I used slavery as one of the core search terms
for my data collection (http://representinghumantrafficking.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/ilse-ras-reports-on-her-research-on.html).
2013 marked the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s signing of the 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves, so as a result of this
anniversary and the use of this search term, there is a substantial number of
articles in the human trafficking corpus discussing historical slavery, rather
than contemporary human trafficking. One definitional
concern, therefore, is whether historical slavery, as in the trans-Atlantic
slave trade and, in particular, the exploitation of African people on American
plantations, could be considered a form of human trafficking.
It certainly
should be, if the principles of the Palermo Protocol are followed – historical
slavery entailed the transnational movement of people, using coercion (in
particular physical bondage and violence) as well as deception, for the
purposes of exploitation at the end point. Furthermore, human trafficking was
criminalised in the UK under the Modern Slavery Act. However,
historical US slavery and modern human trafficking conjure up very different
pictures in people’s minds. For this reason,
I attended a few related events organised by the University of Leeds, Leeds
Library (http://www.theleedslibrary.org.uk/), and Heritage Corner (http://heritagecornerleeds.wixsite.com/heritage-corner)
on the topic of US Slavery. These events formed part of the national Being Human (http://beinghumanfestival.org/)
festival, which emphasises the use of the Humanities.
These events
included a public discussion, hosted by Dr Bridget Bennett, and featuring,
among others, a talk/performance by poet Rommi Smith; a play entitled Meet the Crafts, written and performed
by Joe Williams of Heritage Corner, together with Martelle Edinborough, and a
guided walk led by Joe Williams. I am aware that
I will have gone into this event with significant confirmation bias, in that I
wanted to consider US slavery as a form of human trafficking. Nevertheless,
there are many characteristics beyond the obvious three characteristics that
qualify slavery as trafficking following the Palermo Protocol.
One thing that
struck me throughout were not the expected similarities between historical and
modern slavery, but the unexpected similarities between the discourses.
After Britain
abolished the slave trade in the Empire, and forbade slavery in the West Indies
/ then-British Caribbean islands and archipelagos, it appeared, going by what I
learned at these events, to have taken on a rather paternalistic, morally
superior role, lecturing other nations about the slave trade and slavery, with
little reference to Britain’s own substantial role in the trans-Atlantic slave
trade and slavery, and with little exploration of how the contemporary British
economy had grown, and actually still largely depended, on slavery. For
instance, as examined in a bit more detail in David Olusoga’s documentary
series on iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b082x0h6), the
Northern English cloth industry heavily relied on cotton picked by slaves in
the American south.
This is rather
similar to how the US’s self-assumed role in current anti-trafficking discourse
is described in the academic literature. The US, too, has taken on an
internationally morally superior role, paternalistically teaching other
nations, through the tool of the TVPA, how to respond to trafficking in a
manner deemed acceptable by the US. However, within US official anti-trafficking
discourse, there is little reference to how the US perpetuates trafficking and
indeed exacerbates the vulnerabilities of migrants through harsh migration
policies, thereby allowing these people to be vulnerable to exploitation. In
contemporary anti-trafficking discourse, there is also very little examination
of how the consumption of the West, and its demand for cheap goods and
services, actually depends on a relatively steady stream of vulnerable,
exploitable labourers. Indeed, when Olusoga visits a tobacco plantation in his
documentary series to show how labour intensive tobacco farming actually is, we
see non-white labourers picking tobacco. Olusoga does not examine the labour
conditions of these modern labourers, and indeed it is possible that these
labourers are American citizens of non-white background and are not exploited,
but the fact nevertheless remains that academic literature on human trafficking
shows that many labour-intensive industries such as agriculture do rely on a
precarious, exploitable, labour force, much like labour-intensive agriculture
in the American south, such as cotton and tobacco, in the time of slavery,
depended on slave labour.
Furthermore, as
Joe pointed out during the Guided Walk, during the British colonial period,
Britain destroyed many overseas industries to ensure there was limited supply
of the goods made in Britain, in the sense that British goods would not have to
compete with goods made in overseas territories. This will have set local
economies back, and will have contributed to the global economic inequality
that is a structural factor in modern human trafficking. Another thing
that struck me is the consistent praise for Britain in former slave narratives,
as if narratives which did not praise Britain were silenced, at least in
Britain. Indeed, many white, middle class abolitionists took it upon themselves
to speak on behalf of those enslaved in the United States, rather than allowing
survivors their own voice. Rommi Smith points out just how many stories,
histories, were lost in this era. Quite similarly,
nowadays trafficking survivor narratives must take on a very specific form too
in order for those trafficked to be recognised as victims. Other narratives are
suppressed. Many anti-trafficking activists take it upon themselves to speak on
behalf of those trafficked. Abolitionists
profited from taking up the abolitionist position, both politically and
socially. Similarly, those actively campaigning against human trafficking
profit politically, socially, and in some cases monetarily, through what
Cojocaru (2016) calls ‘secondary exploitation’. Abolitionist
discourse, at least in some instances, framed slavery as a violation of
inalienable, human, rights. Anti-trafficking discourse, too, in its early
stages, framed trafficking as a violation of human rights.
Finally, perhaps
most powerfully, is the use of divisive tactics by those opposed to the
abolition of slavery and those opposed to non-criminalising responses to labour
migration.
Olusoga points
out this use of divisive tactics. Those opposed to abolition of slavery pointed
to local, English, labourers and said “but what about the working conditions of
the English? Why focus on conditions abroad when things are not all well
here?”. Indeed, as mentioned in the Public Discussion, many abolitionists were
also owners of English factories and will therefore have been, at least,
complicit in the exploitation of English labourers in this era. This divisive tactic
was most recent used, in unaltered form, by Brexit campaigners to advocate
against labour migration from, in particular, Eastern Europe, and by Trump
campaigners to advocate against labour migration from Central American nations.
In short, human
trafficking is inextricably linked to historical slavery – in fact, historical
slavery simply is a historical form of human trafficking. This is not just
evidenced by the historical facts of slavery, but also evidenced by the
similarities in historical discourses on slavery and contemporary discourses on
trafficking.
References
Cojocaru, C.
2016. My Experience is Mine to Tell: Challenging the abolitionist victimhood
framework. Anti-Trafficking Review
(7), pp.12-38.
Ras, I.A. 2016.
Ilse Ras reports on her research on British newspapers. 11 November. Representation of transnational human
trafficking. [Online]. [Accessed 28 November 2016]. Available from: http://representinghumantrafficking.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/ilse-ras-reports-on-her-research-on.html
Comments
Post a Comment