A recent discussion in one of my professional groups centered around the use of the word “slave.” It began as a discussion about “slave” as an adjective, as in “slave cabin.” The editor had been asked to avoid using the word, to use “enslaved person” instead. The problem arose when they needed to describe the cabins. The discussion quickly devolved into a debate about slave as a noun. That is, calling someone a slave versus an enslaved person.

One of my roles at my current job is copy editor. Many of the people who read the content we produce — website, brochures, emails, social media — have strong opinions about language. It’s imperative that, as an editor and copy editor in 2021, I stay on top of our rapidly changing language. It’s imperative that when I miss something, I am willing to listen and change, if necessary. In the last few years, when I start to feel defensive, I’ve learned to ask myself, what’s to you? What’s it to you if someone calls for the term enslaved person rather than slave? If I’m asked to replace the term “overseer” with “manager?” If someone wants me to use they, them pronouns — or, as in a recent request, alternate they/them with he/him every other paragraph?

Asking myself “what’s it to you” makes me pause, gives me time to look inside. I realize it’s usually just my defensive self getting scared of change. But I quickly tell myself, get over it. Language is fluid and you’re an editor. This is what you signed up for. I don’t have to make these changes but I do have to give them serious consideration. That these challenges are coming to the forefront today is a sign that the world is changing, and change is good — especially this change.

Anyway, here’s what I wrote. The beginning was in response to someone saying that North America was a capitalist country that included slavery, which framing I took issue with. My goal in writing this response, and in sharing it here, was to contextualize, not to scold:

The United States was not built on capitalism that included slavery, the United States was built on slavery that included capitalism. Our entire economy today is based on systems that were developed to facilitate slavery. The New York Times ran an excellent article about this as part of its 1619 Project. “To understand American capitalism you have to start at the plantation.”

As I’m sure we can all agree, language and all its nuance matters deeply. I believe the idea of not defining a person by their condition was one of the many revolutions that came from AIDS in the 1980s. The AIDS activist community insisted someone was not an AIDS victim or patient, they were a person with AIDS. They were a person first, not defined by their condition. It’s common today to say “a person with cancer,” and avoid “cancer patient.”

The idea of saying someone was or is enslaved is to avoid identifying them by their condition, to put their personhood foremost. It’s a simple, easy ask. If there isn’t an elegant way to avoid slave cabin, well, at least a lot of thought went into trying to.   

The people asking for this change in language are not trying to disguise or ignore that people were or are enslaved. We are emphasizing the person behind the adjective. Many of us are also using forced labor camps instead of plantations. Harvard is exploring renaming its board of overseers - and reviewing all its committee names. 

We used to talk about child prostitution. Now we understand that children can’t choose to prostitute themselves so we talk about child sex trafficking.

I’m sure we can also all agree that words matter, that language is fluid. Changes that are brought about by political movements are just as valid as changes brought about by cultural or social movements. 

I’ve observed that language changes around race are challenged and resisted much more than other types of changes. I suspect that’s because white supremacy is so deeply embedded, it’s hard to see and painful to admit. I’m an editor, however, and it’s essential and crucial that I do the work in order to stay relevant and not cause more harm.