6 ms·

Why is this not front-page news of mainstream media? (I know why, it's because it's not profitable). But where is the outrage? Why is fighting back restricted t

Why is this not front-page news of mainstream media? (I know why, it's because it's not profitable). But where is the outrage? Why is fighting back restricted to a few NGOs and some back office of the Nepalese government?

kps 13y ago
The Guardian is Britain's third biggest newspaper, and the slavery story is on the front page. Close enough?
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Discussion on the main World Cup Slaves story here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6446077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6446077
- 616c 13y ago
  The article is currently front page [0] on Doha News [1], which many expats read daily in their office. So, yes, it is front page as far as I concerned. Few people who live around this area would read state-run newspapers. [0] http://dohanews.co/post/62313447527/guardian-nepali-workers-in-qatar-being-used-as-slave http://dohanews.co/post/62313447527/guardian-nepali-workers-... [1] http://dohanews.co http://dohanews.co
- DharmaPolice 13y ago
  What metric are you using for third biggest? The national figures I've seen put the Guardian in a pretty lowly 10th place in terms of circulation. Even if you exclude most of the popular papers (i.e. tabloids) and look only at broadsheets then the Guardian is still only 4th (of 5). The Guardian certainly punches above it's weight through its internet site the paper itself is nowhere near as big as the other papers. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-nati...
waps 13y ago
Because it would bring uncomfortable questions about the list of states that employ slavery, or effective slavery : Sudan, Mali, Niger, Chad, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Hmmm I wonder what is driving the advancement of slavery, given that's the places where it's happening. An exploration of slavery would bring the very uncomfortable, but pretty well known, fact to the surface that slavery is part of a particular religion. And the fact that if that religion entrenches itself in a society, it has a very strong tendency to bring slavery back. (Fun fact : know what the arabic word for slave is ? "Abed". Literally it means "black". "Black gold", when it was a popular term in the 19th and 20th centuries, referred to slaves, not oil.
- abrichr 13y ago
  I'm more inclined to believe that the reason is socio-economic rather than religious. Many of those countries you listed are also a source of cheap goods for the West. Edit: just to clarify, what I'm saying is that the majority of adherents to any religion aren't fundamentalists. They choose which parts of their holy scriptures to follow, and ignore the rest -- the vast majority aren't even aware of all of them. Human nature being what it is, they are more likely to follow portions of scripture that benefit them in other ways, e.g. economically. They may likely have chosen to behave the same way regardless of their religion; the religion merely provides a convenient excuse.
  - waps 13y ago
    I don't dispute that there are economic reasons behind it. I'm not saying that enslaving people is done without reason in islamic countries. The problem is those same economic reasons exist in the west. Yet slavery is not practised here. Why not ? Simple : the population would never allow it (not even in dictatorships). Yet the population in the middle east does allow it (or at least, they won't fight to abolish it). What is the difference ? Note that the origin of difference goes back all the way to the later days of the Roman Empire. What changed was not that the middle east started to accept slavery as normal, what changed was that the west stopped accepting it. Why ? Well, simple : because of the rise of Christianity. Once slavery was gone, it re-appeared in the west twice (not counting slavery in, for example, Al-Andalus). Both times it was eradicated from within, and outlawed (after a while). Both times slavery reappeared because of trade contacts with muslim countries. In the middle east/asia/africa the reverse happened. Slavery was normal, the vast majority of the time, but every 300 years or so the slaves would successfully revolt, which generally lead to a decade-long abolishment of slavery (sometimes a once-off freeing of every slaves, sometimes 50 years of no slaves), but it would always return. What is the difference ? I'm not claiming islam changes populations to accept slavery. Rather, I'm claiming Christianity changes populations to stop accepting slavery. And of course, I'm claiming that were Christianity/"post"-christian values lose sway, for example to islam, slavery returns. This does not just apply to slavery, but equality in general as well.
Datsundere 13y ago
Because this is not news. It has been going on for a while now. One of my cousin wanted to go to Qatar because he couldn't get a job. My father knowing this have been going on, stopped him. Thankfully he got a job as a chef to feed Bangladeshi refugees. Not a good paying job, but it's a whole lot better than slaving away in a Middle Easter country. BTW Nepal didn't have ANY law for a year or two. I don't know if it is still the case but Nepal has been messy ever since the revolution(removal of the monarchy).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

kps 13y ago

The Guardian is Britain's third biggest newspaper, and the slavery story is on the front page. Close enough?

yapcguy 13y ago
Discussion on the main World Cup Slaves story here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6446077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6446077
616c 13y ago
The article is currently front page [0] on Doha News [1], which many expats read daily in their office. So, yes, it is front page as far as I concerned. Few people who live around this area would read state-run newspapers. [0] http://dohanews.co/post/62313447527/guardian-nepali-workers-in-qatar-being-used-as-slave http://dohanews.co/post/62313447527/guardian-nepali-workers-... [1] http://dohanews.co http://dohanews.co
DharmaPolice 13y ago
What metric are you using for third biggest? The national figures I've seen put the Guardian in a pretty lowly 10th place in terms of circulation. Even if you exclude most of the popular papers (i.e. tabloids) and look only at broadsheets then the Guardian is still only 4th (of 5). The Guardian certainly punches above it's weight through its internet site the paper itself is nowhere near as big as the other papers. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-nati...

waps 13y ago

Because it would bring uncomfortable questions about the list of states that employ slavery, or effective slavery : Sudan, Mali, Niger, Chad, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Hmmm I wonder what is driving the advancement of slavery, given that's the places where it's happening. An exploration of slavery would bring the very uncomfortable, but pretty well known, fact to the surface that slavery is part of a particular religion. And the fact that if that religion entrenches itself in a society, it has a very strong tendency to bring slavery back. (Fun fact : know what the arabic word for slave is ? "Abed". Literally it means "black". "Black gold", when it was a popular term in the 19th and 20th centuries, referred to slaves, not oil.

abrichr 13y ago
I'm more inclined to believe that the reason is socio-economic rather than religious. Many of those countries you listed are also a source of cheap goods for the West. Edit: just to clarify, what I'm saying is that the majority of adherents to any religion aren't fundamentalists. They choose which parts of their holy scriptures to follow, and ignore the rest -- the vast majority aren't even aware of all of them. Human nature being what it is, they are more likely to follow portions of scripture that benefit them in other ways, e.g. economically. They may likely have chosen to behave the same way regardless of their religion; the religion merely provides a convenient excuse.
- waps 13y ago
  I don't dispute that there are economic reasons behind it. I'm not saying that enslaving people is done without reason in islamic countries. The problem is those same economic reasons exist in the west. Yet slavery is not practised here. Why not ? Simple : the population would never allow it (not even in dictatorships). Yet the population in the middle east does allow it (or at least, they won't fight to abolish it). What is the difference ? Note that the origin of difference goes back all the way to the later days of the Roman Empire. What changed was not that the middle east started to accept slavery as normal, what changed was that the west stopped accepting it. Why ? Well, simple : because of the rise of Christianity. Once slavery was gone, it re-appeared in the west twice (not counting slavery in, for example, Al-Andalus). Both times it was eradicated from within, and outlawed (after a while). Both times slavery reappeared because of trade contacts with muslim countries. In the middle east/asia/africa the reverse happened. Slavery was normal, the vast majority of the time, but every 300 years or so the slaves would successfully revolt, which generally lead to a decade-long abolishment of slavery (sometimes a once-off freeing of every slaves, sometimes 50 years of no slaves), but it would always return. What is the difference ? I'm not claiming islam changes populations to accept slavery. Rather, I'm claiming Christianity changes populations to stop accepting slavery. And of course, I'm claiming that were Christianity/"post"-christian values lose sway, for example to islam, slavery returns. This does not just apply to slavery, but equality in general as well.

Datsundere 13y ago

Because this is not news. It has been going on for a while now. One of my cousin wanted to go to Qatar because he couldn't get a job. My father knowing this have been going on, stopped him. Thankfully he got a job as a chef to feed Bangladeshi refugees. Not a good paying job, but it's a whole lot better than slaving away in a Middle Easter country. BTW Nepal didn't have ANY law for a year or two. I don't know if it is still the case but Nepal has been messy ever since the revolution(removal of the monarchy).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]