Talk:Frederick Douglass

"slave"
An edit made at 14:08, 21 February 2023 went through the article changing many if not all uses of "slave" to "enslaved person," and made similar edits to avoid "slave." I get the idea -- one's status should not define one -- but that many edits overdoes it. "Slave" is a neutral and acceptable word. I changed back two of the edits because they had inadvertently changed the meaning. I left the others alone, because there is nothing wrong with "enslaved person," but replacing every use of "slave" suggests that Wikipedia is bending over backwards to be politically correct, and we don't want to convey that impression. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed and reverted a third effort to avoid "slave." "Freedom seeker" for "fugitive slave" is ridiculous. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Good calls. Personally, I don't see much objection to the word slave, but I don't see a problem with 'enslaved person' either. Let's not try to make it a bigger issue than it needs to be: so long as clarity and precision are preserved, and direct quotes are left untouched, I don't see much point in wasting ink on it. Changing slaveholder to enslaver seems more problematic. To me, enslaver conjures up images of someone catching slaves or first enslaving them, rather than someone who purchases and holds them. But I can see why one might want to emphasize the necessary ongoing subjugation and oppression. Either way, let's focus on being clear and sticking to the commonly used terms, rather than bending over backwards in either direction. David12345 (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maurice Magnus, David12345, thanks for some of the best thoughts I ever read on that subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

On 12 Sep 2023, user Zacwill reverted all the changes made (e.g. from "enslaved person" to "slave") in Feb., with the comment "rm revisionist language". In general, I am in favor of language that does not define a person by one attribute ("slave"); if Frederick Douglass was a slave, and nothing else, we would not be discussing him, reading his writings, analyzing his stances on the issues of his day. But, I need to ask: does WP have policy on this, or at least discussed it and printed those discussions? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see how substituing the simple term "slave" for the unwieldy neologism "enslaved person" is a rejection of Douglass's importance as a thinker. Rather, it is a rejection of awkward and euphemistic language. Douglass had no qualms about using the word "slave", and neither should we. Zacwill (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Paulmlieberman, as far as I know, there is no policy, but regarding article names there was this discussion: Talk:List_of_slaves Rsk6400 (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any policy or guideline on this point either. To be clear, 'enslaved person' is not a "neologism". It is perfectly ordinary English that has been in use for centuries. On the other hand, the use of an ordinary noun such as 'slave' does not imply that this is a person's only attribute. Both of these claims are bad arguments grounded in falsehoods. Both terms are used in reliable sources, so there is also not an external consensus to exclusively prefer one or the other. So we should welcome changes to simplify awkward phrasings or clarify ambiguities, but not to impose shibboleths (in either direction) on the article. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the claim that "enslaved person" is "perfectly ordinary English that has been in use for centuries". I'm sure you could find sporadic instances of the phrase in older literature, but it is only within the 21st century that usage has exploded: see Google Ngrams. This is not a natural development, but a consequence of the misguided belief that it is somehow problematic to describe slaves as slaves. Zacwill (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As I've said in other discussions of this usage of "enslaved", reactionaries and historical revisionists like to pretend, or believe, if they aren't familiar with the history, that the term "enslaved" used in this context is a recent innovation. It is not. For example, there are 19 instances of "enslaved" and 9 instances of "enslavement" in The Portable Frederick Douglass, with writings by the man himself. Even Harriet Beecher Stowe's book Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in 1852, refers to a speech by George Shelby, a very light-skinned man who prefers to cast his lot with the "oppressed, enslaved African race". There are 53 instances of "enslaved" in the cited reliable source, Frederick Douglass: A Critical Reader, published in 1999. Modern-day historical revisionists, especially here in the South of the United States where I live, have sought, and still seek to erase this history, and rail against the restoration of a very old usage that reclaims the human dignity of enslaved black persons and their descendants. Carlstak (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * To be clear, a search of The Portable Frederick Douglass returns 0 results for "enslaved person", 5 results for "enslaved people", and 184 results for "slave(s)". This seems to prove my point. Zacwill (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And my point is that it is not a recent innovation. It's not a matter of number of instances historically used, it's a matter of listening to the voices of modern-day black people who tell us the words they prefer, just as "colored" (as opposed to "people of color") isn't used in the US anymore, in deference to the expressed wishes of black people who live here. My black friends who've stated their opinion on the matter all prefer "enslaved persons".


 * Of course, racists and neo-Confederates don't care what they think; even as recently as the late 1980s, the country store four miles down the road from where I lived still had a sign up over one of the restrooms that said "Colored". It wasn't even used as a toilet anymore, but they never bothered to take the sign down, because they really didn't care what black people think, and preferred to rub it in their faces. It's the same today with this issue. Carlstak (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Carlstak, thanks for pointing out the language issue's connection with the age-long history of White people disregarding the feelings of Black people. But in order to cool down a bit, let me present the results of a random search in two academic publications I happen to have at hand: Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning (2016) uses "slave" mostly as a modifier ("slave trade", "slave ship") or when reflecting historical sources (even outside of direct quotations). In other contexts, he seems to prefer terms like "enslaved Africans", but without being 100% consistent. David W. Blight, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom (2018) always seems to use "slave". Being sure that Blight is neither racist nor neo-Confederate, I'd conclude that both uses are OK in modern academic language, while I personally prefer "enslaved people / person". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Rsk6400, but I think you've missed my main point. I'm talking about the so-called "push" referred to by Zacwill in his edit summary which says "The push to remove the word "slave" from common parlance is absolutely revisionist." The voices of black people I'm talking about are the voices of many black people today, not voices from the past from even such as Frederick Douglass. This movement to change the way we talk about the enslaved has emanated from black intellectuals such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, despised by white supremacists and Trumper types. For example, Coates states the case in this video, "People were not slaves, they were enslaved". It is true that usage of the old, baggage-laden terms is still broadly acceptable in academia, but so-called "political correctness" has always been about respecting and showing deference to the feelings of repressed minorities, or in other words, showing simple human courtesy. Not that it can't be taken too far, but I don't believe that is the case here. Carlstak (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the voices of the vast majority of english speakers today who don't like being forced onto the euphemism treadmill? 2603:8080:1500:4506:FD0F:1E60:3097:9064 (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Douglass's father
Until July 3, under "Birth family," this article stated, "his father was 'almost certainly white', according to historian David W. Blight in his 2018 biography of Douglass." It cited Adam Gopnik's New Yorker article. This statement was false, because Blight's book did not say that Douglass's father was "almost certainly white." Rather, Gopnik wrote that Blight "shows" that Douglass's father was "almost certainly white." But, again, Blight didn't say that.

Therefore, on July 3, I edited it to state, "his father was 'almost certainly white', according to Adam Gopnik, reviewing David W. Blight's 2018 biography of Douglass." But this isn't quite accurate either, because Gopnik was not expounding on Douglass; he was falsely attributing the statement to Blight.

What Blight says is that Douglass said that his father was white. That is sufficient for our purposes. We can cite Douglass, without mentioning that Blight quoted him, and without mentioning Gopnik's false statement about what Blight wrote. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In making this edit, I deleted the references to Blight's book and Gopnik's review of it. Blight is cited numerous times in the article, but Gopnik's review is not cited. Because it is a substantial work, I added it to "Newspapers and magazine articles." Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023
"Adam Gopnik, "American Prophet: The gifts of Frederick Douglass", The New Yorker, October 15, 2018, pp. 81–82" this source does not exist. 46.239.92.3 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an online version of that article, which says at the bottom that it appeared in the printed issue under the title "American Prophet". --RL0919 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the full online citation:
 * Peaceray (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Under "Newspaper and magazine articles," I replaced the Gopnik listing with your version; thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Under "Newspaper and magazine articles," I replaced the Gopnik listing with your version; thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Why I changed the title of Douglass's third autobiography in the endnotes
I have a facsimile edition of Douglass's third autobiography, as published in 1881. Endnote 3 in Life and Times of Frederick Douglass confirms that it was published in 1881, and that it was titled, as my facsimile edition is, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, Written by Himself, His Early Life as a Slave, His Escape from Bondage, and His Complete History to the Present Time. In the endnotes to Frederick Douglass, the title of the book was given as The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, from 1817 to 1882 and the year of publication was given as 1882. This title and year refer to the British edition and can be viewed by clicking on the arrow at the end of endnote 1 of Frederick Douglass and going to page 9 of 499. I changed the British title to the American title because I believe that the first edition should be cited. (I neglected to change "(1882)" to "(1881)," but I will do so shortly.) I have not changed from the British publisher (London: Christian Age Office) to the American publisher (Hartford, Conn.: Park Publishing Co.), because the link in each endnote that cites the book takes us to the British edition. I appreciate that having the American title and year but the British publisher is inconsistent, and if someone thinks that we should deal with this differently, then you can say so. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, when I changed the title, I thought that The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, from 1817 to 1882 was a mistake -- probably from a later edition, not from the first British edition. Had I known that, I wouldn't have changed it. But I am not going to revert what I did, because I don't think that it is important enough to go back through multiple edits. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)