Correct me if I have somehow misunderstood but I do believe using the word "slave(s)" as a noun is socially irresponsible. They were not slaves, they were enslaved people. I enjoy learning history as a mere hobby and in "Crash Course: Black American History" Clint Smith teaches that using the word "slave" as a noun is wrong. 😀
Thanks, Kristin. I'm aware that some activists have argued for avoiding use of "slave" as a noun. Although I am not convinced Dr. Smith is the arbiter of social responsibiity, I'm not entirely unsensitive to this argument; but I've chosen to continue using the term precisely because it's a bit jarring and uncomfortable. I agree that people who were enslaved were more than just slaves, but in most of the cases in which I use the term slaves, the fact of enslavement is the only element of their identities that I'm discussing. And I'm typically describing groups of people rather than individuals. Ironically, in the cases I was discussing, I think the fact that these people were enslaved is often the reason they're part of the story.
That said, I've also made a deliberate choice to refer to the people who enslaved other people as slaveowners and NEVER as "masters". And when I get around to talking about an individual person about whom we know something in addition to the fact that they were enslaved (like Olaudah Equiano, Phillis Wheatley, or Frederick Douglass), I think it makes sense to make "enslaved" just one of many adjectives modifying the noun.
Well laid out. The only objection would be from African Americans today. You are a white man. All your historical evidence and your opinion are inescapably tainted by your inherent white superiority. That’s a death blow to your credibility in every dimension.
I hear what you're saying, I think. In my "defense", I'm working on this material because I've taken over a set of courses taught by a BIPOC female while she's on sabbatical this year, which includes African American History and Women in American History. I'm not a woman either, but the college apparently decided I was the best person available to teach these courses.
I've also taught Women in World History several times, despite testicles; as well as East Asian, South Asian, and Latin American History, despite being and Italian American from New England. I've taught early American History, despite being born in the sixties. And I designed an Equity Certificate program at my last university, despite being a bit privileged myself.
Perhaps. The collective mind may have its advantage over the solitary thinker. But alternatively we all stand on someone else’s shoulders. Even the great solitary thinkers did not spring into their worlds alone and unaccompanied. But I enjoy scholarly discussion. But sometimes the friendly adversary gets lost in his scholarship and has unknowingly forsaken the ability to replace a kitchen sink disposal or fix a toilet. That lack is perhaps more debilitating than having all one’s books burned.
Great lecture!
Correct me if I have somehow misunderstood but I do believe using the word "slave(s)" as a noun is socially irresponsible. They were not slaves, they were enslaved people. I enjoy learning history as a mere hobby and in "Crash Course: Black American History" Clint Smith teaches that using the word "slave" as a noun is wrong. 😀
Thanks, Kristin. I'm aware that some activists have argued for avoiding use of "slave" as a noun. Although I am not convinced Dr. Smith is the arbiter of social responsibiity, I'm not entirely unsensitive to this argument; but I've chosen to continue using the term precisely because it's a bit jarring and uncomfortable. I agree that people who were enslaved were more than just slaves, but in most of the cases in which I use the term slaves, the fact of enslavement is the only element of their identities that I'm discussing. And I'm typically describing groups of people rather than individuals. Ironically, in the cases I was discussing, I think the fact that these people were enslaved is often the reason they're part of the story.
That said, I've also made a deliberate choice to refer to the people who enslaved other people as slaveowners and NEVER as "masters". And when I get around to talking about an individual person about whom we know something in addition to the fact that they were enslaved (like Olaudah Equiano, Phillis Wheatley, or Frederick Douglass), I think it makes sense to make "enslaved" just one of many adjectives modifying the noun.
Well laid out. The only objection would be from African Americans today. You are a white man. All your historical evidence and your opinion are inescapably tainted by your inherent white superiority. That’s a death blow to your credibility in every dimension.
I hear what you're saying, I think. In my "defense", I'm working on this material because I've taken over a set of courses taught by a BIPOC female while she's on sabbatical this year, which includes African American History and Women in American History. I'm not a woman either, but the college apparently decided I was the best person available to teach these courses.
I've also taught Women in World History several times, despite testicles; as well as East Asian, South Asian, and Latin American History, despite being and Italian American from New England. I've taught early American History, despite being born in the sixties. And I designed an Equity Certificate program at my last university, despite being a bit privileged myself.
Clever. Great CV. At least humor will carry you where scholarship can’t or won’t! Happy New Year.
But I think that's the point, isn't it? Scholarship CAN take you where mere group-membership can't!
Perhaps. The collective mind may have its advantage over the solitary thinker. But alternatively we all stand on someone else’s shoulders. Even the great solitary thinkers did not spring into their worlds alone and unaccompanied. But I enjoy scholarly discussion. But sometimes the friendly adversary gets lost in his scholarship and has unknowingly forsaken the ability to replace a kitchen sink disposal or fix a toilet. That lack is perhaps more debilitating than having all one’s books burned.