What follows is a cross post from AlterNet.org, *here*.
Posted by jrbizzy at 10:53 am
May 10, 2010
Race and human trafficking in the U.S.: Unclear but undeniable
I watch and listen to the advocacy of human trafficking at rallies, on web sites, in government reports and NGO reports. The research and statistics on human trafficking in America are ambiguous, especially in relation to race and ethnicity. We need to explicitly recognize the connections between trafficking, poverty, migration, gender, racism and racial discrimination to adequately battle and destroy human trafficking in the U.S.
Trafficking persons is inherently discriminatory. Since an overwhelming majority of trafficked persons are women, trafficking in most circles is usually considered a gender issue, especially in the United States (majority of trafficking in the U.S. is sex trafficking). In the U.S., most state human trafficking laws explicitly and directly address sexual exploitation, ignoring or vaguely covering other types of trafficking (myths of trafficking).
However, a link that is rarely discussed in open forums about human trafficking is racial discrimination. A question that I don’t hear enough is, “Does race and ethnicity contribute to the likelihood of people becoming victims of trafficking?” I say, “Yes.” Furthermore, I believe that not only does race and ethnicity constitute a risk factor for trafficking, it may also determine the treatment those victims’ experience.
The Polaris Project, who does outstanding work in combating human trafficking, stated the majority of trafficked persons come from vulnerable populations, including undocumented migrants, runaways and at-risk youth, oppressed or marginalized groups, and the poor; specifically because they are easiest to recruit and control. In the U.S., statistically speaking, people of color more than fit this criterion.
Available Statistics by Race
A large majority of trafficked persons in the U.S. for the purposes of labor and sexual exploitation are people of color. Domestically, 50 percent of trafficked victims are children and an overwhelmingly are girls, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Most foreign nationals are women, children and men from Mexico and East Asia, as well as from South Asia, Central America, Africa, and Europe, about 17,500 each year, according to statistics compiled by Polaris Project and 2009 TIP report.
Seventy-seven percent of victims in alleged human trafficking incidents reported in the U.S. were people of color, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics Report. An example of BJS’s ambiguity is that 747 out of 1,442 reported incidents recorded no racial or ethnic origin.
Racism is deeply embedded in human trafficking and must be racially inclusive and explicitly included in its literature, statistics and advocacy. To combat this modern-day slavery, the trafficking cycle should recognize explicitly the connections between trafficking, migration, poverty, racism, gender and racial discrimination.
We need to urge and support our NGOs, national and state governments to adequately report trafficking incidents. It is important to know the origin of the victims and the suspected traffickers, race and ethnic backgrounds to better understand the vulnerabilities and how traffickers exploit opportunities.
I am advocating that we remove and uncover the ambiguity of the characteristics of trafficked persons and the traffickers and be explicit about who they are and what populations in America are most affected so we can make specific and measurable progress. The notion that anyone can be a victim of human trafficking is true, however, the fact that the majority of victims are people of color should not be undermined or understated.
Jamaal Bell is media relations manager for the Kirwan Institute and the executive editor for Race-Talk. Prior to joining Kirwan in 2009, his communications experience included work for school districts, government and marketing communications firms. Jamaal has also served four years in the United States Navy. He holds a B.S. in Journalism and Public Relations from Ball State University. Follow him on Twitter @Jrbizzy.
* * *
The question not asked is this:
Within the U.S., what is the race and gender of the PROCURERS and PURCHASERS (the abusers and the slavers)? What demographic are they from? Age, religion, region? In U.S. media, questions unasked means we don't want to focus on the realities revealed with the answer. Here's my answer to which demographic the majority of procurers and purchasers of human beings for sexual slavery or trafficked sex are: older, class-privileged, white, Christian, heterosexual, men.
I welcome anyone who is on the streets, in the hotels, in the homes, and in the other areas where the trafficking occurs, with cross-regional, national information, to provide the "statistical" details. And to further make my case that P.I.M.P.s and W.I.M.P.s (see my glossary to the right) like to be out of view, please review this VERY comprehensive information about prostitution, sex trafficking, and sexual slavery, *here*, which is where I found the image atop this post. Tons of information, titled "Sexual Slavery Information" with stunningly little about who is doing this! Is this just because we already know? Clearly not, because there is no stigma on that demographic for doing this, and when we see such men in the media, they aren't portrayed as slavers and traffickers, procurers and pimps. It's time to pull back the curtain and show the world the faces of who these white male fuckers, batterers, and rapists.
It's called using passive language wherein as always the perpetrators are invisibilised and only the victims are discussed and/or analysed.
ReplyDeleteJust as 'human trafficking' is a term conveniently coined to hide the fact it is overwhelmingly women and girls who are being trafficked and sold into sexual slavery not men and boys.
Human trafficking neatly conflates labour trafficking and trafficking females into sexual slavery and as such ensures as always, the focus remains firmly on men and their issues. Women's and girls' rights continue to be marginalised.
Likewise defining women and girls who are being exploited and subjected to male sexual violence as 'vulnerable' also serves to perpetuate the belief that being a woman/girl automatically makes one weaker than the male. The correct term should be disadvantaged because it is not because a woman/girl is female that she is subjected to male sexual violence, rather it is because men as a group continue to have far greater socio-economic power.
Male violence against women must never be mentioned but instead is euphemised by using such phrases as 'gender-based violence' 'sexist violence' or even just 'violence against women.' So guess which group continues to remain hidden and invisible? Why it is men as a group of course, because we must never subject males as a group to minute analysis and accountability.
Victor Malarek is one white male who has written extensively on the male perpetrators and sought to bring public attention to these Johns and their flimsy excuses/justifications/denials.
Coalition Against Trafficking In Women too has conducted research on the male perpetrators but because CATW is a proud feminist organisation it has been demonised as 'male-hating.'
So, instead we have to hide male accountability and instead pathologise the innumerable women and girls of whatever ethnicity, race or class because we must not go to the root of the issue which is how the patriarchal system operates. Certainly ethnicity, race and class plays a very important role but what radical feminists have always stated is that the root cause of male domination and control is the male supremacist/male dominated/patriarchal system.
Is this really the cause of so much suffering and hate? No, that is too simplistic is it not? No instead we have to ensure the male perpetrators and their apologists remain invisible because men as a group are never, ever responsible for their actions.