Introduction
The concept of slavery is seemingly disappearing in terms of media coverage and overall discussions due to the inexistence of the problem. Yet, research shows slavery to be a major concern worldwide. Slavery is often associated with its historical context, which makes individuals think of it as an aspect of the past that was abolished a long time ago. While it has lost its legitimacy and social acceptance in most countries, vulnerable populations are still at risk of losing their freedom and either being subjected to working in unbearable conditions for little remuneration or being trafficked. In this paper, the concept of modern-day and historical slavery will be compared and contrasted, exemplifying the similarities between the notions and the lack of major change in the phenomenon.
Concept of Slavery
Historic slavery is associated with the enslaved person’s inability to quit servicing the enslaver, poor work conditions, violations, abuse, and forced labor for little to no remuneration. The notion is relatively similar to that of modern-day slavery as the same principles apply. According to researchers, slavery nowadays is linked to a lack of basic citizenship rights, non-consensual labor, and abuse (Bindman 65). The definitions have similarities on multiple levels, including the treatment of the individuals who are enslaved, the premises that the enslaver uses to justify the practice, and the aim to use a person’s potential for personal or corporate gain. The aspect of capitalism is relatively nuanced and exemplifies a difference between traditional slavery and modern one. Nowadays, slaves may work within the supply chain for the benefit of a corporation rather than a single master or owner.
Legitimacy
The legitimacy factor is one notion that differentiates traditional slavery from modern-day one. Researchers point out that while slavery was abolished, there are still 40 million people who experience the abuse associated with the phenomenon, a number higher than at any point in history (Clarke 357). It is clear that the world population itself has multiplied, and the more people, the more vulnerable demographics that can be unlawfully subjected to slavery. Thus, while the concept was entirely legitimate and, sometimes, at the basis of many societies worldwide, it is forbidden in the modern-day world, a tactic that does not lead to major changes in terms of minimizing the adverse effects.
Social Aspect
The social aspect of slavery, alongside the economic and political one, exemplifies a hierarchical ladder in which vulnerable individuals can be subjected to forced labor. The characteristic is present in both modern-day practices and traditional ones, yet the long-term effect of historic slavery is the only one that can be currently assessed. An example is the US history, and the effect slavery had on racial relationships (Grim et al. 54). Both topics are related to inequality and the vulnerability of specific demographics, a phenomenon that did not change. Previously, slaves were either vulnerable because of poverty, skin color, or social status, and today, the impoverished individuals remain the most oppressed and subjected to unlawful labor practices.
Conclusion
Both historical and modern-day slavery is based on the same premises, including the presence of a person taking away people’s rights, forced labor, abuse, and a disregard for fundamental human rights. While today’s capitalism has led to an increase in such practices due to the need for cheap labor, it is inevitable that traditional and slavery nowadays are similar. Thus, history has shaped the concept yet has not changed or diminished it enough to make a difference.
Works Cited
Bindman, Jo. “An International Perspective on Slavery in the Sex Industry.” Global Sex Workers, 2018, pp. 65–68., Web.
Clarke, Matthew C. “Addressing Modern Slavery.” Journal of Human Trafficking, vol. 7, no. 3, 2019, pp. 357–360., Web.
Grim, Linnea, et al. “Taking the Next Step: Confronting the Legacies of Slavery at Historic Sites.” Journal of Museum Education, vol. 42, no. 1, 2017, pp. 54–68., Web.