Slave or Enslaved Person? (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Sparkle]

My HS son was fussed at by his history teacher for using the word "slave" in the context of discussing the West African slave trade. Apparently the new word for this is "enslaved person" though apparently it is still OK to say "slave trade."

Just FYI

 

[SystemShock]

... and partly cloudy is now partly sunny.

Did the teacher explain what is the difference between "slave" and "enslaved person"?

 

[tenordas]

Thinkspeak.

Revisionist history and "political correctness" are the banes of modern society.

How can we expect to combat slavery in the present if we don't identify what it was in the past?

You need to fuss at his history teacher because they are not teaching history.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

... and partly cloudy is now partly sunny.

Did the teacher explained what is the difference between "slave" and "enslaved person"?

I did not get much more detail, though I gather it is intended to make clear that slavery was foisted upon them and not an innate, immutable condition. Which seems ridiculous to me, but, I am an Old so it might just be me.

I thought about emailing the teacher but I do not want to create any blowback for my kid.

I told him you use whatever term she uses, even if its silly. Gotta get that A....

 

[brandon8283]

Thinkspeak.

Revisionist history and "political correctness" are the banes of modern society.

How can we expect to combat slavery in the present if we don't identify what it was in the past?

You need to fuss at his history teacher because they are not teaching history.

You have totally failed to understand the linguistic reasoning. Whether someone is called a slave or called someone who has been enslaved is irrelevant to whether or not history is actually being taught.

I did not get much more detail, though I gather it is intended to make clear that slavery was foisted upon them and not an innate, immutable condition.

This is pretty much correct. I am not a slave. I have been enslaved against my will. I am a person.

Which seems ridiculous to me, but, I am an Old so it might just be me.

Yea, it's the second part.

Words matter.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

OP hopefully the teacher used this as a teaching moment, and maybe your kid was embarrassed to be called out
if the teacher was dismissive then the teacher failed
BUT
this has been the 'correct' usage for at least a decade

Thinkspeak.

Revisionist history and "political correctness" are the banes of modern society.

How can we expect to combat slavery in the present if we don't identify what it was in the past?

You need to fuss at his history teacher because they are not teaching history.

100% incorrect
why is the original usage of "slave" as an identifying moniker the 'proper' usage and addressing a dehumanizing term to put the onus of the circumstance and not the person wrong

not understanding this and not recognizing the racism, colonialism and caste-based uses of language seems willfully obtuse

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I did not get much more detail, though I gather it is intended to make clear that slavery was foisted upon them and not an innate, immutable condition. Which seems ridiculous to me,

please explain

 

[gavinj]

You have totally failed to understand the linguistic reasoning. Whether someone is called a slave or called someone who has been enslaved is irrelevant to whether or not history is actually being taught.

This is pretty much correct. I am not a slave. I have been enslaved against my will. I am a person.

Yea, it's the second part.

Words matter.

You are using the word correctly, though- as a verb. I get that we are talking about a history class rather than an English class, so it’s not critical, I guess.

 

[SystemShock]

Thinkspeak.

Revisionist history and "political correctness" are the banes of modern society.

Nah. Conspiracy theories are.

 

[SystemShock]

please explain

What's the difference between an "employed person" and an "employee" ?

 

[brandon8283]

You are using the word correctly, though- as a verb.

Technically, "enslaved person" is more grammatically correct than "someone who has been enslaved," as it uses active, rather than passive voice.

 

[gavinj]

Technically, "enslaved person" is more grammatically correct than "someone who has been enslaved," as it uses active, rather than passive voice.

Technically enslaved is a verb, not an adjective. Mr A enslaved Mr B. Mr B is now a slave.

 

[brandon8283]

What's the difference between an "employed person" and an "employee" ?

This isn't an equivalent argument.

The question should be "What is the difference between the relationship between 'employed person' and 'employee' versus the relationship between 'enslaved person' and 'slave'"?

The reason we're not changing "employee" to "employed person" but we are changing "slave" to "enslaved person" is because of the differences in power, agency, and historical context.

 

[brandon8283]

Technically enslaved is a verb, not an adjective. Mr A enslaved Mr B. Mr B is now a slave.

You're gonna want to read up on verbals and get back to me.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

What's the difference between an "employed person" and an "employee" ?

false equivalency
in both there is the implication of choice on both sides
bob opts in and out of his identity as an employee - bob has choice and thus humanity
if bill enslaves bob, bob no longer has a choice and thus is stripped of humanity (even though there is still a human there)
why do we let bill determine how we should view bob?