> > > Deb Fuller wrote:
> >
> > > > Why is the use of the word "slave" such a bad thing?
> > > >
> > > > Deb
> > >
Bob Handy wrote:
> > > Yeah, like pretending no Jews were killed in the holocaust.
Bob Handy wrote:
>
> It was not my intent to be politically correct (if you knew me well you
> would understand why that label doesn't fit). My point was that
> ignoring the existence and reality of slavery--by calling them servants
> or whitewashing the practice (excuse the pun) is like suggesting no Jews
> were killed in the Holocaust. Maybe you are one of those who argues
> that there was no holocaust. If so, I don't want to discuss it with
> you. I hope, however, you were simply asking for clarification.
Bob,
Thank you for the clarification. I share you sentiment that the
intentional mislabelling or"whitewashing" of a the tragedy suffered by a
particular community is repulsive and a dishonor to the institution and
public one has been hired to serve. The moving testimonies of the
survivors of the Holocaust are sufficient evidence that such genocide
did occur, and intuitively obvious to all but a political ogre.
No one contributing to this discussion is "ignoring the existence and
reality of slavery". Quite the opposite, we are confronting it. However,
it is apparent that some list readers and contributors are concerned
with a larger issue: the status of all victims, of which slaves are a
part. Victim is a distinction which may be satisfactorily used to
address the hardships and tragedies of all and any peoples. Rather than
just exploring the problems of exhibiting and explaining slavery, I
suggest we broaden the discussion as to how one should deal with the
issue of all victims honestly. The problem of slavery interpretation
would be resolved within that larger issue. Accurately adressing the
problem as the role of "The Victim in History" would reduce complex
particulars to simple patterns and traits. This would allow one to
perceive formulas regarding the representation of exploited, victimised
and overpowered populations.
Tragic as it was, the devastation of a European community isn't any more
disastrous than the injustices which have been (and still are) suffered
by the countless Indians of the western hemisphere, indigenous Pacific
societies, African and Asian tribals, etc. An excellent account of this
can be found in Alfred W. Crosby "Ecological Imperialism: The Biological
Expansion of Europe". Cambridge University Press 1986. An illuminating
history of anti-Semitism can be found in Holy War; The Crusades and
Their Impact on Today's World by Karen Armstrong. Aslo originally
published by Cambridge University Press.
Adressing the problem as the role of "The Victim in History" would
reduce complex particulars to simple patterns and traits. This would
allow one to perceive formulas regarding the representation of
exploited, victimised and militarily defeated populations.
Suggesting that I "maybe one of those" and therefore not worthy of your
opinions, adds little value and dignity to your convictions or the
intentions of this discussion list. Such a tactic is better employed in
arguments rather than discussions. We can benefit from scrutinising an
idea, rarely from exercising our vocabularies in demeaning a suspected
diverse contributor. To limit a discussion of sensitive subjects to only
those people who agree with us is a blend of insecurity and arrogance,
and will hardly bring us closer to an enlightened solution.
Bruce Miller
|
