Bill Mulligan wrote:
>
> At 04:41 PM 2/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >But isn't that distorting history?  The Africans who worked on the
> >plantation were most definitely slaves.  Some of them had it real good,
> >living better than poor, free whites and some of them were treated worse
> >than abused animals.
>
> No matter how "good" they may appear to have had it, they were still
> enslaved.  That cannot have been "good" in any meaningful sense.
>
> >Why is the use of the word "slave" such a bad thing?
>
> Because it represents one group of humans systematically degrading another
> for profit.
>
> >
> >Deb
> >
>
> William H. Mulligan, Jr. [[log in to unmask]]
> Associate Professor of History
> Director - Forrest C. Pogue Public History Institute
> Murray State University - Murray, KY 42071-0009
> Phone:(502) 762-6571 Fax:(502) 762-6587
> Home Phone:(502)753-9033
> Pogue Institute web site:
> http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/Bill.Mulligan/Index.htm


Bill,

You're concise definition of slavery, "one group of humans
systematically degrading another for profit" misses the point. Slavery
is about forceful exploitation, not degradation. Slavery is degrading
because it callously utilizes man as an expendable commodity. But
degradation was merely coincidental to the goals of slavers.

However, your interpretation of slavery does serve as an excellent
definition of both history and politics. But if we should taboo every
word or idea that "represents" such an idea, as you appear to propose,
then every associate history professor would most certainly be out of a
job. I suspect that is not what you had in mind.

 On the brighter side, if you would suggest we further extend your taboo
to the "systematically degrading another for profit"- world of politics,
I'd vote for you anytime.