The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center recently released a film that in a
very interesting way presents the stories of two men who lived more than a
century apart to illustrate the many similarities between the old world slavery
and the so-called modern-day slavery. I had the wonderful opportunity to attend
a screening of the film here in DC at an event to honor one of the Trafficking
in Persons 2012 report heroes, Gary Haugen, founder of International Justice Mission and featured in the film. The best part about the screening was that it was followed by a panel
discussion that included one of the makers of the film.
The title of the 40-minute documentary is Journey to Freedom and the film, as well
as additional information on it, could be found here.
A somewhat expected theme discussed at theconference was the debate on how to exactly define the crime of human
trafficking. Most importantly, are the terms modern-day slavery and human
trafficking equivalent? Are there similarities and differences between the
Atlantic Slave Trade and human trafficking?
In order to properly define the crime of human
trafficking, activists need to not only know what it is but also what it isn’t.
There are two major issues with that.
First, there are those who view the enslavement of
Africans during the Atlantic Slave Trade as something so horrible that no other
practice could possibly compare to it. As Jowl Quirk, a Senior Lecturer in
Politics at the University of Witwatersrand, shrewdly observed, the tendency,
labeled as strategic minimization, to minimize and excuse slave-like practices
is responsible for the lack of acknowledgement of human trafficking as akin to
what has now been termed “the old slavery.”
I am sure that upon significant research and
examination, we can determine (and many already have) that there are numerous
similarities between the practice of slavery in the past and the contemporary
crime of human trafficking. Of course, since the context is different, we can
also find a lot of differences. This, however, should not prevent us from acknowledging
that the conditions most human trafficking victims live in significantly resemble
the conditions enslaved Africans lived in.
The second major issue with defining slavery is
the tendency to expand the boundaries of slavery, labeled as rhetorical
inflation, for the purposes of sensationalism. For those who become entangled
in the tentacles of rhetorical inflation, it becomes very difficult to define
what slavery is not. Basically, it creates the perfect conditions to refer to
any mild inconvenience as slavery.
The above is the issue I seriously have a problem
with. Rhetorical inflation seems to be a common side effect of living in a
world of instant gratification and convenience. The moment something goes
wrong, some are immediately inclined to label the situation as slavery, or
torture, or any other example of extreme pain and suffering.
Somehow I feel that this obsession with defining
the crime detracts from the very real and very torturous experience survivors
go through, but I am not sure what the solution to the problem would be. There
is a need of a clear definition in terms of the law, but how can we make sure
that we include and exclude what is actually appropriate to be included or
excluded?
One of the many interesting panel discussions at the conference I recently attended focused on the role of historians in the
fight against slavery and their contributions to the understanding and handling
of this oh-not-so-modern issue.
As David Blight highlighted, ‘the sense of history’
is important to human rights activists and survivors, and any human being
really, because it teaches them the valuable lesson that they are not alone. I
can expand on this idea and add that history can show us that what activists
and survivors face is not necessarily something that has not been encountered
in the past by someone else and that success is certainly an option, however difficult
the fight might seem at first (or on most days).
The study of history, in my opinion, should
definitely be included in the training and education of any present human
rights activist. The panel certainly agreed and emphasized that history can
give humans self-knowledge and most importantly, inform them of the conditions,
both personal and structural, under which progress occurred. After all, history is important not only to help us learn from mistakes, but also to help us learn from the successes of those who fought long before we were even born.
Following up on the above comments, I guess I can
safely conclude that if we truly want to understand the reach, magnitude, and
all aspects of human trafficking and learn how to better approach and defeat
it, we should begin by familiarizing ourselves with similar fights from the
past and at the same time conduct rigorous research to uncover present trends.
I love my music y'all. Music is how I start my day; I wish I was one of those folks who starts it with the news or NPR. I tried that but came back to my music.
I listen to a broad {in my opinion} mix of genres and artists. Back in the college days I listened to a lot of rap and R&B both of which have a disproportionately large number of misogynistic lyrics. I don't really listen to those types of songs anymore but hold the ones of my youth in a special place.
Great! I'm not endorsing or listening to {at least regularly} music that has blatantly sexual and demeaning lyrics about women. Super. But wait....that's not all we have to look out for!
Who has heard, in the last hour, a song about a woman who doesn't know she is beautiful, that is what makes her beautiful, or one who doesn't love herself but that's OK baby cause I.love.you.
Is that so bad? I'll be the first to admit that some of those songs are darn catchy and I love them but I recognize their messages: a woman is incomplete until a man loves her; she is not beautiful until someone tells her so; its ok to think negatively about yourself as long as a man is there to validate you.
Therefore I'm torn: of course someone caring for me is nice and desired; heck, it could be argued its a human imperative BUT the moment it becomes an issue for me is when the message takes on the tone of a 'benevolent benefactor'; in this case a man who elevates you somehow by caring for you or attributing a characteristic to you that you don't. In that benevolence, you are whole, complete or better. I'm all about better but why does it have to come from another? Songs with this message disproportionately feature a man/men singing about a woman.
Songs like these are both a product of and producing the current zeigeist wherein many women have low self-efficacy and look to bolster it externally.
Basically, this is what I look like when listening to these songs:
So my compromise with these catchy songs that are stuck in my head: I listen when they're on the radio; I will not buy them. Most importantly, I make subtle faces when they are played and I'm with others; after rolling my eyes, I continue to jam. If people want to know, they'll ask. :)
What do you all think? Find yourself jammin to these tunes? Hey, I'm not judging; just pointing it out so we can be conscious consumers.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there
were several broad themes that emerged out of the panel discussions at the
conference I attended last week. Of these, the most interesting and engaging one
was the topic of storytelling and specifically, the importance of former slaves
to be able to tell their own stories in their own voices.
One of the historians on the panel, David Blight, focused on
Frederick Douglass’s narrative and the meaning of a former slave having not
only the opportunity to tell his story, but also to write it himself. Those of
us who take the ability to read and write for granted will likely take some time
to grasp the magnitude of such an accomplishment. With the written words,
Douglass’s voice materialized and was able to reach a bigger audience. In his
case, learning how to read and write set him on the path to freedom.
The significance of storytelling in the context of
human trafficking cannot be overstated; however, I think there definitely needs
to be a warning against sensationalistic attitudes. Since human trafficking
seems to be the issue of the day, I continue to see many celebrities become
involved and perform songs or direct movies around what they imagine the issue
to be. Their intentions might be good, but are they truly able to represent the
challenges and transformation that a survivor of the practice has to face? As
Alicia Peters, an academic, pointed out, the overemphasis in the media on sex
trafficking of young girls shifts the discussion of the issue in one very
specific direction and many survivors in different trafficking circumstances
become overlooked. Ultimately, the story told in the media is not inclusive of
the variety of human trafficking situations and many will not be able to see
themselves in the story and perhaps assume that their situation is not as bad. Peters
further stressed that every trafficking survivor’s experience is unique and the
prominence of one particular narrative renders many others invisible on the background
of an already hidden crime. She eventually concluded that the type of trafficking
should not be the main focus of discussions; rather, it is the condition of
exploitation, complete lack of choice, and utter misery that should be
regarded. I completely agree. Suffering in any form is unacceptable and no one
situation of exploitation is worse than another.
It is interesting that the topic of storytelling
came up in a workshop I attended right before driving to the conference. The
focus of the seminar was documentary storytelling, or how to tell the story of
your organization through videos. Two major points made were that it is important
to allow the actual people you work with to tell their stories and that the
story must be representative of the actual transformation the population goes
through. These points definitely resonate with the conclusions made by many
panelists at the conference. Zoe Todd, for example, elaborated on the power of
an image and narratives as vital tools in the protest against injustice.
In conclusion, storytelling is important not because
it allows the media to sensationalize a horrendous crime, but because it allows
survivors to define the crime in their own words and to ultimately set
themselves on the path to freedom. Therefore, it is crucial that we, as
advocates, do not end up abusing the narrative to obtain some goal we have
deemed worthy. Telling the story for survivors further keeps them in a
situation of dependency. Allowing them to share their experiences in their own
way, at their own pace, leads to empowerment and to a future of no exploitation
for them.
This past Thursday, my colleague, Jody, and I drove a little over 300 miles to get to New Haven, CT and attend Yale University's Gilder Lehrman Center's 14th Annual International Conference entitled Abolition, Past and Present: Scholars, Activists, and the Challenge of Contemporary Slavery.
Aside
from the opportunity for another long-distance long trip, I was equally, if not
more, excited about meeting and hearing in person the people whose books I’ve
read and considered in my research and work on issues pertaining to the human
trafficking field. Not to mention the amount of interesting and thought-provoking
information I was ultimately able to attain!
The
array of panelists included many notable in the anti-human trafficking field
individuals such as author and researcher Siddharth Kara, co-founder of Free the SlavesKavin Bales,
investigative journalist Ben Skinner, the director of Anti-Slavery International Aidan McQuade, and many other prominent academics,
lawyers, historians, activists, and even former slave Jean-Robert Cadet.
In
the course of the two packed with presentations and panel discussions days,
several different themes emerged that went beyond the boundaries of each individual
presentation or discussion. Because I consider each of these themes important, I
have decided to develop a post on each one. Expect these in the upcoming weeks.