Motion to modify the title of this group, and the standard terminology for names

Some supporting links: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/undergroundrailroad/language-of-slaver...

https://www.telfair.org/article/why-we-use-enslaved

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/05/historians-debate-whether-...

And yes, I understand that this discussion was had 8 years ago, but I believe it's time to reconsider, given the widespread acceptance and understanding of the terms now. It is a small change, but given the fact that we are seeking to help restore these ancestors to their kin, it would be, I believe, the responsible thing to do.

NO.
Because of all the good reasons BLACK people gave in the old threads.
Let's not pretend those reasons are not still the same.
The old thread:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/142739

Did you know that the etymology of the word "slave" is related to "Slav"? There was a time, I think during the heyday of the Byzantine Empire, or it may be the early German Roman Empire, when so many persons of Eastern European origin were captured and sold as servants that their term for themselves became synonymous with their unfree condition.

American Heritage Dictionary: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=slave

I understand the rationale, but it gets tricky in other contexts though like the project "Slave Uprisings in Black History (US)". Does "slave uprising" now become "enslaved people uprisings"? As for another suggestion here, slaveholder doesn't do much for me; it seems synonymous with slave owner.

Yes Erica.
That was exactly the point in the other discussions.
All these project names must remain exactly as in-your-face as the subjects they are about.
Erica you voted NO on this in the past.

Any suggestion to make these project names sound less in-your-face, sound less clear and concise, and harder to find, is highly suspicious.
What are your motives really?
Find some black members who want this change first.

These curators/members voted no on this in the past and will hopefully come back in here and do the same again for the same reasons:

Ailene Nechelle House
Private User
Justin Durand
Private User
Dan Cornett
Faustine Darsey on partial hiatus
Joel Scott Cognevich
Private User
Erica Howton
Private User
Eldon Lester Clark
Linda Kathleen Thompson, (c) taking a knitting hiatus
Martin RhNegativ
Private User
Geoffrey Brown

The old discussion:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/142739?page=1

Private User “Slave holder” denotes action and a choice made by that person, which is more accurate than suggesting that they merely fell into a “status” of owning another human being. As to suggestions for slave uprisings, I am not making suggestions here, although the resources I provided above have some guidance.

My background is in academia, where it is understood that the very least we can do now is restore some of the humanity that was historically denied enslaved persons. We can make the choice to do so here, as well, and I believe it’s the ethical thing to do.

Regarding whether the source of this is American descendants of enslaved persons, the answer is a resounding, “Yes.” My sources below are from some of the foremost Black thinkers in America today. And they are all agreed on this subject.

I studied law at OSU Moritz, where our scholar in residence is Michelle Alexander, Black woman and author of “The New Jim Crow.” She, too, is careful to humanize enslaved persons in her writing.

Another foremost black thinker in this regard is Ta-Nehisi Coates. You can view a very short clip on the subject here: https://www.oprah.com/oprahsbookclub/how-ta-nehisi-coates-taught-op...

Yet another foremost black scholar who is scrupulously careful with this language is Nikole Hannah-Jones. A clip of her discussing this is here: https://twitter.com/nickimayonews/status/1167407040702099456?s=20&a...

You can read more about it in the context of her work, along with the shift in the New York Times’ own style manual as a result: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/books/2021/12/08/ni...

Ibram X. Kendi Q&A – note that he carefully uses the word “slave” for things like “slave trade,” not to describe people: https://earlyamericanists.com/2016/12/08/qa-ibram-kendi-stamped-fro...

This style guide from the NAACP of Culpeper, Madison, and Rappahannock Counties, VA: https://naacpculpeper.org/resources/writing-about-slavery-this-migh...

In addition to the above, there are these:

The American Psychological style guidelines now recommend “enslaved person” instead of “slave,” as well: https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-g...

The American Heart Association style guide also agrees: https://professional.heart.org/-/media/PHD-Files-2/Science-News/s/s...

Jenn, black scholars writing papers, artcles, books, discussing and problematizing the word slave is very different from white people on geni trying to erase the words "slave" and "slave owner" from geni.

I still want you to find black geni members who support this nonsense.

Dan, did you have a look at what you wrote in the old discussion?

https://www.geni.com/discussions/142739?page=1

What has changed for you since then?

Private User there is no intention to “erase” words. There is, however, an intention to be careful with the words we ourselves are choosing to use. We don’t use the “n” word here, no matter how much it may appear in the writings we come across. My focus is on the ethical linguistic treatment WE choose to give these ancestors.
Scholars who are descendants of enslaved persons are absolutely central to this process. The choice to improve our language does not require that we tokenize or target any specific descendant of enslaved persons here on Geni.

Erica Howton I believe that we can use and describe artifacts for what they are, and even quoting the language of these documents is valid in scholarly genealogical argument. However, it is the language that we are using today, right now, in our description of persons that I am questioning.

For a genealogical discussion, here is Familysearch dot org, describing research of enslaved ancestors using intentional descriptive language and terms: https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/researching-formerly-enslaved-...

Genealogical guide from Bryn Mawr: https://guides.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/Acom_Genealogy/af-am
A discussion sponsored by Ancestry dot com: https://genealogyadventures.net/2017/04/25/why-diversity-matters-fo...

Here’s a scholarly article detailing a genetic genealogy study: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1421784112
Here is Fairfax County’s exhaustive detailing of African-American genealogical resources, also using this intentional language: https://research.fairfaxcounty.gov/genealogy/african-american

Here is an excellent genealogical article from the International African American Museum Center for Family History that uses historical language description vs ethical use of our own descriptors incredibly well: https://cfh.iaamuseum.org/african-american-genealogy-researching-fr...

I can undoubtedly find a hundred examples, but I am not going to do that here.

Jenn, comparing the word "slave owner" to the n word is ridiculous.

All your references are of two types:

1. Black scholars discussing the word slave at depth.
Very important, very interesting.

2. White genealogists getting excited they can now "soften up" the word "slave owner" they find too in-your-face.
Very problematic.

Me stating the obvious, that the opinions of black geni members matter more here than the opinion of white members is not tokenizing. That is ridiculous.

Jenn, in your original post you suggest to change the project name
"American slave owners"
to the much softer, and much harder to find:
"American Slaveholders" or "American Enslavers,"
It is problematic.

There will be no academic paper discussing and explaining why, like in your academia references.
The only result will be the word "slave owner" erased.

Jenn, I am convinced most or all of your black scholars and black geni members would be against white geni members changing the project name
"American slave owners"
to "American Slaveholders" or "American Enslavers,"

Private User My background is in academia, education, and civil rights. This is not a flip suggestion, nor one that is going to erase anyone's language. Anyone is free to use it in their own lives and research as they wish.

If you want the group to be easy to find, then the name "American Slave Holders," with a space, should serve your purposes, yes?

If your standard is legitimately that Black people should be in agreement here, how many Black users of Geni, backing up this ethical use of language, would you require in order to agree to this change? I am not being sarcastic at all. Please let me know.

Jenn,

1. I pointed out you want to erase the word slave owner from this specific project name and probably other geni project names. Not from anyones language. Context. Strawman.

2. No, "Slave Holders" wont be as easy to find. The current name "slave owners" is better. I fail to see how holder would be more ethical language than owner. Please explain. Holder is problematic. Holder is obfuscating history.

3. I have pointed out black geni members did not agree with you in previous discussions on the same subject. It is relevant. If you could find some supporting your suggestion it would also be very relevant.

Erica, I agree with all your posts in this discussion.

I think the formerly in "formerly enslaved" is extra problematic.

Jenn, you wrote:
---
“Slave holder” denotes action and a choice made by that person, which is more accurate than suggesting that they merely fell into a “status” of owning another human being.
---

False.

1. Holder does not denote action more than owner.

2. Many slave owners inherited their slaves. In many cases they fell into the status.

No longer a curator, so I don't have a vote of any kind. However, I will say I agree with Jenn. Genealogy is NOT different from academia, and must inevitably follow along, albeit with some caution where a shift too soon would create confusion. I don't see any potential confusion here. The proposed language is clear.

Justin, you also just did a 180 turn here since the old discussion.

https://www.geni.com/discussions/142739

What changed and when exactly for you?