DescentBB

....sometimes don't get taught history accurately in the first damned place:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/living/mc ... index.html


this is a freaking disgrace. Heck, back in the dark ages, some of our books called the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression, but at least they acknowledged that slaves were forced to come to America, and didn't call them 'workers'.

Yeah, we've got a conservative right winger who constantly writes letters to our local paper trying to convince everyone that slavery wasn't the real reason we fought the Civil War, so I'm guessing it's a trend. I think these deluded people want to rewrite history, so's not make some white people not sound so, I don't know, heinous. News flash, back then, white people kept slaves and fought our nation's only civil war in an effort to keep that right.

Another big PC stink over nothing…

The text at the top of that balloon says “slave trade” therefore the type of “workers” has already been defined.

And NO “workers” does not imply wages, and god forbid I mention some slaves were paid and actually bought their way out of slavery, but I don’t want to confuse the issue.

No worker does not imply wages! Worker implies someone doing work…the implication beyond that is in your own mind.

In most people's minds, the definition of a "worker" implies that a person was hired to do a specific job for a specific wage. A slave is someone who is owned by another person, who's been forced against their will to perform labor for no restitution other than bare subsistence and who has no personal freedom of their own. I'd say that's quite a stretch to call slaves "workers". I think it was a whitewashing (pun intended) of history.

'immigrants' sort of implies a matter of choice, as well. My ancestor down in VA was an immigrant, but the folks that 'worked' for him and a few more generations never really got a choice in whether they ended up in the Richmond slave markets.

tunnelcat wrote:In most people's minds, the definition of a "worker" implies that a person was hired to do a specific job for a specific wage. A slave is someone who is owned by another person, who's been forced against their will to perform labor for no restitution other than bare subsistence and who has no personal freedom of their own. I'd say that's quite a stretch to call slaves "workers". I think it was a whitewashing (pun intended) of history.

I’ve heard the term “plantation worker” used many times in relation to slavery, and never once imagined a cushy union job.

The key here is CONTEXT…

Word usage in context.

Even "plantation worker" sounds better than "slave". Context, shmontext. In our school's history books, let's call a slave a slave, because if we don't, our kids will never learn that part of this country actually condoned and practiced human slavery in it's past.

precisely, TC.

Well maybe we should also teach proper English, because a word’s final meaning is always established by the context it is used in.

Once you establish you are referring to slaves then “worker” means slave.

Example:

I own two types of slaves…one is a house worker and the other is a field worker.

Notice how context has already established that both are slaves.

The idea that people are trying to hide historical facts is really kind of silly, when you consider they state “slave trade” right from the start. Sure you can make a case that there are some poor choice of words, but trying to hide slavery is a joke.

Spidey wrote:I own two types of slaves…one is a house worker and the other is a field worker.

Notice how context has already established that both are slaves.

yeah, using the word 'slave' in the phrase clarifies that pretty well.

The idea that people are trying to hide historical facts is really kind of silly, when you consider they state “slave trade” right from the start. Sure you can make a case that there are some poor choice of words, but trying to hide slavery is a joke.

hide, no......gloss over, yes, based on some of the content I read. Context and all.

Spidey wrote:Well maybe we should also teach proper English, because a word’s final meaning is always established by the context it is used in.

Once you establish you are referring to slaves then “worker” means slave.

Well, maybe in referencing today's global economy and labor arbitrage, then yes.

Heh

Well, I think the first mistake people are making is expecting more than simple generic demographics from a geography textbook, perhaps if we were talking about an American history textbook…perhaps the argument would make more sense.

Ok…well…I’m done here.

Spidey, I was making a joke. However, a slave refers to one person owning another person as property and forcing that person to perform some type of labor without pay in conditions most people wouldn't work in. A slave has no freedom or free will. A slave can be murdered at the whim of that slave's owner. That should be the distinction between a worker and a slave. No sugarcoating it by just calling slaves "workers". Slaves are workers, but workers aren't always slaves.