Inside from the Inside

I have had circumstances in my life that might have entitled me to introduce myself to you as ‘a victim’ of such and such. I, however, always ignore the dubious opportunities to label myself as a victim whenever they present themselves.

I may have been the chosen target of an abusive and alcoholic father, but I am a strong, intelligent and talented being—blazing with vitality and ready to make a contribution. I may have been the owner of a building set ablaze by a disturbed and vengeful adolescent, but I am a friend, a lover, a mother and an accomplished writer.

My father and an arsonist do not define who I am. I am a proud and dignified being, entitled to define myself by my own words, actions and deeds. My life is a triumph over the past.

I have learned to free myself.

In this post I am going to free ‘the slaves.’ Here’s how:

There were no slaves
There are no slaves now and never were.

The people we have been referring to as ‘the slaves’ were (and are) in fact enslaved men and women (and their children). They were people who had as much intelligence, dignity and capability as you and I have. ‘Slaves’ are not who they were.

Slavery isn’t something that is part of your genetic make up. It is a condition you find yourself in when your liberty has been stolen by another human. There are no noun ‘slaves.’ There are only adjective  ‘enslaved’ human beings, forced or born into the condition of slavery.

In other words, slavery is a description of circumstances, not people.

A group of Fisk University graduates—formerly enslaved men and women—from the 1880s

‘Slave’ is not a label we should inflict on people. It is not how enslaved women and men should be remembered in history books. Instead, we should turn it around. We should talk about ‘the enslavers.’ By doing so we could take some historic responsibility in the matter of slavery.

And the responsibility is rarely as far away as you may think or hope. I am reminded of the wonderful Irish family I married into. When they explored the family history seeking interesting stories and notable personages, what they discovered instead was the owner of a ship used to transport human cargo—enslaved men and women from Africa. There it was, the boldly shocking news: a trafficer in human misery in the family tree.

In our histories we speak of  ‘the slaves’ almost as if people who were in the condition of slavery ‘were’ their condition. When we use conditions to label people, there is always a subtext: that they are slightly complicit in their own victimization. There is perhaps the implication that they are sub-par, incapable, not up to the rigors of defending themselves at best, inferior more likely and perhaps deserving of their fate. They were just fighting on the losing team. Why can’t they get over it?

To some degree, this is a weakness of the English language. Are ‘the blind’ actually blindness? Does blindness define them so entirely that we are incapable of seeing them as anything more than blind? Or, are they people who are blind? Why are ‘the blind’ labeled as their condition? If ‘the blind’ is an appropriate label to describe a whole human being, then why not ‘the hammer toed’? You might want to notice who we label and why.

Human beings are always more than their circumstances. You can honor that fact by making a clear distinction between the person and their conditions of life. So, you too can free ‘the slaves’ because, indeed, there were no slaves; only people—like you and me.

Tags: English, enslavement, freedom, labels, language, slave ships, slaver, Slavery, victim