Up to 40,000 children mine gold in Mali: rights group
BAMAKO — Between 20,000 and 40,000 children work in artisanal gold mines in Mali, Africa’s third-largest producer of the precious metal, Human Rights Watch said in a report Tuesday.
In a statement, HRW said that “children as young as six dig mining shafts, work underground, pull up heavy weights of ore, and carry, crush, and pan ore.”
It also said that many children “work with mercury, a toxic substance, to separate the gold from the ore. Mercury attacks the central nervous system and is particularly harmful to children.”
HRW children’s rights researcher Juliane Kippenberg said children carried loads heavier than their own weight, climbed into unstable shafts, and touched and inhaled mercury, one of the most toxic substances on earth.
Children interviewed complained of regular pain in the back, head, neck, arms or joints, as well as coughing and respiratory diseases.
“One boy about six years old described the pain he felt when digging shafts with a pickaxe for hours on end. Another boy said that ‘everything hurts’ when he comes home after a day?s work underground.”
Many children worked alongside their parents to supplement meagre incomes, while others migrated to the mines by themselves and ended up exploited and abused by relatives or strangers who take their pay.
Some girls are sexually abused.
Children come to the mines from other parts of Mali, as well as Guinea, Burkina Faso and other neighbouring countries, HRW said.
Citing figures from Mali’s ministry of mines, it said the country exported about four metric tonnes of gold every year, worth about $218 million (more than 162 million euros) at November 2011 prices.
Most is exported to Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.
The rights group urged the government to implement existing strict laws on child labour and compulsory education, but added that “local officials often benefit from artisanal gold mining and have little interest in addressing child labour.”
It also urged businesses that have not yet done so, “to put in place procedures to ensure their gold has not been mined by children.”
So, can advocates of the gold standard please tell me how going back to gold as a monopoly currency would end imperialism? As it is, there is a huge incentive for companies to do whatever it takes to mine more gold out of our earth (not only to sell it, but just to control it), regardless as to how many human beings they exploit or environments they destroy. If you can't make the connection between the incentive to control resources and the atrocities committed to grab hold of these resources, you have some serious waking up to do.
Edit: if you want to read another reason gold sucks, check out Against Gold as Ideology from the P2P blog.
10 comments:
Parents don't send their kids into harsh working conditions unless they're absolutely destitute.
The issue isn't that the miners are exploiting children. The issue is that the people are starving and the miners are offering them a sliver of a chance to improve their lives.
The issue is that conditions have been created so that these people have no other choice, correct. However, what you fail to realize is that a huge incentive to grab gold and other "precious metals" exists in our society to the point where companies collaborate with the state in order to create conditions where people are placed in these scenarios. In fact, the only way this kind of treatment of children could go on is if the property and class relations are preserved. Who would mine for gold and silver and risk all sorts of health hazards if they didn't have to? Would you, living the lifestyle you do now, choose to mine for gold?
Did you know that in the Russian Empire peasants were actually eating their children because they were starving? Would you agree then that leninism-stalinism and all its authoritarianism was justified on the grounds that it raised these people out of poverty much quicker than capitalist states were able to raise their populations out of poverty? The dichotomy you present (i.e. "mine for my silver or else starve") is a false one which overlooks much better alternatives, namely workers' self-management.
And think about this: why would children be sent to mine for gold/silver as opposed to working much less hazardous jobs (such as milking cows, for example, or producing things for their own communities/towns)? Well, because there's a huge demand for gold and silver partially thanks to the "buy gold now" hype.
"So, can advocates of the gold standard please tell me how going back to gold as a monopoly currency would end imperialism?"
Who said it would do that?
Also - gold was never a monopoly currency - so we can't go back to it as such.
"As it is, there is a huge incentive for companies to do whatever it takes to mine more gold out of our earth (not only to sell it, but just to control it),"
There will always be that incentive. Since gold will remain valuable as long as there are humans, humans will seek to obtain it so long as it is there.
"If you can't make the connection between the incentive to control resources and the atrocities committed to grab hold of these resources,"
It's not just a desire to get the resources - it's that combined with stupidity that causes problems like this. I can't believe that the most profitable way to mine precious metals is six year old children with primitive hand tools. Who is running these gold mines? Gotta be short sighted small minded idiots.
Solution: I buy the gold mines and use competent well paid adults with proper equipment.
I read the link. The person says a lot but understands very little to nothing.
An ounce of gold is always worth an ounce of gold. This is the foundation of sound money. It works for silver, copper, and other metals too. The exchange rate for the commodity itself always remains the same.
It seems to me that the real reason that source, and yourself, are opposed to real money, i.e. gold, is that it means the honest, the hard working, the competent, the industrious can accumulate wealth and have power over their own lives and property, whereas if a fiat money system of some sort is adopted then you can gain power and wealth by manipulating the currency in the name of class warfare.
Isn't that about right? You will have a hard time robbing the rich of our gold, so you want to switch that can be stolen with greater ease?
You sound more and more like a religious fundamentalist every time you comment on here.
"There will always be that incentive. Since gold will remain valuable as long as there are humans, humans will seek to obtain it so long as it is there."
Claiming humanity will always value gold until our last days on earth is a bold statement with literally nothing to back it up. For one thing, you ignore shit like culture (I can't imagine hunter-gatherers in Papua New Guinea having any value for "money", much less gold or silver). Did human society consider gold to be money the first day it was discovered? Is there something imbedded in our consciouses which makes us value gold or silver? Your statement (not argument) begs the question.
"Who is running these gold mines? Gotta be short sighted small minded idiots."
Usually it's large companies which care more about profits than human dignity or condition.
"An ounce of gold is always worth an ounce of gold. This is the foundation of sound money. It works for silver, copper, and other metals too. The exchange rate for the commodity itself always remains the same."
Once again, the underlying assumption in your argument is that people will always hold gold to be valuable or will want to use it as money. Or you assume that a money-driven society (like the one we're living in now) will always exist and people will always want it to exist.
And there's no such thing as "sound money". The very notion that gold is a more "honest" or "moral" currency is complete bogus. Anything can be used as a "currency" as long as people agree to it. I can use sunflower seeds or pomegranates as money if others in my community believe those objects to be money. Graeber also debunks your idea in his new book; all money - gold, silver, "fiat", copper - is debt, state debt.
"Claiming humanity will always value gold until our last days on earth is a bold statement with literally nothing to back it up."
There are the fields of human history, psychology, and economics backing up that claim.
"For one thing, you ignore shit like culture (I can't imagine hunter-gatherers in Papua New Guinea having any value for "money", much less gold or silver)."
I highly doubt those tribes will remain perpetually immune to the temptations of civilization. There are many examples of societies adopting money - how many are there of societies abandoning money?
"Did human society consider gold to be money the first day it was discovered? Is there something imbedded in our consciouses which makes us value gold or silver? "
Money no, valuable yes. And yes, there is something in our minds that makes precious metals precious - they are shiny! And the shiny fascinates our little minds (I of course mean that in the older sense of enchantment).
People love the shiny. They covet the shiny. True, human nature is so varied that not all people love and covet the shiny, but most naturally do. That's why "bling" is so popular in nearly every culture. People love shiny things.
"Usually it's large companies which care more about profits than human dignity or condition."
Like I said, idiots. An idiot will destroy human dignity and celebrate his million dollar profit, never ever having the imagination and intellectual capacity to grasp that if he had grown that human dignity he would have made a much larger profit.
"Once again, the underlying assumption in your argument is that people will always hold gold to be valuable or will want to use it as money."
I wouldn't say that to be true necessarily on a million or a billion year time scale, but for the foreseeable future, it will be true.
"Or you assume that a money-driven society (like the one we're living in now) will always exist and people will always want it to exist."
We don't have a money-driven society. I wish we did. We have a power-driven society. Perhaps your fundamental error is conflating money with power.
"
And there's no such thing as "sound money". The very notion that gold is a more "honest" or "moral" currency is complete bogus. Anything can be used as a "currency" as long as people agree to it. I can use sunflower seeds or pomegranates as money if others in my community believe those objects to be money. "
Wrong wrong, right but you are missing the point. Your sunflower seeds will age, no longer sprout, and in time rot away. The gold will remain. The quality of your seeds is hard to determine, and it is not easily divisible, nor are sunflower seeds in high demand. Nor are the quantities easily marked or exchanged.
Sunflower seeds are a tasty snack. Next year I am probably going to grow a couple hundred giant ones, but they aren't going to be very good money.
"Graeber also debunks your idea in his new book; all money - gold, silver, "fiat", copper - is debt, state debt."
Um, yes you see any madman these days can get a book published and attract foolish followers...but that doesn't mean he has any credibility. I have at least four different types of silver money not created by state debt. No debt was directly created by the creation of these coins*, nor is there any created by my owning them.
*One of the silver rounds I have was created by a Christian bank to help lend credibility to their pyramid scheme, so it was used in the creation of debt, but only as a token of good money so people would think the bad paper money was as good as the good silver money. Even there the value of the silver proves you wrong - if silver is worthless as money then why would people try to use it to associate value with their scam?
"There are the fields of human history, psychology, and economics backing up that claim."
Now I know you're trolling. Psychology proves gold to be a universal currency? Care to show me the studies?
"I highly doubt those tribes will remain perpetually immune to the temptations of civilization. There are many examples of societies adopting money - how many are there of societies abandoning money?"
The Spanish anarchists did away with money, I believe. I take it most societies can't abandon money because market economies were forced on to them and they have little way of leaving.
"Money no, valuable yes. And yes, there is something in our minds that makes precious metals precious - they are shiny! And the shiny fascinates our little minds (I of course mean that in the older sense of enchantment). People love the shiny. They covet the shiny. True, human nature is so varied that not all people love and covet the shiny, but most naturally do. That's why "bling" is so popular in nearly every culture. People love shiny things."
Care to cite any anthropology studies proving that societies will always take up "shiny" shut as currency? What about sea shells, not all of those are shiny? And since when does "shiny" equate to "good currency"?
" The gold will remain."
Paper LETS notes will also remain.
"Um, yes you see any madman these days can get a book published and attract foolish followers...but that doesn't mean he has any credibility. I have at least four different types of silver money not created by state debt. No debt was directly created by the creation of these coins*, nor is there any created by my owning them."
All money - literally ALL money - is a debt. It's an IOU. The idea of "sound money" is a total red herring. Whenever you use your silver to buy shit you are simply handing the person you're buying from an IOU which they can in turn use to buy something else and pass on the debt.
I'm not so certain that there is no such thing as sound money.
In my mind, "sound money" would ideally feature as many of the following criteria as possible:
* must have a reasonably low impact on the environment to produce
* must have a reasonably low-overhead/low-barrier-of-entry to produce
* must be easily transportable
* must be physically resilient ( or "virtually resilient" in the case of digital/electronic currencies), and capable of reliable long-term storage
* must be a non-finite resource
* must not have intrinsic value
* must exist amongst a plurality of other "sound" currencies
I see where you're getting at, although I'm very much under the impression that the whole concept of "sound money" doesn't really have much meaning when you consider that all forms of money are essentially IOUs. I'm a big fan of LETSystems though.
Post a Comment