Elizabeth voices a protest in something like the way some of my Tidewater
friends do. Often those friends are right when they disagree with me. That's
part of why I keep probing. (And I hope I haven't yet worn out my welcome
for that, by the way.)
I agree with Elizabeth that people are smart enough to sort these things
out, that banning the word _niggardly_ is nuts, and that the mistreatment of
_Huckleberry Finn_ is shocking. And I agree with Brent Tarter that while
some of this language fussiness can be constructive -- not the way he put
it, of course -- it's also true that to "banish the word 'slave' from the
language of historical scholarship ... is not likely to serve any good
purpose ... ."
But banishment isn't the same as selectivity, and this suggests a question
for Elizabeth or others: Can there ever be any justification for choosing to
refer, for example, to Sally Hemings as "a woman enslaved at Monticello"
rather than merely as "Thomas Jefferson's slave"?
Obviously we can't actually confer dignity retrospectively on those from
whom it was stolen, but are there ever any circumstances in which the effort
to confer dignity -- while still respecting facts -- improves understanding?
People are still trying to come to grips with slavery at Monticello and
Mount Vernon, at Colonial Williamsburg, in the Brown University board of
visitors' attempt to find out about the origins of their endowment, on the
stage, on PBS, in ceremonies in downtown Richmond, in ceremonies in England
and Africa, in books, in articles, on Cathy Lewis's "HearSay" talk show in
Norfolk, in the Virginia General Assembly, every year on Juneteenth, in
films. In this forum are many who could extend this list.
So my sense is that there's a lot of work to do. Is it completely
inconceivable that even a small part of that work might be to consider
whether any of the language left over from the slavery era ever merits any
healthy skepticism? Or is it really all, every bit of it, just precious,
prissy political correctness?
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Slave owner or slave "owner"?
>I think all the gyrations to separate the legal usage of slavery days not
>only implies our readers are idiots, and can't tell the difference, it sets
>a nasty precedent. What shall we call Nazi Germany? . .. the Kmer Rouge?
>Surely if we refer to the Nazi party our readers will think ill of us, as
>such a horrible organization can't possibly be considered a legitimate
>political party.
>
> Furthermore, banning words like niggardly shows an apalling ignorance of
> the English language and is just inexcusable.
>
> Another thing - banning books (like Huckleberry Finn) because the N word
> is printed in it, and high school students will, therefore, think it's ok
> to use that word, is ridiculous. If that were true, it would be necessary
> to ban Shakespeare as well, as there are references to unseemly behavior
> in his works as well.
>
> I think people are smarter than they are getting credit for. It's not
> necessary to inform them that the slave owner of pre-civil war days would
> not be considered a legitimate owner in 2008.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Corneliussen <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 9:32 am
> Subject: Re: Slave owner or slave "owner"?
>
> Henry Wiencek had written:
>> ...realize that a slave was not a slave by nature, but was actively
>> compelled
>> into enslavement by owners and the legal system.
>
> J South replied:
>> Africans were compelled into enslavement, by their African brothers
> who
>> made
>> slaves out of them and sold them for shipment to the New World. The
>> purchasers/owners perpetuated the status under which they purchased
> the
>> slaves.
>
> My question:
> Does your original enslavement by your countrymen, before your sale to
> people from other lands, somehow make you a slave by nature?
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
> http://webmail.aol.com
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database:
> 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date: 2/17/2008 2:39 PM
>
>
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
