Language desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 20[edit]

Popular illustration history[edit]

Whoops - wrong desk. Moved to Humanities by OP. Matt Deres (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enslaved people[edit]

I keep seeing this term used recently instead of the older term "slaves". Is this a new preferred style? Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I for one wouldn't write "enslaved people owner" instead of "slave owner". But when used appropriately, the term "enslaved people" emphasizes that we are talking about human beings, and that their condition is not some intrinsic one but has been imposed on them. There is no authority to say which style is preferred and it is not as if "slave" has become the S-word. It is not very different from using "people who live in poverty" instead of "the poor", as if that is some kind of ethnic group. --Lambiam 08:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thought as well. It's a little like "person of color" instead of "colored person". It's a distinction between an identity and a condition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a reference: Language matters: The shift from ‘slave’ to ‘enslaved person’ may be difficult, but it’s important, which says: 'A debate has been percolating for the last quarter-century or so — mostly in academia — about whether “slave” is a needlessly dehumanizing word to describe a person who was in bondage'. Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, that does confirm it is a recent shift, and like the author of the Language Matters column, I also first noticed it in the NYT 1619 Project articles. I understood the intent and was ok with it, but wondered if it was an idiosyncrasy of the NYT author until I started seeing it in other places. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, there's some talk about this on Talk:George Washington and slavery. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A debate ... about whether “slave” is a needlessly dehumanizing word to describe a person who was in bondage" - surely that's the very point. Slavery is a needlessly dehumanizing thing to do to a person. The linguistic cap has fitted perfectly for millennia, but now suddenly it's not OK? This PC bullshit has gone way over the edge. We've gotta get real, people, and tell it like it is. Will we next stop saying "he was murdered" and instead say "his life was ended involuntarily in a non-legal manner by someone who had as his goal the termination of that life"? </rant> -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree here, I hope, that the act of slavery is dehumanizing. It is needlessly confusing to throw this in when the discussion is about the term "slave". If murder victims were routinely referred to as "corpses" ("Police suspect she became a corpse sometime between midnight and 2 a.m.") and rape victims as "defilees" ("Defilees testify at trial") I think I might object to that as playing down the fact we are talking about human beings. --Lambiam 15:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin Bus stop (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking here of how we should talk about people; posting a cute little clip or performing some stupid rant about "oh it's all PC" is not helpful. Oh Jack, that's so funny--I'm reminded of that equally funny slew of Wikipedia edits a few years ago. "Tell it like it is" means erasing someone's humanity? What's next, All Lives Matter? Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who's erasing anyone's humanity here? Certainly not me. My point is, if we can talk about people being murdered, raped, abused, insulted, brutalised and all the rest of it without "dehumanising" anyone, what's wrong with saying that a person has been enslaved, or that the perpetrator has used them as a slave? Our Slavery article is replete with instances of the word "slave", btw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My long term understanding has been that an enslaved people is a whole race or ethnic group of people whose social position is one of slavery to a dominant group. This means that a new baby born to that former group is part of the enslaved people, but obviously not yet a slave. That doesn't happen until they are old enough to perform labour and services for the dominant group. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that matters. Children of enslaved people in America were considered the property of the owners, and were put to work at a very early age. In the US, anyway, we speak of "enslaved people", but not of "an enslaved people". Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the terms "slaves" and "enslaved people" can be used interchangeably. These are personal writing choices, with pros and cons, and subjective interpretations. I am concerned that anyone might feel compelled to use the recommended terminology. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, that wouldn't explain the singular "enslaved person". I wonder if we'll start abbreviating it EP, similar to PoC. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come across it in singular form, but I'm not from the US. Maybe it's new form of political correctness there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not generally a big fan of the "woke" crowd, but — they might have a point on this one. "Slave" in certain contexts has a connotation of cowardice and collaboration. And Wexford, stripped naked, hung high on the cross, with her heart pierced by traitors and slaves. That said, I do think most people are capable of keeping these meanings separate. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I prefer the term "involuntary employees". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bus stop (their comment--I didn't watch the clip). There may different reasons for individual editors preferring one or the other, but we are very far from the point at which it should be a WP preferred/mandated style. Academic writers, as a whole, have not made the switch, and these same experts are the ones we rely on for information in these articles. So far I have seen it in some journalistic outlets and two museums. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but I would strongly advise against changing their terminology until there is more of a consensus on this off-wiki (academic historians most importantly, but also looking at Chicago Manual of Style, MLA, AP stylebook, etc.).--MattMauler (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede the clip was largely off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]