Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

May 17, 2017

The servitude I saw

Filed under: Bangladesh,Culture,slavery — Razib Khan @ 10:43 pm

Many people are talking about the late Alex Tizon’s article in The Atlantic, My Family’s Slave. Much of the piece was as disturbing for me as it was for most Americans. But some of it was shockingly familiar. I’ll get to that.

First, Tizon died unexpectedly before the article was published. We won’t be able to ask him about how we can judge the veracity of his own role and culpability. Though the narrative is laced with guilt and admissions of fault on his part, ultimately he does come off as somewhat the soft-hearted hero in comparison to his parents.

Since he is the source of all of this it has hard to not assume that he cast himself in a more flattering light than reality might warrant. The obituary he helped inform in 2011 was entirely deceptive, and apparently the slavery did not feature in his memoir, Big Little Man: In Search of My Asian Self.

On the one hand writing such an article exposed himself to critique. On the other hand this piece would surely have been an incredible capstone to his career; his has wife admitted as much. Ultimately truth would really only have been served if “Lola,” the slave in question, had been allowed to speak for herself. I’m sure she would have had very different perceptions from Tizon.

But overall I suspect his guilt was genuine.

This is not how it always works out. About ten years ago there was an infamous Long Island case where a wealthy Indian American family had had two Indonesian slaves. There were incidents recounted in the media and testimony which made it clear that their American born children were entirely complicit and cooperative with their parents in the enslavement of these women.

As many of you know it is not uncommon in many societies across the world to have household help. It was even the case in the United States up until relatively recently for young women to go through a stint of menial labor in a more affluent family’s home. My own wife’s grandmother did this when she was a young woman in the 1920s.

I was born in Bangladesh. I moved to the United States right before my schooling began. So though my formative years are operationally all in the United States, I retain memories of Bangladesh. Additionally, I have visited twice since I left (due to the recent spate of killings of secularists I do not plan on visiting again until the nation joins the civilized world). When I was a young child I had a beloved nanny. Additionally, before we left for the United States there were two families who were resident with us in our large apartment. They helped my mother keep the house.

These were not simply capitalist transactions. My nanny was from the same village as my paternal grandfather. Many the people who served in my family’s household in Dhaka were from the same district we had come from, and had had prior associations with my family in the 19th century (for reasons I’m not aware of, they were all from my mother’s side of the family). Obviously my nanny couldn’t come to the United States. She was relatively elderly*, so she retired to my maternal grandfather’s home village, and the last time I saw her in 1989  she was living in one of the houses he owned, which had an indoor flush toilet (a luxury at the time).

The first time we visited Bangladesh my mother made sure to visit the families who had once lived with us and worked for us before we left for the United States. In some ways it was like reacquainting with distant relatives. But obviously there was the distance of class. These were people whose families had been subsistence peasants only a generation earlier. My own family on both sides were not subsistence peasants. They either collected rents from the peasants in question, or operated businesses which generated revenue (e.g., jute farms or milk production operations), or were professionals (e.g., my maternal grandfather was a doctor, my paternal grandfather was an ulem, though he supplemented his income with rents).

Some of the things that I heard my family say about the families who had once had a servile relationship with them were the very definition of patronizing. That being said, both sides of my family are relatively religious, and took some pride in the humane character of their relationship with the people who they employed. Additionally, these were not impersonal relationships. My mother never behaved as the “boss.” Rather, I recall she maintained at least the artifice of a genuine friendship with the women close to her age who worked in our household. The ties between our families went back generations. I would not be surprised if in some sense they were relatives of course in some fashion.

All this is to frame a searing incident (or series of incidents) that I recall from 1989. My uncle, my mother’s brother, had married into a family which hailed from the city of Chittagong. This brother was arguably my mother’s favorite, so we went to visit him in Chittogang. Most of the time though he was away on a merchant marine vessel on which he was an engineer, so we were left to spend time with my uncle’s in-laws. Overall they were lovely people.

But there was an exception to their behavior They had a household domestic. She must have been about fifteen or so. She was very quiet, and I was never formally introduced to her, though a few times I tried to talk to her, to the irritation of others. Like an automaton she operated silently in the background, cleaning and cooking. One day I was in the kitchen talking about something with my cousin-in-law, and my uncle’s mother-in-law began yelling at the young woman. My cousin-in-law broke off our conversation, turned to the domestic, and began yelling at her too. Next thing I knew all the women in the house had come into the kitchen and were screaming at the domestic.

I was very disturbed and left the scene of the incident. Something similar happened at least two other times the week we were there. When I asked one of my cousin-in-law’s about this young woman and why they yelled at her she shrugged, rolled her eyes, and said she was stupid, useless, and didn’t know her place. I asked my mother about this treatment, and she didn’t seem to want to speak of it, though she did say something to the effect that not all families treat their domestics the way she was raised to treat them. My mother did not approve, but her disapproval did not rise to the level of causing her to begin a controversy with her brother’s in-laws.

This behavior seems very similar to what Tizon recounts about his parents using their slave as a emotional and verbal punching bag. And it was not a total aberration, the second time I went to Bangladesh we stayed with one of my mother’s brothers who had become rather wealthy. He married a woman who was 20 years younger than him. She was in fact one year younger than me (this is my mother’s youngest brother). This woman was nice enough, but she seemed a bit dull and I was to understand she wasn’t particularly educated (i.e., she hadn’t gone to university of any sort).

My uncle’s household had a domestic. She was a young woman, probably in her early teens. One day I saw my aunt-in-law scream at her in exactly the same way that I had seen years earlier with my other uncle’s in-laws. When my aunt was irritable about something, she would invariably begin to verbally abuse the domestic, who was probably about 13.

Many things have changed in Bangladesh in the period my parents have lived in the United States. This includes the language; both of my parents speech exhibits archaisms which contemporary Bangladeshis find amusing. But something substantive has been economic development. My parents in the 1970s were at best upper middle class. But they had numerous servants. My uncle in contrast was, and is, genuinely wealthy, even by American standards. He is literally part of the capitalist class.

Yet it was difficult for him to find a competent domestic. He had to drive 50 miles into the country into obscure villages to find a family who had a young woman who was willing to work in his household. The families who had traditionally worked for my own family were now in a different economic situation. Some number had lived long enough in the city that their children had gained enough education that there were now opportunities besides menial labor or domestic work for them. Others were now sending their young daughters to textile factories, and not the homes of the middle or upper classes.

Why? I can’t speak from inside knowledge, above I made it clear that in our own telling my family is that they are benevolent patrons. But even if we are benevolent patrons, I assume that the families which customarily had to treat us with deference would have preferred to live in a world where our legal equality in the modern world matched social equality.

Going to work in a dark and hot factory for low ages is horrible I assume (I wouldn’t know except for a short stint at a Christmas break job when I was 20). But it may be better than the alternative of being subjected to abuse by one’s “betters” for a pittance.

To end on a positive note, sometimes my parents sometimes complain about how much Bangladesh has changed. Much of the rural area has been swallowed by the conurbation that is Dhaka. But many things have gotten better. Both my parents come from large families. But though my maternal grandmother was married to a doctor of some means, several of her children died as infants. This was not a tragedy, but just a part of life. The mortality of children under five has decreased 7-fold in what is now Bangladesh since my parents were young!

* People who live a difficult life tend to age quickly. I want to say that my nanny was in her late 50s when I last saw her, but I would not be surprised if she was younger. She was illiterate, and when I was a child in elementary school I recall my parents discussing the best way to send her some money when they found out that she was subsisting on plain rice and salt.

March 19, 2012

The collapse of logic & human culture

Filed under: Culture,History,slavery — Razib Khan @ 8:31 am

Slavery’s last stronghold:

Moulkheir Mint Yarba returned from a day of tending her master’s goats out on the Sahara Desert to find something unimaginable: Her baby girl, barely old enough to crawl, had been left outdoors to die.

The usually stoic mother — whose jet-black eyes and cardboard hands carry decades of sadness — wept when she saw her child’s lifeless face, eyes open and covered in ants, resting in the orange sands of the Mauritanian desert. The master who raped Moulkheir to produce the child wanted to punish his slave. He told her she would work faster without the child on her back.

Trying to pull herself together, Moulkheir asked if she could take a break to give her daughter a proper burial. Her master’s reply: Get back to work.

“Her soul is a dog’s soul,” she recalls him saying.

Consider this. A father in a biological sense leaves his daughter out to die of exposure so as to increase the economic production of the mother of his daughter! Not only that, he obviously considers his daughter an animal. The full article is about slavery in Mauretania, a nation which maintains the practice in de facto form. Because this slavery clearly has a racial character, with a light-skinned population of North African origin enslaving a dark-skinned population of Sub-Saharan origin, there is an obvious “hook” for a Western, and particularly American, audience. But to be fair, if I can use that term, de facto slavery exists in organized form in other parts of the Sahel and Sahara (e.g., among the Tuareg), though the practice is far less pervasive in magnitude.

The reason I highlight this is to emphasize the “irrationality” in a biological sense of this behavior. Economic production is short term, while biological production is long term. A father should attempt to allow his child to flourish, so as to increase his fitness. One can probably save the biological rationale by arguing that increasing economic production redounds to the benefit of his legitimate children, but too often this strikes me as an attempt to preserve the coherency of the model at all costs. Stalin’s treatment of his eldest son is not so easy to rationalize. The point is that there are short term limits on the power of biological logic, as the frothy swirl of empirical events can sometimes dampen out the long term signal of inclusive fitness. In the long term biology wins out, but the long term can also be irrelevant to the case at hand.

This issue is not true of just biology. The a priori signal can be totally suffocated by the course of events. If one reads the Koran and the Hadith, the core canon of the religion of Islam, would one predict that this one religious-cultural complex would maintain and preserve the practice of slavery down into the modern era? The other civilizations of the past 1,500 years, that of the Christian West and East, and South and East Asia, did not practice slavery on a widespread scale (though the practice was known). In contrast, wherever Muslims went they brought with them slaves and slavery. The character of this slavery was not always quite so dehumanizing as that which flourished in the New World after the Columbian Exchange, but it was, and is, brutal nonetheless.

Over the past 1,500 years the Dar-al-Islam, served as a great siphon for slaves from the north, south, and east, Slavs, blacks, and Turks. Only after 1500, and especially after the rise of modern plantation agriculture in the New World, did the Christian West come to rival the Islamic nations in the practice of slavery (slavery disappeared in the medieval period after the last European pagans disappeared). And after Christendom abolished the practice Muslims continued it; Saudi Arabia did not abolish slavery until 1960.

Though Muslim apologists contrast the relatively humane condition of slaves under Islam to that under European rule (the latter being purely units of economic production), this is grading on a very generous curve. A large proportion of African male slaves were eunuchs, and these were the survivors of the procedure. This is discernible in the fact that mtDNA, maternal, African ancestry is noticeable across the Middle East, but Y chromosomal lineages, paternal, far less so. Not only that, but there was a racial hierarchy in slavery, with European and Turkic slaves generally monopolizing prestigious military posts, with Sub-Saharan Africans left to the role of household attendants (agricultural slavery was far less common in the Muslim world for various historical reasons).

One might contend that Muslim slavery was a dehumanization which impacted unbelievers, that the circle of humanism extended out toward the in-group. This is a plausible story, and is analogous to the practice of bondage in the Christian world, where pagan Baltic people were enslaved or subjugated in a particular brutal manner on account of their religious difference. But as we approach the early modern period outside of Africa sources of non-Muslim slaves disappeared. In the Mauretanian case you see hereditary race slavery of black Muslims by North African Muslims. Up until the early 20th century there was the danger that African Muslims on hajj would be enslaved on en route to Mecca, a practice which the kings of Saudi Arabia sometimes defended as ennobling a lesser race (through service to the superior Arabs).

My point with this digression is that even critics of Islam often admit that in its basis the religion is eminently egalitarian. Certainly in comparison to Hinduism, and even a faith like Roman Catholicism, with its division between the priesthood and believers. Superficially this collapses, insofar as there are distinctions between the descendants of Muhammad, the religious elite (the ulema), etc. But more fundamentally this most egalitarian of faiths on a priori grounds has perpetuated one of the least egalitarian traditions of the past 10,000 years down to the modern period. Why?

I would point out a major historical dynamic: there are three complex civilizations which have relied to a great extent on slave labor. The core Muslim world is one. That of the post-Columbian New World in certain locales is another. And finally, there is the world of Classical Antiquity. Setting aside the post-Columbian case, what Classical Antiquity and the Muslim world share is an overlap of geography and historical continuity. To a great extent the Islamic world is an heir to many of the traditions and customs of Classical Antiquity. Some historians would likely argue that slavery persisted in the Islamic world, and not in the Christian fragments of the post-Roman scene, because of the relatively economically advanced state of the former in relation to the latter! In particular, the persistence of a taxation system which was not based purely on labor service or goods, but specie. The truth of the matter is not relevant here. My point is that instead of looking at what Muslims say about their faith, this is a situation where historical contingency is far more informative. And that is a hard lesson too often forgotten.

Powered by WordPress