There were not "black people" at the time Africans were enslaved. The Fields sisters are historians/sociologists and for that reason, very much in favor of historicity...
There were not "black people" at the time Africans were enslaved. The Fields sisters are historians/sociologists and for that reason, very much in favor of historicity...
Sure, I'm sure very few people if anybody referred to them as "black people" back then. There was a word beginning with "n" that was preferred at the time.😅
Here's the thing. It's not that I don't appreciate your desire to be precise. I really do. I share it. But surely precision is supposed to clarify, not obscure.
To say there were no "black people" at the time isn't technically wrong, it could even be argued to be accurate, but it muddies the waters when trying to understand why these people were enslaved, no?
If, in a thousand years, people were trying to understand why some people were enslaved and others weren't, would it be more accurate to say ancestry? Or to simply say that there were free people and "others"? Or to say that they were all, every last one of them, what we would refer to today as black people? Would it be more accurate to acknowledge that the prejudice that justified racism was based on the colour of people's skin, regardless of any other factors?
I don't understand what's to be gained by talking around this simple fact. What am I missing?
There were not "black people" at the time Africans were enslaved. The Fields sisters are historians/sociologists and for that reason, very much in favor of historicity...
Sure, I'm sure very few people if anybody referred to them as "black people" back then. There was a word beginning with "n" that was preferred at the time.😅
Here's the thing. It's not that I don't appreciate your desire to be precise. I really do. I share it. But surely precision is supposed to clarify, not obscure.
To say there were no "black people" at the time isn't technically wrong, it could even be argued to be accurate, but it muddies the waters when trying to understand why these people were enslaved, no?
If, in a thousand years, people were trying to understand why some people were enslaved and others weren't, would it be more accurate to say ancestry? Or to simply say that there were free people and "others"? Or to say that they were all, every last one of them, what we would refer to today as black people? Would it be more accurate to acknowledge that the prejudice that justified racism was based on the colour of people's skin, regardless of any other factors?
I don't understand what's to be gained by talking around this simple fact. What am I missing?