[Ads-l] Enslavement of Native Americans [was: wench

[Benjamin Barrett]

Okay, so the Jews who were enslaved in World War II aren’t generally referred to as “slaves.” Interesting point. But that doesn’t answer the request in my e-mail.

Benjamin Barrett
Formerly of Seattle, WA

> On 6 Apr 2016, at 11:29, Z Rice <zrice3714 at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Mr. Barrett, thank you for your reply. I prefer to avoid these exchanges; I
> already know that they're useless. However, I DO recognize the perversity
> and psychological violence inflicted on the descendants of that enslaved
> population when they are exposed to that sort of violent, perverse
> rhetoric. Those inflicting that perverse, psychological violence do not
> have the luxury of telling those on the receiving end of that violent
> rhetoric how to react to it.
> 
> As I stated earlier, Jews are not routinely ("ROUTINELY", I said this the
> first time) referred to in discussions on history as "slaves". I am not
> interested in whether or not someone finds an example in which they were
> referred to as such. It does NOT negate my earlier statement. When we speak
> of Germany, it is not often that we refer to Jews as being "owned" or as
> "slaves". They remain "Jewish", are overwhelmingly referred to as "Jews" in
> our history books, etc, and this implicitly acknowledges their humanity.
> And it darn sure isn't often that we hear Germans or Nazis (or whatever)
> referred to as their "owners" or "masters".
> 
> The exact opposite occurs when that enslaved population is Black -
> especially the Black population enslaved in the US.
> 
> Mr. Berson, in regard to your comment, you can read my first paragraph
> addressing Mr. Barrett on what my motive is for not wanting to reduce
> myself to going back and forth on this. Trust that you have absolutely no
> insight on my reasoning.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Barrett <mail.barretts at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Benjamin Barrett <mail.barretts at GMAIL.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: Enslavement of Native Americans [was: wench
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Z,
>> 
>> These are certainly interesting points in terms of use of language. Can =
>> you, in a straight-forward manner and without attacking people, lay out =
>> how you think the words slave, servant and enslaved should be used?=20
>> 
>> And can you describe how you think people should refer to the term slave =
>> when that is the term used in the lect they are discussing? I think =
>> it=E2=80=99s pretty standard to use the term in the lect under =
>> discussion, but perhaps there is another way of handling it.
>> 
>> Benjamin Barrett
>> Formerly of Seattle, WA
>> 
>>> On 1 Apr 2016, at 09:43, Z Rice <zrice3714 at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> =20
>>> As I said earlier, they were ENSLAVED. They were not "slaves", and =
>> they
>>> damn sure weren't servants. They were Africans/human beings who were
>>> ENSLAVED. Again, call it what it was.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org