My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →Forced Labour: please check encyclopedia "Slavery in the Modern World" |
|||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
::::Look, we are not experts here. Solzhenitsyn is an expert and a Nobel Prize winner. [[Irving Howe]] is an expert. They say that was slavery. You need more ref? Fine, I can bring more. Note that EB say "Forced labour, also called Slave Labour..." [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
::::Look, we are not experts here. Solzhenitsyn is an expert and a Nobel Prize winner. [[Irving Howe]] is an expert. They say that was slavery. You need more ref? Fine, I can bring more. Note that EB say "Forced labour, also called Slave Labour..." [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::: In «[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00085006.2017.1384665 New directions in Gulag studies: a roundtable discussion]», which gathers 5 scholars, it's only referred to as a «system of forced labour» and «soviet forced labour», and Steven Maddox even states «Studies which explore and analyze cultural events and programs in the camps show that the Gulag was not simply a system of forced labour that aimed to annihilate the prison population through back-breaking work, as Solzhenitsyn and others have argued». In «The Soviet Gulag: Evidence, Interpretation, and Comparison», the GULAG is defined as «an acronym for the Soviet state bureaucracy that administered Stalin’s corrective labor camps, colonies, and special settlements in the years between 1929 and 1953.» There wouldn't be a need of a [[Forced labour]] article if those were synonymous terms, but they are not, so there's no need to conflate them. This article is specially about slavery, the best we can do to keep things in scope is to briefly mention it at the forced labour section as examples of penal labour. [[User:BunnyyHop|<span style="color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;"><strong><span style="text-shadow: #ff0000 2px 2px 8px;">BunnyyHop</span></strong></span>]] ([[User talk:BunnyyHop|<em><sup>talk</sup></em>]]) 12:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
::::: In «[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00085006.2017.1384665 New directions in Gulag studies: a roundtable discussion]», which gathers 5 scholars, it's only referred to as a «system of forced labour» and «soviet forced labour», and Steven Maddox even states «Studies which explore and analyze cultural events and programs in the camps show that the Gulag was not simply a system of forced labour that aimed to annihilate the prison population through back-breaking work, as Solzhenitsyn and others have argued». In «The Soviet Gulag: Evidence, Interpretation, and Comparison», the GULAG is defined as «an acronym for the Soviet state bureaucracy that administered Stalin’s corrective labor camps, colonies, and special settlements in the years between 1929 and 1953.» There wouldn't be a need of a [[Forced labour]] article if those were synonymous terms, but they are not, so there's no need to conflate them. This article is specially about slavery, the best we can do to keep things in scope is to briefly mention it at the forced labour section as examples of penal labour. [[User:BunnyyHop|<span style="color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;"><strong><span style="text-shadow: #ff0000 2px 2px 8px;">BunnyyHop</span></strong></span>]] ([[User talk:BunnyyHop|<em><sup>talk</sup></em>]]) 12:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::*In cases like that one should check reliable tertiary sources because they summarize consensus on the subject in other sources. Here is a printed encyclopedia "Slavery in the Modern World" and it lists Gulag as an example [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Slavery_in_the_Modern_World/kzro5ziGRRoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gulag+slavery&pg=PA292&printsec=frontcover], starting from page 292. As about your source, yes, sure, one of these guys seriously believes that the "inmates played competitive and recreational soccer, volleyball, and other outdoor sports when not at work". Such is the legacy of Soviet propaganda. But actual Stalin's legacy is different, e.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/29/stalin-russia-soviet-union-gulag-norilsk Stalin's legacy lives on in city that slaves built]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:21, 3 January 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Mention of Zoroastrianism and its relationship with slavery be included under the section "Abolitionism in Antiquity"
The Zoroastrian faith for the most part specifically forbade slavery, and while Iranian kings were known to relocate captured people, they never enslaved them. I lack the necessary writing skills to add a section, but perhaps someone with better skills could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.104.120.216 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Statements about slavery sentiment in US should be reworded
According to the current text "In 2018, the Orlando Sentinel reported some private Christian schools in Florida as teaching students a creationist curriculum which includes assertions such as, “most black and white southerners had long lived together in harmony” and that “power-hungry individuals stirred up the people” leading to the Civil Rights Movement.[218]"
It seems unnecessary to label this as "creationist" curriculum. Creationist theory at the core does not advocate slavery, however this statement suggests that there is a relationship between the two. The existence of flawed rhetoric in curriculum practiced by a group claiming to be creationist does not indicate any agreement with others following creationist thought. That word and subsequent hyperlink should be removed.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether this news report has any bearing in this context. The existence of a report exposing flawed educational materials in one locality does not demonstrate any further information about the progress of slavery in the generalized context of the United States. The citation itself provides little information to enable the reader to interpret what that information means in this context. It does not provide a balanced or expanded perspective of the US on the whole and therefore seems out of place in a section regarding the generalized United States. Regardless of how egregious, ridiculous or inaccurate such a curriculum might be, it does not serve the text of this Wikipedia article to mention this fact and this fact alone.
Definition
I see editors like Edwin trinh14 do their best to take the notion of ownership out of the definition of slavery, suggesting that slavery is actually just like working under a mean employer. I find that very problematic, not to say revolting. Replacing a well-known concept with its metaphorical counterpart as if that is the "real" meaning repeats the kind of nonsense we see online and from some politicians (Bill Barr] comes to mind) and slaveowners (the nonsense written up in Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania). Drmies (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I support reverting to your last revision. Going back to at least 2014, this article's definition has been that slavery = ownership of people. I think that is still correct, and any change should be with clear consensus supported by scholarly sources. It is also more than just forced labor. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The idea of people as property sounds like a legal concept. But slavery can happen even where it’s illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- But 'labor without consent' excludes indentured servitude, which this article describes as the most common form of slavery today. Also, 'labor' is limiting and would seem to exclude sex slavery. It's not controlling, but Oxford Languages (what you get when you google a definition) defines a slave as: "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." Britannica, the Cambridge Dictionary, &c. also call slavery the ownership of a person who is forced to obey. It's not perfect but I think the basic concept of a person being treated as property and forced to obey (not just perform labor) is the best definition we have to work with, despite the fact that slavery is a broad concept with a lot of different permutations throughout history (I mean, are indentured servants "owned"? Depends, I guess). And while 'property' does give it a legal air, it ultimately just means something belonging to someone. And we can really only go by what sources say - we cannot simply use original research to craft a definition we like without scholarly support. Plus, the property definition is the status quo, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Using your phrase “treated as property” or “treated like property” would be fine, but saying a slave always IS property would only reflect one sense of the word, and even the Oxford Dictionary acknowledges the word has more than the one sense of a person who is the legal property of another. Zillions of sources say slavery happens even where it’s illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree - there is certainly slavery today and (on information and belief) it is illegal in every country. I am content/neutral on the current language - I think the real issue was with the "where a person is denied the opportunity to leave whilst performing labor for a party" definition, which you fixed. Thanks for the edits and cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Using your phrase “treated as property” or “treated like property” would be fine, but saying a slave always IS property would only reflect one sense of the word, and even the Oxford Dictionary acknowledges the word has more than the one sense of a person who is the legal property of another. Zillions of sources say slavery happens even where it’s illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- But 'labor without consent' excludes indentured servitude, which this article describes as the most common form of slavery today. Also, 'labor' is limiting and would seem to exclude sex slavery. It's not controlling, but Oxford Languages (what you get when you google a definition) defines a slave as: "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." Britannica, the Cambridge Dictionary, &c. also call slavery the ownership of a person who is forced to obey. It's not perfect but I think the basic concept of a person being treated as property and forced to obey (not just perform labor) is the best definition we have to work with, despite the fact that slavery is a broad concept with a lot of different permutations throughout history (I mean, are indentured servants "owned"? Depends, I guess). And while 'property' does give it a legal air, it ultimately just means something belonging to someone. And we can really only go by what sources say - we cannot simply use original research to craft a definition we like without scholarly support. Plus, the property definition is the status quo, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The idea of people as property sounds like a legal concept. But slavery can happen even where it’s illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Great talk guys. The only reason why I'm opposed to the idea of just defining slavery as just people being owned and treated/viewed as property is because most employees are seen as human resources and to some individuals, that can be seen as "commodification of labor" and "dehumanising". So I gotta take that into account and make it clear on what precisely is slavery. I absolutely oppose slavery as well but at the same time, the truth should always be prioritised. Edwin trinh14 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I’d go like this: “where one party cannot quit in
performing labor forserving another party andare viewed andis treated as property.” Serving is more general, and covers sex slavery (which many people wouldn’t consider “labor”). And I don’t know that it adds much to say they’re “viewed as” property, viewed by whom? Not by the law or by society, if slavery is illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I’d go like this: “where one party cannot quit in
Here are some dictionary definitions: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.[1] a person held in servitude as the chattel of another [2] a person who is legally owned by someone else and has to work for that person [3] A slave is someone who is the property of another person and has to work for that person.[4] "Chattel slavery" is different from serfdom because a serf is tied to the land while a chattel slave can be sold or otherwise moved. Given those common definitions, being owned as property and being forced to work are the two defining characteristics. As for the issue of legality, I'm not sure that illegally capturing someone and forcing them to work is the same thing. The current text says that a slave is one "who cannot quit their service to another person and is treated like property." I don't think that's complete because "service" is too mild and adding the word "treated" implies they are not actual property. It'd be simpler and more accurate to say "who is owned as property by another person and is forced to work for them." Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Some of our sources use definitions of slavery that are much broader than the traditional definitions. The Guardian[5] and New International[6] articles both cite Anti-Slavery International, which apparently considers any form of forced labor or forced marriage to be slavery, even if ownership is not a factor.[7] So this article says that 40 million people are currently enslaved, but the source says only 24.9 million of those involve forced labor, the rest being forced marriages. Maybe there should be a distinction between the traditional and modern definitions. Traditional slavery involves ownership and forced labor, and was legal. Modern slavery is illegal and involves a wider variety of coercion, or so it would appear. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interesting comments. You got four definitions of “slave” from four sources, but those four sources offer more than four definitions. For example, the Collins Dictionary also says, “a person who is forced to work for another against his or her will.” That would cover both legal and illegal slavery. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that slavery could be legal or illegal, in a de facto sense. But for millennia, slavery was a legal institution. And no one considered forced marriage to be slavery. Today, both of those facts have changed. That's why I think the best approach may be to provide two definitions, or at least somehow indicate that the term has shifted meaning. In the current version, the 2nd paragraph is given over to an expansive definition that includes anyone who has "limited freedom of movement" or is "dehumanised".[8] That may be the definition today, but it wasn't the definition for most of human history. That's why I think we should separate the modern term from the historical term. No one definition can cover both adequately. I think if we preface the 2nd paragraph by giving the current definition, as used by these sources, then it'll be easier. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, since the definition in the first sentence is cited, we might as well consult that source. It says that in 1926 the League of Nations, after considerable discussion, defines slavery as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the rights of ownership are exercise."[9] That's a bureaucratic definition, meant to accommodate colonial powers, The definition goes on to specifically exclude lesser forms of servitude, including marriage. However I can't see, via Google, enough of the book to see what it says about the current definition. I am able to see the conclusion, which doesn't really help us much here because it talks about the process of defining the term rather than coming up with a pithy definition of its own. I'm not sure that citation is really appropriate unless we quote it verbatim. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since I'm quoting from that book, let me add another tidbit. Suzanne Miers, author of Slavery in the Twentieth Century: The Evolution of a Global Problem, is quoted as saying that the term "slavery" has been used in recent years "to cover such a wide range of practices as to be virtually meaningless" (p.220). That's a good reason for distinguishing "classical slavery" from "modern slavery". Mobi Ditch (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I’m thinking that the first paragraph of our article is okay, but maybe you can make changes after that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interesting comments. You got four definitions of “slave” from four sources, but those four sources offer more than four definitions. For example, the Collins Dictionary also says, “a person who is forced to work for another against his or her will.” That would cover both legal and illegal slavery. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
intro improvement
In the second intro paragraph where it says "in the unindustrialised countries, enslavement by debt bondage is a common form of enslaving a person, " the use of term "unindustrialised" is both unnecessary and false. Enslavement by debt bondage exist in both industrialised and non-industrialised nations. And the reference article "Slavery in the 21st century" used to support this statement doesn't reflect this to be a practice used in unindustrialised countries or any specific type of countries. XdaOfficial (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
forced marriage
Innapropriate use of term "Devdasi" in Forced Marriage section and also culturally wrong to use the same in sentence with words Sacred Prostitution and fetish slaves. Term devdasi doesn't relate to any sexual activity whatsoever and is a religious term which go along the lines of being a Sadhu or life in servitude to god, The term also exost for men who chose to live life learning about god and is called Devdas. The article is clearly written a unpleasant tone towards some specific cultures and regions of world. That is innapropriate use of religious terms in conjunction with completely harsh words which are also wrong. Term Devdasi -Dev means diety and dasi means "life in servitude" not slave (das is for men and dasi is for women), any women/man can become devdas or devdasi and not be slave, i can be a Engineer and devdas at same time wothout being slave to anyone same applies to women. Theres a surname/caste in India labelled Das which gets confused with term slave which is wrong, most people with this surname are prominent fugures and are not inferior either by caste or economy, but this name/suffix gets confused with slave as it has multiple meaning/translations which creates misunderstanding. Paragraph stating "Human trafficking primarily involves women and children forced into prostitution" is incorrect too, as per ILO research (2017) of the 16 million estimated human trafficked individuals around 4.8 million were trafficked for sexual exploitation which definitely indicate it is not primary reason primary reason. XdaOfficial (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Lead sentence
This edit deleted part of the lead sentence that said a slave “is someone forbidden to quit their service to another person and is treated like property.” The new language says a slave is someone who is “coerced into performing a work function by another person, a slaver, who also controls their location.” The edit summary by User:RickyBennison said this: “Replaced overly specific chattel slavery definition (which follows shortly afterwards) with one which typically applies to a breadth of slavery definitions.” I disagree that the deleted language was a chattel slavery definition, given that it only said a slave is treated *like* property, instead of saying a slave *is* property. Moreover, I don’t understand the difference between *a work function* and *work* and *service* (it’s usually better to use one word than three). Additionally, the new language is potentially confusing because it’s not immediately clear whether the language “by another person” says who performs the work function or instead says who does the coercing. Finally, it’s unclear to me how a slaver could coerce a person to do work without controlling that person’s location. For these many reasons, I will revert to the previous version. Incidentally, an editor wisely said above that, “Going back to at least 2014, this article's definition has been that slavery = ownership of people. I think that is still correct, and any change should be with clear consensus supported by scholarly sources.” But replacing the equals sign with an approximately equals sign is a good compromise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia would be richer if this were its biggest page.--EKantarovich (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Soviet Union
This section is about the inclusion of the GULAG without any citation to it being a slave camp. There's also no mention of «slave» on that article. @Vallee01:, post the sources here. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- BunnyyHop Sources and citations are already present. Des Vallee (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop Two things, first that ping of an old username doesn't work, Des Vallee does. Secondly the information was widely clear however:
See Gulag: Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet regime created many Lagerey (labour camps) in Siberia. Prisoners in Soviet labor camps were worked to death on extreme production quotas, brutality, hunger and harsh elements. Fatality rate was as high as 80% during the first months in many camps. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, died as a direct result of forced labor under the Soviets.[1][2][3][4][5]
- Labor camp is not exactly equal to Slavery, that's why there's a different article for it. Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, also doesn't describe them as such. See this. To describe your citations: The first one mentions it as forced labor, the second one is an [[[Austrian School]] academic journal 1, the third also describes them as forced labor, the fourth is from the Center for Independent Sociological Research. The point of this discussion is - should Forced labour be in the article, or not? BunnyyHop (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- BunnyyHop The point is all citations refer to it as slavery. It's fits all definitions of Slavery and scholarly there is asoulte consensus of it as slavery. Moreover the link you provide to Britincia is considered a stub. You are bringing up your own position into this, not even going into the citations as they all are reliable. It is described as slavery because yes the definition of slavery. You are not even addressing the citations as you can't find any position to dispute them. You are bringing up your own person definition. Des Vallee (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Des Vallee Not quite, only two of them refer to it as slavery, the other refer to them as labour camps. Furthermore, the one of the Austrian School says «Gulag is an example of slavery in the absence of well-defined and enforced property rights in slaves. Inmates in Soviet forced labor camps are not slaves in the strict sense because they do not represent private property (...)». It's easy to find sources referring to them as labour camps:
- https://books.google.com.br/books?lr=&id=tt2xCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22gulag%22+%22labour%22+&ots=QKJenBf9Zp&sig=ykj6ASyGQ7aAkSAJc7HWuI3e_sQ#v=onepage&q=%22gulag%22%20%22labour%22&f=false
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668138108411338?journalCode=ceas19
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/131659?seq=1
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/2501047?seq=1
--BunnyyHop (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- BunnyyHop It seems you specifically cherry picked information to find this, I mean you literally went to Google Books and typed "Forced Labour" and "Gulag" here it can be seen you specifically are trying to cherry pick information. You clearly didn't check the citations as some of the citations you provide even either as most the citations you provide also has sections that describes the Gulag system as slavery that has to be embarrassing. So either you didn't go over the citations or you just ignored them, both which is not allowed. Des Vallee (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Lester/publication/5510937_Suicide_in_the_Soviet_Gulag_Camps/links/5bc77ab192851cae21a9c5ae/Suicide-in-the-Soviet-Gulag-Camps.pdf
- ^ https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/catoj5&div=18&id=&page= "This is the fact that the forced labor system of the Gulag is an example of slavery in the absence of well-defined and enforced property rights in slaves."
- ^ https://scholar.dominican.edu/cynthia-stokes-brown-books-personal-research/141/ "Slavery from its origins in prehistoric hunting societies; through the boom in slave trading that reached its peak in the United States with a pre-Civil War slave population of 4,000,000; through the forced labor under the Nazi regime and in the Soviet gulags;
- ^ https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=289925 "The life testimonies of those who endured incarceration and slavery in Gulag camps, dealing particularly with illness narratives in which people 'complain not only of the painfulness of past.'"
- ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144039X.2011.568235 "his penultimate chapter, for instance, he discusses at length the 'reversion' of slavery in Europe in the twentieth century in the shape of the Soviet Gulag and racial slavery in Nazi Germany."
Yes, of course I did. We already have articles about forced labour, labour camps, unfree labour, and so on. The scope of this article doesn't include these, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Why is there an exception to this labour camp? BunnyyHop (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
3O Response: The article lead and first H2 section mention forced labour as a form of slavery, so I feel that practices of forced labour camps (where of notable scale and historical importance) are within the scope of the article, regardless of whether sources call them "slavery" (calling them "forced labour" is just being more specific). I feel that GULAGs and Nazi forced labour are worthy of inclusion. It might not be bad to have the U.S. in there as well, as the country with the largest population in prisons, where involuntary servitude (another form of slavery) is constitutionally legal. Keep in mind that this article is a bit sprawling and 40% over the maximum recommended article size, so try to keep the summary brief when the subject has a main article. (There's nothing wrong with mentioning these things here; though they have separate articles, they are part of this broader subject and I feel this article would be incomplete without some mention.) This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: thanks for answering. I do agree that those two should be included, and replaced the source-less Soviet Union category with properly sourced and accurate information (as shown in the next diff), and also attached a section about forced labour in the US below it. This however prompted an editor to include cases of Human rights violations in China and North Korea, which is not in the scope of this article. Can you give me your opinion on this diff? This edit has been reverted twice for not «mention[ing] the Gulag system, this is whitewashing something you have a long history of» (sic!) and «For a section about Slavery you don't appear to ever discuss it as slavery». Thank you. --BunnyyHop (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that edit was an improvement. The text could possibly be made more concise, perhaps not mentioning all of those figures and/or examples. I might have focused on forced labour (rather than underpaid labour/sweatshop conditions) in US prisons. The main article for North Korea is human rights, bundling related issues together, but the section here mentions widespread forced labour and keeps the summary fairly tight. At some point, when there is consensus on scope and content, you might want to request a copy edit at WP:GOCE to make it a little more concise and bring the article size down. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think latest version by Des Vallee is shorter and much better. Here is new version suggested by BunnyyHop. It has an obvious problem: it tells about Gulag, but it does not tell anything about Gulag as a variety of slave labor. That aspect needs to be emphasized in the version by Des Valle as well. There are many sources, such as "Notes on the Soviet slave labor reform" [10], this, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reidgreg and My very best wishes, thanks for commenting. I completely agree with your points, what made the slave labour in the Gulag distinct from others must be emphasized. I'll try to make a synthesis out of the two materials and we might have just the right amount of everything. I, however, am finding trouble to understand this revert. The first paragraph is not directly related to unfree labour but to the laws of incarceration in China. The second one states what is described in the source as «In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report Uyghurs for sale: ‘Re-education’, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang, which identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies as allegedly directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labour transfer programs. » as a fact. I copied from the original article since it's neutrally written and does proper attribution (hence not violating WP:NPOV), but our colleague seems to think that this feeds into a conspiracy theory. What are do you think about this? --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Forced Labour
There has been the addition of 4 countries in the topic History [of Slavery]. These are countries which have made use of Penal labour in Labour camps. I argue this is out of scope, and this is problematic especially since the article is 244.141KB wide, while the WP:TOOBIG maximum size is 100KB. Definitions of Forced labour:
«Forced labour, also called Slave Labour, labour performed involuntarily and under duress, usually by relatively large groups of people. Forced labour differs from slavery in that it involves not the ownership of one person by another but rather merely the forced exploitation of that person’s labour.»
«This report uses a broader definition of ‘forced labour’ than the standard international definition discussed in the next chapter. We include work brought about by physical, psychological or economic coercion and recognise that, despite lacking the alternatives needed to defend against such coercion, workers’ frequently retain and exhibit agency when entering into coercive labour relations.»
Confronting root causes: forced labour in global supply chains by Genevieve LeBaron, Neil Howard, Cameron Thibos and Penelope Kyritsis; p. 5
«Forced labour is defined in international law as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”. The guardian of this definition, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has further elaborated that the threat of penalty “can take various forms, whether physical, psychological, financial or other”.»
Idem, Ibidem; p. 9 Furthermore, forced labour is already mentioned in a summary style topic here. I suggest we move the United States, the Soviet Union, China and North Korea to this part of the article as examples of forced labour. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we just need sources that explicitly say it was "slavery". Simply saying about large prison population (for example) is not enough. For example, Irving Howe did argue that Gulag was a form of slavery [11] (the camp's administration even occasionally barter prisoners with special skills). Solzenitsyn claimed the same. just as a lot of other people who studied Gulag. My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solzhenitsyn's work on the gulag is literature, it's a memoir, it's a testimony. His works are not exact recollections of events and, in any case, Solzhenitsyn often fell out with collaborators or ex-inmates over his interpretations. But this is part and parcel of primary accounts of anything. Overall, his experience of the brutality of the Gulag is certainly authentic, but Wikipedia is mostly guided by WP:SECONDARY sources. «Slavery» is a category, with its own definition of social relations, and we need academic sources that draw this connection between definition of slavery and the social relations of the Gulag. I couldn't find any. For example, the definition of slavery in Britannica is «condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons». «There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else». This is the definition used by the article to present its history. --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Look, we are not experts here. Solzhenitsyn is an expert and a Nobel Prize winner. Irving Howe is an expert. They say that was slavery. You need more ref? Fine, I can bring more. Note that EB say "Forced labour, also called Slave Labour..." My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- In «New directions in Gulag studies: a roundtable discussion», which gathers 5 scholars, it's only referred to as a «system of forced labour» and «soviet forced labour», and Steven Maddox even states «Studies which explore and analyze cultural events and programs in the camps show that the Gulag was not simply a system of forced labour that aimed to annihilate the prison population through back-breaking work, as Solzhenitsyn and others have argued». In «The Soviet Gulag: Evidence, Interpretation, and Comparison», the GULAG is defined as «an acronym for the Soviet state bureaucracy that administered Stalin’s corrective labor camps, colonies, and special settlements in the years between 1929 and 1953.» There wouldn't be a need of a Forced labour article if those were synonymous terms, but they are not, so there's no need to conflate them. This article is specially about slavery, the best we can do to keep things in scope is to briefly mention it at the forced labour section as examples of penal labour. BunnyyHop (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- In cases like that one should check reliable tertiary sources because they summarize consensus on the subject in other sources. Here is a printed encyclopedia "Slavery in the Modern World" and it lists Gulag as an example [12], starting from page 292. As about your source, yes, sure, one of these guys seriously believes that the "inmates played competitive and recreational soccer, volleyball, and other outdoor sports when not at work". Such is the legacy of Soviet propaganda. But actual Stalin's legacy is different, e.g. Stalin's legacy lives on in city that slaves built. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- In «New directions in Gulag studies: a roundtable discussion», which gathers 5 scholars, it's only referred to as a «system of forced labour» and «soviet forced labour», and Steven Maddox even states «Studies which explore and analyze cultural events and programs in the camps show that the Gulag was not simply a system of forced labour that aimed to annihilate the prison population through back-breaking work, as Solzhenitsyn and others have argued». In «The Soviet Gulag: Evidence, Interpretation, and Comparison», the GULAG is defined as «an acronym for the Soviet state bureaucracy that administered Stalin’s corrective labor camps, colonies, and special settlements in the years between 1929 and 1953.» There wouldn't be a need of a Forced labour article if those were synonymous terms, but they are not, so there's no need to conflate them. This article is specially about slavery, the best we can do to keep things in scope is to briefly mention it at the forced labour section as examples of penal labour. BunnyyHop (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Look, we are not experts here. Solzhenitsyn is an expert and a Nobel Prize winner. Irving Howe is an expert. They say that was slavery. You need more ref? Fine, I can bring more. Note that EB say "Forced labour, also called Slave Labour..." My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)