Is it true that black slavery still exists in Africa and some Arab countries?

Answer 1

Slavery exist in this country also and still exist in most country's in the world.
Most folks turn a blind eye to the sex trade around them .it is estimated over a million of our children in the USA are in forced sex trade.

and to answer your question Yes slavery still exists in Africa. on a large scale.

Answer 2

I heard that slavery still exists in Africa. I'm not sure why they are allowing that because they knew what blacks had to go through in America. If you ask me I'm glad I don't live in Africa. They have a lot of things they do in their cultures that I don't agree with. Like for instance, some tribes believe in performing circumcision on girls. Its awful...

I'm not sure about slavery in Arab countries. I just wish it didn't exist anywhere.

Answer 3

Slavery still exists in some countries and not only black.

Answer 4

What you refer to is human trafficking and it occurs all over the world from Asia To Europe. And the reason it still goes on is that the poor have always been taken advantage off by those with power( be it political or a gun).

Answer 5

DO NOT LET THE MEDIA misled you. I AM FROM AFRICA. Let me UPDATE YOU. In Africa, it is not SLAVERY, it is a child soldiers. They upduct children to be used to fight in wars in their countries. They do not enslave them, use them in farms, rape them and hanged them when they done with them.

Answer 6

darlin arab countries r the first who stopped the slavery

Answer 7

in remote areas; yes. in less remote areas they pay the servants but treat them like slaves.
its only in some remote areas. any place where modern laws cannot be enforced and morality as we see it is absent, it can and often does happen, not just in arabia or africa. they just have more wars and deserts.

Answer 8

I think yes, in some parts...

Answer 9

“We must address the immediate crisis in Darfur, while aggressively nailing down the broader north-south peace agreement. The Bush administration… must not be blown off course either by maneuvers of the north-south parties or by those demanding a sudden shift toward an anti-Khartoum campaign over Darfur. Darfur is another unforgivable scar on Khartoum s record, but such crises will end only when there is a durable structure for peace. The answer is sustained action… to set up a ceasefire commission, preposition vitally needed resources and deploy monitoring teams with observers to bring Darfur’s humanitarian crisis under control.” —Dr. Chester Crocker, a former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs

The Bush administration’s current policy of engaging the armed rebels in Darfur, while imposing strict sanctions against Khartoum, is the antithesis of Mr. Crocker’s recommendations and is intended not so much to alleviate the suffering of hundreds of thousands of victims of the civil war in Darfur as it is to destabilize the Sudanese government.

This conforms to the general tenor of Washington’s policies toward Africa since the 1994 ending of the apartheid era in South Africa. It is a policy that positions the U.S. in a dominant role to exploit the continent for its natural resource riches, especially its vast amount of oil.

In a little publicized speech earlier this year to the conservative think tank Freedom House, President George Bush had this to say when asked about U.S. efforts to end the unfolding tragedy in Darfur: “We [himself and Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo] talked about the need for a parallel track [a parallel track to the fighting in Darfur], a peace process that needs to go forward, that there needs to be unity amongst the rebel groups,” he said.

This seems a strange means by which to achieve peace in Darfur, creating unity between the rebel organizations and isolating the national government. A more fair and realistic approach would be to engage both the government and rebels to negotiate solutions to common grievances.

Instead, barely two weeks after Andrew Natsios resumed his former post as the presidents’ special envoy to the Sudan, the formerly disparate militias in Darfur proclaimed unity and said they will settle for nothing less than regional autonomy.

This new demand, especially when advanced in the wake of renewed fighting, is not designed to placate the Islamic government of Omar Al-Bashir. Quite the opposite—it guarantees fighting, not only will continue for the time being, but will intensify.

If U.S. policies toward Darfur seem contradictory, consider those toward southern Sudan advanced by Washington and role of Uganda.

For all intents and purposes, Uganda today has been converted into a virtual large aircraft carrier from which all types of military and “humanitarian” missions are launched into central and eastern Africa. In addition to Entebbe air base, which is now one of the best equipped and supplied on the African continent, several other military installations exist in Uganda that house Special Forces units and other U.S. Army personnel.

In Uganda during the 1990s, the U.S. trained and armed the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) that destabilized the Juvenal Habyarimana government. Further, it has been widely reported that the RPF used U.S. supplied missiles to shoot down the president’s airliner, an act that led to the genocidal killings in Rwanda.

It was later reported in the international press that U.S. troops accompanied the Rwandan forces that later invaded Congo on three separate occasions and aided in the march across the Congo by the rebels of Laurent Kabila in his 1997 overthrow of then Zairian president Mobutu Sese Sekou. All these actions were organized and coordinated in Uganda, claim numerous observers.

In relationship to Uganda ’s northern neighbor, the Sudan, Yoweri Museveni has been no less forthcoming in support of U.S. policy and designs. Since Pres. Museveni’s rise to political power in Uganda in 1986, the country has served as a principle staging area for logistical and humanitarian support for the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and Operation Lifeline Sudan, the UN’s humanitarian relief efforts to the people of southern Sudan.

In a revealing statement made during a banquet in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, Pres. Museveni admitted his government had actively supported theSudan People’s Liberation Movement, a longtime U.S. client organization, in its fight against the Sudan government.

Furthermore he also visited and met with members of the autonomous Southern Sudan government in Juba, Sudan, without notifying the national government in Khartoum. Sudanese national leaders denounced this act as a deliberate provocation, saying: “We are still one country.”

While Pres. Museveni has his own agenda to pursue in terms of encouraging an independent southern Sudan, the U.S. is doing no less. According to officials from the State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID), southern Sudan is now, next to Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington’s largest development projects in the world, with billions of dollars earmarked for the construction of roads, administration buildings, houses and hospitals.

Chester Crocker (whose quote appears at the top of this essay) played a negative role as an assistant secretary of state during the Angola peace negotiations in the late 1980s; and he is another former special envoy to Sudan. However, he agreed to take the assignment only if then-secretary of state Colin Powell promised to shield him from the evangelical right wing that was then, as it is now, framing the discussions on Darfur.

Today, however, Washington ’s foreign policy has been blown so far off course by those with good intentions and those who promote U.S. imperial domination in Africa, it is difficult to foresee a peaceful resolution to the difficulties either in western or southern Sudan.

(Jean Damu is the head of the Los Anegeles chapter of N’COBRA.)

Answer 10

yeah