Got told off by everyone today

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

Indeed.

This part of the forum is listed as Chat which gives the impression of peaceful friendly conversation while perhaps having a warm drink though perhaps a petition to GNHQ to sometimes have some threads in the Chat forum redesignated more appropriately to the tone of the discussion would et cetera et cetera

If we haven't to use words about objects that we now feel are wrong, how about Gypsy Skirts and blouses terms still used today.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

???

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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…

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.

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.

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.