold their passports.

These labourers also get screwed over in their own countries as well. To get jobs here they have to pay these 'arrangers' in their countries who get them visas and jobs in the Gulf. The payments often amount to thousands of dollars, and for most of them it takes at least the first year of their work to pay it off. That's why they are indentured, their extended families have usually taken out big loans to pay the arrangers so if the guy leaves an abusive job in the Gulf the family is still stuck trying to pay the loans.

What is even sadder is that for every labourer here there were 30-40 back in their country who were also trying for that same job. Until the poverty of places like India, Nepal and Sri Lanka are dealt with there will always be tens of thousands of people willing to take the risk of exploitation to get a job in the Gulf.

[Darth Rotor]

What is even sadder is that for every labourer here there were 30-40 back in their country who were also trying for that same job. Until the poverty of places like India, Nepal and Sri Lanka are dealt with there will always be tens of thousands of people willing to take the risk of exploitation to get a job in the Gulf.
I wonder. Does the Emir get badgered about this policy, even politely? As Arab national leaders go, he's seen as a progressive. Does the immigrant "doing work Arabs won't do" sound byte arise in public discussion about this, or is there no internal public discussion?

Been a few years since I read the Gulf News (English language version.) It tended to tread very carefully on political matters.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

As far as I know officially the UAE and Qatar have stopped the practice but I don't know much about it. It is possible that it continues "unofficially" but I haven't heard anything. It certainly is not as prevalent as it once was when the practice was deemed acceptable.

The practice had been officially banned for years, but as most of the practitioners of such child slavery where well connected or government officials nothing was done.

That was why I thought Michael Jackson was moving to Dubai, because it had a ready market in young children

[TriangleMan]

I wonder. Does the Emir get badgered about this policy, even politely? As Arab national leaders go, he's seen as a progressive. Does the immigrant "doing work Arabs won't do" sound byte arise in public discussion about this, or is there no internal public discussion?

Dubai and Bahrain are far more liberal in terms of what people are allowed to do but the problems faced by workers from the developing world are similar to states like Qatar.

I'm not sure to what extent this is mentioned at the Emiri level, occasionally you see an article about some Government Minister or another pledging to help tackle the problem of abusive employers but not a lot changes. The Emir did decree last year that you could not have labourers working outdoors in the summer during the hours of 12-4, to modest effect (labourers who worked where they could be easily spotted did not work in the afternoon, but from the office tower where I worked I could see that some still worked on construction sites where people at ground level would not be able to see them). News on the Emir is limited to what the Palace's PR office will issue. He is an absolute monarch after all so I doubt any media outlet in the country, including Al Jazzera, would risk incurring his wrath. And I suspect that in the region media outlets tread carefully about criticizing any ruler in the Gulf, the various rulers are generally friends so criticizing an Emir/King/Sultan of another Gulf country could still bring problems.

That was why I thought Michael Jackson was moving to Dubai, because it had a ready market in young children
I think he was planning to move to Bahrain (not 100% on that though). As for the child jockeys I think it was attention by human rights groups that curtailed the practice. But that was a practice that was difficult to hide so it was easy for rights groups to find the races. Like I said I'm not sure to what extent it still continues but any race generally known by the public does not use children, as opposed to not so long ago when they did.

[spiteme]

I saw a documentary recently. A woman had gone with a male friend to Turkey to go shopping. While there, he sold her as a sex slave. When he returned her husband had to persuade the "friend" to help him find his wife. Finally got her back, but she lost the child she'd been carrying. Awful, awful stuff. Bring on the meteor! Clean us off the planet. We haven't learned a damn thing.

Now if you'll excuse me, this liberal has a few flags to burn.

[Darth Rotor]

I saw a documentary recently. A woman had gone with a male friend to Turkey to go shopping. While there, he sold her as a sex slave. When he returned her husband had to persuade the "friend" to help him find his wife.
Did this friend tell the husband he sold her? If yes, why is he still breathing? If no, how did he explain the scenario? Whoppers of lies can sometimes be entertaining.
Finally got her back, but she lost the child she'd been carrying. Awful, awful stuff.
Yeah, and a good case for shooting the sumbitch.

Of course, here's a thought:

Wife: "Honey, I am going shopping. In Turkey."

Me: "What, you can't get what you need at Dillard's?"

Strange shopping trip, unless this was a business trip.
Bring on the meteor! Clean us off the planet. We haven't learned a damn thing.
Speak for yourself. :p
Now if you'll excuse me, this liberal has a few flags to burn.
Make sure you comply with local fire safety codes. :cool:

DR