The reasoning behind it is that a person is not a slave, but is forced to be a slave.
It has to do with the implication that comes with the word slave. I must say that in Dutch it makes more sense to say ‘tot slaaf gemaakte’ when talking about people that are victims of slavery. Mostly because it takes away the implication of that person’s identity of being a slave and changes it to a person that is forced to live in slavery. It adds the layer of force to it in my opinion and it humanizes the person that is subjected to slavery.
a person is not a slave, but is forced to be a slave
But you’re saying the same thing, no? Being forced to be something is still being something. Like that’s literally what the “to be” indicates? And “being a slave” already contains the “forced” aspect, so saying someone is forced to be a slave is redundant and still includes the “to be a slave” - being a slave aspect?
It has to do with the implication that comes with the word slave
The word is still there tho and the implications to the thing referred to when using the letters for slave don’t change with the qualifier? The implications come from society relating to the thing and how it has historically related to the thing.
Mostly because it takes away the implication of that person’s identity of being a slave and changes it to a person that is forced to live in slavery
That’s what “slave” already means tho? Like slave = a person that is forced to live in slavery. Being forced to live in slavery makes someone a slave. Just like being someone playing football makes one a footballer. How does identity come in to play and how does the “forced” qualifier change that when it’s already a necessary quality of just the word slave?
Do you mean it implies that “being a slave” is an immutable quality of their personhood and being?
Still, how does the qualifier change that notion when the word “slave” itself already contains the qualifier?
Idk don’t quite get the point here, just sounds redundant and like a weird perspectice on language and how it relates to reality.
The English term for this is enslaved person instead of slave, as I now remember reading a long time ago.
The discussion whether or not to use the one or the other often falls back on some linguistics debate whehter or not the word slave perfectly encaptures the definition. It does, a slave is by default someone who was robbed of freedom by another person, against their will.
But I think that’s not the point of the debate. The point is whether or not we should use one word, slave, that commodifies the person trapped in slavery into a slave. The point of using ‘enslaved person’ is to bring back the humans first, commodities second. When you call someone an enslaved person, you acknowledge that said person was a complex human being.
The point is not that slave is a wrong word, but that it dehumanizes the enslaved person.
I’ve been struggling with it for a long time as well. I always saw it as a pointless discussion. But in my experience talking with black people about it, especially those whose ancestors were enslaved, has changed my opinion on it. They mostly seem to prefer enslaved people, as they feel that it brings back humanity to their ancestors. Who am I to tell them ‘well, akshhhhualy…’? Especially as a white person lol.
What would I do if a black person would say that they prefer slaves rather than enslaved person? Probably accept it and leave it with that. In my eyes it’s more up to them to decide what they prefer to hear.
Edit: to add to this, a sort of same discussion was had in Dutch language about people with a handicap. We used to call them ‘invalide’ which implies that said person is invalid. When people with a handicap spoke out and said that they, in fact, are valid people, the word was changed. A lot of people seemed to not understand why at first but eventually the importance of the change became clear.
We now use the description ‘person with a handicap’
I may not be the expert on this, but it seems the newer word makes Slavery less of their personality trait, but more than anything it describes an inhumane work condition/living situation that the person is being forced to endure rather than just noting that the person had no autonomy and that they are a “slave” rather than a person with real thoughts and autonomy that are being forced to think another way. It may be semantics but I feel that it makes enough of a difference in what is being said by both words/phrases
Education should come with the package I believe. We can do both.
I had a black person once explain the importance of this to me like this: when talking about ancestors, they used to be portrayed as slaves. But they are so much more than just slaves. Calling them ‘tot slaaf gemaakten’ automatically makes them sound more like actual people that were mistreated, and it allows you to think about their human sides as well. This alone can have a positive effect on how we look at the history of slavery.
I can get the confusion and there are some grammatical challenges that come with it, but that’s not the most important part here. At least in my surroundings, a lot of black people seem to be more happy with this way of saying it. I made a comment yesterday saying how mostly white people think they should have a say in everything and that their opinions should carry a big weight when the topic might not be relevant to them, and I think this is one of those things.
The reasoning behind it is that a person is not a slave, but is forced to be a slave.
It has to do with the implication that comes with the word slave. I must say that in Dutch it makes more sense to say ‘tot slaaf gemaakte’ when talking about people that are victims of slavery. Mostly because it takes away the implication of that person’s identity of being a slave and changes it to a person that is forced to live in slavery. It adds the layer of force to it in my opinion and it humanizes the person that is subjected to slavery.
+1 with this perspective
But you’re saying the same thing, no? Being forced to be something is still being something. Like that’s literally what the “to be” indicates? And “being a slave” already contains the “forced” aspect, so saying someone is forced to be a slave is redundant and still includes the “to be a slave” - being a slave aspect?
The word is still there tho and the implications to the thing referred to when using the letters for slave don’t change with the qualifier? The implications come from society relating to the thing and how it has historically related to the thing.
That’s what “slave” already means tho? Like slave = a person that is forced to live in slavery. Being forced to live in slavery makes someone a slave. Just like being someone playing football makes one a footballer. How does identity come in to play and how does the “forced” qualifier change that when it’s already a necessary quality of just the word slave?
Do you mean it implies that “being a slave” is an immutable quality of their personhood and being? Still, how does the qualifier change that notion when the word “slave” itself already contains the qualifier?
Idk don’t quite get the point here, just sounds redundant and like a weird perspectice on language and how it relates to reality.
The English term for this is enslaved person instead of slave, as I now remember reading a long time ago.
The discussion whether or not to use the one or the other often falls back on some linguistics debate whehter or not the word slave perfectly encaptures the definition. It does, a slave is by default someone who was robbed of freedom by another person, against their will.
But I think that’s not the point of the debate. The point is whether or not we should use one word, slave, that commodifies the person trapped in slavery into a slave. The point of using ‘enslaved person’ is to bring back the humans first, commodities second. When you call someone an enslaved person, you acknowledge that said person was a complex human being.
The point is not that slave is a wrong word, but that it dehumanizes the enslaved person.
I’ve been struggling with it for a long time as well. I always saw it as a pointless discussion. But in my experience talking with black people about it, especially those whose ancestors were enslaved, has changed my opinion on it. They mostly seem to prefer enslaved people, as they feel that it brings back humanity to their ancestors. Who am I to tell them ‘well, akshhhhualy…’? Especially as a white person lol.
What would I do if a black person would say that they prefer slaves rather than enslaved person? Probably accept it and leave it with that. In my eyes it’s more up to them to decide what they prefer to hear.
Edit: to add to this, a sort of same discussion was had in Dutch language about people with a handicap. We used to call them ‘invalide’ which implies that said person is invalid. When people with a handicap spoke out and said that they, in fact, are valid people, the word was changed. A lot of people seemed to not understand why at first but eventually the importance of the change became clear.
We now use the description ‘person with a handicap’
I may not be the expert on this, but it seems the newer word makes Slavery less of their personality trait, but more than anything it describes an inhumane work condition/living situation that the person is being forced to endure rather than just noting that the person had no autonomy and that they are a “slave” rather than a person with real thoughts and autonomy that are being forced to think another way. It may be semantics but I feel that it makes enough of a difference in what is being said by both words/phrases
deleted by creator
Education should come with the package I believe. We can do both.
I had a black person once explain the importance of this to me like this: when talking about ancestors, they used to be portrayed as slaves. But they are so much more than just slaves. Calling them ‘tot slaaf gemaakten’ automatically makes them sound more like actual people that were mistreated, and it allows you to think about their human sides as well. This alone can have a positive effect on how we look at the history of slavery.
I can get the confusion and there are some grammatical challenges that come with it, but that’s not the most important part here. At least in my surroundings, a lot of black people seem to be more happy with this way of saying it. I made a comment yesterday saying how mostly white people think they should have a say in everything and that their opinions should carry a big weight when the topic might not be relevant to them, and I think this is one of those things.