r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Decim_98 • 3d ago

Image Fate and Feet: Three Chinese Girls in 1900s – A Barefooted Servant, a Bound-Foot Lady, and a Christian with Unbound Feet

Post image
27.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

491 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

450

u/fuschiafawn 3d ago edited 2d ago

If she was bought for servitude, is it fair to just say she's a slave at that point? 

Edit: included the word just

546

u/gdaychook 3d ago edited 3d ago

Can she leave at any time? No? Slave.

Person above has edited their comment since.

57

u/Thesexiestcow 3d ago

Enslaved person

92

u/OhNoADystopia 3d ago

I’ve never understood this title because all slaves in history (and today) are people and deserve our sympathies at the very least. I feel like I see this developed most by those trying to virtue signal in the academic sphere

164

u/Thesexiestcow 3d ago

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.

125

u/justpotatoes1231 3d ago

While I understand the desire to humanize people who have fundamentally been dehumanized, the logic of "if you call someone something it implies that they are, at their core, only that thing and nothing more" isn't actually a real convention to push back against. If you call someone a plumber, it does not imply that the only thing about their being is that they are a plumber. If you call someone an immigrant it does not imply they have no other characteristics of any kind. If you call someone a Chicagoan you are not implying their core essence is the city where they live.

This particular linguistic requirement (and it's equivalents, like "unhoused person") is ultimately just a progressive purity test. It's solving a made-up problem to prove your own conscientiousness to others. It has no actual real world benefit, and corrects no misunderstanding. It's deeply performative.

57

u/zhaoao 3d ago

As an autist, I prefer “autist” and find the whole “person with autism” or “autistic person” thing annoying. And then those who use such terms also call it a superpower and have a superiority complex over it.

9

u/canteloupy 2d ago

The "handicapable" brand of positivity around disabled people is understandable but I think it also tends to erase some of the suffering. I have a brother with autism and he is NOT finding it a superpower. As much as his parents love to think he is a genius he is not capable of attending a normal school and make friends and no amount of whitewashing autism as a superpower would fix that.

2

u/Icy-Finance5042 2d ago

I prefer saying I'm autistic or have autism. Autist sounds to much like artist and I can barely draw stick figures.

3

u/Cobalt_88 2d ago

I appreciate you advocating for your perspective respectfully. I disagree with you. But I am glad you’re in this conversation!

1

u/warhugger 1d ago

So yes and no.

When you reduce people to a decriptor it is bad. Not because it is some purity test but because it is disrespectful. You are no longer portraying them as a being beyond their circumstances.

So while yes it can be performative, it is dependent on context. It is primarily a source of respect for others and their individuality. Specially as time moves forward and time period contextualizes actions, belonging, being.

Jesus Christ would just be some religious cultist wacko if he wasn't going against Rome. Small context can really change the potential of your words and the way they reverberate thereafter.

The respect is something that collects as you gather agony. As it pools, you will learn to refract it into respect, love, and joy for people. Or you fear it and you desperately try to escape it, because if you cannot respect other's struggles - no one will respect yours.

It's a lot of hoops but no one weaves between them for want. However, for hope we make a world worth sharing.

0

u/benziboxi 2d ago

Exactly. There is no need to put 'person' at the end of these words that are only for people anyway.

Slaves are inherently human, there's no need to differentiate. The dictionary definition is:

"a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property"

If you know that, there's no need for 'person' or 'enslaved', because that's how words work.

11

u/Flckofmongeese 3d ago

I never thought about the psychology of this term. It's very cool, thank you!

20

u/laeiryn 3d ago

The difference is to emphasize the humanity and the personhood and to show that they were the victim of an action (enslavement) rather than viewing them as an object or detaching ownership of people from the dehumanization aspect.

16

u/Thesexiestcow 3d ago

"While slavery was a defining aspect of this individual's life experience, this term, in which enslaved describes but person is central, clarifies that humanity was at the center of identity while also recognizing that this person was forcibly placed into the condition of slavery by another person or group."

6

u/tropSolo 3d ago

I think you proved the person you are replying to right :/ if this isn’t just virtue signaling then I’m sorry lol

3

u/Aikenova 3d ago

Maybe I'm not catching it, but I don't see it that way? It's possible to humanize historic people without making it something personal, right?

Cuz I'm a POS just like the next person, but I still try to be respectful where it may be due unless told otherwise. Just because a little girl is raised into a middle class household to be raised with nobility, surely doesn't mean she's automatically a bad person?

-4

u/Jimbo_The_Prince 3d ago

I Didn't enslave you (or anybody, I'm a fucking Canuk born in about 1980,) it's not your monkey, idgaf about your feelings or opinion in any way. Almost textbook example of a "poison pill."

5

u/HowAManAimS 3d ago

People are stupid. Sometimes they need empathy spelled out for them.

8

u/freeeeels 3d ago

I mean, most children can't leave anywhere at any time lol

131

u/veturoldurnar 3d ago

Yes, most servants were slaves, but not all slaves were servants. Also she was probably that type of slaves that can be easily bought out by her parents when they gather enough money, or when she grows up a d they find her a fiance, or she can be freed by her master if she served well and gained marriage age, but that was an option for few close personal servants. I mention this because there were other types of slaves like criminals who were almost impossible to be freed up again or even repurchased by other masters aside of their destinated place of "working".

271

u/mouthypotato 3d ago

I would dare say the three of them were slaves, really doubt any of them had any choice at all

83

u/fuschiafawn 3d ago

One of them probably had to clean the others foot binding wrappings to make sure the feet didn't rot from too much moisture. That one was the slave. 

8

u/Think_Tangelo8600 3d ago

Common sense eludes redditors.

2

u/thissexypoptart 2d ago

A lot of people forget that words have definitions.

19

u/ErenYeager600 3d ago

Slave with extra steps

3

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

7

u/fuschiafawn 3d ago

Indentured servitude refers to unpaid servitude that has a specific and agreed upon end date after which the servant is free to go.

This girl was a slave. Most slaves in history has her conditions, even as far back as Rome.