Slave or Enslaved Person? (1 Viewer)

[SystemShock]

Ok, so whether you say "intellectually disabled" or "r***rd" indicates someone's intellectual state just the same? Or do words have meaning?

The difference here is the usage of the "r-word", which became an insult in common parlance. Slave, on the other hand, has always denoted the same thing.

For the record, if I must allude to someone's condition, I use the condition itself, if I know the specific condition. I don't use terms like "mentally challenged", "physically challenged", or "has differences".

 

[SystemShock]

Geez, ok, you've beaten me down. We won't see eye to eye on this, but it doesn't matter. Stick to your ways. I'll move on with my life as this is settled in my vernacular.

Have a good day sir.

It was a yes or no question.

And what do you think "my ways" are, exactly?

 

[tenordas]

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


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

How is erasing a term and not showing how people were dehumanized by their fellow man somehow not proper? I argue that not recognizing that is willfully obtuse, and that doing so doesn't recognize the atrocities of colonialism, racism, and how caste based language was used in an effort to dehumanize people.

The racist colonials called people "slaves". If we start erasing that fact, we lessen the severity of what happened, of how those slave owners thought, and we make it seem ever so slightly more "okay". Using the term "enslaved person" implies that the masters thought of them as people, which in most cases, they did not. They thought of them as property or cattle. I STRONGLY object to inserting language that homogenizes and lessens the disgusting attitudes of plantation owners. We need to teach our children all the nuances of the horrors of the slave trade, and just how far reaching was the de-humanization of it.

If the younger generation isn't taught to understand that, how can I expect them to understand the terrors of slavery today? How are we to combat human trafficking if they don't understand the inhumanity of the people who are running such things? There is nothing "correct" about slavery or slave owners. The absolute incorrectness of it needs to be driven home so we can eradicate all forms of it forever.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Does it really matter? On this, like many issues of today, I don’t understand the need for the distinction and I also don’t understand the need to complain about it.

 

[jboss]

Does it really matter? On this, like many issues of today, I don’t understand the need for the distinction and I also don’t understand the need to complain about it.

Old reactionaries love to make fun of how sensitive everyone is and then get viscerally mad about the very same things they are making fun of

 

[tenordas]

Because one word does not effectively communicate the desired empathetic nuance and historical context in today's perspective on slavery. Language evolves. It's why we've gone from "Indians" to "Native Americans" or even "Indigenous Peoples." One word got across what we were talking about, but there's more effective ways of communicating than relying on the checkered history of "Indians."

As part Cherokee, I chafe at the use of the word "Indians". I prefer the term "human beings" because that's what natives called themselves among most of the tribes, but I know it's rarely used because of the confusion it causes.

HOWEVER, I do not chafe at the use of "Indians" in history books or history classes because it better describes the relationship between Native Americans and white men. Because that's what white men called natives. That fact shouldn't be erased because, as stated in my post above about slavery, the younger generations need a full understanding of the prejudices that existed. The terms of "cowboys and Indians" need to be taught (and fully explained) because they help explain the mindset of prejudice against Native Americans; how they were looked at by white men as the enemy and as evil savages. Again, don't dumb down what was done to people. It's important to highlight so we can reduce the chances of it happening again.

 

[Tapxe]

It was a yes or no question.

And what do you think "my ways" are, exactly?

I took it as rhetorical.

You are arguing for not changing the terms used because you don't seem to believe there is a need to change, so I can only assume your ways are to use the original terminology rather than updating as others would.

 

[B4YOU]

As part Cherokee, I chafe at the use of the word "Indians". I prefer the term "human beings" because that's what natives called themselves among most of the tribes, but I know it's rarely used because of the confusion it causes.

HOWEVER, I do not chafe at the use of "Indians" in history books or history classes because it better describes the relationship between Native Americans and white men. Because that's what white men called natives. That fact shouldn't be erased because, as stated in my post above about slavery, the younger generations need a full understanding of the prejudices that existed. The terms of "cowboys and Indians" need to be taught (and fully explained) because they help explain the mindset of prejudice against Native Americans; how they were looked at by white men as the enemy and as evil savages. Again, don't dumb down what was done to people. It's important to highlight so we can reduce the chances of it happening again.

Thanks. What’s your opinion on Native American vs Indigenous People?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

As part Cherokee, I chafe at the use of the word "Indians". I prefer the term "human beings" because that's what natives called themselves among most of the tribes, but I know it's rarely used because of the confusion it causes.

HOWEVER, I do not chafe at the use of "Indians" in history books or history classes because it better describes the relationship between Native Americans and white men. Because that's what white men called natives. That fact shouldn't be erased because, as stated in my post above about slavery, the younger generations need a full understanding of the prejudices that existed. The terms of "cowboys and Indians" need to be taught (and fully explained) because they help explain the mindset of prejudice against Native Americans; how they were looked at by white men as the enemy and as evil savages. Again, don't dumb down what was done to people. It's important to highlight so we can reduce the chances of it happening again.

Adding nuance and perspective is the very opposite of dumbing down
But I will say that I might be missing something bc from my pov you seem to be arguing against yourself in your posts herein

 

[SystemShock]

Does it really matter? On this, like many issues of today, I don’t understand the need for the distinction and I also don’t understand the need to complain about it.

That is a good question.

I don't think that any individual who is in a state of slavery cares whether you refer to them as "slave" or "enslaved person".

However, I do have an issue with not only trying to find unnecessary terms or euphemisms that make us feel better about the conditions of others, but being chastised for not using said terms.

In this particular case, we are not talking about a word that is or has become an insult, or that does not properly describe the state a person is in. But apparently, according to some posts, I am a reactionary who abhors change and doesn't listen to reason because I don't see this alleged difference between this one term they think brings more humanity to the state a person is in, and the term that perfectly conveys the state a person is in.

 

[tenordas]

Thanks. What’s your opinion on Native American vs Indigenous People?

I personally prefer "Native American", but I have no objection to either term. I know some gripe that using "American" at all is bowing to the white European influence, but I think that reaction is pretty overboard.

 

[Madmarsha]

Well, I understand the nuance and I think it's important to teach that difference. What is wrong is to penalize someone for not using YOUR chosen word. And that's ANOTHER important nuance.

THAT is thinkspeak and it feels like we are headed toward that with recklessness which will erase critical thinking.

 

[gavinj]

Old reactionaries love to make fun of how sensitive everyone is and then get viscerally mad about the very same things they are making fun of

We prefer to be called “reactionaries of advanced age” or “reactionary time-veterans.”

 

[Madmarsha]

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

At this point, I will give the teacher the benefit of the doubt that she is only instructing there is a difference and not intending to demand certain language or there will be a consequence. I am skeptical that it's another example of teaching pupils WHAT to think and not HOW to think which I generally upbraid the teaching profession for at many levels. Either way, it's a parents' job to teach our children HOW to think.

 

[tomwaits]

Not reading this thread, but I am sure you guys will sort it all out and all end up on the same page.