5 ms·

This article is conflating debt bondage with slavery. This is a huge error. Some debt bondage, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. B

This article is conflating debt bondage with slavery. This is a huge error. Some debt bondage, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My sister was debt bonded for a while; Crossfit paid for her personal trainer certification, but she had to pay them back if she quit her job in a year. A girl I dated is getting a Masters from Columbia, but she has to continue working for the Diplomatic Corps in her country for 3 years after graduation. In fact, many valley engineers meet the definition of bonded labor: you need to give back the signing bonus if you quit in < 1 year. Economically, bonded labor with transparent contracts is a way to allow employers to pay to improve the human capital of their workers. On HN we often lament the fact that employers don't invest in employees, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the employee leaves. In India and the US there is a lot of bonded labor and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly among professionals - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

zeofig 10y ago
This article is conflating slavery with abusive human disempowerment. Some slavery, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My cousin by marriage was a slave for a while; his master paid for his financial certification and gave him a small allowance, but he had to save up sufficient funds before he could buy his way to freedom. A girl I used to date used to be a slave, but she chose to remain with the family who owned her even after she bought her freedom, and remains an integral and happy member of the household. In fact, many successful members of our community, particularly business owners and managers, are slaves or former slaves! Economically, slavery with proper laws and regulations is a way for families and moneyed individuals to improve the quality of their household or business, while giving an otherwise hopeless individual the chance to enter into Roman society. Here at the Tinkerers' Forum we often lament the fact that slave owners don't invest in their slaves, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the slave dies or escapes. In Rome and its provinces there is a lot of slavery and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly in the educated and enlightened centre of the Empire - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  My sister chose to enter into this arrangement with crossfit. She could have done something else if she preferred. She made an informed choice that being a crossfit instructor was worthwhile. Your imagined cousin did not have this option. That's the fundamental distinction. However, it is very much worth discussing slavery in the Greek/Roman context - it did differ very much from American slavery. And even American slavery is known to us these days mainly from works of propaganda (e.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin, or modern propaganda like Django Unchained), so our perception of it may not be accurate either.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    One group of people forced another group of people to labor for them under threat of physical violence. These people were systematically denied freedoms. Their owners were, naturally, extremely racist. What exactly about Django is meant to be propaganda? How does it misrepresent slavery other than the exaggerated comedic situations? Do you truly believe Quentin Tarantino was attempting to brainwash people about what slavery was like?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Django Unchained was meant to make the viewer enjoy violence against certain people. To do this, they needed to make those people as awful and unsympathetic as possible.
      - kakarot 10y ago
        What do you presume Tarantino's motive would be for such a thing?
        mirimir 10y ago
        He says: > In 2007, Tarantino discussed an idea for a type of Spaghetti Western set in the United States' pre-Civil War Deep South. He called this type of film "a southern", stating that he wanted "to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."[3] Tarantino later explained the genesis of the idea: "I was writing a book about Sergio Corbucci when I came up with a way to tell the story. ... I was writing about how his movies have this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West. It was surreal, it dealt a lot with fascism. So I'm writing this whole piece on this, and I'm thinking: 'I don't really know if Sergio was thinking [this] while he was doing this. But I know I'm thinking it now. And I can do it!' "[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Unchained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Unchained
djtriptych 10y ago
It's not a huge error. It's slavery, disguised as debt bondage. Did you even read the article? Did crossfit call your sister's contract "debt bondage"? Is what these slaveowners are calling "debt bondage" closer to slavery or to a tech worker's contract?
mcv 10y ago
Slavery by any other name is still slavery. What's described in the article is slavery. Debt is just the excuse used to justify it and give it a veneer of legality.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  From the article: Around half of the world’s slaves are held in debt bondage in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. My point is that some significant fraction of this debt bondage is not remotely comparable to what is described in the article.
ciconia 10y ago
"Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery or bonded labor, is a person's pledge of labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined.[2] Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation." [0] Your sister surely could not be forced to work for Crossfit. Neither are Valley engineers there to pay a debt. Their signing bonus is not a loan in exchange for labor. Claiming bonded labor is a way to "improve the human capital of" workers means you see these people as inferior than yourself. It also means you do not believe they are entitled to basic human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage [1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights

zeofig 10y ago

This article is conflating slavery with abusive human disempowerment. Some slavery, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My cousin by marriage was a slave for a while; his master paid for his financial certification and gave him a small allowance, but he had to save up sufficient funds before he could buy his way to freedom. A girl I used to date used to be a slave, but she chose to remain with the family who owned her even after she bought her freedom, and remains an integral and happy member of the household. In fact, many successful members of our community, particularly business owners and managers, are slaves or former slaves! Economically, slavery with proper laws and regulations is a way for families and moneyed individuals to improve the quality of their household or business, while giving an otherwise hopeless individual the chance to enter into Roman society. Here at the Tinkerers' Forum we often lament the fact that slave owners don't invest in their slaves, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the slave dies or escapes. In Rome and its provinces there is a lot of slavery and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly in the educated and enlightened centre of the Empire - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
My sister chose to enter into this arrangement with crossfit. She could have done something else if she preferred. She made an informed choice that being a crossfit instructor was worthwhile. Your imagined cousin did not have this option. That's the fundamental distinction. However, it is very much worth discussing slavery in the Greek/Roman context - it did differ very much from American slavery. And even American slavery is known to us these days mainly from works of propaganda (e.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin, or modern propaganda like Django Unchained), so our perception of it may not be accurate either.
- kakarot 10y ago
  One group of people forced another group of people to labor for them under threat of physical violence. These people were systematically denied freedoms. Their owners were, naturally, extremely racist. What exactly about Django is meant to be propaganda? How does it misrepresent slavery other than the exaggerated comedic situations? Do you truly believe Quentin Tarantino was attempting to brainwash people about what slavery was like?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Django Unchained was meant to make the viewer enjoy violence against certain people. To do this, they needed to make those people as awful and unsympathetic as possible.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      What do you presume Tarantino's motive would be for such a thing?
      - mirimir 10y ago
        He says: > In 2007, Tarantino discussed an idea for a type of Spaghetti Western set in the United States' pre-Civil War Deep South. He called this type of film "a southern", stating that he wanted "to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."[3] Tarantino later explained the genesis of the idea: "I was writing a book about Sergio Corbucci when I came up with a way to tell the story. ... I was writing about how his movies have this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West. It was surreal, it dealt a lot with fascism. So I'm writing this whole piece on this, and I'm thinking: 'I don't really know if Sergio was thinking [this] while he was doing this. But I know I'm thinking it now. And I can do it!' "[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Unchained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Unchained

djtriptych 10y ago

It's not a huge error. It's slavery, disguised as debt bondage. Did you even read the article? Did crossfit call your sister's contract "debt bondage"? Is what these slaveowners are calling "debt bondage" closer to slavery or to a tech worker's contract?

mcv 10y ago

Slavery by any other name is still slavery. What's described in the article is slavery. Debt is just the excuse used to justify it and give it a veneer of legality.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
From the article: Around half of the world’s slaves are held in debt bondage in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. My point is that some significant fraction of this debt bondage is not remotely comparable to what is described in the article.

ciconia 10y ago

"Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery or bonded labor, is a person's pledge of labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined.[2] Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation." [0] Your sister surely could not be forced to work for Crossfit. Neither are Valley engineers there to pay a debt. Their signing bonus is not a loan in exchange for labor. Claiming bonded labor is a way to "improve the human capital of" workers means you see these people as inferior than yourself. It also means you do not believe they are entitled to basic human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage [1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights