The semantics of slavery

[Bozo Erectus]

This isnt about whether slavery was right or wrong, its about the way we talk about it. Its always bothered me that we still call them 'slaves' and we say that their 'masters owned' them. By using this language, we're unconsciously conferring legitimacy on the institution. I dont believe its possible for a human being to own another. You can kidnap people and brutally force them to do things they dont want to do, but at no point do you 'own' them. Also, we refer to them as 'slaves' and I think it dehumanizes the victims. These arent people, theyre slaves. After the war ends, now theyre people, but before the war, they were slaves. They should always be referred to as 'enslaved people'. See what Im saying or is this just idiotic PC crap?

 

[Speedo]

Idiotic PC crap. If you don't show how things really were, how do you expect people to understand why it was wrong?

1. Like it or not, people did own other people in the form of slaves.

2. Like it or not, slaves were not (generally) viewed as people, merely as expendable property.

 

[WillJ]

I completely disagree.

People owned slaves. No, by our modern moral standards they didn't have a true right to them, but back in those days they did. Based on the current legal structure, the slaves belonged to the masters, and that's the meaning of the word "own." Nowadays in most countries you can't own a person, but back then you could, and they did.

They were clearly slaves, and I see nothing wrong with that word. "Enslaved people"? So they're "enslaved," yet they're not "slaves"? Why do you say they're enslaved? No one owned them, according to you. A slave is a person, obviously, and very few people nowadays don't consider slaves people and are unsympathetic toward them. Does the word "Germans" dehumanize people? Should we call them "German people"? We use both terms, just like we use both slaves and enslaved people, and I don't see how one is better than the other.

 

[imposter]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
This isnt about whether slavery was right or wrong, its about the way we talk about it. Its always bothered me that we still call them 'slaves' and we say that their 'masters owned' them. By using this language, we're unconsciously conferring legitimacy on the institution. I dont believe its possible for a human being to own another. You can kidnap people and brutally force them to do things they dont want to do, but at no point do you 'own' them. Also, we refer to them as 'slaves' and I think it dehumanizes the victims. These arent people, theyre slaves. After the war ends, now theyre people, but before the war, they were slaves. They should always be referred to as 'enslaved people'. See what Im saying or is this just idiotic PC crap?

They were slaves, and they were not people. They were owned, they had masters.

Which is why slavery needed to be stopped, IMO.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

This is a bit off-topic, but I've always thought about part of the 13th Ammendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Now, obviously, this isn't the intention of the phrase, and I'm sure I'll get a million pedants reminding me of that, but it does means that somebody could still become a slave in the United States. Like that episode of Seinfeld where they make the TV show where the guy hits the other guy and doesn't have insurance and is sentenced to become the other guy's butler.

 

[luiz]

Dumb pothead:

I see your intentions are good, but that's not a good idea. People are already sympathetic towards the slaves, and slavery is condemned as one of mankinds worst crimes.
Furthermore, it's important not to be euphemistic about the attrocity that was slavery.

 

[Mescalhead]

You answered your own objection. Saying to "own" is just semantics. No need to worry about words unless it comes down to legal interpretation. Semantics only matter to those who have no hard objection to the body of the problem.

 

[Pongui]

I wonder what we'd call the other deluded souls - "persons of mastery"?

"Slave" and "master" are useful old words. We may need these words to think about some things, so it would be a crime to tie these down to one episode in history.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Said it yourself. Idiotic PC crap of the most pointless kind. There were and are slaves, and for right or wrong, they were/are owned by their masters. Those that are dead will not bother about what they are called; those that are still slaves do not care what they are called.

 

[FredLC]

I agree with the others. The matter here is not if owning a person is legal or illegal, nor legitimate or ilegitimate... but that it in fact happened, and that people did own other people.

I like to refer to it in the harsh terms, and not trying to diminish what happened. People must feel the shock and the absurd of stealing a person's freedom. It does not de-humanize the slave IMHO, just make it pretty damn obvious how deviant what happened was.

There was masters and slaves in the past, and as long as we keep the memory of what happened branded with fire letters in our minds, there is hope that there will never be people like that again.

Regards .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its not just you guys who disagree with me. Since I posted the thread Ive asked some people about it and they pretty much said the same things all of you said word for word. I guess Im just wrong on this one, oh well. But I think nobody is really getting my point. Maybe Im trying to make a philosophical point rather than a sociological or political one. Fred for instance you said that people did own other people. Thats where I disagree. Its not possible for a human to own another, no matter what the majority of people at any given time think. Let me give you an example: suppose I get on a plane to the Phillipines and 'buy' a girl from a poor family for $100. Happens all the time these days. If you saw me and her walking down the street one day would you say, "Oh theres Dumb pothead with that girl he owns." Or would you say instead, "Theres Dumb pothead with that girl he's abusing, lets call the police."? Of course, youd all say the latter(or is that the former, always get those two mixed up). How come its ok to say that white men owned black men 150 years ago? Another example: show someone a picture of a white person from that time period, and just ask them what they see in the picture. Theyd say that they see a person. Show them a picture of a black man in chains from the same period, and theyd say they see a slave.

 

[Caranamrta]

The conception of ownership and "ownedhood" depends on culture, time and/or advancedness. In the USA, you can't own another human. In the Philippines, you can't own another man, and in Sudan, you can own anyone. In many Islamic countries, in order to get married, you should buy your partner (if you are a man). In the USA of the XVIII. century, you could have own any black humans.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Caranamrta I understand what you mean. But suppose everyone where you live decided that you arent a person, and that you could be bought and sold, would you stop being a person and become a slave? In Nazi Germany, they referred to the Jews as untermenschen (under men) and treated them as such. So then wouldnt it be wrong for us who know better to referr to them as untermenschen? Would we say, "Oh well in Germany, theyre legally untermenschen, so thats what we'll call German Jews"? What Im saying is that regardless of time or place or majority opinion, no human can own another and to refer to people as owners or slaves is wrong and inaccurate.

 

[Speedo]

Fred for instance you said that people did own other people. Thats where I disagree. Its not possible for a human to own another, no matter what the majority of people at any given time think. Let me give you an example: suppose I get on a plane to the Phillipines and 'buy' a girl from a poor family for $100. Happens all the time these days. If you saw me and her walking down the street one day would you say, "Oh theres Dumb pothead with that girl he owns." Or would you say instead, "Theres Dumb pothead with that girl he's abusing, lets call the police."?

Of course, by todays morals, laws and etc, humans can not be owned. Under the laws and beliefs of the time period, however, they could. Lets be frank, "rights" and "freedom" and etc are just human inventions, and depend entirely on who you're asking about them.

 

[phoenix_night]

Idiot PC crap.

Sorry, dumb, but people did own them. You would be correct to call it illegitimate, but these people were slaves, you said as much yourself: "enslaved people".

We don't need any more of this PC nonsense so just leave it.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Its not just you guys who disagree with me. Since I posted the thread Ive asked some people about it and they pretty much said the same things all of you said word for word. I guess Im just wrong on this one, oh well. But I think nobody is really getting my point. Maybe Im trying to make a philosophical point rather than a sociological or political one. Fred for instance you said that people did own other people. Thats where I disagree. Its not possible for a human to own another, no matter what the majority of people at any given time think. Let me give you an example: suppose I get on a plane to the Phillipines and 'buy' a girl from a poor family for $100. Happens all the time these days. If you saw me and her walking down the street one day would you say, "Oh theres Dumb pothead with that girl he owns." Or would you say instead, "Theres Dumb pothead with that girl he's abusing, lets call the police."? Of course, youd all say the latter(or is that the former, always get those two mixed up). How come its ok to say that white men owned black men 150 years ago? Another example: show someone a picture of a white person from that time period, and just ask them what they see in the picture. Theyd say that they see a person. Show them a picture of a black man in chains from the same period, and theyd say they see a slave.

If you are making a philosophical point, than let`s get philosophical, DP, and hit the question on it's core.

Do you believe that exists some kind of natural, universal and objective morality, and that, for some reason, it is coincident with our current moral values?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by FredLC
Do you believe that exists some kind of natural, universal and objective morality, and that, for some reason, it is coincident with our current moral values?

I believe that our moral values, our beliefs about human rights, have evolved over time and they'll continue to evolve. There is a natural universal and objective morality, but we havent gotten there yet. We've made some progress though. Speedo said:
Lets be frank, "rights" and "freedom" and etc are just human inventions, and depend entirely on who you're asking about them.
I think thats the 'nub of the gist'. Are human rights and freedoms completely arbitrary or are there core objective truths that are truly universal and transcend culture? Thats the real question lurking in the whole slavery/semantics thing.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
I think thats the 'nub of the gist'. Are human rights and freedoms completely arbitrary or are there core objective truths that are truly universal and transcend culture? Thats the real question lurking in the whole slavery/semantics thing.

They are arbitrary! There is no objective truth! What makes you think there is?

Maybe, in 200 years, people will read their history books and think: Did they own animals in 2003? Did they slaughter them? And eat them????

And on some subspace intergalactic forum, DP's grand-grand-grand-son will ask the question: Can you own animals?

A bizar comparisment, I know, but in perspective, it might make sense!

 

[Stile]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
This is a bit off-topic, but I've always thought about part of the 13th Ammendment:



Now, obviously, this isn't the intention of the phrase, and I'm sure I'll get a million pedants reminding me of that, but it does means that somebody could still become a slave in the United States. Like that episode of Seinfeld where they make the TV show where the guy hits the other guy and doesn't have insurance and is sentenced to become the other guy's butler.

Sounds like something they did here in the south. Criminals (mostly black, but not entirely) where bought by some lumber companies and forced to labor clearing woods. IIRC, they were bought by the day and did not receive compensation. The money went to the state. It doesn't sound bad, until you realize there was a corrupt judicial system that imprisoned blacks to long terms for minor offenses (or made up ones like vagrancy). The 'convict lease' program is described as worse then slavery, as the companies had no reason to keep the workers healthy. It was outlawed around 1910 here in Georgia, and subsequently prisoners were sent to improve the roads. Makes the bigotry of the 'greatest generation' seem almost benign.

 

[Sims2789]

my solution to illegal slavery in the USA would be to round up the so-called "masters" and force them to work on chain gangs for their whole life.

you do have a point, about the terminology we use.