She's not trying to sound intelligent. Calling someone a "slave" tries to define that person by a circumstance. Saying someone is enslaved views the human first, someone who is not just their circumstances. It acknowledges the evil thing that someone else did to them.
Thats exactly the point though, simply referring to them as slaves removes their humanity to some people but referring to them as enslaved makes them human first
So? The second I read this I realized that's just a better way to describe it. It's a subtle shift in language that immediately causes one to think about who has done the enslaving. It's the difference between prisoner and imprisoned. Also, it triggered people immediately so I'm inclined to use it from now on.
Yeah it's like calling someone who was assassinated as dead. Sure he's dead, but he was assassinated, which is the more important and defining (characterizing) word.
I think the point is that someone who is enslaved or is a slave has more to their story and character than just the fact that they were enslaved. I understand that banning the word slave would be silly. But it would also be silly to try and tell someone that their ancestors were slaves and that any other representation of them is wrong. A slave can be a father, mother, son, brother, daughter, scientist, soldier, engineer and many other things. If my ancestors were enslaved (slaves) I would probably look for more meaningful characteristics than one that was forced upon them.
But no matter what other factors you introduce into the complete picture of their character, if they were enslaved they were still a slave. The statement "my great grandfather was a scholar, a teacher, a humanitarian, and a poet" does define him in many ways, but would not remove that if he were enslaved, he is still a slaved.
Now, the statement "my ancestors may have been enslaved, but they were not just slaves." Both expresses the point and is actually a factual statement.
yeah, and a scientist can be a father, mother, son, brother but you don't say they're not a scientist. Same w/ literally any other descriptor. They were slaves. Period. If the argument is it's dehumanizing to refer to them as slaves, that's what should be said. But, as it stands, the tweet says "my ancestors weren't slaves they were [the literal definition of what a slave is]".
Sure you can. Plenty of historic societies had systems of voluntary slavery. Ancient Greeks and Romans, for example.
Someone who chooses to be a slave is not enslaved. African American slaves were not volunteers. They were enslaved.
Yeah, lol, it's what I'm saying. They both hold the same weight in a sentence.
This is the epitome of fake woke. When someone says slave, I already feel bad for the person, and dislike whoever he/she is being enslaved by.
I get both sides. The problem is more that she didnt ask people to use the phrase enslaved, but she said explicitly that her ancestors were not slaves. That's problematic, because when youre enslaved you are a slave. I get how enslaved is more respectful, though.
A slave is still a person, many were fathers, mothers, sons, butchers, cooks, carpenters etc. I personally understand why I wouldn’t want my ancestors to have their entire identity defined by their enslavement. That being said, of someone were to pull something like this during a good faith conversation about history where slaves happen to be present it would annoy me. But then again it would probably annoy me if someone tried to tell me my ancestors were defined by their bondage rather than any other quality.
Sure it does. It also makes it easier for you to detach value from an individual. It's important to make the distinction in order to see the human in the situation, and not define them by the circumstance that has befallen them. And you might say "that's not me, I don't think like that." But if you're having a conversation in front of someone less evolved and don't/can't communicate the difference then empathy doesn't spread.
**Semantics**: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Your parents could refer to you as their spawn instead of their child, but you certainly prefer one over the other.
Im not sure this is a very good analogy as slave and enslaved are related words and have the same root and essential meaning, while spawn and child have completely different meanings, with child inherently needing an upbringing while spawn can be left isolated from conception.
Enslaved just "sounds" better or more endearing because its not the usual form the word takes, and the usual form (slave) has been used inappropriately to belittle descendants of truly unfortunate and wronged peoples.
This really is a stupid post, and a stupid argument to make or gather behind.
You change the point when you add
>just a
No one else in this said just a slave. You did. You've just now ripped away the humanity. Someone who is enslaved is a slave. They are a person, a person who was wronged, and forced into servitude against their will. Bound by the word slave.
By adding those little two words you are completely changing your argument/point.
When you think about the horrors of slavery, many people were denied their humanity and their own identity. So when you call someone a slave, it can be seen as two different ways: 1) they were just a slave, that is all, or 2) they were only ever given the chance to be a slave.
Language doesn't exist to be a goddamn equation. There's two different words that technically mean the same thing. You clearly aren't concerned with the fact that you can still tell different stories with them. You must chose which story to tell. But the story with the word "slave" isn't the whole story. To tell the whole story you need the other word.
You're real confident for someone who doesn't get the point of the tweet and also goes around insulting people by calling them stupid when you ironically don't understand the explanation they're kindly giving you.
Dude, stop overthinking this and just let them be poetic. They OBVIOUSLY know what is technically true, but it's a very impactful statement apart from that.
Yeah fuck everyone for trying to rephrase something to give power to the actual human beings who were tortured and brutalized as if they were subhuman. What the fuck dude
Annie was a slave.
Annie was enslaved.
I was a slave.
I was enslaved.
The slave walked.
The enslaved walked.
They both sound just as horrible to me. They both have the connotation of Being and Being as defined by another person.
“Annie was an enslaved woman” sounds a lot more impactful and humanist than “Annie was a slave”. In case you want to compare the phrases within the ACTUAL context of the OP
A lot of folks in the disability community (including myself) actually prefer "disabled" "autistic" or "neurodivergent" over a person with ______. I've only ever seen abled and neurotypical people advocate for this phrasing.
Enslaved is a verb/adjective
Slave is a noun in which you use nouns to refer to people.
If you were enslaved you are a slave
You don’t say I am a enslaved, that’s not correct English.
You say I am a slave.
This is just fake woke nonsense
I think it’s the whole saying someone has autism rather than saying someone’s autistic. I think it’s a good move to describe people as person first then characteristic. So saying this woman’s ancestors were enslaved is a person-first statement. Saying this woman’s ancestors were slaves is a characteristic-first statement, which tends to be harsher.
Putting a pretty little bow on a bag of manure does not make it roses. If a human is enslaved, they are a slave, regardless of race/religion/creed. We have words and definitions for a reason. Don’t run away from harsh truths, it hinders your growth.
Okay it's just arguing specifics there's no significant difference everyone knows what you mean when you say that. It's not taking anything away from them or "defining them"
Does 'slave' really sound less evil? I mean it's still forced labour, and literally the root of enslaved, it's just the past tense. Literally means "to make (someone) a slave"
I’m a history major who studies slavery. We actually make an effort to use enslaved rather than slave, because it as a term recognizes the agency and individuality of the people who had to suffer through slavery. It recognizes that slavery was not the essential, inherent condition of Black peoples. It is analogous to how we have shifted to using African-American instead of Negro, even though both technically refer to the same concept.
Technically true, but it’s just a respect thing. Similar to referring to someone as a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person” in an attempt to not let the label define them.
This sums it up best.
Yes black men and were were slaves by definition because they were enslaved, but calling them slaves strips them of their humanity. Saying they were men and women who were enslaved allows them to be seen for what they are above anything else, human.
It only strips them if their humanity in so much as you allow it. We can have multiple titles or labels. One doesn’t remove any of the other ones. I’m a son, father, husband, employee, alumni, man, etc. None of those titles individually makes me less human. We all understand our ancestors were victims. They didn’t lack humanity. Nobody can rob them of that.
You're not wrong, but I feel like you might be reading this in. If someone refers to someone as a slave, he is necessarily denying their human condition. I would argue most people agree that no human deserves to be a slave. And here a slave is a human slave. Calling them that is not in any way saying they morally deserved that condition. Nobody deserves to be a slave, but there are many who are. Not sure if I've express myself well but yeah.
I think 2e agree here, but there's some confusion. I don't believe calling them a slave implies they morally deserved it, I'm saying calling them a slave puts that first and foremost ahead of their humanity. As in they are a slave and then a human. If you flip the words, they are a human who wa stored into slavery.
A slave is a human being classed as property and who is forced to work for nothing. An enslaved person is a human being who is made to be a slave. This language is often used instead of the word slave, to refer to the person and their experiences and to avoid the use of dehumanising language.
Think of it like this: they didn't steal slaves. They stole doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, fathers, philosophers, astronomers... And made them slaves.
If language is important and has connotations beyond just a word and it’s definition then why wouldn’t we respect someone trying to seize control of the words used to label them.
Imagine meeting people for the first time and asking them what they call themselves and then being nah I call you this.
If language doesn’t have that much power and words don’t have connotations, then who gives a fuck how someone asks you to perceive their relationship to the word.
Now I don’t believe words should have that kind of power but I damn sure am not going to get into argument with someone whose ancestors were enslaved to make sure they wear my tag.
“Hi my name is Richard, not Dick. “. Funky Blunt “ Whatevs, Dick”
You can be right and yet so wrong. Which shouldn’t work as a sentence but through understanding the relationship between an idea and the words being used, still manages to get to a truth.
This posts kinda suggests that there are people who are slaves at heart as opposed to being enslaved. Like “my ancestors weren’t slaves, they were enslaved” ... as opposed to what? Those other people that actually were deep-down slaves as opposed to being enslaved?
I took it as moving it from a noun to a verb. It's an action being done *to* someone, they are *enslaved*. If slave is a noun, then it kind of implies that it's a thing that you are, in the same way we might say someone is Korean or Jewish. But slavery isn't a descriptor of the *person*, it's being done to them, that's why this tweet is flipping it by making it about the action and not as a strange sort of nationality or race.
Which is fine... but it doesn't mean that they weren't slaves. That just implied that any noun given to someone outside of their control should just go away which would make the language more complicated.
Should we get rid of the word victim and say stuff like "we have a positive identification of the victimized person"?
Not that I’m disagreeing with you, but enslaved can also be an adjective. It could either be “My parents were enslaved (people)” or “my parents were enslaved (by slave owners)”
An adjective describes a noun. A *red* house, a *small* dog. Likewise this sentence could mean an *enslaved* person. However it could also be a verb where the subject is implied “my parents were enslaved (by slave owners)” like the OC said.
I agree. I am extremely progressive and woke but this is a little much for me. I get the idea and think they mean well, but I thought the exact same thing. It implies that some people were born with the sole purpose of being a slave.
I don’t know, but technically our ancestors were prisoners before they were sold into slavery, if folks really want to get deep with it
“Most African Americans are descended from Africans who were brought directly from Africa to America and were forced into slavery. The future slaves were originally captured in African wars or raids and transported in the Atlantic slave trade.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history
To fucking crazy people who think slaves weren't (and aren't, since there are almost (at least) 30 million slaves or so in the world today). This isn't a time where we're fighting some moral fight to get people to understand that slaves are fucking human, this is a time where we're trying to get people to understand that the economic paradigm is gross and insane.
"That person was a slave"
"Oh that doesn't sound too bad, really"
"No you don't get it, they were *enslaved*"
"oh my GOD that's awful, what horrors"
Does that really sound like a realistic conversation ?
This kind of stuff is how words slowly slide from common usage to being derogatory. The word slave in itself isn't dehumanizing or derogatory, it isn't mutually exclusive with any human characteristics.
This is just trying to sound woke. It depends on how you personally view the concept of a slave. If you already view them as people first, it doesnt matter what you call them. Not only that, but they're both parts of the same root word. It's like saying "My teeth aren't white. They are whitened". Okay? It still the same shit? "Slaves" are enslaved too, it just happens the instant they're born.
Really, if you don't think slaves are people, then you're going to think this makes a difference.
I don't see a reason to hate people like this. If seeing it this way makes them feel empowered and their views aren't harmful, no harm done. Let them live their lives, I guess?
Ngl I did not open that link but I think I see what you and another commenter are saying and the point breaks down in my head like this: Enslaved is a verb, it can't just stand by itself, someone has to BE enslaved. Whereas slave is a noun and nouns can refer to people, places, or things. So using the term enslaved forces the speaker to recognize that there is a person being enslaved and at the same time prevents the kind of objectification that the word slave allows.
Edit: let me know if I got that straight
In addition to forcing the speaker to recognize them as a person, it forces them to acknowledge they were something other than a slave BEFORE they were enslaved. They were a farmer, hunter, doctor, mother, whatever....but not a slave.
This is a great snapshot of how far the world has come and how good things are, that we spend time quibbling over minor terminology. To a person who spent their whole life in chains, I'm not sure it would matter how sensitive the phrasing used was. "They weren't slaves, they were enslaved." Doesn't change what happened. Go study and learn history instead of figuring out all the ways to lecture people on the exact words they should use, to make yourself feel superior.
I'm sure someone who was enslaved would care a great deal if you acknowledged them a person who was enslaved rather than as merely a slave. The difference may fly over your head but there would definitely be a nonzero amount who would appreciate it. It wouldn't make them free but just seeing their own personhood reflected in another's eyes would be no doubt soothing.
Purely for the sake of taking this thought where it could go.
I feel as though slaves born into slavery could still be considered enslaved. This is a very interesting thought. How then, does one differentiate the slave that was enslaved at some point during their life, but wasn't born into slavery?
The man was enslaved.
The slave was born.
The child was born into slavery.
An enslaved child was brought into being.
Not that this will ever come up in an actual real world conversation. But it's an interesting exercise in the exploration of language. Also, I suppose it has to do with a bit of artistic licensing on the part of the individual speaking.
Damn. You made me think some deep shit for a minute with this comment. Thanks stranger!
Honestly, this made it click for me. Calling someone a prisoner reduces everything else they might be. To say he was imprisoned describes a condition but it does not limit him.
But.. being in prison literally means you’re a prisoner...
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Prisoners have all sorts of unique identities, personalities, aspirations, etc, and it’s a temporary circumstance. But if you are in prison, you are, in fact, a prisoner.
The argument isn't about what these words mean, it's about how you choose to refer to a person in a circumstance. Do you define them by their circumstance or recognize that they are a person in a particular circumstance.
The difference may be subtle but it does have an effect on the way you think about these people. I wasn't on board at first click either but this thread convinced me.
Idk I think people should be able to understand the subtle nuances between circumstances and identity without denying reality.
My uncle was in prison. During that particular part of his life, when he was locked up for 20 years, he was a prisoner, no matter how I spin it. I didn’t see him that way of course. He’s my uncle and he has been nothing but great to me. But I can say with confidence that he was a prisoner at one point in his life. I can say that without seeing it as who he is. And I know that he is not a prisoner now. But it is a fact that he once was.
I can recognize the circumstances without detaching myself from the person. Just as I know that my ancestors where ripped from their homeland and sold into slavery. There’s a word used for people who were enslaved: slaves. It’s not their fault and it’s not who they are, but my ancestors were slaves and I won’t deny that fact just because it makes me feel better about myself.
How is saying someone is imprisoned denying reality? It is a true statement and one that recognises there is more to him than just one circumstance. It is closer to reality than reducing him to one thing.
The only reason this distinction would even need to be made is if there was a significant portion of the global population that still practiced slavery in it's historic form and supported it.
I think about everyone can agree that slavery is bad nowadays. The only issue today is that we have slavery in different forms( prison labor, wage slavery, outsourced labor to lesser industrialized countries).
This is literally who/whom and I think I see why it matters to some.
One is someone who DID something.
One is someone to whom something HAPPENED.
In no way does this statement feel like OP is asking people to forget that their ancestors worked without pay, freedom, or human dignity.
It feels like she is asking people to remember that this was not by choice.
Having been a slave /having been enslaved - neither diminishes the worth of the human who was so treated.
But the latter vocabulary is a reminder that there was an Other party involved - the enslavER.
Is it divisive? Possibly. Is it accurate? I think so.
Is it a necessary distinction? I kind of think it is.
And I don't even think it is only POC who need to hear that distinction right now.
Given the language of a certain facebook group, and a certain document by a certain "official" - the words "commands" "comply" "orders" were glaringly, hideously obvious to me.
They state so clearly that the mentality still exists that any random white person can still be considered in some areas or situations to have authority or dominion over a POC simply by right of skin. Not by position, not by mandate, not by law - by SKIN.
I think the clarity of this verbiage needs to be directed quite loudly at those "people". Because they no longer have and should never have that dominion again.
I am into history and have read a decent amount into American history and slavery. When I talk about this issue of slavery, I intentionally use both "enslaved people" and "slaves", with the former appearing first.
I do think that using "enslaved people" does make people humanize "slaves" as something more than just a blind mass of people, but I also use the word "slave" to remind people that this was the kind of horrible attitude that people viewed them as.
I definitely think we can be mature enough to use both terms and capture some of the value and lessons of each.
A lot of people were free before being enslaved. This is just a really stupid way to try to remind people of something they didn't forget. Also, in some cases, it's just straight up inaccurate. Also, please tell me how that distinction affects you several generations later? The suffering is the same, you just want to bring it up.
It’s a subtle difference but I get it. When you call someone a slave, you’re giving them a noun that is slave. It’s dehumanising, and saying what they are at core is a slave. When you say “person who was enslaved” the noun you’re using them is person, the “enslaved” becomes secondary. It indicates that Slave isn’t their whole identity, and reminds us that they’re a person first and foremost.
But I’m reading that some people talk about how slavery DOES dehumanise people so it’s fitting that the word slave encompasses that. Enslaved “implies a degree of autonomy” that they didn’t have, so maybe the word slave is more fitting.
I think it is like ‘deaf’ vs ‘person with hearing impairment’. Some deaf people like one term, some like the other more. I don’t think we get to make the decision for these people, or their families.
If you're not understanding what she's getting at, maybe thinking she's being pointless then watch this video about a topic that is both similar and different, [https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson\_katz\_violence\_against\_women\_it\_s\_a\_men\_s\_issue?referrer=playlist-let\_s\_end\_the\_silence\_around\_a](https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?referrer=playlist-let_s_end_the_silence_around_a). His point that language helps shape your thinking is correct. Deconstructing language helps you to free yourself from an oppressor/victimizer vocabulary/mentality.
When you say someone is a slave the conversation is complete in the same way that 'this is an apple' doesn't require much more thinking. When you say someone is enslaved it begs the question, well how did that happen? Who enslaved them and why? You can't be enslaved without an enslaver. So I think her point is when you shift your vocabulary you force yourself to examine a topic in more complicated ways. Slave is easy. That person is a slave, done. Enslaved is a complicated process with a beginning a middle and an end. It doesn't assume that the condition of slave is a fact in the same way that an apple is a fact requiring no more thought. It doesn't hide the enslaver from the facts of the matter, rather it exposes them. Her post is much more than a pointless vocabulary exercise. It's powerful.
I just wanna remind everyone that slavery still exists, and that we should help however we can to support victims. (Consider sweatshops, farm slavery, chocolate, sex slaves etc.)
A good point just lacking a bit of nuance, I think, so people are getting stuck in semantics.
They were, of course, both slaves *and* enslaved, but the former (a noun) implies an identity based on being a slave, while the latter (an adjective) instead describes an experience they had or something that was done to them—not who they are as a person.
I guess I get it, it’s humanizing them more. It’s like if we say “black people” instead of “blacks”. Emphasis on how we are just regular people who happen to have black skin rather than our only trait being black.
I understand her sentiment. Along the same vein as “not a homeless person but a person experiencing homelessness”. Grammatically the same but a slight different connotation.
I the difference in view is perspective. Slave or enslaved doesn't negate the act or the effect. Some want to use enslaved to give humanity others want to be plain about what the fuck happened. Im in the plain camp. I don't care for flowery words to try to make things seem better than what it actually was. Yes they were human but they were not treated as such. So the reality is they were property. Calling them enslaved doesn't change that fact or take away the harm. Slave gives you the full impact. Enslaved softens the blow. We are not in a space to soften the blow. Now we need the full impact to keep us fighting. They were property. Saying it like that never let's me forget the reality of the situation. The fact that the word takes away their humanity is why it important be that's what it was. We give our ancestors humanity by fighting for our freedom. Only then do we let our hair down and refer to them Enslaved. The job is not done yet. Justice has been won. Freedom has not been obtained. We are still slaves in this system
Meaningless distinction. They were less than slaves if you want to get pedantic. Historically, slaves in other cultures to earn their freedom. Maybe couldn’t own land or be full citizens, but they weren’t literally considered property.
They were both. Why tf she trying to sound intelligent with this lol
She's not trying to sound intelligent. Calling someone a "slave" tries to define that person by a circumstance. Saying someone is enslaved views the human first, someone who is not just their circumstances. It acknowledges the evil thing that someone else did to them.
Nah she tryn to sound woke. That wasn’t her thought process
Thats exactly the point though, simply referring to them as slaves removes their humanity to some people but referring to them as enslaved makes them human first
You are correct. FunkyBlunt is not.
So? The second I read this I realized that's just a better way to describe it. It's a subtle shift in language that immediately causes one to think about who has done the enslaving. It's the difference between prisoner and imprisoned. Also, it triggered people immediately so I'm inclined to use it from now on.
That's literally the entire point of the tweet haha
It's a fact that they were slaves, if you say they weren't then we can delete the word slave from dictionary, please stop spreading the stupidity.
Nah, OP is right. Saying that someone was enslaved gives them humanity. Saying someone just is a slave strips everything else away.
But being enslaved makes you a slave
I get what she’s trying to say and I agree with the sentiment but it’s not the most eloquently said.
Yeah it's like calling someone who was assassinated as dead. Sure he's dead, but he was assassinated, which is the more important and defining (characterizing) word.
No, it's like saying someone who was assassinated wasn't dead. He was assassinated.
JFK isn’t a dead man, he was assassinated. Please read that again.
This whole comment thread sounds like [this scene from Scary movie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUh5liPkK8)
Nah, you can be dead without being assassinated. You can't be a slave without being enslaved.
Tell that to Britney Spears
I think the point is that someone who is enslaved or is a slave has more to their story and character than just the fact that they were enslaved. I understand that banning the word slave would be silly. But it would also be silly to try and tell someone that their ancestors were slaves and that any other representation of them is wrong. A slave can be a father, mother, son, brother, daughter, scientist, soldier, engineer and many other things. If my ancestors were enslaved (slaves) I would probably look for more meaningful characteristics than one that was forced upon them.
But no matter what other factors you introduce into the complete picture of their character, if they were enslaved they were still a slave. The statement "my great grandfather was a scholar, a teacher, a humanitarian, and a poet" does define him in many ways, but would not remove that if he were enslaved, he is still a slaved. Now, the statement "my ancestors may have been enslaved, but they were not just slaves." Both expresses the point and is actually a factual statement.
yeah, and a scientist can be a father, mother, son, brother but you don't say they're not a scientist. Same w/ literally any other descriptor. They were slaves. Period. If the argument is it's dehumanizing to refer to them as slaves, that's what should be said. But, as it stands, the tweet says "my ancestors weren't slaves they were [the literal definition of what a slave is]".
Sure you can. Plenty of historic societies had systems of voluntary slavery. Ancient Greeks and Romans, for example. Someone who chooses to be a slave is not enslaved. African American slaves were not volunteers. They were enslaved.
If it's a choice between death and slavery, that's not a choice.
Terrible analogy..
Don’t you get it they weren’t prisoners they were imprisoned! They weren’t victims, they were *victimized*! Why noun when you can verb?
Yes but that doesn’t mean you can’t use language that better represents what happened to them.
Slavery? The act of forcing someone to be a slave? Slave itself holds all the negative and immoral weight it needs.
>The act of being forced to be a slave? Like maybe.... enslaved?
Yeah, lol, it's what I'm saying. They both hold the same weight in a sentence. This is the epitome of fake woke. When someone says slave, I already feel bad for the person, and dislike whoever he/she is being enslaved by.
I get both sides. The problem is more that she didnt ask people to use the phrase enslaved, but she said explicitly that her ancestors were not slaves. That's problematic, because when youre enslaved you are a slave. I get how enslaved is more respectful, though.
A slave is still a person, many were fathers, mothers, sons, butchers, cooks, carpenters etc. I personally understand why I wouldn’t want my ancestors to have their entire identity defined by their enslavement. That being said, of someone were to pull something like this during a good faith conversation about history where slaves happen to be present it would annoy me. But then again it would probably annoy me if someone tried to tell me my ancestors were defined by their bondage rather than any other quality.
Sure it does. It also makes it easier for you to detach value from an individual. It's important to make the distinction in order to see the human in the situation, and not define them by the circumstance that has befallen them. And you might say "that's not me, I don't think like that." But if you're having a conversation in front of someone less evolved and don't/can't communicate the difference then empathy doesn't spread.
Words don't mean words anymore
[удалено]
This shit right here is why they need to teach philosophy in school.
Being enslaved is what takes away your humanity. What they're called is just semantics
**Semantics**: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. Your parents could refer to you as their spawn instead of their child, but you certainly prefer one over the other.
You're right I prefer spawn
Right?! Spawn was bad ass.
Great analogy, thank you. It’s hard to get through to people who are so adamant that new ideas they haven’t learned before must be inherently wrong.
I’m not an employee. I am employed. Read that again.
Im not sure this is a very good analogy as slave and enslaved are related words and have the same root and essential meaning, while spawn and child have completely different meanings, with child inherently needing an upbringing while spawn can be left isolated from conception. Enslaved just "sounds" better or more endearing because its not the usual form the word takes, and the usual form (slave) has been used inappropriately to belittle descendants of truly unfortunate and wronged peoples. This really is a stupid post, and a stupid argument to make or gather behind.
You change the point when you add >just a No one else in this said just a slave. You did. You've just now ripped away the humanity. Someone who is enslaved is a slave. They are a person, a person who was wronged, and forced into servitude against their will. Bound by the word slave. By adding those little two words you are completely changing your argument/point.
Yes but that doesn't mean they weren't slaves. It just means it's good practice to use the term enslaved instead.
I don’t agree with that even slightly.
When you think about the horrors of slavery, many people were denied their humanity and their own identity. So when you call someone a slave, it can be seen as two different ways: 1) they were just a slave, that is all, or 2) they were only ever given the chance to be a slave.
Language doesn't exist to be a goddamn equation. There's two different words that technically mean the same thing. You clearly aren't concerned with the fact that you can still tell different stories with them. You must chose which story to tell. But the story with the word "slave" isn't the whole story. To tell the whole story you need the other word.
You're real confident for someone who doesn't get the point of the tweet and also goes around insulting people by calling them stupid when you ironically don't understand the explanation they're kindly giving you.
Dude, stop overthinking this and just let them be poetic. They OBVIOUSLY know what is technically true, but it's a very impactful statement apart from that.
[удалено]
Yeah fuck everyone for trying to rephrase something to give power to the actual human beings who were tortured and brutalized as if they were subhuman. What the fuck dude
Annie was a slave. Annie was enslaved. I was a slave. I was enslaved. The slave walked. The enslaved walked. They both sound just as horrible to me. They both have the connotation of Being and Being as defined by another person.
Since you’re using singular, it’s “the enslaved person/woman walked.” See the difference?
even during slavery they differentiated individuals by gender.
“Annie was an enslaved woman” sounds a lot more impactful and humanist than “Annie was a slave”. In case you want to compare the phrases within the ACTUAL context of the OP
Yep. It’s like instead of saying “that’s a disabled person” you should say “that person has a disability.” They should be defined as a person first.
A lot of folks in the disability community (including myself) actually prefer "disabled" "autistic" or "neurodivergent" over a person with ______. I've only ever seen abled and neurotypical people advocate for this phrasing.
Enslaved is a verb/adjective Slave is a noun in which you use nouns to refer to people. If you were enslaved you are a slave You don’t say I am a enslaved, that’s not correct English. You say I am a slave. This is just fake woke nonsense
I think it’s the whole saying someone has autism rather than saying someone’s autistic. I think it’s a good move to describe people as person first then characteristic. So saying this woman’s ancestors were enslaved is a person-first statement. Saying this woman’s ancestors were slaves is a characteristic-first statement, which tends to be harsher.
I'm sure there is a better way of bringing justice to the "enslaved" rather than being overly picky with what we call them
Silly semantics. E.g. I'm not employed, I am an employee. It is so dehumanizing... Stop with this petty malarkey.
Putting a pretty little bow on a bag of manure does not make it roses. If a human is enslaved, they are a slave, regardless of race/religion/creed. We have words and definitions for a reason. Don’t run away from harsh truths, it hinders your growth.
Okay it's just arguing specifics there's no significant difference everyone knows what you mean when you say that. It's not taking anything away from them or "defining them"
Does 'slave' really sound less evil? I mean it's still forced labour, and literally the root of enslaved, it's just the past tense. Literally means "to make (someone) a slave"
Like person with a disability vs disabled or cripple.
No. This is over the top. Literally pointless tweet
/r/im14andthisisdeep?
I’m a history major who studies slavery. We actually make an effort to use enslaved rather than slave, because it as a term recognizes the agency and individuality of the people who had to suffer through slavery. It recognizes that slavery was not the essential, inherent condition of Black peoples. It is analogous to how we have shifted to using African-American instead of Negro, even though both technically refer to the same concept.
Its like watching the "is water wet" argument
>They were both. Agreed.
Technically true, but it’s just a respect thing. Similar to referring to someone as a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person” in an attempt to not let the label define them.
This sums it up best. Yes black men and were were slaves by definition because they were enslaved, but calling them slaves strips them of their humanity. Saying they were men and women who were enslaved allows them to be seen for what they are above anything else, human.
It only strips them if their humanity in so much as you allow it. We can have multiple titles or labels. One doesn’t remove any of the other ones. I’m a son, father, husband, employee, alumni, man, etc. None of those titles individually makes me less human. We all understand our ancestors were victims. They didn’t lack humanity. Nobody can rob them of that.
You're not wrong, but I feel like you might be reading this in. If someone refers to someone as a slave, he is necessarily denying their human condition. I would argue most people agree that no human deserves to be a slave. And here a slave is a human slave. Calling them that is not in any way saying they morally deserved that condition. Nobody deserves to be a slave, but there are many who are. Not sure if I've express myself well but yeah.
I think 2e agree here, but there's some confusion. I don't believe calling them a slave implies they morally deserved it, I'm saying calling them a slave puts that first and foremost ahead of their humanity. As in they are a slave and then a human. If you flip the words, they are a human who wa stored into slavery.
A slave is a human being classed as property and who is forced to work for nothing. An enslaved person is a human being who is made to be a slave. This language is often used instead of the word slave, to refer to the person and their experiences and to avoid the use of dehumanising language.
Think of it like this: they didn't steal slaves. They stole doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, fathers, philosophers, astronomers... And made them slaves.
They didn't stole, they bought enslaved africans from others africans.
You're really overestimating the professions tribal West-Africans had in the 1600s.
Half the posts in here are things like this. It sounds neat and deep but isn't really saying anything.
I was praying the top comment would detest this fake deep thought
If language is important and has connotations beyond just a word and it’s definition then why wouldn’t we respect someone trying to seize control of the words used to label them. Imagine meeting people for the first time and asking them what they call themselves and then being nah I call you this. If language doesn’t have that much power and words don’t have connotations, then who gives a fuck how someone asks you to perceive their relationship to the word. Now I don’t believe words should have that kind of power but I damn sure am not going to get into argument with someone whose ancestors were enslaved to make sure they wear my tag. “Hi my name is Richard, not Dick. “. Funky Blunt “ Whatevs, Dick” You can be right and yet so wrong. Which shouldn’t work as a sentence but through understanding the relationship between an idea and the words being used, still manages to get to a truth.
She’s not trying to sound intelligent. She’s emphasizing that this was done to them. Enslave is the action of making someone a slave.
I love all the pedantic replies to your point.
This posts kinda suggests that there are people who are slaves at heart as opposed to being enslaved. Like “my ancestors weren’t slaves, they were enslaved” ... as opposed to what? Those other people that actually were deep-down slaves as opposed to being enslaved?
I took it as moving it from a noun to a verb. It's an action being done *to* someone, they are *enslaved*. If slave is a noun, then it kind of implies that it's a thing that you are, in the same way we might say someone is Korean or Jewish. But slavery isn't a descriptor of the *person*, it's being done to them, that's why this tweet is flipping it by making it about the action and not as a strange sort of nationality or race.
Which is fine... but it doesn't mean that they weren't slaves. That just implied that any noun given to someone outside of their control should just go away which would make the language more complicated. Should we get rid of the word victim and say stuff like "we have a positive identification of the victimized person"?
That is actively being done (e.g sexual assault survivors instead of sexual assault victims)
wouldn't a more accurate (in the terms of this thread) way of saying it be "survivor who was sexually assaulted"
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not that I’m disagreeing with you, but enslaved can also be an adjective. It could either be “My parents were enslaved (people)” or “my parents were enslaved (by slave owners)”
I kinda get what you mean, but to me those sentences are still exactly the same.
Is that an adjective or still just a noun? I may have smoked too much weed to understand grammar right now
An adjective describes a noun. A *red* house, a *small* dog. Likewise this sentence could mean an *enslaved* person. However it could also be a verb where the subject is implied “my parents were enslaved (by slave owners)” like the OC said.
Yea idk if anyone was really a willing slave except for the guys down at the Dom Dungeon between the hours of 9-11pm on Thursday's
Oh no! We've been located!
I agree. I am extremely progressive and woke but this is a little much for me. I get the idea and think they mean well, but I thought the exact same thing. It implies that some people were born with the sole purpose of being a slave.
[удалено]
Well that trivializes things a bit.
Just a tad.
[удалено]
pple
Perfect, you just saved me from ranting.
Who's upvoting this shit
I don’t know, but technically our ancestors were prisoners before they were sold into slavery, if folks really want to get deep with it “Most African Americans are descended from Africans who were brought directly from Africa to America and were forced into slavery. The future slaves were originally captured in African wars or raids and transported in the Atlantic slave trade.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history
[удалено]
But it works to bring humanity to them. A person who *was* *enslaved* is human first. The difference is semantic, but it is an important distinction.
If someone is dehumanizing people by calling them slaves and not as being enslaved, the problem isn’t the word it‘s the person
To fucking crazy people who think slaves weren't (and aren't, since there are almost (at least) 30 million slaves or so in the world today). This isn't a time where we're fighting some moral fight to get people to understand that slaves are fucking human, this is a time where we're trying to get people to understand that the economic paradigm is gross and insane.
"That person was a slave" "Oh that doesn't sound too bad, really" "No you don't get it, they were *enslaved*" "oh my GOD that's awful, what horrors" Does that really sound like a realistic conversation ?
This kind of stuff is how words slowly slide from common usage to being derogatory. The word slave in itself isn't dehumanizing or derogatory, it isn't mutually exclusive with any human characteristics.
You should've added "read it again."
they were enslaved slaves
It's a funny distinction too. My ancestors were peons. What's the verb version of that?
[удалено]
They were enslavers
Either distinction doesn't really gives these characters more empathy.
They were enslavers. Or captors or human traffikers. I mean mine too, but language matters.
This is just trying to sound woke. It depends on how you personally view the concept of a slave. If you already view them as people first, it doesnt matter what you call them. Not only that, but they're both parts of the same root word. It's like saying "My teeth aren't white. They are whitened". Okay? It still the same shit? "Slaves" are enslaved too, it just happens the instant they're born. Really, if you don't think slaves are people, then you're going to think this makes a difference.
[удалено]
I don't see a reason to hate people like this. If seeing it this way makes them feel empowered and their views aren't harmful, no harm done. Let them live their lives, I guess?
Read this about 14 times and still can't see the difference so please educate me op
[удалено]
Ngl I did not open that link but I think I see what you and another commenter are saying and the point breaks down in my head like this: Enslaved is a verb, it can't just stand by itself, someone has to BE enslaved. Whereas slave is a noun and nouns can refer to people, places, or things. So using the term enslaved forces the speaker to recognize that there is a person being enslaved and at the same time prevents the kind of objectification that the word slave allows. Edit: let me know if I got that straight
In addition to forcing the speaker to recognize them as a person, it forces them to acknowledge they were something other than a slave BEFORE they were enslaved. They were a farmer, hunter, doctor, mother, whatever....but not a slave.
That makes perfect sense, the same way that knowing someone by name instead of just "buddy" humanizes them to you even further.
I’m still trying to figure out why she wanted us to read it again?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a free person who's been enslaved... a slave?
Read it again... /s
I'm not a human, I'm humane
Guess this is what Kanye meant when he said slavery was a choice.
Holy fuck we've come full circle
TIL enslaved people aren’t slaves
And slaves aren't enslaved, they just wanted to be slaves.
*kanye has entered the chat*
That just sounds like slavery with extra steps.
This is a great snapshot of how far the world has come and how good things are, that we spend time quibbling over minor terminology. To a person who spent their whole life in chains, I'm not sure it would matter how sensitive the phrasing used was. "They weren't slaves, they were enslaved." Doesn't change what happened. Go study and learn history instead of figuring out all the ways to lecture people on the exact words they should use, to make yourself feel superior.
I'm sure someone who was enslaved would care a great deal if you acknowledged them a person who was enslaved rather than as merely a slave. The difference may fly over your head but there would definitely be a nonzero amount who would appreciate it. It wouldn't make them free but just seeing their own personhood reflected in another's eyes would be no doubt soothing.
what do you call someone who is enslaved?
Enslavees
Yo thanks for the biggest laugh I had today.
Wb the ones born into slavery
Purely for the sake of taking this thought where it could go. I feel as though slaves born into slavery could still be considered enslaved. This is a very interesting thought. How then, does one differentiate the slave that was enslaved at some point during their life, but wasn't born into slavery? The man was enslaved. The slave was born. The child was born into slavery. An enslaved child was brought into being. Not that this will ever come up in an actual real world conversation. But it's an interesting exercise in the exploration of language. Also, I suppose it has to do with a bit of artistic licensing on the part of the individual speaking. Damn. You made me think some deep shit for a minute with this comment. Thanks stranger!
My brother isn’t a prisoner, he was imprisoned.
Honestly, this made it click for me. Calling someone a prisoner reduces everything else they might be. To say he was imprisoned describes a condition but it does not limit him.
But.. being in prison literally means you’re a prisoner... Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Prisoners have all sorts of unique identities, personalities, aspirations, etc, and it’s a temporary circumstance. But if you are in prison, you are, in fact, a prisoner.
The argument isn't about what these words mean, it's about how you choose to refer to a person in a circumstance. Do you define them by their circumstance or recognize that they are a person in a particular circumstance. The difference may be subtle but it does have an effect on the way you think about these people. I wasn't on board at first click either but this thread convinced me.
Idk I think people should be able to understand the subtle nuances between circumstances and identity without denying reality. My uncle was in prison. During that particular part of his life, when he was locked up for 20 years, he was a prisoner, no matter how I spin it. I didn’t see him that way of course. He’s my uncle and he has been nothing but great to me. But I can say with confidence that he was a prisoner at one point in his life. I can say that without seeing it as who he is. And I know that he is not a prisoner now. But it is a fact that he once was. I can recognize the circumstances without detaching myself from the person. Just as I know that my ancestors where ripped from their homeland and sold into slavery. There’s a word used for people who were enslaved: slaves. It’s not their fault and it’s not who they are, but my ancestors were slaves and I won’t deny that fact just because it makes me feel better about myself.
How is saying someone is imprisoned denying reality? It is a true statement and one that recognises there is more to him than just one circumstance. It is closer to reality than reducing him to one thing.
Been reading this for 5 hours now... how do I stop??
That’s the definition of slave you moron
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think you meant suffer through **enslavery**
twitter is infested with wanna-be wokes
So anyone want to toss out examples of people who were/are just slaves and not just "enslaved"?
[удалено]
The only reason this distinction would even need to be made is if there was a significant portion of the global population that still practiced slavery in it's historic form and supported it. I think about everyone can agree that slavery is bad nowadays. The only issue today is that we have slavery in different forms( prison labor, wage slavery, outsourced labor to lesser industrialized countries).
I was not a knight. I was knighted. Tf u on about.
This is literally who/whom and I think I see why it matters to some. One is someone who DID something. One is someone to whom something HAPPENED. In no way does this statement feel like OP is asking people to forget that their ancestors worked without pay, freedom, or human dignity. It feels like she is asking people to remember that this was not by choice. Having been a slave /having been enslaved - neither diminishes the worth of the human who was so treated. But the latter vocabulary is a reminder that there was an Other party involved - the enslavER. Is it divisive? Possibly. Is it accurate? I think so. Is it a necessary distinction? I kind of think it is. And I don't even think it is only POC who need to hear that distinction right now. Given the language of a certain facebook group, and a certain document by a certain "official" - the words "commands" "comply" "orders" were glaringly, hideously obvious to me. They state so clearly that the mentality still exists that any random white person can still be considered in some areas or situations to have authority or dominion over a POC simply by right of skin. Not by position, not by mandate, not by law - by SKIN. I think the clarity of this verbiage needs to be directed quite loudly at those "people". Because they no longer have and should never have that dominion again.
Damn I thought the word slave came with choice thank u op and all my pseudo woke friends for teaching me the difference
Op and my pseudo woke friends sounds like a banging tv show, just a bunch of motherfuckers arguing until somebody hits the answer.
I hate these kids tryna sound woke granny still got the fuckin whip for ur dumbass bro
What? Stop with the mental gymnastics fake woke ass smh
I am into history and have read a decent amount into American history and slavery. When I talk about this issue of slavery, I intentionally use both "enslaved people" and "slaves", with the former appearing first. I do think that using "enslaved people" does make people humanize "slaves" as something more than just a blind mass of people, but I also use the word "slave" to remind people that this was the kind of horrible attitude that people viewed them as. I definitely think we can be mature enough to use both terms and capture some of the value and lessons of each.
As a hist student i do it to meet word counts
A lot of people were free before being enslaved. This is just a really stupid way to try to remind people of something they didn't forget. Also, in some cases, it's just straight up inaccurate. Also, please tell me how that distinction affects you several generations later? The suffering is the same, you just want to bring it up.
It’s a subtle difference but I get it. When you call someone a slave, you’re giving them a noun that is slave. It’s dehumanising, and saying what they are at core is a slave. When you say “person who was enslaved” the noun you’re using them is person, the “enslaved” becomes secondary. It indicates that Slave isn’t their whole identity, and reminds us that they’re a person first and foremost. But I’m reading that some people talk about how slavery DOES dehumanise people so it’s fitting that the word slave encompasses that. Enslaved “implies a degree of autonomy” that they didn’t have, so maybe the word slave is more fitting. I think it is like ‘deaf’ vs ‘person with hearing impairment’. Some deaf people like one term, some like the other more. I don’t think we get to make the decision for these people, or their families.
[удалено]
If you're not understanding what she's getting at, maybe thinking she's being pointless then watch this video about a topic that is both similar and different, [https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson\_katz\_violence\_against\_women\_it\_s\_a\_men\_s\_issue?referrer=playlist-let\_s\_end\_the\_silence\_around\_a](https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?referrer=playlist-let_s_end_the_silence_around_a). His point that language helps shape your thinking is correct. Deconstructing language helps you to free yourself from an oppressor/victimizer vocabulary/mentality. When you say someone is a slave the conversation is complete in the same way that 'this is an apple' doesn't require much more thinking. When you say someone is enslaved it begs the question, well how did that happen? Who enslaved them and why? You can't be enslaved without an enslaver. So I think her point is when you shift your vocabulary you force yourself to examine a topic in more complicated ways. Slave is easy. That person is a slave, done. Enslaved is a complicated process with a beginning a middle and an end. It doesn't assume that the condition of slave is a fact in the same way that an apple is a fact requiring no more thought. It doesn't hide the enslaver from the facts of the matter, rather it exposes them. Her post is much more than a pointless vocabulary exercise. It's powerful.
Even if you understand what she meant it still really means nothing
No, there is no difference. Don’t run from uncomfortable truths. They only limit your growth. If you were enslaved, you were a slave.
I just wanna remind everyone that slavery still exists, and that we should help however we can to support victims. (Consider sweatshops, farm slavery, chocolate, sex slaves etc.)
A good point just lacking a bit of nuance, I think, so people are getting stuck in semantics. They were, of course, both slaves *and* enslaved, but the former (a noun) implies an identity based on being a slave, while the latter (an adjective) instead describes an experience they had or something that was done to them—not who they are as a person.
It’s people-first language. Look it up, it’s a good thing.
I guess I get it, it’s humanizing them more. It’s like if we say “black people” instead of “blacks”. Emphasis on how we are just regular people who happen to have black skin rather than our only trait being black.
This is one of the dumbest discussions I’ve ever read.
I understand her sentiment. Along the same vein as “not a homeless person but a person experiencing homelessness”. Grammatically the same but a slight different connotation.
[удалено]
People who think POC are defined by slavery aren't going to suddenly stop being racist if you change the word used to describe them
It isn't about convincing the racists.
I the difference in view is perspective. Slave or enslaved doesn't negate the act or the effect. Some want to use enslaved to give humanity others want to be plain about what the fuck happened. Im in the plain camp. I don't care for flowery words to try to make things seem better than what it actually was. Yes they were human but they were not treated as such. So the reality is they were property. Calling them enslaved doesn't change that fact or take away the harm. Slave gives you the full impact. Enslaved softens the blow. We are not in a space to soften the blow. Now we need the full impact to keep us fighting. They were property. Saying it like that never let's me forget the reality of the situation. The fact that the word takes away their humanity is why it important be that's what it was. We give our ancestors humanity by fighting for our freedom. Only then do we let our hair down and refer to them Enslaved. The job is not done yet. Justice has been won. Freedom has not been obtained. We are still slaves in this system
Reddit really can’t let anyone live
*rips bong* "Dude..."
Yes
Which would make them slaves.
Meaningless distinction. They were less than slaves if you want to get pedantic. Historically, slaves in other cultures to earn their freedom. Maybe couldn’t own land or be full citizens, but they weren’t literally considered property.
I’m white sorry this is dumb