The issue today is not the institution of slavery, few would defend it;
there is, however, a serious issue of structural racism in this country. The
use of terms such as "enslaved" is nothing more than an attempt to come to
grips with the root causes of this structural racism that, in part, stems
from our political mythology.

When we appraise our forebears in a more realistic light we have a chance to
note the "mote in our own eye." Will the mere use of a more precise term
solve the problems of racism? I don't believe so. On the other hand, stupid
conservatism will seriously impede possible social progress, and thereby
diminish the explicit ideals set in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Also, we should not forget that while our Constitution and Bill of Right are
the first serious document that declares certain fundamental rights as being
inherent to an individual (though not all, by any means), today it is
surpassed in scope of those rights by the Declaration of Human Rights
adopted by the UN.

One unacknowledged issue that has surfaced in this discussion is that many
of our best younger scholars tend to look at problems from a more global and
international perspective than from a strictly national point-of-view. This
affects the language used. The term "enslavement" is designed to be
applicable to a number of countries/societies that had the institution of
slavery, not just the US. Lest it escaped most people's notice, even the US
carmakers (the most conservative of manufacturers) have gone metric and
adopted the global standard in favor of local usage.
nburlakoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of David E. Haberstich
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Enslaved"

In a message dated 11/5/2003 12:44:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< The word "enslaved" has become the preferred term for people found in
that
 status on the same theory as the term "undocumented aliens" has become the
 preferred term over "illegal aliens." Human beings are inherently neither
 "illegal" nor "slaves." Human beings are sometimes classed as being
 "illegal" or as "slaves." In either case that is deliberate action of an
 outside agency and has no bearing on the inherent quality of that person.
 Therefore, the term "enslaved" is considered to be more accurate than the
 term "slave." >>

Frankly, I fail to see how this and the other explanations which have been
offered for a preference for the term "enslaved" person over "slave"
accomplish
anything or in what way there is any essential difference.  I find the
arguments totally unconvincing and beside the point.  A person who has been
enslaved
is a slave.  Enslavement produces slaves.  If you want to differentiate
enslaved African Americans from enslaved Romans, enslaved Native Americans,
or any
other group, the term might be useful, but "African American slave" or
"Roman
slave" work just as well.  Saying a person was "enslaved" in no way
circumvents
the notion that a slave is someone who might be considered inferior by the
non-enslaved population.  In the ancient world, as well as in Africa and
other
parts of the world in more recent times, people who lost battles were
enslaved
because the victors could get away with it; they became slaves because,
quite
literally, they were losers and slavery was often the consequence of losing.
The Romans enslaved "barbarians" because it was economically advantageous
and
psychologically satisfying--if they considered their slaves inferior as
human
beings because they were losers and barbarians, that's historical fact (or
at
least our assumption based on available evidence), but it doesn't, of
course,
mean they WERE inferior.

Although I think there's an obvious political agenda behind the use of the
term "undocumented aliens," it is clearly more accurate than "illegal
aliens."
People are not illegal, but they can do illegal things.  An American citizen
who commits a crime is not an illegal citizen, just a citizen who has broken
a
law.  I think "undocumented alien" is a useful term because it can include
persons who have deliberately broken immigration laws as well as those who
have
inadvertently broken the law, and others who are undocumented through
bureaucratic confusion, etc.

But I don't see how you can get around the linguistic fact that enslaving a
person produces a slave.  No one, as far as I can tell, said anyone was
"inherently" a slave (the word in itself contains no such connotation, so I
don't see
why that's an issue), but you could say that the child of a slave usually
inherited that condition.  I'm a college graduate, but that in no way means
I'm
"inherently" a college graduate.  I simply went through a process that
produced
a college graduate.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).