In 1908, British writer Israel Zangwill wrote a stage play, the title of which popularized a term that came to be used as a metaphor for America itself: 

. Debuting before U.S. audiences in 1909, Zangwill’s play told the story of David Quixano, a fictional Russian-Jewish immigrant who is intent on moving to the United States after his family dies in a violent anti-Semitic riot in Russia. For Quixano (and many actual immigrants at the time), America, in all of its culturally “blended” glory, stood as a beacon of light visible from the darkest and most oppressed corners of the world, offering promise, possibility, and maybe even acceptance.

Well before Zangwill put the “melting pot” label into the global lexicon, the United States had already earned a reputation as an immigrant haven. New England’s first immigrant settlers, the Puritans and the Pilgrims, left their native England in the early 1600s in order to practice their respective religions more freely, without antagonistic meddling from the Church of England. In the early 1800s, the French Revolution saw thousands of rural Europeans flee to America, to escape the war-torn countryside and a government in shambles. As a result of the great famine that struck Ireland in the first half of the nineteenth century, millions of Irish Catholic immigrants crossed the Atlantic, settling into various pockets of the East Coast. The next wave came from Asia, with Chinese and Japanese immigrants arriving to California in droves, working throughout the West as the Gold Rush and the railroad stirred dreams of vast riches.

The arrival of these immigrants, and with them their varied cultural backgrounds, was essential in molding America’s public identity. And it fed into America’s self-history, enshrining the United States as a refuge for all those suffering persecution for political or personal beliefs; a shelter that accepts a wide variety of faiths and ideologies.

This widely publicized version of America as a wholly inclusive land was not in touch with reality, with a widespread desire to strip immigrants of their individual customs, and force them into a version of whiteness that permeates society to this, lurking right beneath the surface. There is a rich American tradition of rejecting immigrants and refugees, and those who do make it through often face calls to assimilate and deny their cultural roots.

There is a rich American tradition of rejecting immigrants and refugees.

Prior to the late 1800s, the federal government did little to control the flow of immigration. Naturalization guidelines were put in place in the late eighteenth century, and starting in 1819, immigrants were required to report their arrival to the U.S. government. The weak enforcement of this provision allowed for a high number of undocumented immigrants. State governments attempted to pass their own immigration laws, and the chaos that ensued across state borders finally led the federal government to take control of the issue in the late 1800s. With anti-immigration heightening throughout the native-born public, immigration laws were introduced as a means of placating an upset public.

Nativist partisans have a long history in America, but began to emerge as a major national political force in the 1850s, becoming major opponents to immigration as they stressed the importance of pure “American values.” Though Irish immigrants adapted easily to many facets of American life, for example, 

nativists denounced their Catholic religion as un-American

, put up store-window signs reading “No Irish Need Apply” blocking them from prospective jobs, and tried to stem the flow of immigration from Ireland. Many immigrants — especially those with Italian and Irish roots — were plainly seen as inferior, and 

depicted as ape-like in media from the era

gaining acceptance often required them to ostracize the next wave of immigrants

; you became white by opposing those who weren’t.

This dynamic contributed to the demonization of Asian immigrants in the 1870s and 1880s. The Page Act of 1875 specifically targeted Asian laborers, convicts, and prostitutes by denying them entry to the United States, though its primary mission was to make immigration harder for all Asians. The 

 followed in 1882, and effectively banned Chinese immigrants from entry into the United States. Though these laws were specific to Asian immigrants, broader immigration laws soon succeeded them, enacted with the intention of tightening border security and making it harder for immigrants to enter legally.

Despite these new laws and bouts of anti-immigrant fervor, foreigners continued to flock to America. The third major wave of immigration in the United States occurred around the turn of the twentieth century, and brought with it immigrants from previously unrepresented regions (Eastern Europe and Russia, among others). The cycle — immigrate, and then turn against those who come after — began anew, and a new assimilation movement arose.

For many immigrants, gaining acceptance often required them to ostracize the next wave of immigrants; you became white by opposing those who weren’t.

The government and the public encouraged newly minted American citizens to absorb a new culture almost immediately upon arrival, a process dubbed “Americanization.” 

In an oft-quoted passage, President Teddy Roosevelt called for assimilation, exclaiming,

 “We have room for but one language here [in America], and that is the English language.” Citizenship programs were established across the country, and free English lessons were available in most major cities and towns. 

The Ford Motor Company, among other major businesses, kept immigrant laborers after working hours

 for mandatory courses to teach them English and instill American values. The Young Men’s Christian Association also offered classes that taught immigrants the “American way,” educating them on American hobbies, hygiene practices, family life, and more.

Zangwill’s play debuted just as the Americanization movement took off, receiving mixed reviews from both the public and critics. 

In his article, “How The Melting Pot Stirred America,” author Joe Kraus notes

 that fans of the play saw it as a “powerful articulation of the promise of America.” Those who disliked the production, however, saw it as a representation of the mounting cultural hierarchy in America. “The 

, which celebrated America’s capacity to accommodate difference,” writes Kraus, “appeared on the scene at a moment when the American theater world ceased to accept heterogeneity in its productions and, more subtly, ceased to accommodate difference in its audience.” Thus, 

, for all of its insistence that America was a joyful marriage of diverse cultures, actually symbolized the end of cultural acceptance in the United States.

Even so, many immigrants continued viewing America in something like the spirit of Zangwill’s Quixano: “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming … Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians — into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.”

Despite its shortcomings, the great melting pot was the face of America for decades after Zangwill’s play. Even as Asian immigrants were forced into Chinatowns (the first of which was formed in response to rising racial tensions), Japanese-Americans were interned, and Jim Crow reigned, America proudly viewed itself as a cornucopia of ideas and ethnicities. In the mid-twentieth century, however, the melting pot concept began receiving more critical examination, just as a fourth wave of immigration crested in the United States.

Unlike the episodes of major immigration that came before it, the fourth wave was comprised predominantly of Spanish-speaking immigrants from Central and South America. Like many of their predecessors, they were met with distrust and dislike by the American public. Though many tried to assimilate into American daily life, they were seen as cultural and economic threats. Nonetheless, 

aspects of Hispanic culture leaked into American life

With so many ethnic groups a part of twentieth century America, calls for assimilation began to see opposition in the form of multiculturalism, a school of thought that stresses the importance of recognizing individual ethnicities. It’s in direct contrast to the concept of a melting pot, and has earned catchphrase metaphors of its own, like “salad bowl” and “cultural mosaic.” With the introduction of this ideology, Zangwill’s grand melting pot theory was aggressively called into question.

Even now, multiculturalism is but one of the terms used in an ongoing debate of how best to describe America’s diverse and growing population. Though Zangwill’s play advocated for America as the great equalizer, the melting pot was no more than a myth, albeit one cherished by many Americans. The great number of ethnic backgrounds that dwell in the United States make it difficult to assign but one name to the country, and one that adequately describes the mixture of many at that.

,” Hoover Institution, October 26, 2012.

“Immigrants have enriched American culture and enhanced our influence in the world,”

TheMeltingpot1.jpg

Though the United States once prided itself on its “melting pot” of cultures, xenophobia and forced assimilation practices constantly plagued new immigrants.

The rise and fall of the American “melting pot”

In studies on eye color conducted around the world, researchers have found that blue eyes are considered the

. There are a number of reasons explaining these results. Blue eyes are 

commonly associated with idealized beauty standards

They can demonstrate sexual attraction more obviously

, making them more appealing to potential mates. And, notably, only 17 percent of the world’s population has blue eyes, making them the rarest in the world.

With that rarity comes value. But are baby blues worth $5,000?

 In 2009, Dr. Gregg Homer founded the medical company, which bills itself as a “leader in aesthetic ophthalmic innovation.” The establishment of Stroma coincided with Homer’s development of a laser technology that enables clients to permanently change their eye color from brown to blue.

Homer’s treatment works because of a little-known quirk: 

 Eye colors differ depending on the amount of pigment in the iris — blue eyes lack pigment, green eyes have some pigment, and brown eyes have a lot of pigment. With his laser technology, Dr. Homer discovered he could disrupt the layer of melanin pigment in brown eyes, resulting in a gradual dissolution of the dark color. Eventually, during a two-to-four week window after the initial 30-second procedure, brown eyes become blue.

The company is still in its clinical trial phase, with commercial release dates unknown. The permanency of the procedure has prevented a swift clearance from health regulators in the United States, but after a series of clinical trials and successful results, Stroma board members are confident the procedure is ready for debut on the public market.

The operation is without danger. Unlike Lasik eye surgery, which uses a high-power laser, the 

Stroma procedure utilizes a low-energy laser

. Lasik procedures — which are fraught with 

 — focus intense laser energy on the surface of the eye. Stroma procedures, in contrast, 

direct lasers inside the eye, which has been unheard of in the world of optometry, and can result in greater damage to vision and eye health

. These risks aside, Dr. Homer asserts that Stroma receives around 300 messages of interest per day from would-be clients around the world.

Though Stroma’s technology is the first of its kind, methods to modify eye color have been around for decades. Eye color implants, less common than colored contacts but more popular than color-corrective laser surgery, have recently increased in popularity, due in part to 

R&B singer-songwriter Tameka Harris’s endorsement of the product.

 The procedure (which can only be completed once would-be clients pass required eye exams) involves cutting into the cornea and inserting an artificial iris in the color of the client’s choosing.

The iris implant procedures are not yet performed in the United States — the FDA has banned the practice, due to the many long-term dangers it poses. BrightOcular, however, has made a name for itself in the U.S. as the premiere American artificial iris manufacturer.

Unlike Stroma, which promotes a vanity-induced, brown-to-blue color transition, BrightOcular provides a wide variety of eye colors, under the guise of purely medical purposes. 

 is billed as a way to “treat or alleviate cases of heterochromia, ocular albinism, and other iris-related abnormalities by protecting the eyes from the harmful effects of sunlight in patients who suffer from high levels of photosensitivity.” The potential negative side effects that result from the procedure, however, are numerous. Patients with these iris implants have reported loss of sight, increased risk of glaucoma, cataracts, and continuous inflammation of the iris, in a 

 released by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Though these permanent color corrections are receiving heightened media attention, colored contacts have been in the public eye for decades. Colored lenses account for 

20 percent of the $7.8 billion contact industry

, and their popularity continues to rise. Alternatively referred to as “decorative” or “fashion” lenses, colored contacts have been used extensively in the high fashion industry, as both eye enhancers and outfit-makers. With promotion in popular culture, these lenses eventually trickled into the mainstream market.

The popularity of colored contacts, especially in recent years, has led to the creation of niche lens markets. Circle lenses, popularized by Japanese anime characters and Lady Gaga, are a 

recent cosmetic fad sweeping the United States and beyond

. These lenses cover both the iris and a portion of the whites surrounding the iris, creating a big-eyed, doll-like appearance — a look that is prized in Asian countries, and which is slowly starting to find a place in the American aesthetic.

As these varied methods of eye color modification become more popular, questions have arisen about the idealized beauty standards perpetuated by the media. By developing technology that permanently changes an iris from brown to blue, do researchers (like Stroma’s Dr. Homer) reinforce the belief that blue eyes — or any light-colored eyes, for that matter — are fundamentally better and more beautiful than others? The answer is in the eye of the beholder.

“Laser procedure can turn brown eyes blue,”

2057173770_91e5b8f032_o.jpg

The boom in eye accessories has led to a new procedure that can permanently change the color of your irises. But is vanity really worth it?

Everyone has blue eyes. They just don't know it yet.

The Chinese are big believers in the power of a well-timed nap. In fact, napping is such an intrinsic part of Chinese culture that it’s an enumerated right — 

Article 43 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states

, “Working people in the People’s Republic of China have the right to rest.” Workers caught in the throes of a 12-hour (or more) work cycle are encouraged to take a daily midday rest, which typically lasts no more than 30 minutes.

media outlets in the United States have made a spectacle of the Chinese attachment to naps

, China is far from the only nation to embrace midday rest as an essential part of a successful workday. The “siesta,” a familiar though waning tradition in many Spanish-speaking countries, has long been entrenched in day-to-day life, encouraging businesses to shut down in the afternoon and reopen in the evening after workers have hit the hay and escaped the midday heat. Similar trends can be witnessed in the Italian, Greek, Indian, and Philippine cultures.

Up until the turn of the millennium, when the wellness industry developed into a booming commercial enterprise, Anglo-Saxon cultures were at the opposite end of the nap spectrum. 

Americans have a reputation as being one of the most sleep-deprived groups in the world

 — a fact that can be attributed to intensive work hours, poor sleeping habits, and the popular notion that a fast-paced lifestyle leads to greater success. Moreover, while Chinese culture has 

, an aversion to sleeping in public is deeply ingrained into American life (a fact some trace to the fact that many 

parents in Western societies have separate rooms and sleeping spaces for their babies

, while babies born into other, more nap-friendly parts of the world, typically sleep in the same bed as their parents).

The language of productivity is now being used to advocate napping on the job.

The American approach to sleep comes with a heavy economic toll. Workers who fall asleep on the job or are tired to the point of incompetence are losing significant amounts of money for their employers and the broader economy. A 2011 study published by the journal 

 researchers found that a lack of sleep — coupled with the resultant daily exhaustion — 

costs the United States $63.2 billion per year

At the same time, studies have shown that naps lasting 20-30 minutes can boost job performance by up to 34 percent by enhancing attention to detail, decreasing stress, and increasing cognitive abilities. Similarly, 

 highlights research from the University of Michigan which shows that midday nappers are less impulsive than non-napping counterparts and more able to tolerate frustration.

The years-long drumbeat of these findings has prompted some American employers to adopt a new outlook on the nap’s potential as an economic booster. The language of productivity is now being used to justify napping at the workplace.

In 2003, Arshad Chowdhury and Christopher Lindholst created 

, a company designed to deliver “fatigue management solutions” in the form of “workplace rest facilities.” Two of their products, the EnergyPod and the ZeroChair, have caught on, hitting a much-needed snooze button for fast-paced, sleep-hungry Americans. The EnergyPod is the higher end of the two, a reclined chair priced in the low five figures; with a sleek, white rounded visor to provide privacy to any would-be sleepers, it has the appearance of a high-tech space pod from 

. With it, MetroNaps revolutionized nap culture in America.

Napping, long a leisure activity, is fast becoming a luxury necessity for Manhattan trendsetters and Silicon Valley disruptors.

Google was one of the first corporate mammoths 

to offer communal EnergyPods in its headquarters

, spending thousands of dollars to ensure that employees could nap at work. NASA, the 

, and AOL, among others, have since bought into the idea of nap rooms. Colleges are hopping aboard the bandwagon, too. The University of 

Colorado at Boulder opened a ‘Siesta Room’ in 2009

, becoming one of the first American colleges to dedicate an entire room to napping. Others schools have followed suit, 

Since MetroNaps was founded in 2003, the business of selling sleep has seen incredible growth in the United States, hauling in billions of dollars of revenue each year (

in 2012, the sleep industry was worth an estimated $32 billion

). New York City in particular is something of a hot spot for nap culture, likely one of the few locales where 

a business like Manhattan’s Yelo Spa — which thrives while offering customers a relaxing space for naps

 away from their homes — could reach viability. Yelo charges $20 for a 20-minute rest, a price that many Americans are willing to pay, 

based on Yelo’s impressive and continually increasing revenues.

 Once in a nap room, customers recline in a “Yelo Chair,” listen to soft, ambient noises, and enjoy aromatherapy and the soft warmth of cashmere blankets.

Napping, long a leisure activity for Americans of all ages, is fast becoming a luxury status symbol endorsed by Manhattanites, a productivity-booster adopted by Silicon Valley trendsetters, and a matter of necessity for driven professionals who hope to get ahead by sleeping on the job.

Midday naps associated with reduced blood pressure and fewer medications,”

Napping to modulate frustration and impulsivity: a pilot study

sleepshutterstock_225404101.jpg

As American employees let their heads fall to their desks, employers see their productivity rise, and entrepreneurs in the sleep industry make big profits.

Want to boost the economy? Take a nap at work.

Men have dominated Kenyan society for centuries. They are the breadwinners, the rulers of their cities and villages, the voices of authority in their workplaces and homes. They are also the enforcers of a concerning cultural norm: widespread violence and brutality against women.

Until recently, most Kenyan women accepted their fates with silence, unable to fight the power of the patriarchy. Now, more women are finally striking back by striking out on their own.

The Samburu are a major African tribe with villages clustered throughout the Rift Valley. Like the majority of Kenya’s ethnic groups, they are acutely patriarchal, and have been for centuries. 

Women are frequently subjected to spousal abuse and rape

 and, once victims, they are ostracized and sometimes literally shunned or removed from their communities.

Such was the case for 14 women in 1990. For decades, British soldiers had visited Kenya to conduct military exercises. These visits would frequently culminate in the 

sexual assault of Kenyan women, who were powerless to stop the soldiers or receive justice in the aftermath of rape.

In 1990, soldiers at one Samburu village raped 14 women, who were subsequently shamed by their community and deemed unworthy of marriage or family. Rebecca Lolosoli, a politically active member of her tribe, attempted to help these women by educating them about their rights. For this offense, she was brutally beaten by Samburu men from her village, who had warned her against speaking out to the community. Lolosoli took her advocacy, left her husband, and fled her village to start a new life with the fourteen abandoned women.

Now, in the desert surrounding Mount Kenya, a matriarchal community thrives. Umoja, named for the Swahili word meaning “unity,” is an exclusively female village, led by Lolosoli. Here, women are leaders, homeowners, entrepreneurs, and caregivers. They govern and sustain themselves successfully. They choose their own marriages. They coexist peacefully and teach their children the importance of gender equality. Though Umoja initially started as an exclusive escape for Lolosoli and her fourteen compatriots, the community eventually opened to all survivors of sexual abuse and violence as a place to escape abuse and heal. If and when inhabitants choose to leave, they are empowered, ready to start anew with partners of their choosing.

As such, the community’s population is in constant flux. At times, the village has housed as many as 60 women (and their collective brood of 200 children). Nowadays, the population hovers around 20 women, and their families. They sustain themselves by making intricate beaded jewelry unique to their tribe, which they sell to tourists passing through the village. Umoja’s leaders also enforce a $12 entry fee at the gates of the village, and sleeping accommodations at a nearby campsite are available for a small charge.

As a one-of-a-kind, first-of-its-kind establishment, Umoja relies on the contributions of its frequent visitors to feed its inhabitants, and sustain its growth. In the typical Samburu village, money made by a woman is given to her husband, who controls the family’s purse strings. In Umoja, women keep the money they earn from their business ventures, and learn how to financially support themselves and their families.

Umoja stands in stark contrast to the lived reality of gender for most Kenyan women. All of Kenya’s major ethnic groups have a patriarchal structure where the oldest men within a tribe control politics, arrange marriages, and elevate younger men by awarding them properties, livestock, and women. Most women are subjected to traditions that undermine their value as people, and, instead, treat them as property. By dominating the land and livestock, men control the flow of money in agriculture-based tribal economies; 

Kenyan women own just 3 percent of the country’s land, according to a 2013 study by the Nature Conservancy

. Per Samburu customs, women are generally not allowed to own land or inherit it — even as the women themselves are inheritable property.

Umoja is a launching pad for societal change, eschewing Kenya’s most harmful cultural norms.

Umoja is a launching pad for societal change, eschewing and outright reversing Kenya’s more harmful cultural norms. Among the Samburu, female genital mutilation (FGM) is widely viewed as a rite of passage into womanhood for preteen girls; Lolosoli and her cofounders stress the dangers behind this tradition to young girls, encouraging them to denounce this antiquated and misogynist tradition. Forced marriages are a prominent part of Samburu culture as well, in which young girls — often no older than 13 — are betrothed to men who are decades their senior, with goats and cows given in exchange. By contrast, Lolosoli encourages women to find their own husbands and create families built by love rather than dowry trade-offs.

In 2011, Umoja’s success inspired the creation of Unity, a sister village. Half of the women living in Umoja left to establish Unity, in part due to political and ideological differences they had with Lolosoli. Despite those personal incompatibilities, Unity carries forward its predecessor’s tradition of spreading education to women and their children in the hopes that future generations of Samburu will acknowledge and support gender equality. Lolosoli has brought a small-scale enlightenment to the Samburu community, and her message has spread throughout the broader Rift Valley.

Across Kenya, though, the fight for gender equality is still very much in its infancy. Many men continue to push back against the idea of equality between men and women, and Umoja and Unity routinely receive violent threats from men in neighboring tribes. Most of these threats come from abandoned husbands, intent on forcing their wives back into subservience. Others target Lolosoli herself, who as the matriarch of the community, is no stranger to death threats.

For much of Kenya, the patriarchal dynamic still prevails. Men are the heads of families, and women are merely the “necks”—their sole roles being to support the heads.

In Umoja, women are the heads of households, the supportive necks of their community, and the bodies laboring to sustain the village. In Umoja, women are everything.

 of No Men: Inside Kenya's Women-Only Village,” Broadly, September 8, 2015

“Kenya’s National Gender Context and its Implications for Conservation: A Gender Analysis,”

 The National Conservancy Central Science, July 2013.

6898166478_97385f4687_o.jpg

The women of Umoja come from separate Samburu villages scattered across Kenya’s Rift Valley, yet they all share one feature: they are the victims of abuse, rape, forced marriages, and fled their male-dominated communities in favor of a female utopia.

No country for men: Umoja, an all-female village in northern Kenya

Sprawling manses are scattered across the rural countrysides of Central and South America. Popularly referred to as “narco ranches,” these vast estates are owned and operated by some of the region’s wealthiest and most powerful people: prominent drug lords.

At these villas, the lavish lifestyles funded by a multi-billion-dollar narcotics industry are proudly flaunted. Some homes have been known to shelter millions of dollars in cash, drugs, and weaponry, stowed away in rooms adjoined by parlors featuring custom-built luxury furniture and internationally renowned artwork. Other kingpins brandish their wealth with yet-more-extravagant expenses, turning their narco ranches into private zoos.

Narco-ranch menageries, where exotic animals are bought and bred as status symbols, are not a new addition to the ostentatious world of drug cartels. 

Pablo Escobar stockpiled his vast property with hundreds of exotic animals

 imported from all over the world; his hippos can still be found roaming the Colombian wilderness. In 1983, the Al Pacino film 

, in which the titular cartel boss keeps a tiger chained in his backyard, further popularized the idea that owning rare animals was a symbol of power and success in a criminal sphere were money talks (and a few pet tigers roar even louder).

In recent years, however, drug gangs have used exotic animals as more than just showy displays of wealth, looking to add the illegal wildlife trade as yet another facet of their smuggling empires. In the illicit economy, it is trumped only by drug trafficking and arms smuggling in its size and scale.

Animal trafficking can be broken down into two parts: the trade of living creatures, which are sold as pets to private owners; and the luxury product business, wherein dead animals are sold for their body parts.

Alive, rare animals can be worth thousands of dollars — the Spix's macaw, a critically endangered species from Brazil, for example, was worth an estimated $100,000 on the black market before its near-extinction in the wild. Lions and other big cats sell for a few thousand dollars, and their skins earn even more, 

Animal parts are similarly profitable. In Asia, ivory from elephants and rhinos is sought for its purported medicinal powers; by the ounce, 

elephant tusks command a price higher than gold

. Elsewhere, exotic fish bladders are sought for culinary purposes, one of many 

flamboyant, expensive, and illegal delicacies enjoyed in restaurants throughout Asia.

 To satisfy the demand, there are Mexican cartels that specialize in the transport of the fish bladders to Asia, where some buyers pay between $3,000 and $9,000 per kilogram.

For the most powerful drug cartels, these immense profits are well worth the risk. While criminals apprehended on charges of drug trafficking can receive years in prison and millions of dollars in forfeiture, wildlife traffickers typically face minimal punishments, often only fines. If illicit activities are discovered, gangs have no shortage of scapegoats, and a wealth of resources available to continue their work — secure smuggling routes, connections in government and law enforcement, and a perpetual flow of money.

These advantages are not available to smalltime smugglers and poachers, who typically come from poor communities and struggle to provide basic essentials for themselves and their families. Many team up with the crime syndicates to assure safe passage of cargo from one country to another. The cartels take a cut of the profit, and if trouble arises, they place blame on the lowly smugglers on the bottommost rung of the operation.

Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

 is an international treaty and the premier regulator of wildlife trade. “The harsh reality is that wildlife crime remains a low priority for most mainstream law enforcement agencies,” John Sellar, CITES’ retired head of law enforcement told 

. This is especially true in countries with weak democratic and legal institutions, where police are easily bought or are otherwise preoccupied by the long-running war on drugs. There is no such war on the exotic animal trade.

Beyond enforcement, the laws are filled with loopholes that make it easy for cartels to buy and sell rare animals and animal-based products. According to CITES, animals bred in captivity are not subject to the same lawful protection as those in the wild; after buying exotic animals on the black market, cartels often breed them in captivity. The result is a generation of unimported animals that can be more freely sold to eager buyers, a transaction that is virtually consequence-free for all parties involved.

Apart from the high profit and low risk, the trade has another appeal for cartels: the international force of supply and demand allows vast criminal networks to merge animal and drug shipments, with the former used to hide the latter. Drugs have been surgically packed inside not just beasts of burden, but venomous snakes, too; they’ve been hidden in animals’ shipping containers; liquefied drugs have been laced into the lining of plastic bags housing tropical fish; the list goes on.

In comparison to its sister trafficking trades (i.e. drugs, arms, and humans), the illegal wildlife business has managed to mostly avoid public scrutiny, despite the big players involved. As demand for exotic animals rises, unique species will continue to deplete and eventually disappear. Drug cartels, interested only in potential profit, reap the astronomical benefits of this little-discussed, weakly policed trade, directly contributing to the destruction of global ecodiversity.

“Crime Gone Wild: The Dangers of the International Illegal Wildlife Trade,”

“It’s Basically Legal for Mexican Narcos to Buy Lions, Cheetahs, and Other Exotic Pets,”

The International Fund for Animal Welfare, 

“Criminal Nature: The Global Security Implications of the Illegal Wildlife Trade,”

eLion_09142007.jpg

With international law enforcement cracking down on narcotics and arms smuggling, cartels have turned their focus to a less dangerous venture, trafficking in illegal wildlife.

Julia Higgins