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’
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’