Talk:House slave

Merge
So, this article should be merged wiht slavery. This article doesn't really give any additional info. Editing M a n i a c 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

no it is good to categorise just put a link on the slavery page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewr2572 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes and improvement
Citations have to be given. Simply giving three references at the bottom isn't enough. Also, the article completely lacks historical specifics. The point about the white mistress sometimes educating house slaves is both interesting and important, but it's far too simple. It was not illegal, at all times and places in the US South, to teach slaves to read. In the 19th century, such prohibitions became near universal in slave states, but the article should give some sense of the variation across time and space. Inter lingua 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

HOUSE SLAVES were light skinned, light brown. FIELD SLAVES were dark brown skinned. This was a way to build animosity between the light and dark skinned slaves. A divide and conquer method.Thy did not grow up in the best places and sometimes did not get to see there familys :( so sad But not all slaves were light brown,or dark brown that did not matter it was sometimes were they came from and there family history

Removal of section on the US
I feel like this section has very little to do with House slavery and more to do with slavery in general or sexual abuse in slavery. this section needs to fixed or removed.
 * Yes. It makes references to scholars as if we have just been reading about them, when in fact it is the first reference to them - possibly the section is just a cut and paste from a larger piece. "Stampp, without contesting Genovese's assertions....." Who the hell are Stampp and Genovese !!!- 124.191.144.183 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I also concur. This section is not relevant to the main topic of the article and should be edited/deleted by someone with more knowledge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.63.1 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The US section is a complete mess, it starts off saying house/field roles are based on colour, then says it's a myth that they are based on colour. The third paragraph sounds more like someone pushing an opinion on reddit than an encyclopedia article. It's got no citations and just seems to be plopped in there, the whole thing needs sorting out so the section is coherent  86.184.160.95 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The US section has just had a fair bit of text added as part of a merger. I'm not a subject matter expert, but I would encourage you to work on it.  Ergo Sum  20:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Vesey
He is named as winning $1,500 in lottery, but in the sentence it is mentioned in, it implies his owner permitted him to keep. I can't find anything that says so. Was he at the time entitled to it or did his owner let him keep it? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging House negro into this article. Both House slave and House negro are fairly short articles. The latter is a term that historically was a particular instance of the former, and contemporarily is a racial slur. Both usages can easily be merged into the United States section of House slave.  Ergo Sum  03:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"house negroes"
Were they really called "house negroes", or is this a bowdlerization of "house niggers"? Come to think of it, both were probably used, depending on the level of formality of the use and the level of education of the user.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)