As a historian first and a human rights lawyer second, I am as alive as anyone to the historical ironies, the historical repetitions, the complexities, and sometimes even the cynicism of anti-slavery work. I agree with much of the writing published by Beyond Slavery and I appreciate the general impulse toward generating critical insights on the anti-trafficking movement. However, I work with people who grew up in slavery. I have met people who had to leave children behind when they escaped slavery. Those of us with the luxury to pursue academic study and to engage in debate must also recognise a responsibility to the needs and aspirations of the grassroots activists, a responsibility to those who have suffered extreme oppression and to those who are directly working with the extremely oppressed. We have a responsibility to engage in discussion that always takes as its touchstone the realities of extreme oppression and that responds to the call to help overcome this oppression. Otherwise, we are siding with the oppressors and the slave masters.
Too frequently the articles published by Beyond Slavery make sweeping criticisms that can serve to up-end the contemporary struggle against slavery. From my perspective as president and CEO of a non-profit fighting slavery, racism and gender oppression in Mauritania, three recent articles stand out as especially problematic (Quirk and Broome, Brewer Stewart, and McDougall). For each of these essays I’ve specific points. 1) For Quirk and Broome I would urge them to look before they leap; 2) for Brewer Stewart I would urge a deeper engagement with the anti-slavery activists he would like to advise; and 3) for McDougall I would suggest an honest reckoning with prior allegiances. While the contemporary anti-slavery movement can benefit from an academic-activist dialogue, academics should be wary of the condescending assumption that activists are somehow less well informed, naive, or ahistorical. Criticism of anti-slavery activists and activities can have immediate negative impact in the field.
Quirk and Broome
Joel Quirk and Andre Broome’s article, ‘The politics of numbers, the Global Slavery Index and the marketplace of activism”, strongly criticised the Global Slavery Index (GSI) published by the anti-slavery non-profit, Walk Free. However, their criticism aims to demolish an activist tool without providing a replacement in the form of more reliable quantitative data. Mauritania’s prominence in the GSI makes the anti-slavery struggle there especially vulnerable when the GSI itself is criticised. Walk Free’s GSI has consistently ranked Mauritania first in terms of proportion of its population enslaved. According to Walk Free’s explanation of its method, they relied primarily on estimates by the widely admired non-profit, SOS-esclaves, and the highly reputable BBC to arrive at an estimate of four percent of its population enslaved. From the perspective of those fighting for the rights of the severely oppressed, Walk Free’s four percent estimate is conservative. The recently freed slaves are also closely tied to the limitations and deprivations of the enslaved, and with that population included the estimated figure rises to 20 percent.
