longer than decades!

However this is not surprising....for we are talking about "the world" here. "The world" is not interested to address the evils of "the world" if you get my drift. 

Ok, what is your definition?  And I think Kralis is just blowing smoke up our proverbial arse.  it exists, but 27 million?  Unless, China or Indonesia is practicing it widespread (and under the radar scope), that figure is bull hockey.  It is a problem.  In the US?  In Europe? In China?  South America?  North America? 

Ok, so where?  Answer that question, and unless you are a cultural egalitarian, you have answered your own challenge above.

This statement of Kralis fits my definition of slavery. 

"Despite centuries fighting the scourge, slavery is readily found on the farms of India, the inheritable debt-bondage brick making kilns of Pakistan, and the cocoa plantations of Cote d'Ivoire. It thrives in the rug room sheds of Nepal, the sex slavery brothels of Manila, Thailand, Japan, and the US. Among the water carrier chattel in Mauritania, and in the charcoal making camps of Brazil. In child prostitution in Ecuador and the child camel jockeying for the wealthy sheikhs across the Mideast. Migrant trafficking exists for sexual labor throughout Canada and into the US and labor in the garment manufacturing sweatshops of Los Angeles, NY and Paris and London. She writes, "No government in the world today officially endorses slavery, yet banned worldwide, slavery thrives in every nation because of organized crime, corruption, and insatiable greed."

To this add those taken into slavery by Islamists.

Doc, I won't quibble with you over the number, however, if you check out "modern slavery" on the web, you'll find it agrees with her figure of 27 million.

Here's a sample:

http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=375

Ending Slavery | Slavery 101 [Film] | Modern Slavery | Slavery In History
Modern Slavery Download Top 10 Facts About Modern Day Slavery

DG, on a business trip last year to Japan, I was required by my employer to take human trafficking awareness, prior to the trip. They wanted to be sure one could recognize it and stay away. If caught in an establishment during a raid where someone is being forced to work, one is guilty of contributing to it, even if they say they were unaware. Apparently it is a big problem there, so you can imagine how it is in less industrialized countries, especially in the sex business.

I still think there is a difference between slavery as described above in the picture and real slavery.

forced to work without pay under threat of violence and unable to walk away

That's a possible definition, but it's not really slavery.

For example, being forced to work with pay under threat of violence without a choice is not much different either. (And no, I am not referring to so-called "wage slavery" here. Wage slavery is a left-wing concept that dilutes the meaning of slavery even more.)

Slavery as I meant it is the concept that human beings can be owned by other human beings, that human beings are not free by default or not free forever.

While forced labour and human trafficking a horrible crimes, they are crimes and acknowledges as such by the perpetrators. The criminals in question do recognise a right to be free, they just ignore it. This makes a huge difference. It means that there is no automatic support in society for the crime.

But slavery in Mauritania and Sudan (and even to some extent in Iraq) is accepted by society, not only in those countries but world-wide because the regimes in question are independent countries with the right to do whatever they want in their territories. (Many a time did I wish that Sudan's leaders were Jewish so that the UN would take a much closer look at everything they do.)

Technically, the world does not accept as legitimate what those countries do, but the world does insist that it would be illegal to stop them. But a right that is illegal to enforce is not a right at all. And hence African slaves in those countries remain rightless.

Indentured servitude is an entirely different story. It's not right to mix it in with slavery at all. Indentured servants live horrible lives but they have (technically) chosen their fate, they do get paid, violence is used only to enforce the "contract", and they do get to leave after a number of years. And most importantly, their children do not inherit their status.

That I fully understand.  I also understand (I am not a liberal after all, so I am not myopic) that some exists in this very country.  But it is not LEGAL.  Yes, it is more prevalent in less developed countries due to graft and corruption, but again it is mostly not legal.  That was and is my point.  Jaycee Dugard is an example of a slave right here in America. 

There are evil people, but knowing that murders will occur does not mean that the society condones them.

This has little to do with slavery but it fits the linguistics. As I said in Arabic the word "abd" ("slave") is often used to refer to black Africans. It works the other way around with the kurds. I hear that Arabs often use the word "kurd" to mean "moron". This is explained well here:

http://nizos.blogspot.com/2010/07/kurdish-wheel.html

I find it interesting how this mirrors world opinion and "international law" which also agree with the idea that black Africans ruled by Arabs and the Kurds can be treated like rubbish and have no inherent right to freedom.

At least I don't remember the UN ever call for decolonisation of western and southern Sudan or perhaps an end to Arab and Turkish attacks on Kurdistan.

It seems like Arabs have a right to be independent and free (and to lots of money if for some reason they aren't) while morons and slaves do not have such a right, in fact do not even have the right not to be murdered and enslaved by their masters.

I can see where we have cultural differences.  In this country, we use the term liberal to mean moron.

So where have you been hiding?  I hope all is well.

There is a significant difference between referring to a group as morons based on their opinions and referring to a group as morong based on their ethnicity.

It's the same difference as between antisemitism and islamophobia. One is hatred for a particular ethnic group, regardless of their actions, the other is hatred (in extreme cases) of people following a certain ideology, regardless of their ethnicity. The latter is justified if the ideology is indeed fearsome (or could be mmisundertood as such by its followers).

Hatred for an ethnic group, like calling using the word "Kurd" to mean "moron" or the word "slave" to describe a black African is always wrong, just like antisemitism is.

But a negative opinion of an ideology can be right if the ideology is hateful itself.

Antizionists can claim that they don't hate Jews but only Zionists. But then they would have to explain what they really dislike about Zionism other than that it is a Jewish philosophy. What's so evil about buying land and living on it and fighting back when attacked? Other people do it all the time and nobody doubts their right to live on land they bought and defend themselves.

I support Zionism and dislike Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. I dislike Arab nationalism because of what it does to Jews, Kurds, "slaves" and other non-Arab or non-Islamic groups. And I love Zionism because it doesn't do any of these things to anyone, legends about a "Palestinian holocaust" notwithstanding, and because it treats its enemies better than Arab nationalists treats its friends.

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Blog/Entries/2010/8/2_Family_Dog_Died.html

I haven't been well in a long time.

When people ask me here I tell them I am miserable but that it's getting better: "I'm hoping to be sad next month."

Sorry about your dog.  I know how that is. I lost mine several years ago and it was very hard.  Good luck in your healing.