Slave or Enslaved Person? (1 Viewer)

there are far too many bad examples of this to think this is still a good idea - whether it is what or how
Wow. It's NOT a parents' job to teach their children WHAT or HOW to think? Is that REALLY what you are saying? Or, you know, only if their beliefs aren't in line with YOURS?

Sure, I get there are bad examples. Please don't come back and tell me what. Because I know what you're implying.

I didn't include the first part of your reply because I found it, frankly, insulting. I didn't ask for your Liberal word usage lesson. Sometimes, you know, I know HOW to think for myself. Or is there only one belief in your world?
 
Last edited:
Wow. It's NOT a parents' job to teach their children WHAT or HOW to think? Is that REALLY what you are saying? Or, you know, only if their beliefs aren't in line with YOURS?

Sure, I get there are bad examples. Please don't come back and tell me what. Because I know what you're implying.
did your parents teach you how to use caps locks?
 
in the common american usage, the term 'slave' was used (and justified) because of the strongly held belief that africans were of lesser stock than white people - it was literally used to describe people as sub-human

Umm... nah...

the use of "enslaved persons" is meant to indicate dignity to humans who were enslaved
How does "enslaved person" indicate dignity?
 
I get it. Slave implies that, right or wrong, they were in fact property. While enslaved implies victim and throws the attention back on the person doing the enslaving. It also does not imply any acceptance of the condition By the enslaved. It’s also easier to roll with this kind of thing. Times change and when we no longer accept it, it’s a good sign that it has passed us by.

at the same time, this is small picture inside the much bigger picture. Over emphasis by either side is not likely to be productive and will go the stalemate route of all things politicized

How does "slave" not imply victim, when the very definition of slavery says it is the condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control?
 
Did everyone notice that lost in all these arguments over which is the "right" word and which is the "wrong" word is that we aren't learning any actual history?
 
How does "slave" not imply victim, when the very definition of slavery says it is the condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control?

when it was legal they used the term as if it was a given that they were in fact nothing more than property. For you maybe it does imply victim. But I think if more people had to go enslave someone instead of just picking up a slave at the market, it may have given pause to a few.
 
when it was legal they used the term as if it was a given that they were in fact nothing more than property. For you maybe it does imply victim. But I think if more people had to go enslave someone instead of just picking up a slave at the market, it may have given pause to a few.

That doesn't answer my question. How does substituting "slave" with "enslaved person" give dignity to the person in a condition of slavery?
 
That doesn't answer my question. How does substituting "slave" with "enslaved person" give dignity to the person in a condition of slavery?

you are looking for dignity? Perhaps that is asking too much. I am talking about implied property vs implied taken against will. One sounds more involuntary to me.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom