I understand this, but, by doing so, they are elevating animals to the status of people. That’s kinda their entire point. “Animals are people, too” and all of that. You can’t enslave something unless you think they have the ability of making independent decisions. The term we use for that state of being is person.
And, yes, if slavery were still of questionable morality, I could see the use of the term. But it isn’t. No one needs to be reminded that slaves are people. There is no problem of people thinking of slaves as objects instead of people. It is a solution in search of a problem.
The fact that people think there is such a problem is actually somewhat offensive. By championing their use of the term, they are saying that everyone who uses slave is somehow dehumanizing them. That’s the similarity with euphemism and political correctness. The only reason to implement such ideas is if you think there are problems. It’s self-righteous and dickish.
“Look at me! I think X are people and you don’t. I’m so much better than you!” That’s the message you send by coming up with a new way of saying something on grounds that the other way is offensive. You’d better be sure that that message is warranted.
And, in this case, I do not see it, at all. Using the word slave does not in any way diminish from the horrors of slavery–in fact, it maximizes it. Making something an adjective almost always softens it.
Then you have no reason to champion the use of another term. If people who use the word slave are not less aware of the horrors of slavery, then there is no need to create a new term to make them more aware of said horrors.
And, note, I’m not saying there aren’t times where the personhood of slaves needs to be emphasized semantically. I’m saying that search-and-replacing “slave” with “enslaved person” doesn’t do that. Actually talking about slaves as real people does that, not just replacing words. Changing words is the lazy way out–and is why euphemisms are so often despised.
Also, that’s not the same thing with using “enslaved” as a verb. Emphasizing that the slaveowner is actively doing something immoral is quite useful, albeit again not something that needs to always be done. Most people don’t need constant reminders that slavery is evil.
Sorry for the third post, but I need to make another clarification. First off, I used “euphemisms” above when I meant “replacement terms.” Second, I don’t think I made it clear what I meant by saying they are “the lazy way out.” So here’s an example.
The term African American exists because we wanted to emphasize that Black people are American, not some other. How did that work out? We still constantly emphasize the differences with African Americans and “other” And it’s not like people even think about the “American” part anymore, as you see the term used even for non-American Black people. It’s had so little effect that nearly every Black person I have ever even slightly had contact with has said they either don’t care or actually prefer the old term.
If “enslaved persons” becomes the new term, people are just going to recompartmentalize that the same way we do slave. Even the possible slight emphasis of a slave’s personhood will be ignored soon enough.
It is totally silly. How about the “Moderating persons” on this board? Why not the OP person? Why not the ‘doctor person’? Are we trying to take away the humanity of those moderating, starting a thread, or graduating med school?
I’m copacetic with using the term “enslaved persons (or people)” as a descriptor for people who were held in bondeed servitude (bondaged servitude?). I’m a little less comfortable with the the construction of “A enslaved x [number of] people.” Unless A personally took those people from a condition of NOT being enslaved to a condition of BEING enslaved, it strikes me as more precise to say: “Simon Legree held thirty people in slavery.”
Slave is a term that is dehumanizing. It is important to distinguish that these are people who are enslaved, not that being a slave is essential to their nature, it isn’t.