User talk:Lorecina

Welcome!

Hi Lorecina! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Rsk6400 (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves vs. enslaved people

You may have noticed that I reverted your edits at Nat Turner's slave rebellion. I think the term "enslaved person / people" has the advantage of reminding writer and reader of the slaves' humanity and of the enormity of the crime against humanity. I also think that many articles here at WP have a tendency of whitewashing enslavers or racism. On the other hand, the term "slave" is still used by modern historians who are certainly not known for defending slavery. "Owners of enslaved people" can be shortened to "enslavers". I personally use both "slave" and "enslaved person" for the victims of slavery, having a slight preference for the term "enslaver" over "master" or "owner". --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rsk6400, and thank you for your welcome. I have returned to the Nat Turner page and reverted your edits to the page; while I know some individuals still prefer to use the term "slave" when discussing the lives and actions of enslaved people, in the United States, and more specifically Virginia itself, the term is quickly being discarded in favor of language that honors the humanity of its subjects. I see from your profile that you have been based in Germany for the past 35 years; as Virginian who has taught the Commonwealth's history for more than two decades, I have witnessed the shift in language usage firsthand.

While there are certainly historians who use the term "slave," current practices by public historians in the United States have shifted towards the universal use of the term "enslaved people." A pivotal part of that process has included widening the lens of historical interpretation to include the perspectives and voices of individuals whose narratives had long been suppressed. As was the case in the cultural shift away from terms like "colored" or "negro," the perspectives of African American scholars and historians have been central in explaining why using a term like "enslaved person" is essential to understanding the lived experience of the individuals who experienced enslavement.

Lastly, while there are myriad scholarly articles that explore the debate in more detail, I would point you to a significant source to highlight the ubiquity of "enslaved person" in common usage in Virginia. The Commonwealth of Virginia's government-mandated school Standards of Learning. As of 2015, Virginia adopted the use of the term "enslaved people and removed the term "slave" from all of its curricula. In a Commonwealth that is no stranger to debate about race, history, modern interpretations of both, this signaled a significant shift in historical thinking and pedagogical policy about this complicated subject.

Commonwealth of Virginia Standards of Learning

I appreciate that the term may feel clunky, but such is the case with new terminology that helps us better describe the lives of those who came before us. That's the beauty of studying and teaching history -- how we tell stories about the past shouldn't be fixed in stone, but something that evolves over time as we ourselves grow.

Lorecina (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me younger than I really am ;-) and thanks for explaining. I won't object to your use of "enslaved individuals" any more, but I still have three questions: "... who made owners of enslaved individuals pay for the hardships ...". Why not: "who made enslavers pay for the hardships" ? Is the term "slaveholder" objectionable ? Is "enslaved rebels" correct ? While in rebellion, they were not enslaved.

Also, there still is a problem: WP:COMMONNAME doesn't allow to change the name of the article. So, terms closely connected to that name should not be changed for consistency. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, too, for being open to my explanation! And you raise compelling questions. I'll answer the last one first -- I noticed the challenge in changing terminology related to the name of the article, but I was trying to research how to make the request to have the title itself changed. As you noted, I'm new to the editing side of Wikipedia, so I hadn't quite figured out the appropriate channels through which to do that.

As for the term "enslavers," I agree with your amendment of the wordier phrase I proposed -- enslaver seems appropriate there. The term "slaveholder" is problematic, though, not simply because it contains the word "slave." Using the term "slaveholder" softens the brutal reality of what it meant to be a willing participant in the buying and selling of people as property, and minimizes the human cost of that process. There are similar arguments made about the use of terms like "plantation" and "overseer," explaining that these terms may have vivid and specific connotations to those who are deeply familiar with southern history, but that for individuals who have only a cursory knowledge of how slavery actually functioned, the words become little more than euphemisms without any real meaning.

"Enslaved rebels" feels even more tricky. Because Turner and his followers were still viewed the legal property of their owners during (and after) the rebellion, I'd argue that the term should apply there. But I imagine your question is more about how the member of the rebellion saw themselves; while they may have believed their raid would end in success, there's so little firsthand accounting of their perspective (unfortunately) that it's hard to make an assertion either way.

At any rate, I appreciate you taking the time to make a thoughtful reply, and (in case you can't tell) this is a subject area that I'm particularly passionate about. Virginia (like many places) has a complicated history with many difficult stories buried within it, but I'm of the firm belief that addressing those unpleasant parts of our history head-on is essential. Lorecina (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for changing the article's name: That's called a "move" and you can do it as soon as you will be autoconfirmed. But, I'd like to ask you not to do it. The reason is that WP guidelines say that WP follows mainstream, and doesn't change mainstream (my summary). Regarding article names, you might want to read WP:COMMONNAME. WP guidelines are sometimes cumbersome, but according to my experience they are in most situations very helpful, especially in discussions with racist editors (yes, racist editors exist and some even thrive).

I'd suggest "insurgents" instead of "enslaved rebels". In my mind, the latter term conjures up that company of enslaved rebel soldiers drilling during the last days of Confederate Richmond.

Regarding addressing history head-on: An example for the importance of this: While Western Germany in the late 1960s / early 1970s decided to address the Nazi history head-on, communist East Germany paradoxically refused to do so. The result after reunification is that far-right parties attract far more voters in the East than they do in the West. But doing so at WP will need a lot of patience, because the consensus principle has a tendency to slow down WP. If you are a historian, I'd like to point you to articles like Plantation complexes in the Southern United States, Thomas Nelson Page or "philanthropist" Caroline Meriwether Goodlett. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this discussion about the article's name. Why not renew that discussion ? "Nat Turner's rebellion" would avoid the problems we are discussing here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]