But somewhere in the 19th or 20th century, the terms "white slavery" and "white slave trade" came to denote not just slavery of white people, but what we nowadays refer to as "sexual slavery" and "sex trafficking". This shift in definition was likely spurred by William T Stead's sensationalistic reporting of Victorian-era juvenile prostitution in London, and from henceforth fears of "sex trafficking" pre-occupied the imagination of British and Anglo elites, particularly the few that white women may be working in Ottoman brothels and harems. 25 years after Stead's infamous piece was published, it was under such imaginative thinking that global activism, spurred primarily by 1st-wave feminists and the Protestant revivalist groups, that the US passed the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (a.k.a., the Mann Act). Such groups also began to target prostitution and what was the early sex industry (contributed in no small part by military conflicts such as the Crimean war, where many of the military brothels shifted to British Cairo) across the various European colonial empires. Soon enough, though, the term "white slavery" came to be known as an euphemism for formal prostitution, as well as "sexual trafficking" of underage women (or minor females in modern parlance), on the basis that such women did not have any agency on that matter. One infamous case that was brought to international attention was the White slave trade affair of 1880 Belgium, where foreign girls who were illegally brought to work in Brussels' brothels, with the involvement of high-ranking individuals such as police officers and the mayor himself.
I once thought that perhaps Stead may have said some truth on the matter. Maybe it was understandable that Westminster, after centuries or so, decided to raise its age of consent from 13 to 16 with the full knowledge that they were taking away the right of those girls the right to say yes. But recently, I stumbled upon a Twitter thread, which made me question my previous assumptions. In it, a book authored by scholar Harlan Fischer-Tine is quoted as stating:
In other words, many such women, often of European descent, often came to work in the "jewel of the empire" willingly, were often of age. So the case regarding "white slavery" in early 20th century India was overblown. If such were the case in what was the British empire's most important colony, who is to say that the panic surrounding white female prostitution wasn't just overblown panic in other parts of the empire, such as London?A high police official had to acknowledge in 1912 that the definition of White Slavery as agreed upon at the London conference did not apply to British India, as '[the women who come out to India are rarely young girls who have been decoyed or kidnapped fresh from their homes but experienced prostitutes [...] who are under no delusion as to their occupation'. There is also strong evidence that practically all of them had been in the business in Europe and Egypt before they were recruited to work in Asia.
Many of the women managed to send money home to their families regularly, and returned to their native country after working for some years to set up a 'respectable' business.
It's hard to know given the limited sources on it, most of which is often negative, but suffice to say I think that we should try to find more holes in the narrative. This is especially important for MAPs and our allies, given that the old panic over "white slavery" is what birthed the entire "sex trafficking" moral panic that has often animated pedophobic attitudes, many of which resulted in draconian laws against us.
Edit: I got the specific Tweet from X/Twitter account @goodbroto
