Previous text of a section that used to appear above:
Culture and History?
Some reading the Dobson and Fisher (2003) article from the perspective of women or of people of color had a different reaction from what the authors may have intended. For example, the article notes that, “lacking technical know-how and capital of their own, indigenous peoples may face intrusive threats from unscrupulous outsiders who coerce or trick them into geoslavery. Glittering bracelet-style tracking devices may be given freely or sold far below actual cost.” Why would “glittering” devices attract these adult people? Because they are “primitive”? How are they lacking in technical know-how (or is it viewed as "lacking" because their "know-how" is so different from Western cultures)? As an issue of cultural and historical awareness and sensitivity, are we taking into consideration the intelligence, traditions and centuries-old wisdom of these indigenous peoples? Would the "unscrupulous outsiders" fly under the radar of the UN or Amnesty International? Would the cost of these devices not exceed the income that could be gathered by enslaving these people by other means? Would there not be cheaper and easier ways to enslave them, such as via drug dependency?

In the Horizon Wimba presentation, Professor Dobson related a story about a person in his church who referred to those in his employ, those who could potentially be tracked, as “his Mexicans.” .... Could that person in Professor Dobson’s church not have referred to those people as “his employees”? ....
----------
Clarification Response:
You are sadly mistaken when you say that I was insensitive in my story about an acquaintance who wanted to track "his Mexicans." Did you not understand that I was as offended by his comment as you are? My whole point is that attitudes of prejudice and dominance go hand in hand as in traditional slavery.

Again, I must ask, "What's going on here?" I published that story in the Chicago Tribune, and many people told me what a chilling illustration it makes. Not one of them interpreted it as you did.

Jerry Dobson, University of Kansas