back
1 comments
> a type of enslaved person who worked inside the enslaver’s home performing chores that freed their enslaver to live, in Roman eyes, nobly.

This newspeak is so tiring. You know what is more succinct than 'enslaved person'? 'Slave.' One loses no expressive power. I know folks do it to make some sort of point about the personhood of slaves, but I think they are being silly: we don't call plumbers 'plumbing persons'; we don't call programmers 'programming persons.' Moreover, many slaves were not en-slaved, because they were never free to begin with.

'Enslaver,' though, is far worse, because it is not just ungainly but misleading and inaccurate. There is a difference between someone who enslaves someone — i.e., reduces a person from freedom to slavery — and a slaveholder (who owns someone previously enslaved, or born into slavery). It is doubtful that many of the owners of these ornatrices were the ones who had reduced them to servitude, so calling them en-slavers is incorrect.

edit: Granted, neither example of newspeak is as bad as slavery!