Slave or Enslaved Person? (1 Viewer)

[gavinj]

Sounds like someone who read up on verbals and realized that he was completely incorrect.

No, if you want to replace a noun with a verbal adjective + a noun, go ahead. 2 words are better than 1, I guess.

 

[jboss]

Just FYI in the context of this conversation, you are arguing for the use of "persons who are r-word" instead of "r-word."

It was rhetorical. Because apperently those are the same thing to some people.

 

[brandon8283]

Serves me right for replying to you.

You're gonna want to read up on the definition of slavery and get back to me.

I'm sorry I was abrupt. I'm trying to educate. This sort of grammatical wordplay is kind of in my wheelhouse.

Nuance is defined as a "subtle distinction or variation." The difference between "slave" and "enslaved person" is extremely nuanced, to the point that a person that has not been educated on the difference (or a non-native speaker) may not be able to tell the difference.

We're trying to explain that there is a difference, albeit EXTREMELY subtle, but you're not yet listening.

Connotation vs. denotation is also relevant to this discussion.

 

[SystemShock]

You say "intellectually disabled/challenged" or you still drop R bombs?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

1) Generally speaking, why use 2 words when 1 will do?

2) Nobody who uses the word "slave" in a history class describing the slave trade is under the misconception that that status was anything other than involuntary. It an unnecessary and muddying reformulation of an easily understood concept that, in this case, creates a distraction from the topic and tries to catch the speaker out. It seems to assume that one supports the institution of slavery by using the word "slave," which is, indeed, silly. Michelle Obama repeatedly used to refer to the WH as "a house built by slaves."

As it relates to my kid, its another PC moment that sent his eyes rolling to the back of his head. His school is unintentionally creating a crop of anti-progressives (not sure what term to use - MAGA, conservative, anti-PC).

if using the word "enslaved person" instead of "slave" is what sends someone into an 'anti-progressive" realm, i have some news for you about where they were before having this topic addressed

i just posted this in the 'moving movie scene' thread - it's a good if limited primer into the perceived and actual problems with racialized language


one poster came in with his nonsense about ThinkSpeak - but your post above seems in support of thinkspeak - controlling the idea of the word - but language is SUPPOSED to EVOLVE as we do - language is a reflection of culture and if the culture says we should update our ideas from centuries ago, then we probably should
there are TONS of terms for race and gender and other arenas that you would feel uncomfortable using but your grandparents were just fine using (not just yours, all of our grandparents)
what has been lost by making sure we use both male and female pronouns (or some other device), what has been lost by using the term African-American (or whatever terms will take its place in 10 years)?

i would hope that you agree that the way slavery is taught in this country is woefully inaccurate and reductionistic - using "enslaved person" is an entryway into helping is teach that period more honestly and purposefully - i hope you are on board with that

 

[brandon8283]

No, if you want to replace a noun with a verbal adjective + a noun, go ahead. 2 words are better than 1, I guess.

 

[Tapxe]

I get it. Words have meaning.

Slave is an outside term which dehumanizes the people making it seem less bad.

Enslaved person brings that humanity back to it and makes it clear how wrong it was.

I know many won't agree and will hem and haw about it. I was once afraid of change too. Now I know it's the only thing that is permanent.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm sorry I was abrupt. I'm trying to educate. This sort of grammatical wordplay is kind of in my wheelhouse.

Nuance is defined as a "subtle distinction or variation." The difference between "slave" and "enslaved person" is extremely nuanced, to the point that a person that has not been educated on the difference (or a non-native speaker) may not be able to tell the difference.

We're trying to explain that there is a difference, albeit EXTREMELY subtle, but you're not yet listening.

Connotation vs. denotation is also relevant to this discussion.

And there you go again.

Knowing the definition of the condition of slavery, there is no difference between "slave" and "enslaved person".

 

[SystemShock]

I get it. Words have meaning.
Slave is an outside term which dehumanizes the people making it seem less bad.
Enslaved person brings that humanity back to it and makes it clear how wrong it was.

But it doesn't, unless you think slavery is some sort of benign state. It is the condition of slavery that we reject and find dehumanizing.

 

[brandon8283]

Knowing the definition of the condition of slavery, there is no difference between "slave" and "enslaved person".

Connotation vs. denotation is also relevant to this discussion.

Posting the definition of slavery in this instance indicates that you do not understand the difference between connotation and denotation, or you are willfully ignoring its relevance to this topic.

And where am I going, exactly?

 

[SystemShock]

It was rhetorical. Because apperently those are the same thing to some people.

So we should use "freedom challenged" instead of "enslaved person", then?

 

[jboss]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The employment thing certainly didnt but you posted it anyway

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

of course it is - language is not a collection of sterile and static definitions
we are in the middle of language evolution like we always are (as the 'r' example indicates)

culturally we're at a 1619 vs 1776 dialogue - 1619 is history (but not perfect, admittedly), 1776 is mythological propaganda. hopefully we will adopt language that's more reflective of the ideas in 1619 vs the lies of 1776

getting to Sparkle's admonition it's usually the case that progressivism wins - it's just a matter of how long the status quo slows the natural advancement to happen

 

[brandon8283]

It is the condition of slavery that we reject and find dehumanizing.

Perfect. Now let's allow language to evolve to better indicate our rejection of its dehumanization.

 

[jboss]

So we should use "freedom challenged" instead of "enslaved person", then?

Do you really still not understand the distinction being made here?