Got told off by everyone today

So, BB, what's wrong with "slave", then, if a euphemism won't cut it? I just don't understand how on earth you can get so worked up about what I wrote. What's in a name? Slaves have existed since time immemorial. Calling them something else is just ridiculous. Slaves, or whatever name you wish to call them by almost certainly figure in my family tree, and yours. Yes, enslaved people have been treated appallingly, and yes, the mindset of those who are unable to understand the truly terrible state in which they lived is equally so. We cannot change history, we cannot wear hair shirts for the misdeeds of previous generations. In no way am I trivialising the egregious behaviours of people of other times, and indeed, of present times. But as you feel so strongly about it, what are you doing to mitigate our ancestral sins? Are you an activist in protesting the still-existent slave markets of parts of Africa, such as Dar Es Salaam? for example? Are you giving sanctuary to young, trafficked women? Are you using your voice to make a difference? Or is it just words?

There are times when it feels safer not to interact with too many people, either verbally or written.

Sorry, but a silly question

I didn’t think it was a silly question actually. And thank you for pointing out the correct title for the opera Lucca., which I did know, but was meaning that particular piece.

Sorry are we now not allowed to express an opinion if we are not housing vulnerable women. My guess is that rules all of us out of ever commenting on anything again.

The problem isn't with the word slave, as surely people must know? The problem is when a particular word is associated with something that denigrates the people you are referring to. I've not seen the problem with "slave bangles" before. But if some people are offended by that phrase in that context, so be it. It doesn't mean we don't get to use the word slave any more in circumstances where the people we are actually talking about are actually slaves.

I do think that anybody trying to pretend that they are confused by all this is being a bit mischievous, actually.

Sometimes there is no substitute word and no need for one. The Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves is a case in point, surely?

I have never heard of slave bangles either.

Upthread, it was mentioned that there is never a need to refer to a person’s colour.
In a group of trainee volunteers of all ages and backgrounds one left mid- training as she had found a paid post. I passed on this news to a group of paid staff.. “ jan has got a job”. “ Which one’s Jan?” The quickest was to identify her was to say she is black. Purely a descriptive short cut. Immediately identifiable. No-one offended.

Some organisations ask questions about ethnicity for statistical purposes. Under GDPR it is special category information for which consent is needed, so answers have to be optional.
They enable the organisation to ensure they are reaching a diverse population, across age groups, gender, ethnicity etc…

No doubt it is the wrong thing to think, but surely it isn't about eradicating the word slave entirely?
It's about ensuring it isn't used casually, in a way that is offensive or abusive.
Are we not to use any words pertaining to abhorrent practices any more?
Or do we just need to be mindful about how they are used?

what's wrong with calling them "slaves"? Slaves were just that. An inescapable historical fact.

'Enslaved people' is the currently preferred term, as I learned in a FutureLearn course recently.

Calendargirl

^Sorry, but a silly question^

I didn’t think it was a silly question actually. And thank you for pointing out the correct title for the opera Lucca., which I did know, but was meaning that particular piece.

Not your question that was silly. The one suggesting we need to change the title of that piece.

Upthread, it was mentioned that there is never a need to refer to a person’s colour. In a group of trainee volunteers of all ages and backgrounds one left mid- training as she had found a paid post. I passed on this news to a group of paid staff.. “ jan has got a job”. “ Which one’s Jan?” The quickest was to identify her was to say she is black. Purely a descriptive short cut. Immediately identifiable. No-one offended.

Spot on, Cabbie

Also, upthread it was suggested that people only had to look up a term to see whether or not it is considered offensive.

It's not as simple as that. I do freelance work for publishers and one of my jobs is to 'sort out' terminology. I have found in the many books I've worked on that what is an offensive term for one author is actually recommended by another, and vice versa. One author argued that using the currently correct term 'person(s) of colour' had racist undertones.

The correct usage of words/phrases is forever changing. It's difficult to keep up with currently acceptable usage and putting a quick search into Google for unoffensive terms is most likely going to end up upsetting somebody.

volver

The problem isn't with the word slave, as surely people must know? The problem is when a particular word is associated with something that denigrates the people you are referring to. I've not seen the problem with "slave bangles" before. But if some people are offended by that phrase in that context, so be it. It doesn't mean we don't get to use the word slave any more in circumstances where the people we are actually talking about are actually slaves.

I do think that anybody trying to pretend that they are confused by all this is being a bit mischievous, actually.

Exactly, thanks

I think this thread illustrates very well why people are unsure of the currently correct terms.

Our police service uses the term. A few months ago there was a case of what they called "Modern Day Slavery", a chap had been locked in a shed for 40 years and made to work for the family.
The family were called "Travellers", what words do people object to the term suggest we use and could they inform the police.
Also Google slave bracelets, lots of Jewellery shops use the term including Etsy.
Much as we think and know acts in the past were wrong we can't put them right just make sure they never happen again.
Before I get a barrage of abusive replies I do have so-called "Slaves " in my family tree, as do other relations.

FarNorth wrote 'Enslaved people' is the currently preferred term, as I learned in a FutureLearn course recently.

I use the phrase victim of enslavement in the singular and victims of enslavement in the plural.

Substituting such a phrase for the single word takes more key presses and takes longer to say, but, in my opinion, it is worth doing.

Far be it from me to be seen to be associated with the permanently indignant defenders of the offensive, but what on earth is wrong with "slaves", if we are talking about people whose lives were spent in slavery??

Brutus turned to his victim of enslavement and said...

or

Brutus turned to his slave and said...

???

These things happen. You’ve learned a lesson so know not to repeat it again.

I’ve not heard of that term if I’m honest.

Cabbie21 wrote Some organisations ask questions about ethnicity for statistical purposes. Under GDPR it is special category information for which consent is needed, so answers have to be optional.

Yet the Chief Statistician threatened a £1000 fine if people did not answer the non-optional questions on the census form, of which a question about ethnicity was one question.

What's different there Yammy is that the police were talking about someone who was held captive and forced to work whereas "slave bracelet" is an offensive name for a frivolous adornment.
It's irrelevant how many people use that name, it's still offensive.

In reply to volver

I saw a lady on video saying that she was descended from former slaves.

Had she said that she was descended from people who had been victims of enslavement I think that that would have sounded much more positive and forceful.

Perhaps some people would have treated her differently if she had used that wording.

Am I descended from Lords of the manor or from the people who were forced to cultivate his strips in the large medieval fields? I don't know. I don't get asked that on forms.

Wouldn't survivors of enslavement be more relevant than victims?

And the Brutus thing?

I think that this arguing over whether it is "victims of enslavement" or "slaves" is why some people get up in arms about not being "allowed" to use certain words.

I didn't mean arguing in the sense of violently disagreeing, but you know what I mean...

volver

Far be it from me to be seen to be associated with the permanently indignant defenders of the offensive, but what on earth is wrong with "slaves", if we are talking about people whose lives were spent in slavery??

Brutus turned to his victim of enslavement and said...

or

Brutus turned to his slave and said...

???

For once I am with you on this Volver. Whole books, plays or historical records cannot be rewritten just because we object to the term used.
We can try to modify things as in Othello, we would all think it wrong if a man was blacked up like a black and white minstrel to play the part, nowadays. Though can we say they were wrong to do so in the past when they thought differently?

volver
'turned to his slave' - we are familiar with this way of speaking
'turned to the enslaved person' - makes the reality of the situation clearer

I think 'his slave' paints more clearly the situation.
His slave; belonging to him. His possession.