-
1. When (if ever) is it appropriate to refer to a historical figure—especially an enslaved person—by his or her first name? #twitterstoriansPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 5 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
2. Initial answer is “almost never.” First names risk diminishing the person. But this gets tricky when writing enslaved people’s lives.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -4 🙁
-
3. First, surnames by which enslaved people were known were often not chosen by them; many chose new ones after emancipation.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
4. It’s also sometimes difficult to tell when an enslaved person acquired a surname.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁
-
5. So using a surname to refer to a period before s/he got it is sort of like using a woman’s married name to talk about her earlier life.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
6. Then there’s this. RT @ATErickson: Different when thinking about describing ppl during their childhood?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0
-
7. The enslaved woman I’m writing about was first sold at the age of 14. I wrestle with whether to use first name for that time in her life.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
8. Not doing so feels comparable to news stories that refer to Tamir Rice as “Mr. Rice”: fails to convey that this person was a child.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
9. On the other hand, when a person becomes an “adult” is of course very historically constructed. First name only risks infantilization.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
10. I do think it’s different when talking about childhood, but when does childhood end? How do racial ideologies load that question?On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
11. And, as @jondresner pointing out, what other ideologies (Western, gender, legal) also need to accounted for? @jondresner/686952298753310721Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂