Talk:Debt bondage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No mention of Student Loans?[edit]

Why no mention of Student Loans in this article? They appear to conform to the definitions given of debt bondage here, given that the debt cannot be discharged and can be passed on to one's children, who may also be enslave by the loan.Kingshowman (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)KingShowman

This has continued to go up and down, for many years, without a single source or citation. It does NOT fit the body of work here and is a ridiculous addition that continues to be removed and added without sourcing, citation or even rationality. Comments such as the debt being passed to children are false entirely. Until someone comes with a real WP standard source for this, it should not be added and continuing to do so constitutes vandalism. Seola (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Africa?[edit]

Debt bondage has existed in Africa for as long as anywhere else. It was the existing debt bondage system amongst Africans that Europeans tapped into in the cross-Atlantic trade. Is this some sort of PC revisionism to pretend that Europeans started the slave trade in Africa? Because that is patently untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotations and early TalkPage discussion[edit]

A person enters debt bondage when their labour is demanded as a means of repayment of a loan, or of money given in advance. Usually, people are tricked or trapped into working for no pay or very little pay (in return for such a loan), in conditions which violate their human rights. Invariably, the value of the work done by a bonded labourer is greater that the original sum of money borrowed or advanced.

Debt bondage is a form of enslavement which is both ancient and modern. On the Indian sub-continent it took root in the caste system, and flourished in feudal agricultural relationships. Following the abolition of slavery, debt bondage was used as a method of colonial labour recruitment for the supply of labour to plantations in Africa, the Caribbean and South-East Asia. Today, debt bondage is expanding through a combination of mass migration from poverty and the global demand for sources of cheap, expendable domestic labour, and cheap sexual gratification.

Bonding people through debt is one of many ways in which people are enslaved. Bonded labourers are routinely threatened with (and subjected to) physical violence, and are kept under various forms of surveillance, in some cases by armed guards. There are very few cases where chains are actually used (there have been recent reports in Pakistan), but the constraints on the people concerned are every bit as real and as restricting. [1]

I removed the section on Student Loans. To put SL's in the same category as some of these other situations where death, imprisonment, and severe physical harm to yourself or your family is possible is incredibly stupid. This was originally submitted by an anonymous author [I'm guessing a former Communications major now working a menial fast-food job.] -- clintp 02-09-2005

Remove this

While 21st century Western Civilization has no remaining formal feudal structures, some have argued that the practice has merely evolved into wage slavery, an employment relationship wherein the employer deducts from the worker's pay a battery of fees for mandatory employer services, such as required on-site room and board, that are deliberately designed to exceed, or at least financially hobble, the worker's paycheck.

Most states in the United States make it illegal for an employer to deduct expenses from a paycheck without informing the worker up front about the deductions, and I really don't see how this could evolve into debt bondage without violating minimum wage laws.

My impression is that "peon" has much, much broader definition/usage in Latin America and while it may be accurate to equate "peonage" in US usage with debt bondage, I don't think there should be automatic re-directs from peon & peonage to this page. Grant65 (Talk) 02:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've come to expect this kind of extremism from this place, but is that last paragraph about student loans really necessary? Sure, the person has the debt until it's paid off, but no-one's forcing them to work or pay it off... --Felix the Cassowary 04:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So no one has to pay back their student loans?! If they don't, it's ok & nothing will happen to them, no one will come after them to collect?! I'll have to tell everyone I know that has student loans they don't have to pay them back! If debt bondage is slavery & is "prohibited by international law" why is it legal in US & worldwide? Because it would destroy CAPITALIST WAGE SLAVERY which is slavery too? USA should admit we never did anything right yet. Sundiiiaaa 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxist analysis[edit]

While it's nice to know what Marx thinks about the subject, perhaps it should be balanced by some views from the other side of the philosophical spectrum. Aplomado 07:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Try signing your snide comments, Aplomado. Based on this and your (similarly abusive) comments at talk:unfree labour and talk:truck system, I have a question for you: can you, personally, conceive of any form of labour, short of actual forced/slave labour which is exploitative? Grant65 | Talk 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally did not sign this comment. I am new to the "signing comments" thing so I think it is forgiveable that I forgot. I have fixed my error per your request.
No I don't think labor that is not forced is exploitative. Nor do most free market advocates. If you mutually agree on a wage, you aren't being exploited by definition. To people like you, a wage below the minimum wage would be exploitative. But then again, if the government were to enforece a higher minimum wage than your market value, you would be out of a job. The government would then say to you, "Sure, you have no job, but hey at least you aren't being exploited!" Aplomado 07:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I accept that you are new to this. But Wikipedia ethos asks that we assume good faith among other editors. Try as we might, we all reflect to some degree our personal biases when writing/editing articles, and accusing people of pushing a particular ideology or theory is not productive.
You misunderstand my views on exploitative wage levels, which are not about a minimum wage, which is something set by a state; my point is about wages which are below the level of subsistence. This is almost non-existent in developed countries, but it has and does occur in developing countries and/or other historical contexts.Grant65 | Talk 07:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear as to what the point of this discussion is here? Are people asking for a non-Marxist analysis? Are we trying to hammer down what kind of labor is exploitation? It would seem to me that we may be able to agree on the following: A. The company store scenario is exploitation (you are working to pay off a debt, but the loaner has the capability to make it infeasible for you to ever do so). B. Marx essentially extends to concept to saying that the whole political-economic system is "the company." I mean, one can take or leave this viewpoint but it is a view. I am not familiar with a lot of well known alternative economic perspectives on debt bondage, so I am not exactly sure what the counterpoint is. Probably the counterpoint that considering the whole system to be as complicit as a single agent is unsupportable? In any event, that would still fall under the same line of discourse since it is a response to Marx rather than a unique view of the debt bondage system I think. So what is the other school of thought on debt bondage? Benjamid (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a citation needed in the end of the Marxist Analysis section that I don't think needs to be there. Isn't that just kind of common knowledge? ObiBinks (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement at the end of the "Marxist" Analysis section of the article is an unfounded and frankly slanted assertion. Needs to be rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And it was all slavery & never should have been legal, so why do we let it continue today in 2006-7? It is slavery, & the wage is also slavery. It's slavery to build things far apart forcing every person to need a car. People need a car to get a job, but they need a job to get a car. Can't we admit our ignorance & make debt & renting & the wage system illegal because it is slavery? Ending it will end world poverty quickly, & that's what we should want to do, instead of worry about "who will do the work". Millions of children (11M) die every year because the US won't end our wage slave system, which is global because all nations are interconnected, which apparently few people knew, until now. Now it's obvious because there's no more free land, & too many cars, too much death & too much pollution, & no place to park, & freeways are parking lots. USA should end the wage & work part-time building 100-story live/work/play Tower cities connected to Trains, to save lives, save the earth, & eliminate the work slavery. I just want to end world poverty, & I know the wage is the cause. Sundiiiaaa 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indentured service isn't always slavery[edit]

This article equated all indentured service with forced labor. While the mechanism can be abused, using methods mentioned in the text, I don't think it is automatically equivalent to slavery. Historically, people did perform bonded labor voluntarily, fulfill the terms of the bond, and then work freely for themselves afterwards. Whether or not the system is abused more frequently in modern times to disguise actual slavery is a different issue, about which I have no expertise, but presuming all indentured service is slave labor is not balanced. I think it cheapens actual slavery and distorts the motive and behavior of past individuals. I changed the article as best I could to remove that implication.

StephenMacmanus 01:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is slavery. People must read the definitions of slavery & really think about it. Millions of people have to work jobs (McDonalds, Wal-Mart, dirty jobs, dangerous jobs etc) which they hate but if they dont they will starve, so it's forced labor. All debt is slavery, so it actually shouldn't be legal, & it's all we're taught (ads). It is, because few people ever said it's slavery & shouldn't be legal, so that's why it's legal. The Supreme Court says the wage isn't slavery but it is. Supreme Court says debt isn't slavery but it is. Supreme Court says corporations are legal but they're slave plantations so they should not be legal. The wage system is the cause of world poverty, so once we just SAY it's all slavery then we can pass laws that will make it illegal. The wage is slavery & should be illegal. (I have not edited any of the formal topics; I just want to talk in the talk section, for now, until we can agree to change it to help end the wage to end world poverty. Please email me if you want to talk about this: Sundiiiaaa 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are the best websites I've found about child slavery (or labor). Do you want to add them to the article? And another: Sundiiiaaa 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You're both right in a way. The generic term unfree labor is used by scholars for both slavery and indenture, as well as other froms of labor that are not free, waged employment. Grant65 | Talk 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you all saying that "unfree labor" is not slavery??? Just by changing the words makes it not "real slavery"?? So that's why USA is causing world poverty to this day! Talk about a subtle way to kill millions of innocent children! Sundiiiaaa 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since debt slavery is slavery (that's why it's called debt slavery) & wage slavery is slavery (that's why it's called wage slavery), that means we have to change all words in this encyclopedia regarding slavery & the wage, etc, from past tense ("slavery was...") to present tense ("slavery is..."), right? Yes. I'll gladly help do that. Just tell me when I can start. There are so many articles, it will take a long time to set the record straight. Sundiiiaaa 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery is just one of many forms of unfree labour, put it that way. "Wage slavery" is a controversial term, since many people feel uncomfortable likening slaves to present-day wage earners. Grant | Talk 09:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But it IS slavery, my dear. All work is slavery, & we can eliminate all/most work with automation, which will destroy the capitalist wage slave system, which is slavery. And that will also end world poverty. USA built everything wrong (cars, houses & small buildings). We should have eliminated all work by building beautiful 100-story live/work/play Tower cities connected to maglev Trains, but capitalism stopped us from doing that & is still causing world poverty. Truth is Truth, so let people feel uncomfortable calling wage earners slaves because that's what they are: slaves. No one is free until every person on earth has a Guaranteed Income RFID, so that food & medicine & building T&T will be free. The RFID will eliminate the evil 'Big Brother'. Sundiiiaaa 18:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I don't normally do this, but I am literally shocked that someone has not responded to how ridiculous your claims are, Sundiiiaaa. All work is slavery? Really? Unless you're taking a philosophical view of the physical body as a form of indentured constraint, that is just a backwards view. Yes, we are slaves to our anatomical functions if we wish to survive. Regardless of what you may think, we would not survive without work. Somebody has to procure food. Somebody has to transport food. Somebody has to well water, somebody has to clean water, somebody has to remove waste water. Does it suck to have to remove garbage and waste? Yes. But unless we all want to stop our working ways and wallow in our own feces, we're pretty much stuck.
You secondly state that all wages are slavery. The wage system is not perfect. Much like democracy, it tends to degenerate into greedy, short sighted outcomes. I am the first to admit that. Also, if a single party can control both the wages and the cost of living, they have a tyrannical level of power. But the wage system, ultimately, is based upon demand and supply. And you know what demand and supply ultimately means, in an ideal distribution framework? People giving to other people. Imagine there was no incentive in choosing a career that benefited anyone else. Just imagine that concept. Think on it. Surely, there will be a good number of people who will still work along valiantly for the benefit of others. Do you think there would be enough though? Assume you could earn the same amount of money for trying to be a major league baseball player versus repairing the sewer system. Do you know anyone who wants to work in the sewers? Do you know how much a garbage collector makes? Quite a bit. And if some of them had other skills, they'd probably rather use those. Why do they do it? For the wage. The advantage to slogging knee deep in sewage versus staying home filling out surveys at subsistence level is the wage difference. So you're proposing a great world filled with huge skyscrapers and maglev's, but no one to build them because they'd all rather major in Esperanto. I hope you realize that. If we didn't have wages, or a comparable incentive system, how would those things get built? Chattel slavery? Like the pyramids? Everyone wants to design the pyramids, nobody wants to move the rocks. There are plenty of causes to world poverty and there are systemic drawbacks to certain market systems but the reason why a wage works is the same reason why an auction works- the wage for a service generally reaches a level between demand (how much people want that service) and supply (people with the skills to provide that service).
The reason why wages are not slavery is that it is not imposed by a person. It is imposed by the needs and wants of the many. The only breaks you are talking about in the system is where the wants of the powerful are weighed higher than the needs of the disenfranchised. Wage earning is not slavery. It's not that people are uncomfortable about saying it. It's that it's flat out incorrect. In the vast majority of cases, a person earning a wage has the following opportunities: 1. To seek employment in a career options, with different pros and cons. 2. To pursue additional skills which will increase their career options. 3. To attempt entrepreneurship, finding a new use for their skills. 4. To receive goods, services, or proxies for such in return. 5. The ability to quit, with no direct repercussions beyond the economic repercussions. A slave is not assured any of these. A person who is in debt bondage will be missing most of these. A person who is a wage earner, even living at subsistence, has all of these. Benjamid (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Olivia de Havilland successfully used an appeal to California's anti-peonage law to break her movie studio contract, which onerously imposed one-sided conditions such as arbitrary extensions, etc. Movie stars as peons? Apparently, technically, yes! Rhinoracer 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

citation for peonage in the first paragraph[edit]

Added POV tag[edit]

Basically, see my comments above regarding indentured servants.

The practice of paying debts with labor, by various names is centuries old, with wide variations in practice.

The current article is skewed both in the time frame and content. It is limited to a modern viewpoint only, starting with a UN definition from 1956, and it defines this entire topic as inherently equivalent to slavery.

An encyclopedia article requires a broader perspective to accurately portray the nature of this system, which varied depending on the place and time.

This article is more of a polemic "all debt bondage is bad!" message, which is overly simplistic at best.

StephenMacmanus (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the addition of the POV tag. This article, as it exists in Aug-2009, has a very strong polemical ring to it and it should really be made more just-plain-descriptive with the more extreme claims and counterclaims placed in a Controversy section or something. A broader perspective as to place and time with respect to debt bondage will be a good approach to strenghthening the article. N2e (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rich and the Super-Rich[edit]

This passage uses circular reasoning to assert its point -- "Most Americans... own nothing more than their household goods." So, if you ignore what people own, then they don't own anything??
In my opinion, this whole "Marxism by the back door" approach, however prevalent a perspective it is with some sociology textbooks, would distort this article beyond recognition, if it were followed. Equating any and all wage-earners as essentially identical to slaves, just because some people somewhere have even more money, just cheapens and diminishes the actual practice of slavery. When left to their own devices, some people will always have more than others, but that difference doesn't automatically mean injustice exists. I think Thomas Jefferson's quote, though about religion, also applies here. Even though someone earns more money than I do, that fact alone "does not pick my pocket or break by leg and therefore it's no harm to me." StephenMacmanus (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
One percent of the world owns thirty three percent of the entire world's wealth. Now, they maintain this though usury, arms dealing, and other shady means. The global banking cartel and the like. Now, if not slaves, we're serfs. It just depends on semantics now, as we're becoming more and more of them every day. Even you, you class traitor. Unless you're one of the 1%. Then I just despise you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

POV categories[edit]

Category:Child labour and Category:Commercial crimes are added in this article. These are POV categories inappropriate in this article. --Defender of torch (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

India's Dalits?[edit]

"According to some claims, 40 million people in India, most of them Dalits, are bonded workers, many working to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago. However, these claims are certainly not true as slavery or any sort of bonded labor is illegal in India and exist only in extremely remote areas only where education has not yet reached." Shouldn't this have some sort of citations? If there's a controversy, I would probably want to see a solid citation stating each. Otherwise I feel this section is just a dual POV statement. Some people state this, some people state that. Who? I can see this equally being a weasel-approach to stating that there are 40 million indentured or almost nobody indentured in India. Benjamid (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed[edit]

Please be sure that all additions to the Debt bondage are are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

I have removed a good deal of the unsourced material that had been previously tagged {{citation needed}} for at least a couple of months with no sources added. (More removal of unsourced claims are needed). If you have a source, please feel free to add the material back in, along with the citation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal Definition[edit]

Is there actually a legal definition of debt bondage? What is given is a confused lay definition.

"Debt bondage is classically defined as a situation when a person provides a loan to another and uses his or her labor or services to repay the debt; when the value of the work, as reasonably assessed, is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt, the situation becomes one of debt bondage" is a contradiction.

Is there a non-classical definition.

Labour is intended to repay a debt - it is not necesarily pledged in return for a loan, and fact more often labour is pledged when a debt already exists and cannot be repaid by other means.

As for the "where the value of the work, as reasonably assessed, is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt". That is simply wrong. The work IS applied towards the liquidation of the debt (satisfaction, or repayment, would be better words to use). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Debt bondage is Not in US?[edit]

Please explain why debt bondage is "mostly in Asia"? Why not in America? What happens to debts of American parents & their children when the parents die in a fiery car crash, or something, what happens to that debt for their house, etc? Is it sold & the children get the money or house free? I doubt it. Does the bank take the house from the children & resell it, not giving any of the money to the children? Or do the children have to inherit the debt like it is "in Asia"? Pepper9798 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This page really isn't about whether American children inherit debt. The only question for this entry is whether people in such situations would enter into debt bondage, and they certainly don't. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are over 30 States in the US that require the children to pay the costs of a parent's medical bills, or nursing, upon death. This can happen even if you have no contact with your parent. It is called filial responsibility. You are incorrect that there is no inheritance of debt in the USA. (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of Debt Bondage Currently in South Asia[edit]

Hi everyone, I would like to add a new section to this article outlining current debt bondage practices in South Asia. In the introduction, the article states that currently debt bondage is still heavily practiced in South Asia, however, the “Current status” section only mentions efforts by the United Nations to describe this issue and a few sentences on measures organizations in India are taking to combat bonded labor. I hope to add a new section on current debt bondage in South Asia as it is most prevalent in this region of the world. Under this section, I would add subheadings highlighting this issue in specific countries in South Asia like Pakistan. Sa49 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography for expected changes[edit]

Hi everyone, I have created an annotated bibliography for my pending changes to this article. Please read over it and any advice is much appreciated. The references are arranged in order by sections and sub-sections I hope to add. Thanks! References by section for "Debt Bondage" article revisions

“Overview” section

Androff, D.K., 2011. "The problem of contemporary slavery: An international human rights challenge for social work." International Social

Work 54, no. 2: 209-222. Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

This article highlights how debt bondage fits within the context of contemporary slavery. It especially places modern practice of debt bondage within a modern framework.

Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar, Maria Cecilia Hwang, and Heather Ruth Lee. 2012. "What Is human trafficking? A review essay." Signs 37, no.

4: 1015-1029. PsycINFO, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

This review essay seeks to describe the defining factors of human trafficking and in doing so, makes key differences between terms like debt bondage and human trafficking.

"What Is Modern Slavery?" U.S. Department of State. Accessed September 20, 2016.

Like the last article, this information page from the U.S. government outlines the various terms that are under the umbrella of modern slavery like child sex trafficking and forced labor.

“Africa” and "Asia" sub-sections under “History” section

Campbell, Gwyn1, and Edward A. Alpers. 2004. "Introduction: Slavery, forced labour and resistance in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia ." Slavery & Abolition 25, no. 2: ix-xxvii. Humanities Source, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

The history of how forced labor developed in Africa and Asia is discussed in this article. The article contains nuanced differences between these two regions.

Wilks, I. "Pawnship in Africa. Debt bondage in historical perspective." African Economic History no. 26 (1998): 202-205. Arts & Humanities Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

The particular practice of pawnship in Africa is discussed extensively in this article. This article makes this a critical point when addressing Africa's history in particular with debt bondage.

“Asia” sub-section under “Modern practice” section

A., Ercelawn, and Nauman M. 2004. "Unfree Labour in South Asia: Debt Bondage at Brick Kilns in Pakistan." Economic and Political Weekly, 2004. 2235. JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

In highlighting a specific case of debt bondage through brick kilns in Pakistan, this article brings into perspective a real example of modern practice.

Giri, Birendra Raj. 2010. "Bonded Labor Practice in Nepal: The Promise of Education as a Magnet of Child Bondedness.” South Asia Research 30, no. 2: 145. Supplemental Index, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

This article hones in on current practice in Nepal by factoring in causes for agreement in such labor.

“Africa” sub-section under “Modern practice” section

Austin, Gareth. 2007. "Labour and Land in Ghana, 1874–1939: A Shifting Ratio and an Institutional Revolution.” Australian Economic History Review 47, no. 1: 95-120. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

Ghana in particular is one of the countries in Africa in which extensive research has been done on debt bondage. The "trokosi" system is focused on in this article.

Mark-Thiesen, Cassandra. 2012. "The "Bargain" of Collaboration: African Intermediaries, Indirect Recruitment, and Indigenous Institutions in the Ghanaian Gold Mining Industry, 1900-1906." International Review Of Social History 57, 17-38. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

Like the previous article, this article hones in on a particular industry in the process of establishing bonded labor.

“Revenue” sub-section under “Consequences” section

Howard, M. 2009. "Bakruptcy Bondage." University Of Illinois Law Review no. 1: 191-235. Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

This article focuses more on the continuous cycle that occurs once individuals agree to a loan. It concludes with establishing the benefits for the "employers."

Von Lilienfeld-Toal, Ulf, and Dilip Mookherjee. 2010. "The Political Economy of Debt Bondage." American Economic Journal:

Microeconomics, 2010. 44. JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

More specifically related to revenue than the previous article, this article directly addresses the economic gains of the exploiters in this system of debt bondage.

“Never-ending cycle” sub-section under “Consequences” section

Androff, DK. 2011. "The problem of contemporary slavery: An international human rights challenge for social work." International Social Work 54, no. 2: 209-222. Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

The tricks that employers use to exploit these workers is addressed in this article to portray how these laborers are essentially tied to life. This adds more weight to the argument that debt bondage and slavery are closely related if not one and the same.

Basu, Arnab K., and Nancy H. Chau. 2003. "Targeting Child Labor in Debt Bondage: Evidence, Theory, and Policy Implications." The World Bank Economic Review, 2003. 255. JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

This article emphasizes how even if the laborers die, their bondage is passed to their children. This highlights the reality of the consequences of this practice.

“Policy initiatives” section

Belser, P.2003. "Forced labour nowadays." Pensee no. 336: 55-+. Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed September 20, 2016).

This article is a great review of some specific policies and laws that have come into effect recently to combat this issue.

Carswell, Grace. 2013. "Dalits and local labour markets in rural India: experiences from the Tiruppur textile region in Tamil Nadu." Transactions Of The Institute Of British Geographers 38, no. 2: 325-338. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessedSeptember 20, 2016).

In effort to focus on a specific initiative, Dalit activism is addressed in this article. Dalits are the lowest class and often exploited in India, thus making activism in debt bondage popular towards Dalits in India. ~~ Sa49 (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Sa49, you’ve done an excellent job with this article. The first two sections are especially good, as they are detailed, comprehensive, neutral, and well cited. I am especially impressed with the “usage of term” subsection, which makes clear distinctions between very similar terms. My two biggest suggestions are to include more relevant images and to expand the “modern practice” and “consequences” section. I suggest removing the African map and the Solon bust image, which are not directly related to the subject. Then, I would add more images of people who are in debt bondage. You can expand the “modern practice” section to include more areas of the world than South Asia, and the “consequences” section to include more than economic consequences. Rjpg12 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC) ~

Peer Review[edit]

Hi Sasha, Your article looks great so far! The information is well-represented, easy to follow, and readable for the average Joe to be able to understand. You did a great job with maintaining neutrality throughout the article, and your added Overview section is a great supplement to the article. To further improve your article, I suggest perhaps reorganizing the Modern practice section to better represent the article, as well as adding information about different regions and concepts (either by region or industry in Modern practice, and more categories under Consequences) to make the article more comprehensive and equally representative across different categories. Some further minor changes to consider might also be changing the Map of Africa image, as well as fixing the capitalizations in the section titles. Overall, your article is well constructed and I look forward to following your revisions! Brittany Lai (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The expansions you've made so far have been great! I loved how you continued to maintain a neutral voice and the clear and clean organization/structure of the article. The break-up of each section into countries and industry subsections helps to improve the readability of the article and makes certain information easier to find. Furthermore, the images you included in this round are a great addition to the article-- their relevance helps to add a visual supplement to the article you presented. Overall, I love the progress you have made so far with your article! My main suggestions are to fix the few lengthy/awkward sentences you have in the article (I have pointed out some in the peer review sheet) as well as extending the lead section to include information about your last few sections. Good luck!
Brittany Lai (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2[edit]

Sasha - you've done a lot to improve the article since last time! The images are excellent, and you've really filled out the "modern practice" and "consequences" sections. You have added a lot of relevant, well-cited information to the article. I really only have minor suggestions at this point. There are a few sentences that are awkwardly worded, as well as some phrases that could be worded in a more neutral manner (see my full peer review document). Also, the links are somewhat inconsistent - some countries, like China and Burma, have links, but others, like Germany, do not. In addition, in the “usage of term” subsection, several phrases are linked multiple times, which is unnecessary. These are all very minor issues, though - the bulk of your article looks great! My one content suggestion is to think about whether you want to include a paragraph on the way that American (and other Western) consumers have reacted to issues of debt bondage and poor labour conditions, particularly through boycotts and the "Buy American" movement. Great job overall! Rjpg12 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debt bondage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary from Usury article[edit]

The following was removed from the Usury article as off-topic, but may contain relevant content for incorporating into this article:

Happy editing! Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Bonded Labour Reports". Anti-Slavery. Retrieved 2014-02-24. 
  2. ^ "Swept Under the Rug | Human Rights Watch". 2006-07-28. Retrieved 2014-02-24. 
  3. ^ Kovacevic, Natasa (2009-03-22). "Child Slavery | Harvard International Review". Retrieved 2014-02-24.