Enslaved person is not a euphemism. It is a phrase that makes clear that (a) the person is still a person, (b) there is not something inherent in that person that makes them a slave, and (c) it is the enslaver that acted to enslave them and thus puts the focus on actions by others. Linguistically, it far more accurately reflects the reality of the victims of the institution of slavery. And it uses a root that still includes slave. It is anything but stupid.
“Involuntary relocation” is a euphemism that hides all of that. This is not stupid; it is evil.
I will add that linguistics matter - oppressors have used language to dehumanize people they want to persecute or treat not like humans. Other examples from this article prove the point:
“The Homeless” makes it easier to ignore the continued personhood than “people experiencing homelessness; “Jew” is an othering term in ways “Jewish person” is not. “Slaves” focuses on something inherent in the slave; “enslaved person” forces one to say and recognize that they are people and that slavery was something imposed on them. Linguistics matter and dehumanizing is the first step to suppressing. History is filled with this.
Also, the headline is entirely wrong. “Enslaved person” is not a substitute for the word “slavery.” Slavery is still the right term for the institution of slavery; “enslaved person” replaces the word “slave.” I realize that headline writers and the article’s author are not the same but apparently even the headline writers didn’t get or agree with the article.
not everyone knew slaves were people. The entire institution was based on the notion that they were animals and not people of equal worth. Calling them slaves instead of men and women was intended to make them Others and make it okay to treat them as property instead of persons.
Referring to them as “enslaved persons” expressly recognizes the individuals as persons. And the use of the modified “enslaved” expressly says that something was done to these people and thus focuses on the enslavers.
