On GMA yesterday, as part of their searching discussion on race in America (!), Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts rehashed an incident where DS used the expression “slaved over a hot stove” and where RR took a surprised exception to the insensitivity of the term. (I have no access to the original discussion, and googling turns up little, but they were discussing it exactly as if DS was being grossly and obtusely insensitive in using the verb “to slave.”)
Is this a new low in political corrrectness? Is the word "slave’ somehow not to be used anymore, even in a context that has no reference to African-Americans? (Is it taboo to use it to refer to black Americans, pre-1865?) Is a Latin poet who calls himself a willing slave to his lover being prematurely non-PC? Did I misunderstand the tenor of the conversation yesterday? Have I have gone insane?
Can “slave” be used as a noun any more? As a verb? Do you make an exception for any use, but prohibit its use generally? Is slavery unacceptable as a modern hyperbole for “tedious, hard, unpleasant work” or is it acceptable only in a literal historical context? Is it to be avoided even there?
I know of no reason why “slave” as used would be an objectionable term. But to be fair, I’d have to have a much better idea why RR objected to the term.
I see no evidence of that being the case, so I’d say no.
Why would it be?
Without knowing the context of the discussion or the slave comment, there’s no way I can answer that. But I do think it’s quite a leap to conclude that because one person who happens to have a mic in their face may have had a problem with something Sawyer said, there’s a whole movement trying to ban “slave” from the English language. All these questions…
…strike me as being a bit premature and overreactive if all the only thing spawning these concerns are some ideas expressed by an anchorwoman.
Computer suppliers have in the past been asked to avoid references to “master / slave” configurations.
However, I’ve heard an argument that the term “slave” shouldn’t even be used in reference to African-American slavery… as the term derives from “slav” and therefore implies that slavs are perpetually chattels.
Having said that, I’ve never heard anyone object to its “everyday” usage - “I’ve been slaving in the kitchen for hours” etc.
There was a recent controversy when Steny Hoyer used the word “slavishly” to describe Michael Steele’s support for the Republican party. Steele is black. His umbrage may have been campaign posturing.
Yes, I thought it was over-the-top nutty too, especially the part where DS was backpedaling, apologizing for her thoughtless use of the word, etc. A more appropriate response to Robin Roberts might have been, IMO, “Are you frickin nuts? People have been enslaved throughout human history! Get over yourself” but since I was just flipping around the dial, I’m not sure how the entire conversation went, and it was only hours afterwards that I thought “Did I hear what I think I heard?” Just checking to see if I’m out of step with current usage, and if anyone cares to defend the prohibition against “slave” if any exists.
I’ll add one more question to my OP: is “enslaved person” preferable to “slave”? I had heard this one as implying more dignity, though I don’t really get it. The indignity is being enslaved, IMO, not how such a person is referred to.
I think the term is kind of rude, but not just to black folks. It’s the kind of term that is hyperbolic, and insensitive to the fact that so many people have been enslaved throughout the centuries, including in our own time. On those mommy-swapping reality shows, there invariably is a working mom who says that the stay-at-home mom is a “slave” to her husband and kids. I do find this offensive on a lot of levels, not the least of which is that the stay-at-home mom chooses that lifestyle, which is SLIGHTLY different from someone who is forced into slavery. I think the word, used in this way, should fade into oblivion.
You can have my “slave” when you pry it from my cold, dead…
well, nevermind.
That gets my vote.
I can imagine a situation where someone might intentionally use the term to offend, playing off its various meanings, but it would take some effort. For example, if Diane had said something like
“So, Robin, I’ve been slaving over a hot stove all day, if you know what I mean! Guess you could say I’m the slave master! Get it? Better stay away from me today, heh heh!”
and proceeded to make “cracking-whip” noises until her colleague looked sufficiently angry enough—one might say that crossed the line.
I can almost see the glimmer of good intention that flounders beneath the suffocating stupidity of this— the same good intention that, I suppose, motivates the adoption of most P.C. terminology. While the term “slave” becomes a label for the fundamental nature of the person, an “enslaved person” is first and foremost a person, retaining their humanity, upon whom the crime of slavery has been perpetrated.
I don’t see it being much of a comfort to the “enslaved person,” though.
I can also imagine it infecting other realms, so that prisoners become “imprisoned persons,” immigrants become “persons of extranational origin,” etc.
So many variables function into a human interaction, and if Sawyer and Roberts had an exchange that didn’t go well, that wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.
I can see it along the lines of people complaining that they’re starving when they haven’t eaten in a few hours, then being reminded of the fact that there are people who are dying because they haven’t eaten, period.
When I worked with college students, I suggested that they abstain from a date auction because it objectified men and women, not to mention the fact that selling people struck me as distasteful (even in jest). Some of the students thought that this was an example of “political correctness gone amok.” I didn’t force them to change the activity - just brought the issue to their attention. A few days later they canceled the program.
I later encountered a White female student who told me she was relieved that the activity had been canceled - turns out she worked with Russian refugees, some of whom had been, or had family members who had been sold into slavery.
Well, there were free blacks in America pre-1865, so you can’t use “slaves” and “black Americans” interchangeably. But I don’t know why saying something like, “Slaves sure weren’t treated very well” would be a problem.
Well if you go to a BDSM club you’re going to hear it. There are slaves all over the place.
But as for African Americans, what else are you going to call them (when they were slaves) ? Servants? They wern’t. Amounts to airbrushing history. Like taking nigger out of Huckleberry Finn. I suppose you could use enslaved person butseem a little unnecessary. It’s not like it’s an insult. Just a tragity.
As for using it as a verb, well it’s a different meaning. Except of course for the fact that slaves worked really hard. Which is more a sympathetic note than an insult.
‘Slave’ is a broad term with a valid and useful definition(s). It can be used for general analogy (see Slave and Master in hard drive terminology), hyperbolically, e.g. ‘I’ve slaved in that kitchen all day’ or ‘I am not your slave!’, as a literal descriptor of an ‘enslaved person’ or for historical reference - see ‘Slavery’.
To suggest that we ‘disappear’ this word or substitute it with a suffocated Newspeak euphemism on the grounds that some people at some time were slaves is both ludicrous and anti-intellectual.