What is Slavery ..... for children

Fairfield

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
It's not kept secret but it's not well known that there was slavery in Maine before 1789; a lot of the slaves here--but by no means all of them--were native-American. It is interesting that the latest book on the subject (Lives of Consequence) was written by a woman whose previous publications had been children's books on that same subject.
 

Red Raider

Private
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Location
Lost in Books
I’m not the PC police, quite obviously. However, I will admit that I was personally taken aback that on this forum the incorrect choice of the words “slave”, “slavery,” “Master” etc. is readily written and used. It’s written this way on the forum sections, etc. and it’s the terminology of choice of many here who discuss the issue.


One does not use the word “slave” or “slavery” any longer as to do so is a harmful and insensitive word choice. To be considered correct, one should use the word “enslaved.” This denotes the fact that the person was placed into bondage against their will.
The first article is a generalization of vocabulary words which would be used within the classroom setting.

Georgia,

I am going to be upfront and honest with this post and I want to ensure that no one will take offense to it.

I am currently pursuing a Master's in Military History with a concentration in the Civil War and a Graduate Certificate in Early American History. I only have a few classes left of my Master's before I begin my Thesis classes. With that being said, I have taken numerous classes that involve the topic of "slavery." I am currently taking HIST658 - Reconstruction and the Post-Civil War Era, and HIST657 - Antebellum America: Prelude to the Civil War. Not once, in any of my Master's classes have I heard the terms enslaved, enslaver, or freedom seeker being used within the classroom. Terms that are widely used within the University are free/unfree (pre-Emancipation) and free/unfree/freedmen (post-Emancipation). However, the traditional terms of slave, slavery, slaveholder, and master are common terms to define the social status of that time. Using terms in a historical context should not be frowned upon but encouraged. As historians, it is our job to preserve the past for others to learn from. Outside of a classroom setting, I see no problem with changing the verbiage that is used to describe the status of the population in those times to quell any resentments or thoughts of racism. In public speaking there really is no need for those kinds of words to be used, however, with the CWT forums as a learning platform and discussion area for topics that cover those issues, why should historical context not be used?

V/r

Red
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Georgia,

I am going to be upfront and honest with this post and I want to ensure that no one will take offense to it.

I am currently pursuing a Master's in Military History with a concentration in the Civil War and a Graduate Certificate in Early American History. I only have a few classes left of my Master's before I begin my Thesis classes. With that being said, I have taken numerous classes that involve the topic of "slavery." I am currently taking HIST658 - Reconstruction and the Post-Civil War Era, and HIST657 - Antebellum America: Prelude to the Civil War. Not once, in any of my Master's classes have I heard the terms enslaved, enslaver, or freedom seeker being used within the classroom. Terms that are widely used within the University are free/unfree (pre-Emancipation) and free/unfree/freedmen (post-Emancipation). However, the traditional terms of slave, slavery, slaveholder, and master are common terms to define the social status of that time. Using terms in a historical context should not be frowned upon but encouraged. As historians, it is our job to preserve the past for others to learn from. Outside of a classroom setting, I see no problem with changing the verbiage that is used to describe the status of the population in those times to quell any resentments or thoughts of racism. In public speaking there really is no need for those kinds of words to be used, however, with the CWT forums as a learning platform and discussion area for topics that cover those issues, why should historical context not be used?

V/r

Red

FYI
@Georgia has effectively left CivilWarTalk [I used to speak with her regularly by pm] although she is still registered so it is not likely she will respond. Perhaps others may answer your question with their opinions.
 
Top