Historicising anti-slavery – Decolonising anti-trafficking?
Tuesday, 30 May 2pm-4pm
Durham University Geography Department, Room 414
Prof. Kamala Kempadoo, York University
Prof. David Lambert, University of Warwick
With responses from: Sydney Calkin, Geography; Richard Huzzey, History; Divya Tolia-Kelly, Geography
Over the last two decades, anti-trafficking – often described as an effort to combat ‘modern day slavery’ – has become ubiquitous. Questions have been raised about whether the significant resources dedicated to this issue have achieved any results, or whether these results have done more harm than good. These critiques remain salient as Target 8.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals proposes to ‘eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking.’ Building on these critiques, the seminar responds to facile framings of contemporary ‘abolitionism’ as echoing earlier crusades against Trans-Atlantic slavery. Critical reflections on the geographical and historical dimensions of anti-slavery and anti-trafficking will be offered. We ask: is it possible to decolonise anti-trafficking?
Sponsored by Durham University’s International Office and the Geography Department’s Culture-Economy-Life research cluster
Please RSVP to: email@example.com
By Prof. Kamala Kempadoo: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23322705.2015.1006120
By Prof. David Lambert: https://ejournals.unm.edu/index.php/historicalgeography/article/viewFile/2852/2330
Labour is in turmoil over Brexit just as the Stoke Central and Copeland by-elections hove into view. As Steve Richards has pointed out, Labour has always been split on Europe – but more nimble leaders and the basis of a stronger Labour movement saw us through. This time it’s totally different. Whatever your views on Jeremy Corbyn, he is no master of internal party management or parliamentary tactics. But even if we could conjure up a Wilson or an Attlee now, it is doubtful how any leader could paper over the cracks of such a political, cultural and emotional divide between Brexit and Remainers that now runs through the PLP, the party and the country. In the heat of the crisis you can see why the leadership is insisting, for now, on a three line whip on article 50. Labour, they feel, can’t be seen to be blocking Brexit ahead of Stoke and Copeland. The loss of one seat would be a disaster; the loss of both catastrophic. In their crisis the only thing that matters is surviving the day.
Fully-funded places for doctoral research in human geography at Durham University are available through NINE DTP (Northern Ireland and North-East Doctoral Training Partnership). Entry is competitive and well-qualified eligible students are strongly encouraged to apply. Full information is available here.
Why it is probably xenophobic to be concerned about the impact of migration on public services and the housing and labour markets.
Net migration figures have been the focus of much of what passed for ‘debate’ in the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, and public concern about them, fanned mendaciously by the media, has clearly contributed to the result. The UK’s population is currently approximately 65 million. In the period between 2010 and 2015 it grew by an average of 0.63% per year. That places it about half-way down the league table of population change among wealthy countries (see below). In other words, population change in the UK is not out of kilter with other so-called advanced economies. Norway, Switzerland and Singapore, which have been touted by some on the Leave side as models for a post-Brexit UK have higher rates of population growth than Britain.
Population change comprises net migration and the change due to births and deaths in the existing population. The balance between these components varies each year. In the year to mid-2014 net migration contributed 53% and births and deaths contributed 46% to population growth.
Now imagine a situation in which net migration to the UK is zero, but population growth is still 0.63% per year because of births and deaths. Over time, that would mean similar implications for public services, housing, labour supply etc. (In the short term the mix of implications would be different because of age differences.)
What, I wonder, would those who have been claiming the country can’t cope with current levels of net migration say in those circumstances? Would they argue for compulsory contraception? Transportation of the ‘excess’ population to countries with falling populations? Would the government consider introducing a China-style one child policy? Worse?
Presumably not (though the recent level of political debate in the UK makes anything seem possible). And if not, then surely it is evident that the concerns expressed about pressures on public services, housing, jobs and so on are not only because there are more people, but because some of the people are from elsewhere – in other words they are, by definition, xenophobic.
It is not xenophobic to be concerned about the social and economic impact of population growth, provided you hold those concerns regardless of the source of the change. If you are only concerned about the element of population growth that is due to net migration, then you’re probably xenophobic.
The impact of population change on public services and the labour market must be addressed, but the roots causes are austerity policies, funding cuts, a dysfunctional housing market and exploitative employment practices, not migration.
Twenty-four wealthiest countries by per capita GDP (measured at PPP) for 2011-2014, ranked according to their average annual population growth rates 2010-2015. List excludes petroleum economies and off-shore tax havens. Sources: World Bank (GDP); United Nations (population).
United States 0.75%
New Zealand 0.72%
United Kingdom 0.63%
South Korea 0.48%
I couldn’t agree more!
Mary Beard: ‘The role of the academic is to make everything less simple’
Demos Editor Louis Klee reviews Judith Butler’s latest book, Notes Towards a Performative Theory of Assembly, examining its engagement with democracy
I am delighted to be a leading a new three-year, ESRC-funded research project on the Urban Politics and Governance of Social Innovation in Austerity, nicknamed PUrSI (which stands for Politics of Urban Social Innovation). Research will focus on social innovation in European cities in relation to generating resources through alternative finance, harnessing social energy through grassroots mobilisation and meeting needs through community provision. We will investigate these in Athens (Greece), Berlin (Germany) and Newcastle upon Tyne (UK). The project is based in the Geography Department at Durham University and the research team comprises Paul Langley, Sue Lewis, Colin McFarlane, Antonis Vradis and myself. Further details are available on the PUrSI website.
The average British person is consuming fewer things. Not buying stuff we don’t need means we can work less and have more time – what’s not to like?