Jump to content

Talk:List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Tyler considered slavery evil,[citation needed] but he never freed any of his slaves and consistently supported slavery and its expansion during his time in political office.) This Piece of information doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzendaya (talkcontribs) 00:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was vandalized to add Donald Trump to this list. Funny as a parlor game but not appropriate here. I tried to fix it back but my Wiki skills are not up to snuff. I hope someone else will complete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:897F:A018:CE2:78E6:B011:75EE (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change "slave" to "enslaved" person.

[edit]

I would like to propose that we change the article to use "enslaved person/people" instead of "slave". ZappoMan (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references discussing how and why historians are moving toward this language convention.

http://www.buffalolib.org/sites/default/files/exhibit/pdf/Vocab%20&%20Key%20Concepts%20-%20mc.pdf

"Enslaved vs. Slave: Today, most historians speak of “enslaved people” instead of “slaves.” This language separates a person's identity from his/her circumstance.

Enslaver vs. Owner/Master: The usage of “owner” or “master” empowers the enslaver and dehumanizes the enslaved person reducing him/her to a commodity rather than a person who has had slavery imposed upon him or her." ZappoMan (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a WP:RS. Here are a few more sources (also not necessarily reliable, but they show the debate is complex and far from over):
Some say (convincingly, I feel) that enslaved person emphasizes personhood. Others argue (also convincingly) enslaved person is a euphemism that hides the dehumanizing brutality of slavery. I didn't find a source that provides (or at least tries to provide) evidence for the claim that "most historians" use one term or the other.
Wikipedia uses common terms. We do not establish terms. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If slave is more common, we should use slave. If enslaved person is more common, we should use enslaved person.
Chrisahn (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn makes an important point, Wikipedia uses common terms. This article's use of the words/terms "slaves" and "owned slaves" reflects that practice. (See also: List of slave owners) Drdpw (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enslaving vs owning

[edit]

Also change "own" to e.g. "kidnap". You cannot own a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaviscs (talkcontribs) 13:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at User:ZappoMan's change on July 2 (this one: Special:Redirect/revision/965671557), it seems less controversial than the proposed noun change from "slave" to "enslaved person". Rev 965671557 changes the verb from "owning" to "enslaving", which seems like a legitimate shift. Does anyone believe that the financial aspect (ownership) is more significant than the resulting captivity (enslavement)? -- RobLa (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "enslave" doesn't quite fit: "enslave" doesn't mean "own someone as a slave", but "make someone a slave". It doesn't describe an ongoing state, but an action at a point in time. Example: "George Washington enslaved 317 people" would mean that the people were free before he made them slaves. (Another minor point: ownership is not necessarily a financial aspect. For example, many societies have a concept of ownership although they don't have a concept of money.) -- Chrisahn (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different societies have different definitions of what can and cannot be owned. Some say that you cannot own land, or the rights to a song, or a lake, or a factory. In many societies, including pre-1865 US, you can definitely own a person.Sheila1988 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To not mention that Thomas jefferson forcefully fathered the children with sally is a disgrace

[edit]

so i've changed it accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.232.5 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]