Talk:Amphitrite (1796 ship)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amphitrite (1796 ship) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Amphitrite (1796 ship) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Enslaving?[edit]

Following a recent revert, which I have changed back, from "slave-trading" to "enslaving":

A pedantic point: there is a distinction between enslaving, and trading/transport of slaves. This in no way justifies or reduces responsibility; it is a point of the language used.

In the ~17th century English south coast, slave ships were wont to raid villages and capture the inhabitants into slavery. The correct word is enslaving, followed by transport.

Later, there was a practice in Africa whereby members of some tribes captured (enslaved) members of other tribes in an organised system; they were taken by their (African) captors to the coast, and sold to European traders, who transported their purchased captives in slave ships to destinations where those surviving were sold as property. The European traders did not actually carry out the enslavement (which, I repeat, does not reduce their responsibility in any way; slave purchase, transport, murder—thrown overboard if food was short—and sale is as much part of the barbaric system as actual enslavement). They engaged in slave trade and transport, but not enslavement.

This point should really be discussed in the context of slavery, rather than this ship; maybe somebody with an opinion either way could start this?

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pol086, You make a good point. Usage, at least in the US, is changing, and I am wrestling with how to deal with that. Just before the Covid debacle unfolded, I had an opportunity to visit the National Museum of African American History. There, the guides made a point of explaining that they, and we, were to avoid the term "slave", and instead use the term "enslaved people". This year, I noticed that the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade database has replaced the term "slaves", when speaking of the number of people enslaved, with the term "captives". But that term can be ambiguous when one is trying to separate a crew taken captive from their captives. I started to use "enslaving voyages" instead of "slave voyages" as roughly analogous to "whaling voyages", but you are right, the analogy doesn't work. What I need is a less cumbersome way of saying "1st voyage transporting enslaved people (17xx-17xx+1)". I truly am open to any suggestions you might have. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]