No, don't believe this. The world is a very complex place, and what makes for a good story is often very different from what reality is.
When American journalists write about the world, they write as if the world is America. Stories are broken down into us vs them, people become black and white, some people are assigned the label 'good' and some the label 'bad'. Everything gets americanised, even the american obsession with skin colour or racial differences works itself into every conflict that is reported on.
Whatever the real story in mauritania is, it's made of centuries and centuries of history, a land caught between the arabs and the africans, a culture that has lasted hundreds of year.
This cannot be captured in a short article on CNN that reduces it all to the archetypal american "black people enslaved by people who are not us". After reading this article, you still know nothing about Mauritania. You have no understand of the complexities of their society. All you have is this single story, this opinion piece by a single author.
Your knowledge is second hand and it's second rate. You do yourself, Mauritania and history a great disservice if you read the article and believe it. A single story should only ever be something that invites you to discover the real history of a place and people (http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_...)
When you read an article like this about Mauritania, don't read it. Realise that it's like overhearing a conversation between two strangers. You lack context, you lack understanding.
That's why you should not believe this story. It's a single story about a place you know nothing about.
While I think it's reasonable to ask reader to consider secondary sources, you have offered neither actual evidence that the article contains falsehoods or "Americanized opinions" nor alternative sources that contradict this article.
I would argue that it is an equal disservice to brush aside issues in foreign countries as being the result of "centuries and centuries of history" or cultural complexities. Based on your rationale, I should not believe anything I read about any place I am not intimately familiar with because I "lack context" about it.
Ok, that's fine if you're talking about the opinions in the article, but if want to refute the items presented as facts in the story, you need to back it up with facts yourself. Otherwise I would just as easily not believe you.
And that's the correct attitude. I don't say anything refuting the points in the article. I'm not against the article either. I'm pointing out that a single story does not describe a phenomena accurately.
But everyone is jumping on my comment as if I said that anything in the article is wrong.
But then did not proceed to do so, but instead explained how lack of context in articles generally make them difficult for people to understand. People react too fast before understanding, like most people did on my comment.
The video is better. It points out that there's a continuum. I couldn't help but think of tenant farmers or sharecroppers. Tenant farmers could be free, or bonded to the land. There was a continuum from wealthy tenants (who hired workers) to serfs to slaves. It seems that a lot of Mauritania sits all over that continuum.
Most of the problem could simply be that they don't have anywhere else to go. But it's a little spooky that their government seems to be in cahoots with the slave owning classes.
On the other hand - look what happened to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) when the land owners were disenfranchised, and their farms given to cronies of the new government - the whole place fell into a famine because the new "masters" couldn't farm.
There's no surefire way (to my knowledge) to reconstruct a country which has just come out of slavery. My gut reaction would be incrementalism - find ways of punishing the worst offenders so the bad (but not terrible) land/slave owners don't feel threatened. Then slowly start moving up the chain - punish physical abuse, then ensure freedom of movement, then look at land redistribution and better political representation. At no stage should a large portion of the population (i.e. every land / slave owner) feel threatened, just a small fraction of them.
You'd make a false distinction between "landlords" and "slavers". First you go for the people who murder their slaves, and the "landlords" won't resist because they don't murder their slaves. Then you go for the ones who beat their slaves, then the ones who restrict movement, then the ones who don't pay wages ...
I see you repeating again and again and not providing any background information and facts. What's exactly your problem with the article. Have you found any errors or biased stuff? If so, please highlight it for us.
I get the strange feeling that you have a problem with the article because it shows that not only white people are able to enslave other human beings. Maybe you should have a look at the history of slavery in islam.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. If you read my comment, you'll see I'm not talking about the content of the article or saying slavery does not exist.
It's difficult to tell people "think before you decide" when the people instantly assume that I am saying something that is attacking them and immediately start aggressively defending their opinion.
I think the problem is the rabbit hole of self-delusion.
1. This is bad, and we all agree.
2. Something should be done about it.
3. Old white people (Republicrats and Democricuns) should do something about it.
4. That "something" can and may be violence, intimidation, economic sabotage, ...
5. Oversight is provided by the same people planning and execute such measures in 4.
6. Somehow, all "we" are doing is for the greater good, all "they" are doing is wrong and backwards.
7. If you disagree with 6, you hate apple pie and mom.
8. WTF ??
Actually, I do know about Mauritania. I've been there. I've seen the cities and the desert. I've travelled thousands of kilometres in the desert, slept in the desert. It is an open secret that slavery exists there on a wide scale.
And why do you assume that I am saying it does not exist? If you are widely traveled then you will understand the difference between articles and reality.
Ask yourself: is the relationship between Moulkheir Mint Yarba and her master typical of Mauritanian slavery? Or is it very atypical and unusual? Or in between?
I'll bet you have no idea. But if you knew - wouldn't that change the way you react to this reality? (Assuming it is a reality. Mike Daisey's reality sure wasn't.)
I have no idea, either, because Mauritania is a foreign country to me. I'm happy to let it remain so. I have enormous doubts that American social engineers can improve it from afar with pallets of dollars, or drone strikes, or whatever we're using these days. (We might improve our own country first, although it's admittedly harder because we can't use drone strikes...)
When American journalists write about the world, they write as if the world is America. Stories are broken down into us vs them, people become black and white, some people are assigned the label 'good' and some the label 'bad'. Everything gets americanised, even the american obsession with skin colour or racial differences works itself into every conflict that is reported on.
Whatever the real story in mauritania is, it's made of centuries and centuries of history, a land caught between the arabs and the africans, a culture that has lasted hundreds of year.
This cannot be captured in a short article on CNN that reduces it all to the archetypal american "black people enslaved by people who are not us". After reading this article, you still know nothing about Mauritania. You have no understand of the complexities of their society. All you have is this single story, this opinion piece by a single author.
Your knowledge is second hand and it's second rate. You do yourself, Mauritania and history a great disservice if you read the article and believe it. A single story should only ever be something that invites you to discover the real history of a place and people (http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_...)
When you read an article like this about Mauritania, don't read it. Realise that it's like overhearing a conversation between two strangers. You lack context, you lack understanding.
That's why you should not believe this story. It's a single story about a place you know nothing about.