W
ith its 2022 release,
the satirical horror
movie
“Fresh”
follows
a
young
woman,
Noa, through her newfound
relationship with a supposed
plastic
surgeon,
Steve.
The
relationship
turns
into
a
nightmare when Steve takes Noa
to a remote house he owns, drugs
her and locks her in a cell with
other women who have fallen
victim to Steve’s alluring nature.
He proceeds to surgically remove
her body parts piece by piece
in order to keep the meat fresh,
and subsequently sells them on
the black market for purposes
including anything from medical
use to cannibalism. This practice
has become commonly referred
to as organ trafficking or the red
market, where human body parts
including organs, blood, bones,
eggs and more are traded.
As I watched this movie,
I found myself shocked and
horrified to learn about this.
Because
the
human
organ
market
is
an
underground
market, it is difficult to make
any definitive estimates of its
value. Journalist Scott Carney
supposes it could be worth
billions of dollars. There are
estimates that 10% of all organ
transplants are performed using
trafficked organs.
Similar to the events in
“Fresh,” selling body parts as a
commodity is often involuntary
and typically preys on society’s
most vulnerable populations.
In 2008, for instance, 17 people
were freed from India’s “blood
farm.” The scheme began with
the luring of poor migrants to
a house with the promise of
employment, but the promised
job turned out to be $7 per unit
of blood they gave. The victims
initially participated willingly,
but when they wanted to leave
they were so weakened by the
blood loss they could not. The
migrants were then beaten and
kept in cages in the house for two
and half years, being forced to
give blood multiple times a week
with no benefit or payment. The
Red Cross recommends waiting
at least 8 weeks between blood
donations, which further proves
how exploitative this behavior
was.
While many transactions on
the red market are involuntary,
there are times when people
voluntarily sell their body parts.
However, this is often because
they are in situations of great
financial
pressure.
Carney
describes
these
markets
as
taking health and resources away
from the poor and funneling
them upwards through social
classes.
For
example,
after
a 2004 tsunami in India, an
emerging Indian refugee camp
quickly gained the nickname
of Kidneyville because of the
high proportion of desperate
refugees who sold their kidneys.
Despite
often
being
aware
they were being scammed, the
refugees proceeded with the
surgeries because it was their
only option. I am left to wonder,
are voluntary organ sales truly
voluntary if the seller is in a
situation of desperation?
In light of these involuntary
and
voluntary
organ
sales,
the
similarities
between
organ trafficking and human
trafficking are not absent. In
fact, most countries include
organ
trafficking
in
their
definition of human trafficking.
The United States and Canada,
however, do not.
In both forms of trafficking,
the
perpetrators
prey
on
society’s most helpless members.
For either form of trafficking,
participation
is
typically
involuntary. Additionally, the
perpetrators are the benefactors
in human and organ trafficking,
not the victims. These markets
flourish because the economics
of organ donation support such
activities, as there is a low supply
of organs and high demand for
the much-needed commodity.
The ability to stop organ
trafficking is difficult — if not
impossible — because there
is not a substantial amount
of
evidence
to
work
with
regarding the topic. As a result,
the problem of organ trafficking
does not get the attention that
human trafficking does.
The information that does
exist rarely reaches the hands of
those able to act, such as judicial
authorities and law enforcement
authorities. Many times these
crimes are not even reported
or known to have occurred.
There is a great web of criminal
networks,
collusion
within
hospitals and manipulation of
medical insurers that must be
further investigated before any
productive action can be taken.
In order to end these crimes
against
humanity,
society
must develop a better system
for monitoring and tracking
organ donations. This could
take the form of following the
money
path,
implementing
more severe punishments for
these crimes and increasing
the amount of funds spent on
research and prevention. The
United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime asserts the need
for a strengthened response,
which would include increased
evidence-based
knowledge,
raised
awareness
amongst
target groups and improved
legislative and non-legislative
measures.
For me, it took watching the
horrors of organ trafficking
in action through the movie
“Fresh” to realize how very
real the problem is. This only
goes to show how simple it is
to increase awareness, whether
that is through a movie or even
the words you are reading right
now. Whatever way you choose
to gain insight, remember it is
never too late for change and
action.
R
ussia’s
invasion
of
Ukraine
has
rightly
generated international
outcry
and
condemnation.
The
war
is
clearly
an
imperial action, with Putin
denying the very existence
of the Ukrainian people and
explicitly attempting to make
Ukraine a part of Russia. The
consequences
are
horrific.
Russian forces have killed or
injured thousands of civilians
and have committed a number
of atrocities that are likely war
crimes, including destroying
the maternity and children’s
wards of a prenatal hospital,
cluster bombing a preschool,
dropping
landmines
on
a
civilian
escape
route
and
executing civilians.
As of March 24, the invasion
had
displaced
10
million
people,
“the
fastest
and
largest displacement of people
in Europe since World War II.”
A wide variety of groups have
rightly demanded that Russia
immediately end its attack
and
completely
withdraw
its forces. Afterward, Russia
must be held accountable for
its actions.
The
vital
attention
to
and support for Ukrainians
comparatively highlights the
widespread lack of such a
stance
toward
Palestinians’
decades-long fight for self-
determination.
The
world
largely stands by as Palestinians
are
bombed,
murdered,
imprisoned,
evicted
and
maimed; as Palestinian human
rights groups are banned as
“terrorist” organizations; and
as Palestinians are forced to
live under apartheid — a crime
against humanity according
to
international
law.
The
primary Palestinian liberation
movement
—
the
Boycott,
Divestment,
and
Sanctions
Movement — has been falsely
labeled,
by
The
Jerusalem
Declaration On Antisemitism,
as inherently antisemitic and
therefore oppressive.
To many, the situations in
Ukraine and Palestine are so
different as to be incomparable.
And clearly, the situations have
many differences, including the
fact that Ukraine is a member
state of the United Nations,
whereas the State of Palestine
is a non-member observer state.
However, this legal difference
has nothing to do with the
basic right of all peoples to
self-determination.
In
fact,
Russia’s denial of Ukrainian
statehood
underscores
how
recognition of this right is
ultimately
political.
If
we
accept that all peoples have
the right to choose their own
destinies, then we must be as
insistent and urgent in our
support for Palestinians as we
are for Ukrainians.
The University of Michigan’s
actions demonstrate that it is
not committed to respecting
the right of all peoples to self-
determination. On March 15,
the University announced that
it would divest from Russia
after
Ukrainian
students
submitted an open letter calling
for divestment (as well as aid to
displaced Ukrainian scholars
and
students
and
support
for students and employees
from
Belarus
and
Russia).
By contrast, the University
has long refused to divest
from companies that violate
Palestinian
human
rights,
despite decades of advocacy
by the Palestinian solidarity
group
Students
Allied
for
Freedom and Equality and its
allies.
When
Central
Student
Government passed resolution
A.R. 7-109 in 2017, asking
the University to appoint a
committee that would simply
consider
divestment
from
companies doing business with
Israel, the University refused,
saying that the purpose of the
endowment was “to generate
the greatest possible income.”
This was an explicit statement
that
the
University
values
profit
over
people,
which
remains
the
University’s
position on divestment from
Israel to this day. And yet it
took less than three weeks for
the University to announce an
explicitly politically-motivated
divestment from Russia.
None of this is to attempt
to
minimize
the
atrocities
being
perpetrated
against
Ukrainians. Rather, this is a call
to recognize that the urgency
we rightly feel to support
Ukrainian self-determination
must also be applied toward the
liberation of Palestinians and
other oppressed peoples. We
must fight as passionately for
Palestinian self-determination
as we fight for Ukrainian self-
determination.
Indeed,
we
need only look to Palestine,
the Native American lands now
known as the United States
and other colonized regions of
the globe to see what Ukraine
might look like if Ukrainians’
right to self-determination is
not defended and upheld.
Fortunately,
Palestinian,
Native
American,
Black,
Latinx and Asian students have
already done significant work
to identify concrete ways that
the University can support the
liberation of all peoples. The
Students of Color Liberation
Front, composed of a variety
of racial justice organizations
on campus, has articulated
a
unified
set
of
anti-
racist
demands
addressing
pedagogy,
curriculum,
faculty hiring (including a
demand for the creation of a
Palestinian Studies Scholar/
Chair), student support and
recruitment,
divestment,
policing and more.
Nineteen
campus
organizations and over 200
individuals
cosigned
these
demands, but the University
has yet to implement or take
meaningful action toward most
of them. Ukrainian students
are also currently identifying
ways that the University can
support
Ukrainian
students
and scholars through remote
education,
emergency
admissions
and
material
support.
By
implementing
these plans, the University has
an opportunity to become an
institution that respects the
human rights of all people and
peoples. The only question is
whether it will.
Charles Hilu was contacted
for comment in advance of this
Op-Ed’s publication.
T
ruth,”
“accuracy”
and
“objectivity”
are
the
pillars
of
journalistic
ethics. Sadly, it is clear that
Charles Hilu, and The Michigan
Review as a whole, do not uphold
these cornerstones. In his article,
Hilu took it upon himself to
personally attack, misrepresent
and degrade me, as a means to
push his own racist agenda, all
without ever once contacting
nor reaching out to me. Hilu
was supposedly responding to a
letter which I addressed to the
University’s Board of Regents,
but it is clearly apparent that Hilu
did not read my letter, or rather,
his white privilege blinded him
from seeing anything other than
his fallacious interpretation of it.
It’s one thing to utilize the
power of the pen to uphold facts,
and bring forth positive change
within society, yet it is another
to abuse said power to attack,
defame and weaponize words
against someone with whom
you were not even bold enough
to confront and have an actual
conversation with. Many who
have read the fallacious article
attacking my character, most
definitely have a few words
in mind to describe Hilu: A
cowardly racist student hiding
behind their white privilege.
Unfortunately,
cowardly
racism,
white
privilege
and
misleading quotes are far too
common on this campus. One
thing that was accurate within
the article is that yes, I am a Black
man. However I fear no man —
in fact it would behoove Hilu to
name one white student upon this
campus whom I’m threatened
by, seeing that in his article he
stated that I was “threatened by
white students.” In response to
that fallacious statement, I quote
one of my favorite scriptures:
“The Lord is on my side; I will
not fear: what can man do unto
me?” Utilizing racist undertones,
Hilu
has
compromised
my
safety as a Black student on this
predominantly white campus.
To that, I say I will not waiver
nor fold, and I will continue to
stand and fight for equity and
dismantling racism of all forms,
especially on this campus!
In the article, Hilu begged the
question: “If there are too many
white people in a certain place,
the solution is to remove them.
How does the University do this?
Should it release a statement
saying
white
people
are
unwelcome in a campus space
that their tuition and tax dollars
fund?” The Trotter Multicultural
Center, as it is known today,
began as “Trotter House,” a Black
Student Cultural Center. African
American students united under
the Black Action Movement
(BAM) to help students who
experienced
obstacles
within
their
educational
process.
“Trotter House” was birthed out
of this movement, founded at a
rambling old house on the corner
of
South
University
Avenue
and
East
University
Avenue
and named in honor of William
Monroe Trotter.
As Hilu writes, yes, Dr. King
did in fact have a dream, but I can
assure you that his dream was
not to be misrepresented, nor
to have his words weaponized
by cowardly racists trying to
tear down a Black man. Since he
likes quotes, however, here is one
from James Baldwin: “I am not
your negro!”
His colorblind theory solidifies
Hilu’s racist nature, and the fact
that he most definitely skipped
his Race and Ethnicity Class
requirement. Not only that, but
it disappointed me that after
coming to him as an adult, face
to face, following the release of
his article, his energy completely
changed, thus further solidifying
the cowardice that comes with
attacking an individual behind
a pen. The next time that you
plan to weaponize words against
me or anyone on this campus, at
least have the gall to reach out to
those whom you are attacking.
Trotter Center would not be
here without the activism and
contributions of Black students
on this campus.
To the readers, I would also
let it be known that I did not
shed one tear in this incident, as
Hilu himself confirmed when I
personally addressed him about
said remark. Funny how racists’
energy
changes
when
those
whom they attack confront them.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
10 — Wednesday, April 13, 2022
“As Hilu writes,
yes, Dr. King
did in fact have
a dream, but I
can assure you
that his dream
was not to be
misrepresented,
nor have
his words
weaponized
by cowardly
racists trying
to tear down a
Black man.
BYRON BROOKS
Opinion Contributor
Life’s a beach
JARED ENO
Opinion Contributor
Organ trafcking is not getting the attention it deserves — here’s why
ANNA TRUPIANO
Opinion Columnist
Op-Ed: No tears
— just Charlie’s
racist fears!
Op-Ed: The necessity of supporting
self-determination for Ukrainians,
Palestinians and all oppressed peoples
Design by Tamara Turner