it seems i often end up in conversations about the state of the world: about whether the human condition is, overall, getting better -- or worse -- or just staying the same.
a surprising number of my colleagues seem to agree with hesiod who, in his WORKS AND DAYS -- a poem in epic meter, approximately as old as the ILIAD and ODYSSEY of homer -- opines that our lot is steadily going to hell in a handbasket: from the originary golden race, he laments, we have steadily declined to the race of his own day -- the 'race of iron' that he wishes he had not been born into. [see the famous legend of the five races, lines 109-201.]
other folks, of course, take a much brighter view: every day, in every way, things are getting better and better.
there's plenty of leeway between these two extremes. and it also need not be simple or linear, of course. some things could be deteriorating even as others improve.
ever the optimist, i've looked hard for evidence of actual progress on the part of the human race. one thing that i thought -- thought -- i could point to as incontrovertible evidence of progress was our virtually global rejection of slavery. over the centuries from ancient rome to now, we have come to the point where, by the middle of the 20th century, we could conceive of and produce a so-called universal declaration of human rights. whatever its strengths or weaknesses as a document, the sheer fact of its existence ought to be cause for some satisfaction. and its very first article affirms that 'all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'
in any case, when i made the observation to a [witty, sardonic] friend that at least we have dispensed with slavery in the modern world, he smirked at me and said: 'you want fries with that?'
and sarah baird just wrote in with this link to a story reporting that liz hurley and her tycoon husband 'paid their maid as little as £1.20 an hour' -- expecting her moreover to work interminable hours at a stretch.
are these examples, as some serious thinkers would assert, tantamount to modern slavery? and, to take an even more wide-angle view of the problem, have we indeed made any moral progress [as opposed to purely technological progress] since ancient times?
7 comments:
Can't respond at length to this at the moment, but just wanted to relay an interesting comment that someone else posted at the bottom of The Daily Mail's article:
"£100 a week, in her hand, plus free board and lodging in a beautiful home, no doubt the run of the house and car - what is she complaining about? I have no doubt some days she only 'worked' a couple of hours and had a lot of time to herself, and some days when they were entertaining she had to work longer hours. When she was brought over from India, she was probably the envy of hundreds of other people who would gladly have paid to get her job, then after being here for a time, she then gets greedy and decides to play the 'race' card and cash in. She has probably not had to spend a penny of what she earned and has already sent it all back home, had a house built and money in the bank to keep her for the rest of her life given the very, very low cost of living there. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you - now she is walking away with a 'five figure sum' there ain't no justice!"
-Cecilia, London, England
Any thoughts on that?
thanks, will, for your comment/ citation. if half of cecelia's assertions are true, this is an important ingredient in the recipe.
but for the sake of argument, let's assume that none of it is true -- that the maid has not had any of those perqs, and has had to live very humbly [in proportion to her stunningly low wages]. that would certainly mimic more closely the standard of life maintained by the typical burger cashier in the US. is this, essentially, our new slave class, as my sardonic friend was implying?
Room and board are assumed for a position such as a housekeeper.£100 a week is nothing. How on earth could she possibly save money? She is not going to work for them forever. Labor laws do not set a minimum wage followed by: "Unless room, board, and car service are included."
I'm not sure if 'slave' is the right word to use for a case like this. 'Slavery' implies that the work is involuntary, and while economic needs certainly call for any person to work, you could still choose to go and work a different job. Whether or not you could get that other job is another question, but what's important is that it's ultimately your choice. 'Minimum-wage slave' gets tossed around a lot these days too. I still don't like the word slave, but this term does imply that a person is subjegated to the necessity of money and due to the nature of our society, you may not be getting paid all that well. Take for instance Latin American countries: the distinction between upper and middle classes are much more distinct than in the US for example, and in many cases the lower classes are working as servants for the upper classes. You can forget about minimum wage there; in that situation it just won't happen.
Basically, I agree with the fact that burger-flippers and such don't have it too easy, I'd say slavery is a harsh word to use for the situation. First off, they're not being whipped, killed, raped, etc. at the whim of their employers. Conditions working at McDonalds is another issue, but I doubt any of those things happen in most of their restaurants. Second, do these people want to be called slaves??? I'm sure if you ask anyone who works at a McDonalds in the kitchen if they think they're slaves, they would probably be offended. The rhetoric for our modern version of slavery has to change is my point.
Just incase anyone is interested:
March 3, 2008
STUDENTS AT UM DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY AND BURGER KING'S CONNECTION TO MODERN DAY SLAVERY WITH FACULTY AND THE COALITION OF IMMOKALEE WORKERS (CIW)
Announcing to over a dozen student groups and reaching out to dozens of classrooms, the nationally recognized student group STAND, SFA and the CIW takes Burger King to task on the issue of slavery in Florida's fields tomorrow following a series of highly attended events and actions on the University of Miami's campus.
WHEN: March 4th, Tuesday, 7:00pm
WHERE: Learning Center rm. 170, at the University of Miami.
oops. more information about it:
WHY: Several Students groups at UM (Yellow Rose, Outspoken, Amnesty International UM and others) have joined the coalition of students who decry the conditions under which Burger King's produce is made in Florida's fields, and urge to discussion and action in solidarity with the CIW's struggle to gain a penny more per a pound of tomatoes, and remedy the issue of modern day slavery.
HISTORY: On November 20th, according to court documents, three tomato pickers escaped through a ventilation hatch of a box truck where they had been held against their will by their employer. The three men told police of an Immokalee-based tomato harvesting slavery ring in which workers "were beaten and forced to work exclusively for the Navarrete family," according to an article entitled, "Family accused of enslaving workers at Immokalee camp" in the Naples Daily News (12/7/07). This is one in a series of incidents that the CIW has helped to uncover over the last decade.
By leveraging their bulk purchasing power, fast food giants like Burger King play an active role in creating the miserable conditions in Florida's Fields.
And, today, by refusing to join McDonald's and Yum Brands in working with the CIW to improve farm labor conditions, Burger King continues to perpetuate farmworker Exploitation.
The Burger King issue was a hot topic this past week. Students signed petitions and demonstrated their disapproval of Burger King buying goods from farmers who don't pay their workers adequately. Those against Burger King believe the company is guilty of promoting modern day slave labor. This post isn't so much related to modern day slavery as it has to do more with young Americans. For all of those people who signed the petition how many do you think understood the issue? Indeed how many who sat in the box by the library understood the issue? It just seems to me that young people are eager to sign their names on a petition, whether they know the issue or not. So is this flippant activism? And if it is, does it hinder the credibility of protesters. I didn't sign the Burger King petition because I didn't feel I knew enough about how Burger King works, and how those farmers work. It's easy to sign a petition that says I'm against slavery, or to sign a petition that states you're against the genocide in Darfur, or you disaprove of world hunger, or you are opposed to animal testing by pharmaceutical companies. Yet these things continue because we don't back up our names. If we put out name down on something let's try to do it for a reason. Know the issue and be willing to support it. So this I suppose is my critique of some young Americans; don't half ass your freedom of speech and your lawful right to petition and protest. Because if and when we do we undermine our ability to make change in our country because we are no longer taken seriously.
Post a Comment