The film focused specifically on three instances of modern day slavery: cocoa plantations on the Ivory Coast, rug-making looms in northern India, and (to my great surprise) there are even instances of slavery in the U. S. The Department of State estimates that between 15 and 20 thousand individuals are trafficked into the U. S. each year to become slaves.
A "slave" was defined as one who is "Forced to work--through mental or physical threat, owned or controlled by an 'employer', usually through mental or physical abuse or threatened abuse; dehumanized, treated as a commodity or bought and sold as 'property'; physically constrained or has restrictions placed on his/her freedom of movement."
In other words, slavery today is what it always has been--and perhaps worse. Increased population and the pressure of the global market mean that slaves now are easier to come by and simultaneously less valuable. The days of eeking out a marginally decent existence on the plantation of a southern diplomat in the 18th and 19th century are decisively over.
Of particular interest was the role the global economy plays in the issue of slavery. Competition fuels injustice, especially (for instance) in the cocoa industry. With the price of cocoa falling steadily over the past twenty years, plantation owners on the Ivory Coast work strenuously to stay competitive on the market by keeping the total cost of each bag of cocoa produced extremely low. What better way to get an edge than by restraining dozens of unpaid laborers under the threat of violence? Productivity goes up; total costs go down; and farmers stay competitive.
What is most problematic is the prevailing assumption that the market will self-regulate so as to mitigate potential oppression and injustice: Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." Where that principle may have been true for local economies, it fails to hold for the modern global economy. The baby tiger has grown up, and it's starting to knock stuff over in the living room. Passivity will not do any longer. A self-regulating global economy is a contradiction in terms.
Which means then that the onus clearly is on the consumer to a) support organizations and initiatives that advocate for and implement structures that generate economic justice and b) demand accountability in the marketplace.
So that got me thinking: What does it mean to be a consumer in the way of Jesus? Clearly we cannot avoid being consumers. But is there a way to be a consumer in a way that promotes shalom rather than mitigating it?
And to that end, is it under-defining "simplicity" when we think of it solely in terms of frugality?
Do I (can I) accurately and faithfully embody the message of Jesus with my spending habits? And how?
What do you think?
Go here for more information on the issue.
