If a culture has historically taught that some groups are naturally subservient to others, and this discourse is dominant within the society’s concept of why slavery exists, then the notions of consent and coercion currently deployed within the contemporary slavery policy discourse are irrelevant. If the enslaved believes it is his/her duty and honour to be subservient, and the captor believes it is his/her right to own another human being, it qualifies as this type. Participants of this type rarely attempt to hide their slaver/enslaved relationship. Many people living in socially accepted forms of slavery do not understand that they have internationally-recognised and protected rights of their own if they are enslaved, or they do not feel
…show more content…
The understanding is that in exchange for helping around the house, the child will have opportunities not available to him/her in the countryside; namely, regular meals, education, healthcare, and, once they grow up, jobs. In fact, the term restavec is Creole for “to stay with.” It is important to first note that not all restavecs are enslaved. Many restavecs are welcomed warmly into their new homes and raised in a safe and loving environment. However, the potential for exploitation within this system exists, and has proven to be widespread (Hatloy 2005; Kennedy 2014). Some restavecs are enslaved by the relative or friend with whom they were sent to live. Their movements are restricted, their basic needs are withheld, they are denied access to education, they are forced to perform labour that is dangerous for their age, size, and developmental abilities, and they are verbally, psychologically, physically and/or sexually abused (Kennedy 2014). The relationship between the restavec, the parent who sent him/her to the city, and the caregiver qualifies as a type I enslaver-enslaved relationship because the relationship is deemed acceptable through a combination of entitlement, desperation, lack of awareness, and cultural …show more content…
In Hoffman’s (2012) interviews with restavecs and parents of restavecs, she found that the majority of children were sent to a relative’s household following a divorce or the death of a parent. The placement of the child was primarily facilitated by a female relative (Hoffman 2012). As well, a family with the means to feed and shelter an additional person might request a child; there is the social expectation that to have means and not send for a relative is improper and selfish (G. Addison, personal communication, April 2014). In Kennedy’s interviews with the parents of restavecs who have returned home, the most common problems the parents found with the returnees were that “they are unwelcome by their parents, their parents do not have the economic means to take care of them, and they cannot go to school;” furthermore, “responses also reflected parents’ despair and disappointment when the hope they had placed in the child is dashed by his/her return” (2014). The desire for social mobility for the child is also shared by the child. Kennedy found that the returnees’ most common complaint was that “their parents cannot afford to send them to school” (Kennedy 2014). It is important to note that when children are preparing to become restavecs, the majority do not self-identify
The understanding is that in exchange for helping around the house, the child will have opportunities not available to him/her in the countryside; namely, regular meals, education, healthcare, and, once they grow up, jobs. In fact, the term restavec is Creole for “to stay with.” It is important to first note that not all restavecs are enslaved. Many restavecs are welcomed warmly into their new homes and raised in a safe and loving environment. However, the potential for exploitation within this system exists, and has proven to be widespread (Hatloy 2005; Kennedy 2014). Some restavecs are enslaved by the relative or friend with whom they were sent to live. Their movements are restricted, their basic needs are withheld, they are denied access to education, they are forced to perform labour that is dangerous for their age, size, and developmental abilities, and they are verbally, psychologically, physically and/or sexually abused (Kennedy 2014). The relationship between the restavec, the parent who sent him/her to the city, and the caregiver qualifies as a type I enslaver-enslaved relationship because the relationship is deemed acceptable through a combination of entitlement, desperation, lack of awareness, and cultural …show more content…
In Hoffman’s (2012) interviews with restavecs and parents of restavecs, she found that the majority of children were sent to a relative’s household following a divorce or the death of a parent. The placement of the child was primarily facilitated by a female relative (Hoffman 2012). As well, a family with the means to feed and shelter an additional person might request a child; there is the social expectation that to have means and not send for a relative is improper and selfish (G. Addison, personal communication, April 2014). In Kennedy’s interviews with the parents of restavecs who have returned home, the most common problems the parents found with the returnees were that “they are unwelcome by their parents, their parents do not have the economic means to take care of them, and they cannot go to school;” furthermore, “responses also reflected parents’ despair and disappointment when the hope they had placed in the child is dashed by his/her return” (2014). The desire for social mobility for the child is also shared by the child. Kennedy found that the returnees’ most common complaint was that “their parents cannot afford to send them to school” (Kennedy 2014). It is important to note that when children are preparing to become restavecs, the majority do not self-identify