Talk:Sally Hemings

Enslaved a derogatory term?

Can you explain this edit summary from Sally Hemings: "Restore neutral statement. "enslaved" is a highly derogatory term and is no more "correct" than referring to Hemings in human terms, as a slave and a nanny." [1]? None of that seems to check out but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, thanks for the inquiry and for not reverting without any discussion. I'm surprised my edit hasn't been reverted already, given all the hype and focus on slavery today hundreds of years later. Okay, the idea of "enslaved" as a derogatory term is of course an idea that falls into the realm of opinion. My reasoning, however, is that I have seen the term used this way by various users before. In one instance, this new user, with what appeared to be a single purpose account, went to dozens of articles and substituted "enslaved", or "enslaver" for phrases like 'was a slave', or 'who owned slaves', or 'who used slave labor', etc. This was obviously a derogatory effort. The idea of "enslaved" as it's often used today suggests, 'kept in chains' and 'whipped', and someone wore rags and was fed slop, etc, and that was rarely the case. Again, this is my opinion, but it is not an unfounded opinion. I suppose if one was to challenge this idea it would be one opinion v the other opinion. In the case of the Sally Hemings article, it is much more objective to define her in terms of what she was as a person, i.e. " a female slave with one-quarter African ancestry and was a nanny," -- not merely some entity who was simply "enslaved". Having said that, if someone decides to revert, I'll not challenge. Thanks again for your inquiry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, today most condisider calling someone a slave to be derogatory and dehumanizing... So refering to somone as an enslaved woman rather than a female slave is preferable if someone is trying to objective to define her in terms of what she was as a person (slave is not part of who she was as a person). Some more context on the debate between the two terms[2][3][4][5]. This bit speaks to a comparable situatuon to Hemming's "For example, we use phrases like enslaved woman, rather than slave. The noun slave implies that she was, at her core, a slave. The adjective enslaved reveals that though in bondage, bondage was not her core existence. Furthermore, she was enslaved by the actions of another. Therefore, we use terms like enslaver, rather than master, to indicate one’s effort to exert power over another." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back — It's already understood that slaves were human. They are commonly referred to as such by multiple reliable sources, much more so than referring to them as being "enslaved", which again, more than suggests that they were kept in chains, work rags and were whipped to make them work. The Sally Hemings article, while including the noun slave, also defines her as a female with one-quarter African ancestry who was a nanny, which is much more humanistic than simply referring to her as being "enslaved" -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a slave is dehumanizing. You seem to be arguing that Sally Hemings was not treated bad enough for it to count as enslaved? " kept in chains, work rags and were whipped to make them work" all applies to Hemings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Hemings as a salve is no more dehumanizing than simply referring to her as someone who was enslaved, while ignoring (deleting) that she was a female, with a mixed racial background who served as a nanny. As for treatment, she lived in a mansion and as a nanny enjoyed a lifestyle far better than most white farmers did. She had the opportunity to stay in France when she was there with Jefferson taking care of his daughters, but still returned and continued living in a mansion with her own room. Much of the problem is that some people try to interpret the past by look looking through a 21st century lens with their modern day stereotypes. In any case, as mentioned, we seem to be at a point where we are simply having an opinionated tug-o-war. In that case, we should not assert personal opinion and simply say what the overwhelming majority of the scholars say, and have said, all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Most white farmers were raped by their enslavers? Gwillhickers this is a millimeter from outright racism, WTF do you think you're saying? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing Hemings, not the speculation that "most" slaves were raped. Even award winning Annette Gordon Reed acknowledges that the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was consensual. In any case, I just cited the facts surrounding Hemings as outlined by all the reliable sources. That is not "racism". No one is trying to justify slavery because they were black. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that a child can consent to sex with an adult, is that the case? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Can we get clarification on whether or not you really believe that adults can have sex with children consensually? That appears to be beyond what Reed argues so would be your own opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Enslaved person" is the more typical usage in modern vernacular. It is not derogatory, and saying that "slave" is more neutral is nonsense. Let's flip this back as contested, please. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion. Some people see the term "enslaved" as misleading, others feel the same about "slave". Most of the sources, new and old, use the term slave. re: "modern vernacular", that's too often pushed by the same gender denial crowd that wants to reinvent pronoun usage, etc. Don't expect everyone to buy into it simply because you feel its "modern". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. reinvent pronoun usage!? Do better. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reinvent, change, whatever. In any case, the major point you seem to be avoiding is that we simply can't go by opinion, but say what the sources say. Again, most of the sources use the term "slave" and in some cases they employ both terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, whatever. Do try to stay on point. No, this is an editorial decision on word choice between synonyms; we absolutely can use our discretion (that is, opinion) in making a decision. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This article overall is not a neutral point of view, it seems to be repetitive and there is an obsession with Hemings age and the implication that she was punished and abused. There needs to be a review of it. Plus25 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

On wikipedia we use "modern" gender standards, you would have a point if we didn't but we do... You appear to know that given the amount of times you've been warned over it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"same gender denial crowd that wants to reinvent pronoun usage, etc." what do you mean by gender denial crowd? Do you mean the modern media and academia? Because just a reminder... We prefer contemporary sources to historic ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not focusing on the main discussion re: slave v enslaved. Gender denial and other sorts of repressive behavior should be self explanatory. If you want to further deliberate over those topics and those who do or do not subscribe to these ideas please do so in the appropriate forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Article is not Neutral

As discussed below, This article overall is not a neutral point of view, it seems to be repetitive and there is an obsession with Hemings age and the implication that she was punished and abused. There needs to be a review of it. A POV tag will be placed for discussion. Plus25 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you reformat your concerns in the context of WP:NPOV? Repetition isn't a neutrality issue, and there's no "implication" that she was abused. She was enslaved; it's a statement of fact. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources go on at great length about Hemings' age and her punishment/abuse (not an implication either, enslaving someone is abuse and you can't enforce slavery without punishment)... So what would be the neutrality issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not denying she was enslaved, the discussion above even seems to state that the word enslavement is problematic, I don't care to talk on that subject. Her age has already been given in the second paragraph, and then we move to them going back to Monticello, which seems to state she was 14 and he was 44, which is wrong since she was not 14 when they went back as it is stated in the article, the lead is not a neutral point of view, it seems to be directed to focus on repeating her age at 14 which does not need to be repeated twice in the lead. Down in the article it also talks of Abigail Adams saying she was young, as Annette Gordon Reed, the Hemings family author states if Hemings was incapable of doing her job she would not have been sent, apart from Abigail Adams, no one else complained about Hemings doing her job as a nanny in Paris. I don't understand why Adams opinion is even highlighted in the article. The focus of this article or more the lead is written to cause anger due to her age at the beginning, as I said she was not a teenager forever. Also above, yes she was a slave, after agreeing to go back to the US and not staying as a free woman in Paris, but if she was abused/punished at Monticello, we need reputable sources, not opinion sources Plus25 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Being enslaved is abuse, you seem to be operating on a whole bunch of mistaken assumption that taken together whitewash slavery and rape. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is not my focus, what I am saying is the focus on her age at 14, as if she stayed 14 forever and the direction of the article to cause anger, which is not neutral.Plus25 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the focus you describe, we don't mention it excessively and only when relevant to the biography... That is objectively a notably young age to travel abroad for work and her age at the beginning appears to be one of the important parts historians focus on when discussing her relationship to Jefferson (which is the primary focus of much of the coverage we have). Could we be clearer in the lead? Yes. Is there a pressing neutrality issue here? No. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hemings lived in the 18th/19th century when many women the same age as her worked and traveled. Didn't her sons start working at 14? Adding Abigail Adams opinion of her directs the article to her age at the beginning which I feel is not relevant, why should her opinion only be highlighted in the article, why not add others? The article seems to tell the readers she was 14 and stayed 14 till the end, especially the lead which makes it uncomfortable and not neutral. This wording in the lead article as I explained above is intent on showing that, "but due to his near-complete control over her life and that she was only 14 while he was 44, the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached," the ages needs to be removed because she was older once they were back in the US and not 14 throughout their liaison. Additionally, it already states intimate relations started sometime in Paris during her 26 months in the lead, there is no reputable source that states it started at 14 when he was 44. Plus25 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)