I don’t get how it sugarcoats anything. If anything, “enslaved person”–very much like “imprisoned person” and “kidnapped person”–makes it clear we are talking about oppression as opposed to something else.
It occurs to me it’s hard to find substitute words for “slave”. If we were talking about a peasant, we could say “laborer”, “serf”, “poor person”, “countryman”, or “villager”. But if you wanted to distingush a slave from a free person, what other word is there? “Servant” is ambiguous. Everything else is either pejorative or archaic.
Obviously, this is using a different standard for the word, ‘slave’. 60,000 in the US sounds absurd, unless you consider wage-slaves who work from paycheck to paycheck, and then the number should be higher by at least two orders of magnitude.
I would object to equating concentration camp prisoners and/or survivors with Jews. The historical fact is that about half of the people who died in the Nazi concentration camp system were not Jewish. These other victims should be remembered as well.
Of course there’s a point, but it’s probably not the one you think.
The two previous quotes are from American Communism in Crisis, 1943-1957, by Joseph Starobin, then-foreign editor of the American edition of the Daily Worker.
I don’t understand the idea that anyone has any conceptual difficulty in connecting the word “slave” with a person. It’s inherent in the concept. You can’t put a non-person into slavery.
Yes, I know that this logic also applies to “Jews” vs. “Jewish people.” But I always assumed that was because the word “Jew” used to be used as a dirty word, not because Jewish people feel they need an affirmation of their personhood. It surely is not because people need a reminder that Jews are people.
As I wrote, it’s a battle that’s now been won. But a couple of hundred years ago, there were plenty of people who would honestly argue that blacks had a status somewhere between humans (ie whites) and animals. And they felt this was an objective biological fact, not merely a social convention. They used this belief to justify slavery; they argued that blacks could no more be free than horses or dogs could - they believed that blacks were biologically incapable of being free persons. The best status they could hope for was to be owned by somebody who would take care of them.
Shockingly racist today, of course, but these were mainstream beliefs in the not too distant past.
And on the other hand, there are certainly people who argue today that humans enslave animals. There are activists who argue against not just cruelty to animals or using them for food or science but also benign ownership. They argue against humans owning animals as a matter of moral principle and believe that owning a pet is the literal equivalent of owning a slave.
I disagree with these beliefs and feel that animals do not have the sense of freedom that humans do. But who knows? In the 23rd century, they may look back on our society and be appalled at the casual way we enslaved our fellow creatures and wonder how we could not see the immorality of what we were doing.
If the substitution as per thread title were to be made universal, it would ruin numerous good songs and poems. For instance, Kipling’s poem on the thoughts of the subjugated Picts:
“You will be enslaved persons, just the same –
Why, yes, we have always been enslaved persons;
But you, you will die of the shame,
And then we shall dance on your graves.”
I think there could be value in it. More so than the usual raft of PC styled euphemistic titles.
If calling Slaves ‘enslaved people’ provokes the listener to heightened consideration that they are a)*people *and b)have had something bad done to them, then there might be a point to it.
Especially the second part. Slaves aren’t just a thing. They are people who have been made into slaves.
I’m not saying people wouldn’t know or understand it, just that sometimes, a change of semantics can provoke a change of perception and enable people to engage differently with the topic.
I mean, I know and understand that millions of Jews were slaughtered in WWII, but I suspect visiting the places where it happened would cause me to think about that in a different way.
I assume the point is that enslavement is an imposed condition, not inherent characteristic. I see that, but I agree that I would rather hear the harsh and ugly term “slave” for an ugly reality.
Similarly, I think the term “slaver owner” is more appropriate; it may not have been “legitimate” but it was definitely the law.
Respectfully, I disagree. It is unambiguous and inaccurate.
I think there probably are people for whom the term ‘slave’ is not viscerally harsh and ugly though; maybe through innocent-type ignorance as opposed to willful. For these people, it may help to use different terms to make the point come home.
This is pretty much my reaction, though there is so much changing of words for politically correct reasons these days its sometimes hard to judge if its a case of ‘fair enough’ or ‘political correctness gone mad!!1!!’.
I’m somewhat uncomfortable with trying to force what is acceptable for people to think and say but I certainly also don’t believe in being a jerk for the sake of it.
On a sidenote I always try to use the words ‘Jewish people’ or equivalent in relevant discussions because when I type, ‘the Jews’, it seems to read in lip-curling superior German accent.
Shades of meaning associated with the words we use do matter. I’ve noticed in our discourse on slavery, we tend to talk about the issue using the same objectifying terms that people used in the past. So perhaps it’s about time we look at how we talk.
“George Smith owned hundreds of slaves” is not really conveying the same thought as “George Smith enslaved hundreds of people”. Why is this, though? Because the former statement conflates a person with an object, which in turn makes the concept of “owning” someone seem rational and not all that ridiculous or bad. The latter allows us to see the truth more clearly.
Consider also the way in which we talk about how slaveowners “cared for” for their slaves. We say that the planters provided slaves with shelter and food, as if the shelter and food wasn’t actually created by the slaves themselves either directly or indirectly from their labor (Yall think massa was out there constructing slave cabins? Chopping down trees? Ha!) or sale. For the sake of precision and accuracy, what we should be saying is that slaveowners allowed slaves to keep a fraction of what they produced in the form of dietary rations and shelter, while they kept everything else for themselves.
I remember when people use to say that Columbus “discovered” America with no irony at all, and I’m not all that old. Few people do this now, and its largely because people have challenged outdated ways of describing historical events that favor the majority at the expense of the minority.
I guess this is true, although it seems to me that people who do not think of the term slave as “viscerally harsh and ugly” are probably people who know very little about the conditions of slavery. And it seems to me that we would be better off spending our time educating such people about what slavery actually was, and what it meant to the people who had to endure it, rather than simply adopting a new term to describe the slaves.
My general position, i guess, is that i have no objection to using the term “enslaved” or “enslaved person,” because that sort of terminological shift can nudge people in a more sophisticated interpretive direction, but the change in terms is not especially useful unless it is accompanied by a more thoroughgoing education. Basically, the people who advocate these sorts of changes are often the ones who least need their consciousness raised, and those who might benefit from consciousness raising need more than just a new word.
