I have a friend who has epilepsy, and refuses to let people call her an epileptic, because that label implies that everything she is and will ever be is in bounded and limited by that one condition of her life. So, yeah, I voted for using “enslaved person”.
White people were slaves.
And if there were any slaves still living, I strongly suspect that they would look at us like we were utterly insane for having this discussion.
That’s a great point. I quibble with “George Smith enslaved hundreds of people” as meaning the same thing - it (to my ears) implies George’s slaves were all formerly free until he personally enslaved them.
Still, “George Smith owned hundreds of people” does heighten the wrongness of it. I had answered ‘possibly’ in the poll because Skald’s op didn’t make one sound much different than the other, but figured the writers of the show weren’t idiots, and made the decision for some good reason.
“Persons” still sounds affected to my ear, though. I’ll vote in favor of enslaved people.
Or perhaps “George Smith kept hundreds of people in captivity/bondage/slavery.” (your pick)
Yeah, that’s perfect. Imagine a tour of Mount Vernon where you’re informed that President Washington kept about a hundred people in captivity for life there.
I wrestled with this semantic quibble too. But one can argue that “enslave” can simply mean that you’re making someone your slave.
Voted “Nope.”
I never thought slavery was cool, specifically because it was people doing abominable shit to other people. I don’t need to be reminded that slaves are people, unwillingly bound in servitude. People living in that condition already have a label: “Slave” To call them something else with more syllables doesn’t make the practice any more or less awful, it just makes it more cumbersome to talk about.
Nope! Slaves and enslaved persons mean the same thing. So what’s the point. 
No, I just cannot see that. Unless you mean the word itself, and not the meaning?
I just can’t believe that anyone who gives it half a thought doesn’t have a little spasm of dread and nausea when using the word. Even those of us with enough knowledge of history to know life could be pretty brutal for anyone who wasn’t a landed ‘white’ man (that would be a C- or better in junior high history) knows slavery was more than economic and legal restrictions.
Now you’re messing with me, right?
“enslaved hundreds of people” sounds like a pathetic euphemism next to “owned hundreds of slaves”. People don’t even talk about owning their pets anymore. And “people” slyly ignores the ugly truth that legally a slave was never more than 5/8th of a person.
And who is the “we” who say slaveowners “cared for” slaves, or provided food and shelter?
I don’t mean to sound so abrasive, but I am flummoxed by the argument that anyone needs different verbal cues to understand that American slavery was a nasty, brutal shame of a nation.
There’s nothing pathetic nor euphemismistic to be found in this statement. Can you elaborate on why you think there is? To even say such a thing makes you seem inordinately wedded to the word “slave”, as though swapping it out with “people” offends you somehow. I don’t want to believe anyone could be concerned over something so trivial, so please help me understand this opinion of yours.
Now it’s my turn to ask whether you’re messing with me. Slaves were 100% people, and that you seem to think the beliefs of racist white folks should actually interfere with modernday application of the English language greatly concerns me. By that logic we shouldn’t be referring to the Holocaust victims as people, either.
Refering to slaves as people is not a debateable issue.
I’m flummoxed that you can’t see the contradicting viewpoints in your own post.
In My Opinion:
-
“Slave” and “own” are frank and direct terms that describe a horrible reality better.
-
Slaves did not have the basic human rights recognized for most citizens. I meant 3/5th, not 5/8th. This is not modern day racist opinion; it is a fact.
-
My understanding of what is right does not prevent my acknowledgement of historical (or, for that matter, current) realities.
I do not think “enslaved person” reflect historical social reality as well as “slave”.
I cannot credit that rational people believe that slave-owners were benevolent.
The personhood of slaves is undeniable; I see no need to emphasize it with extra syllables.
The personhood was denied and slaves were not considered people legally or economically is also undeniable.
I think the only reason it sounds euphemistic is that we are so used to “slaves.” If all the history books had used “enslaved people” the whole time, we would associate that term with all the horrible things.
So for everyone who grew up with the term “slaves”, changing the term will distance them from the reality. But people that grow up with the new term won’t have that problem, and it will also emphasize the humanity of the enslaved.
You are both right and wrong here.
It is certainly true that, in most important ways, slaves did not have their basic human rights recognized, and were not considered citizens, especially by those who lived in slaveholding regions. This attitude was formalized, not only for slaves but even for free blacks, by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), where the majority found that blacks were not citizens of the United States, and were not protected by the US Constitution.
The three-fifths clause in the United States Constitution, however, was a rather different issue. No-one said “Slaves are only legally three-fifths of a person, so that’s how we’ll count them.” Yes, the very existence of the clause itself reflected debates over slavery, and over the place of slaves in society, but it was primarily about the issue of apportionment, about how to count the population for the purposes of representation in the United States Congress. It was not really an indication that slaves were considered to be three-fifths of a person, either legally or philosophically. There were people in the United States who considered blacks to be subhuman, and there were others who recognized the fundamental humanity of blacks, but those really weren’t the issue in the debate over the three-fifths clause.
Perhaps the best indication that the three-fifths clause was not really about the actual personhood of the slaves is the fact that it was the Southern slaveowners themselves who argued for counting each slave fully in the census, for the purposes of legislative apportionment. By contrast, people from Massachusetts (where slavery was abolished by judicial decision in 1783) and other Northern states, argued that slaves should not be counted at all for the purposes of apportionment.
And this all made perfect sense, from the point of view of the struggle for political power. The Southern states wanted to count their slaves in order to increase their representation in the House of Representatives (and their electoral college vote), and the Northern states didn’t want slave counted because they understood that it would give the South disproportionate power in Congress. The three-fifths clause was the compromise they reached in this debate over apportionment.
The slaves were never going to exercise any actual political power, no matter how they were counted.
It’s more than fucked up that enslavers considered slaves “people” when it benefited them politically, but considered them animals when they were literally and figuratively screwing them.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
[QUOTE= Blackberry]
Yeah, probably. I’m also uncomfortable with calling people “slave owners”, like there is some legitimacy to one person owning another. Words do matter.
[/QUOTE]
What would you call them, then, in a history class dealing with the institution of slavery?
[/quote]
Person-enslaving persons?
Regards,
Shodan
Something is missing in the way you perceive or the way you explain. These statements are at odds with each other.
I see it precisely the opposite. We’re so used to slave that its effect has been numbed.
Enslaved people is not a euphemism; it’s perfectly descriptive. It heightens the awareness that they were slaves *and *people. Its unconventional phrasing wakes the brain up to process meaning.
I agree with bup - ‘slave’ is a numbed term for me - to the extent that we can describe a hard drive or camera flash or similar as a ‘slave’ without batting an eyelid.
People interpret words differently according to a wide range of factors, including culture - I don’t think you’re wrong to say that ‘slave’ is the best and most appropriate term for your usage, j666, but I don’t think your experience/view/interpretation is universal either (and neither is mine).
Exactly. If we accept that the word slave connotes someone who isn’t fully human, but we all understand that slaves were just as human as the people oppressing them, then it should be freakin’ obvious that there will be a dampening effect when we always refer to them as “slaves” while eschewing the perfectly cromulent “people”.
It becomes infinitely more easier to see slavery as being less-than-atrocious if we’re subconsciously thinking in terms of objects and animals.
It’s true that slaves did not have the basic human rights accorded most citizens, but the Three-Fifths Compromise has nothing directly to do with that.