Where World’s 30 Million Slaves Live-60,000 in USA

By Max Fisher in Washing in Washington Post

( Shared By Tahir Mahmood)

Share of each country's population that is enslaved. Data source: Walk Free Global Slavery Index. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)

Share of each country’s population that is enslaved. Click to enlarge. Data source: Walk Free Global Slavery Index. (Max Fisher/The Washington Post)

We think of slavery as a practice of the past, an image from Roman colonies or 18th-century American plantations, but the practice of enslaving human beings as property still exists. There are 29.8 million people living as slaves right now, according to a comprehensive new report  issued by the Australia-based Walk Free Foundation.

This is not some softened, by-modern-standards definition of slavery. These 30 million people are living as forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages and, in all ways that matter, as pieces of property, chattel in the servitude of absolute ownership. Walk Free investigated 162 countries and found slaves in every single one. But the practice is far worse in some countries than others.

The country where you are most likely to be enslaved is Mauritania. Although this vast West African nation has tried three times to outlaw slavery within its borders, it remains so common that it is nearly normal. The report estimates that four percent of Mauritania is enslaved – one out of every 25 people. (The aid group SOS Slavery, using a broader definition of slavery, estimated several years ago that as  many as 20 percent of Mauritanians might be enslaved.)

The map at the top of this page shows almost every country in the world colored according to the share of its population that is enslaved. The rate of slavery is also alarmingly high in Haiti, in Pakistan and in India, the world’s second-most populous country. In all three, more than 1 percent of the population is estimated to live in slavery.

A few trends are immediately clear from the map up top. First, rich, developed countries tend to have by far the lowest rates of slavery. The report says that effective government policies, rule of law, political stability and development levels all make slavery less likely. The vulnerable are less vulnerable, those who would exploit them face higher penalties and greater risk of getting caught. A war, natural disaster or state collapse is less likely to force helpless children or adults into bondage. Another crucial factor in preventing slavery is discrimination. When society treats women, ethnic groups or religious minorities as less valuable or less worthy of protection, they are more likely to become slaves.

Then there are the worst-affected regions. Sub-Saharan Africa is a swath of red, with many countries having roughly 0.7 percent of the population enslaved — or one in every 140 people. The legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and European colonialism are still playing out in the region; ethnic divisions and systems of economic exploitation engineered there during the colonial era are still, to some extent, in place. Slavery is also driven by extreme poverty, high levels of corruption and toleration of child “marriages” of young girls to adult men who pay their parents a “dowry.”

Two other bright red regions are Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. Both are blighted particularly by sex trafficking, a practice that bears little resemblance to popular Western conceptions of prostitution. Women and men are coerced into participating, often starting at a very young age, and are completely reliant on their traffickers for not just their daily survival but basic life choices; they have no say in where they go or what they do and are physically prevented from leaving. International sex traffickers have long targeted these two regions, whose women and men are prized for their skin tones and appearance by Western patrons.

Here, to give you a different perspective of slavery’s scope, is a map of the world showing the number of slaves living in each country:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/

 

“Good and Evil” By Malik Kenan

An interesting analysis on the evolution of concept of “Evil” in monotheist religions from  wrath of God to an act of free will by human being. Mr. Kenan touches on why righteous suffer in the world, original sin and difference between natural evil and moral evil.  

“At the heart of the book( of Job  )is an attempt to wrestle with the profound new questions raised by the emergence of monotheistic religions. Why does evil exist? Why do the righteous suffer? And why should one obey God?

In traditional pantheistic religions, such questions had little purchase. Good and evil were woven into the fabric of the universe. The righteous suffered because gods could be nasty, vindictive, brutal and immoral.  One obeyed – or, rather, appeased – gods because one did not wish to make enemies of such powerful, yet often capricious, beings.  It was the irrational, unpredictable nature of the gods that led Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to look to secular reasons for piety and righteousness.

The question of evil had an entirely different character within faiths in which God was seen both as omnipotent and as willing good upon the world. The existence of evil suggests either that God is not omnipotent or that He is responsible for such evil. Since neither view was acceptable to believers, a new kind of explanation was required.

Evil came increasingly to be seen not so much as a rod of God’s anger as the washing through of human moral frailties. It was an explanation interwoven with the developing concept of free will. God, so the argument ran, had created humans as beings capable of making moral choices. Evil was an expression of the kinds of moral choices that humans sometimes made. The world contained evil not because God chose to make people suffer but because humans did, despite God’s best attempts to instill in them moral rectitude. As the twentieth century Christian thinker CS Lewis put it in his book The Problem of Pain, God could only eliminate evil by thwarting every malevolent action, by ensuring, for instance, that ‘a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon’ or that  ‘the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults’. But for God to do this would mean that ‘freedom of the will would be void’. Evil is therefore the price that has to be paid for allowing morally frail creatures the good of free will.” Click link for full article;

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/god-and-evil/

Posted by F. Sheikh

“Laying Down The Law” By Mubarik Ali

A very insightful analysis of evolution of Laws and why dis-respect of the law and order in Pakistan.( F. Sheikh)

In early history, communities developed their own customs and practices to maintain law and order. Each individual in the community would observe these rules and if anybody violated them, he would be punished by expulsion from the community. Since nobody wanted to lose the help and support of the community by showing any deviation, they preferred to follow the prescribed communal way of life.

With the emergence of state, a legal system was gradually established to maintain order and discipline. As socio-economic class difference increased in the society, the ruling classes were mostly exempted from punishment for committing crimes, while common people were punished severely even for minor offences. Rulers were not only regarded above the law but the ruler’s command was considered the law for the common people.

Around 1700BC, Hammurabi, the ruler of Babylonia established a legal system known as the Code of Hammurabi, covering several social, political and economic aspects of life. His laws were based on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Since it was supposedly bestowed on him by Mardouk, an ancient god, the law was considered divine and unchangeable and Hammurabi was not held above the law. He carved his laws on stone tablets placed in the market where people could read them and become aware of them.

Another legal system emerged in the Greek city state of Athens in 624BC. Draco introduced a code of laws proposing severe punishment even for minor crime. Despite the severity, crime continued in the society and the term ‘Draconian’ was coined. It is used to describe harsh measures imposed by an autocratic government to crush any resistance against their rule.

The next lawmaker to emerge was Solon (d 594BC). Introducing legal reforms, he established the right of trial by a jury and the right of the accused to hire an advocate. Moreover, the judgment of court could now be challenged, These laws were inscribed on stone tablets and panels of wood and placed in the marketplace so that people could learn about their rights.

The legal system of the Roman Empire was comprehensive and covered nearly all social, political and commercial conflicts prevalent at the time; based on which the judgment was pronounced while the accused had full rights to defend himself. It created a class of lawyers who studied the legal system and appeared at the court to plead cases. Cicero, one of the famous lawyers used his outstanding rhetorical style to present legal arguments in court. Private property was fully protected by these laws, but being a patriarchal society, women were considered subordinate to men and denied full rights. Click link for full article;

http://www.dawn.com/news/1047771/past-present-laying-down-the-law

Evolution and Bad Boyfriends

Wondering why girls chose bad boyfriends? May be evolution is playing a role. Interesting article By PIET van den BERG and TIM W. FAWCETT in NYT.

“Modern mathematical versions of this theory show how female mating preferences and male characteristics will evolve together. But when you try to apply the theory to humans, you hit a snag. In humans, there is an extra preference involved — that of the parents.”

At first sight, it might seem surprising that parents and their children should evolve to have any conflict at all. After all, they share many of the same genes, and both have an evolutionary interest in having those genes persist through the generations. Shouldn’t the preferences of parents and their children be perfectly aligned?

Well, no — not completely. Parents each pass on half of their genes to each of their children, so from a genetic point of view, all children are equally valuable to them. It is in parents’ evolutionary interests to distribute their resources — money, support, etc. — in such a way that leads to as many surviving grandchildren as possible, regardless of which of their children provide them.

Children, by contrast, have a stronger genetic interest in their own reproduction than in that of their siblings, so each child should try to secure more than his or her fair share of parental resources. It is this conflict over parental resources that can lead to a conflict over mate choice.

In our study, we built a computer model to simulate the evolutionary process. We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more. Link for full article;http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/evolution-and-bad-boyfriends.html?hp

Posted by F. Sheikh