# data[].attributes.body
Malala was born (12 July 1997) in Mingora, the Swat District of north-west Pakistan to a Sunni Muslim family. She was named Malala, which means ‘grief-stricken’ after a famous female Pashtun poet and warrior from Afghanistan.Her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai is a poet and runs a chain of public schools. He is a leading educational advocate himself. In 2009, Malala began writing an anonymous blog for the BBC expressing her views on education and life under the threat of the Taliban taking over her valley. It was her father who suggested his own daughter to the BBC. She wrote under the byline “Gul Makai.”Malala Yousafzai made history as the youngest Nobel Peace Prize Winner ever at age 17. Yousafzai is a Pakistani activist for female education rights and has been engaged in activist work since she was only 11 years old!  She began by writing blogs for the BBC about her life under Taliban rule and her views on the importance of education for girls all over the world but especially in her country. After Yousafzai was profiled in a New York Times documentary, she rose to fame as a speaker promoting education for girls in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. Tragically, as Yousafzai was headed to school one morning, she was shot in the face by a gunman and remained in critical condition for several months. After rehabilitation, Yousafzai was healthy enough to continue her activist work, giving speeches and interviews for women’s education rights and her tragic story provided even more impetus for people to believe in and support her cause. What was called an assassination attempt on Yousafzai’s life caused the United Nations to launch a campaign calling for the education of all children worldwide and eventually led to Pakistan’s first Right to Education Bill.Yousafzai has won numerous awards in addition to her most recent Nobel Peace Prize including being named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” in 2013. Her story is one of inspiration, courage and perseverance. Yousafzai believed in her cause and did whatever she could to get her message out there. As a young girl, she may have thought that there was nothing she could do or that no one would listen to her message but even a small action such as writing a blog entry led to bigger and bigger platforms for her to advocate for equal educational opportunities for all children. Malala Yousafzai’s story proves that anyone and everyone has the power to fight for change and inclusive freedom for people all over the world.

Pope Francis has been pipped to the the Nobel Peace Prize by Malala Yousafzay and the Indian human rights activist Kailash Satyarthi.The pair were awarded the prize “for their struggle against the suppression of children”, according to the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Thorbjørn Jagland.Pope Francis had been the bookies’ favourite, with Paddy Power giving him odds of 9/4.Mr Satyarthi campaigns against child slavery. His organisation says it has freed about 80,000 children from servitude.Miss Yousafzay, who at 17 is the youngest winner of the prize, campaigns for education for women and was nearly shot dead by the Taliban in 2012 while on her way to school.Mr Jagland said: “Children must go to school and not be financially exploited. It is a prerequisite for peaceful global development that the rights of children and young people be respected. In conflict-ridden areas in particular, the violation of children leads to the continuation of violence from generation to generation.”

“Showing great personal courage, Kailash Satyarthi, maintaining Gandhi’s tradition, has headed various forms of protests and demonstrations, all peaceful, focusing on the grave exploitation of children for financial gain,” Mr Jagland said. “He has also contributed to the development of important international conventions on children’s rights.”

He added: “The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism.”
-Research by Martina Bellotta

# data[].attributes.body
OARTICLES ON SLAVERY
«Section 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.»
(Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America)

"The Republic recognizes and guarantees the inviolable rights of man, both as an individual and in social formations where his personality is carried out, and requires the fulfillment of the mandatory duties of political, economic and social solidarity."
(Article 3 of the Italian Constitution)

"No individual will be held in a state of slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade will be prohibited in any form "
(Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1815)

The content of this article is reiterated by Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966 and entered into force on March 23, 1976 : "No one can be forced to do forced or compulsory labor".

SLAVE TRADE ACT or AN ACT FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE (180 7)
The U.S. Congress passes an act to “prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States…from any foreign kingdom, place, or country.”
The first shipload of African captives to North America arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, in August 1619, but for most of the 17th century, European indentured servants were far more numerous in the North American British colonies than were African slaves. However, after 1680, the flow of indentured servants sharply declined, leading to an explosion in the African slave trade. By the middle of the 18th century, slavery could be found in all 13 colonies and was at the core of the Southern colonies’ agricultural economy. By the time of the American Revolution, the English importers alone had brought some three million captive Africans to the Americas.
After the war, as slave labor was not a crucial element of the Northern economy, most Northern states passed legislation to abolish slavery. However, in the South, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 made cotton a major industry and sharply increased the need for slave labor. Tension arose between the North and the South as the slave or free status of new states was debated. In January 1807, with a self-sustaining population of over four million slaves in the South, some Southern congressmen joined with the North in voting to abolish the African slave trade, an act that became effective January 1, 1808. The widespread trade of slaves within the South was not prohibited, however, and children of slaves automatically became slave themselves, thus ensuring a self-sustaining slave population in the South.
Great Britain also banned the African slave trade in 1807, but the trade of African slaves to Brazil and Cuba continued until the 1860s.

SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT(1833-1838)
Slavery was officially abolished in most of the British Empire on 1 August 1834.In practical terms, however, only
slaves below the age of six were freed, as all slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices".
Apprentices would continue to serve their former owners for a period of time after the abolition of slavery, though
the length of time they served depended on which of three classes of apprentice they were.
The first class of apprentices were former slaves who "in their State of Slavery were usually employed in
Agriculture, or in the Manufacture of Colonial Produce or otherwise, upon Lands belonging to their Owners".
The
second class of apprentices were former slaves who "in their State of Slavery were usually employed in Agriculture,
or in the Manufacture of Colonial Produce or otherwise, upon Lands not belonging to their Owners".
The third
class of apprentices was composed of all former slaves "not included within either of the Two preceding Classes".
Apprentices within the third class were released from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1838.
The remaining
apprentices within the first and second classes were released from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1840.
The Act also included the right of compensation for slave-owners who would be losing their property:the British government raised £20 million to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves
as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. The names listed in the returns for slave compensation
show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families, many of them of high social standing.
As a notable exception to the rest of the British Empire, the Act did not "extend to any of the Territories in the
Possession of the East India Company, or to the Island of Ceylon, or to the Island of Saint Helena."
Full emancipation for all was legally granted
ahead of schedule on 1 August 1838, making Trinidad the first British colony with slaves to completely abolish slavery.

SaraFrancesca Buonanno VE 30/04/2019

# data[].attributes.body
Child exploitation was one of the most developed forms of slavery: Child slavery,that is the enforced exploitation of a child for their labour for someone else’s gain. It refers to any work or activity that deprives children of their childhood. In effect, these are activities that are detrimental to the physical and mental health of children and that hinder their proper development.

Child labour includes:

• Child labour before the minimum legal age : The basic minimum legal age at which children are authorized to work is 15 years. For light work the limit is fixed at 13 to 15 years. Finally, for hazardous work, the limit is pushed up to 18 years.

• The worst forms of child labour :This encompasses all forms of slavery or similar practices such as forced labour, trafficking and it also includes illicit activities like prostitution.

• Hazardous work : This encompasses domestic tasks carried out over long hours in an unhealthy environment, in dangerous places requiring the use of dangerous tools or materials, or forcing the child to carry objects that are too heavy.

Negative effects of child labour

The difficulty of tasks and harsh working conditions create a number of problems such as premature ageing, malnutrition, depression, drug dependency.

Children have no protection infact their employers have an absolute control over them. These children work in degrading conditions, undermining all the principles and fundamental rights based in human nature.

Additionally, a child who works will not be able to have a normal education and will be doomed to become an illiterate adult, having no possibility to grow in his or her professional and social life.

•During the Industrial Revolution poor children often worked full time jobs in order to help support their families. Children as young as four years old worked long hours in factories under dangerous conditions. The practice of child labor continued throughout much of the Industrial Revolution until laws were eventually passed that made child labor illegal.

Putting an End to Child Labor

In the United States, a real effort to regulate and put an end to child labor began in the early 1900s. Many businesses were against it because they liked the cheap labor. Some families also needed the money their kids brought home. However, eventually laws were passed. In 1938, the Fair labor Standards Act was passed that placed some limitations on child labor, set a minimum wage, and put limits on how many hours an employee should work.

IQBAl MASIH

Iqbal Masih was born in Pakistan in 1982. He lived in Muridke, near Lahore. Iqbal was sold into slavery at a carpet factory at age four, and worked on looms until the age of 10, when he ran away from the factory and was eventually freed by Ehsan Ulla Khan, of the Bonded Labor Liberation Front, (BLLF). He started attending the BLLF's school.

Iqbal refused to go back to the carpet mill where he had worked because he knew his rights as a citizen. Although a child labor law existed in Pakistan, it was not enforced. Soon, speaking out against the mills, he gained international attention. Iqbal eventually started making speeches around the world, talking about child labor and his life experiences.

Iqbal won many awards. He was honored by the International Labor Organization in Sweden, received Reebok's 1994 Human Rights Youth Action Award, and while in the United States accepting the award, was nominated for ABC's "Person of the Week."

Soon after receiving the award, Iqbal returned to Pakistan, where he was murdered, on April 16, 1995. He was 12 years old. No one really knows who did it, but there are assumptions that the "Carpet Mafia", was responsible, because many carpet industries were losing a lot of business due to Iqbal's speeches.

Iqbal was a hero because he had a lot of courage to stand up to such powerful people, and to speak out against evil.

Work done by: Anna Cerullo

# data[].attributes.headline
Lincoln's point of view on slavery and the Amistad revolt

# data[].attributes.subject
Lincoln's point of view on slavery and the Amistad revolt

# data[].attributes.body
Borrelli Federica

Abraham Lincoln and his point of view on slavery

The evolution of Lincoln’s view on slavery was a complex process. Like his view on emancipation, his position on social and political equality of blacks and whites would evolve over the years taking a turning point during his two terms as president. On September 18, 1858 at Charleston, Illinois during his race to the senate with Stephen Douglas Lincoln stated:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality… I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing".

Immoral practice
Lincoln’s family did not own slaves and never considered owning any, in fact his father, Thomas, viewed this practice as immoral. Lincoln was antislavery but not abolitionist. Abolitionists sought the end of slavery and the assimilation of African Americans to society. They were not interested in working within the frame of the Constitution or the political system as Lincoln was.
In the 1840s he elaborated more on his views and stated that slavery was a dying institution if it remained confined to where it already existed. He believed that if slavery would expand it would become so unprofitable that it would be abandoned. As a practicing lawyer Lincoln had several cases in which he represented the slaves. In 1841, in Bailey vs Cromwell he represented a black woman and her children who were free and could not be sold back to slavery. In 1845, in People vs Pond he defended Marvin Pond for giving help to a fugitive slave, John Harvey. Lincoln had no problem representing the other side, the slave owner. In 1847, in Matson vs Rutheford, he represented the slave owner and lost.

The Constitution
Lincoln did not support antislavery measures in states where it was legal affirming that “the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in different states”. From the beginning until the end of his days Lincoln believed on the constitutionality of slavery where it already existed so he became a firm advocate for the 13th Amendment. The constitution did not explicitly mention the word “slavery” but there were clauses protecting it.
Limitation of slavery not abolition
Because of the constitutionality of slavery the government had no right to abolish slavery where it already existed, the only way was to limit its spread. Abraham Lincoln ran for the 1860 presidential elections on the Republican platform under which slavery would remain legal in the states where it was already established but would limit its expansion. He was not an abolitionist as many in his party were and was considered a moderate within his own party.

Colonization
From the beginning of his political career, and for most of his life, Lincoln believed that colonization would provide the solution to slavery. He shared Henry Clay’s view on the principle of colonization by which free African Americans would be transported back to Africa, specifically to Liberia. He believed that in time southern slave holders would be willing to manumit their slaves if they were going back to Africa. Colonization would find support in the north as they would not have to compete with free white labor. Lincoln did not support deportation by force like many other colonists.
During his first term he issued the Second Confiscation Act in 1862 supporting the recolonization of those African Americans willing to leave the U.S. to Liberia or other territories in Central America. Section 12 of the Second Confiscation Act stated:

“And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to make provision for the transportation, colonization, and settlement, in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States, of such persons of the African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate, having first obtained the consent of the government of said country to their protection and settlement within the same, with all the rights and privileges of freemen.”

He created the Bureau of Emigration under the Department of the Interior to oversee the colonization project. Lincoln abandoned the idea of colonization sometime in 1864 because it was an impractical plan. This plan never worked as freedmen did not consider Africa their homeland, they were born and raised in America.

Emancipation
Lincoln did not consider the Civil War as a struggle to free slaves but to keep the Union together. On March 6, 1862, as a last call to rebel states and prior to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, the President announced its policy of compensated emancipation. This policy offered states fair indemnity for economic losses for emancipating its slaves. None of the Southern States complied, not even border states. By the end of the year Lincoln decided to free all slaves in Confederate States.
The Emancipation Proclamation
was declared on January 1, 1863. It did not free all slaves, only those in rebel territory. Slaves in border states such as Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were not freed. To Lincoln’s administration the emancipation proclamation was not based on principle but on policy. Volunteer recruitment in the Union was running low and conscription was not a popular policy. In order to win, the Union needed man power and that was provided by newly freed slaves from the south.
The Emancipation Proclamation marked a turning point in President Lincoln’s view of slavery. The fate of the 180,000 black men who joined the Union forces paved the road to citizenship to future generations of African Americans.

THE AMISTAD REVOLT
In 1839, 53 illegally purchased African slaves being transported from Cuba aboard the Spanish-built schooner Amistad staged a successful mutiny. They were later intercepted by an American brig off the coast of Long Island and thrown in jail. While President Martin Van Buren was among those who favored extraditing the Africans to Cuba, they were eventually allowed a trial, and a federal district court judge ruled they were not liable for their actions. Former president John Quincy Adams argued on behalf of the slaves when the appeal was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually determined the Africans to be free men. In 1839, fifty-three illegally purchased African slaves being transported from Cuba on the ship Amistad managed to seize control of the vessel. They killed two crew members and ordered the remainder to head for Africa. But by altering course at night, when the position of the sun did not reveal the ship’s course, they sailed in a northeasterly direction. Eventually, the Amistad was intercepted by an American brig off the coast of Long Island. The two Spaniards who had enslaved the Africans were freed by the Americans, and the slaves were imprisoned. President Martin Van Buren, along with many newspaper editors, favored extraditing the Africans to Cuba. But abolitionists and other northern sympathizers won an American trial for them. At a hearing in Hartford, a federal district court judge ruled that the Africans were not liable for their actions because they had been enslaved illegally. The case then proceeded on appeal to the Supreme Court, where former president John Quincy Adams, defending the Africans, argued that they should be granted their freedom. The Court agreed, ruling that since the international slave trade was illegal, persons escaping should be recognized as free under American law.
The chief judge Joseph Story wrote and read the Court's decision: the Supreme Court established that the Africans on board ship were free individuals. They were kidnapped and illegally transported, they've never been slaves. The decision affirmed that: "...it's a fundamental right of all human begins to stand up to oppression and use the force against the extreme injustice, in extreme cases".

# data[].attributes.headline
Slavery, the Anglican Church and the Quakerism

# data[].attributes.subject
Slavery, the Anglican Church and the Quakerism

# data[].attributes.body
Melania Pizzorusso

24 Aprile 2019

The British did not initiate, but they came to dominate the Atlantic slave trade. Few expressed moral or ethical doubts about slavery.

The Anglican church, was directly involved in slavery. When a Christian voice was raised against the slave trade, it was led by Quakers* who also played a critical role in the campaign to end the slave trade.

In 1807 most people agreed that the slave trade was an ethical and religious outrage, but only few people raised their voice against the Atlantic slave trade until the mid-eighteenth century. There had been isolated objectors, but on the whole, the trade developed without any real sense of religious objection. It was almost as if the slave trade was morally neutral. However, when the abolition movement took off, powerful theological criticisms and offering early evangelicalism a focus for its sense of outrage. There had been, it is true, the occasional Christian denunciation of slave trading, most notably from early Puritans and Quakers, but as the trade grew, criticisms were drowned out by the sound of profitable trade. Indeed godly men came to think of the trade as a simple fact of life. The Church of England was, by turns, complicit and then transformed, it had inherited plantations in 1710, mainly in Barbados, government official and planter. The plantations and their resident slaves were managed like any other absentee plantation, their sugar-based profits flowing back to their owners-the Church of England. The slaves were branded and there were occasional concerns expressed about their well-being. Of course, Anglican clergymen in the enslaved Caribbean were infamous for their indifference to the slaves, and for serving the planters and slave-owning class. And a serious attempt to minister to the enslaved did not emerge until non-conformist missionaries made major headway in the early nineteenth century.  What began as tiny shifts in the tectonic plates of British political life produced profound changes and began with the Quakers, in Philadelphia and London. Their unease about slavery and the trade was expressed in a variety of influential tracts.  American War of Independence (1776-83), however, forced American Quakers to be less assertive and more defensive based on a real fear that any criticism might seem treasonable. But everything changed, quickly, after the British defeat in 1783. Abolition's first major steps involved the experience  of the British black community. The arrival in London of freed slaves from the American war, and the dissemination of the language of equality from America  began to tug at the fabric of the slave system. Granville Sharp** was a one-man industry, dashing off a string of pamphlets to prove that slavery was illegal in England, and that slavery at large was contrary to Christian tenets. His theological and legal arguments forced contemporary clerics to confront the awkward frictions between contemporary reality (the brutalities of slavery) and the evidence of biblical analysis offered by Sharp. Almost single-handedly, Sharp produced a major shift in religious and political attention. But he was greatly helped by the Quakers, who had a national organisation, run from London, which was efficient and business-like. They were highly literate, with their own publishers and distribution systems, and offered support and accommodation to travelling sympathisers. Thus, when the first abolition organisation was formed in 1787, the Quaker core to that movement offered the abolition campaign a ready-made national system and propaganda machine. The Abolition Society (dominated initially by Quakers) was joined by a small band of early evangelicals, and the outcome was the launch of an instantly successful and widely based national movement directed against the slave trade. They wanted to end slavery but accepted that it was more realistic and feasible to tackle the slave trade. Literate British people: the more they heard and read about the slave trade, the more they turned against it. Tens of thousands of men and women of all social classes signed abolition petitions across the nation, but in Parliament success was not guaranteed. There were powerful interests in both Houses determined to defend the slave trade. Merchants and shippers in London, Bristol and Liverpool, aristocrats with West Indian properties, all united in their belief that an end of the slave trade would bring economic collapse in the islands-and disaster for Britain. It was an economic defence of self-interest, but it was supported by the undeniable strength of slave-based prosperity. Abolition, moreover, was a moral and ethical force and increasingly took the form of the voice of Christian outrage. Abolitionists had in effect secured the moral high ground which they were never to relinquish. When the slave trade was ended in 1807, the British simply assumed that they had ended a blot on the nation's Christian conscience.

*Quaker: a member of the Religious Society of Friends, a Christian movement devoted to peaceful principles (founded by G. Fox in 1650).

** Granville Sharp: (10 November 1735 – 6 July 1813) was one of the first English campaigners for the abolition of the slave trade. He also involved himself in trying to correct other social injustices.