In the Swamps, Archaeologists Are Finding How Fugitive Slaves Kept Their Freedom
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
I'd like to think more in terms of 'people who escaped slavery', as no one is inherently a slave - it is only a condition forced by someone else, and so a 'fugitive' is too from the perspective of a slave master.
If someone were held in slavery, then escaped into hiding, and then slavery were abolished, would they still be responsible for their 'crime'?
It is written that 'slaves were captured from west Africa' (not in this article, but in general topics about slavery) - No! PEOPLE were captured and ENSLAVED.
It's a simple change in how things are phrased.
Edit: I'm being highly pedantic for a reason. The way we phrase ideas and use language shapes how we feel about something. If we can feel a more human connection to these events, I believe we can have more empathy.
I'm sure there are fugitives today who committed "crimes" that some of us don't find objectionable at all.
> I understand the context, ...
So yes, at the time. But why do you think it is a useful term, when 'people who escaped from slavery', while not as succinct, communicates both the original situation AND the modern moral considerations?
> I'm sure there are fugitives today who committed "crimes" that some of us don't find objectionable at all.
That's what I mean - as I mentioned, I'm being very pedantic here for a specific reason.
I don't advocate ignoring the situation of the past, but amending our current speech.
These people were hunted like animals and had to remain fugitives. That term highlights the horror of the situation, and 'escaped from slavery' seems more appropriate for those who could never again be returned to slavery.
That said, I think the term 'fugitive' in this context has multiple layers of meaning. It's more than just about their legal status and the moral implications of it; to exist as a 'fugitive' was to very much live a very unique existence. In that sense, it's very much a point on how they chose to live their lives. They could have considered moving north, or even further up into Canada. For those who had escaped while it was in operation, they could have embraced the Underground Railroad and used the aid of white abolitionists and other freed blacks who ran it. Far too many wouldn't have made it, though many others would have. Not that I believe for an instant that it would have stopped them: to escape was to embrace an incredible risk.
Instead, they chose to create their own communities right in the seemingly inhospitable heart of the territory that had held them in bondage, and they did it on their own. For slaveowners and the whites who supported slavery, that had to be a terrifying realization: it challenged all of their preconceived little notions about their own superiority. These weren't the simple-minded cattle their would-be owners believed them to be; they were men and women and children capable of creating a life of their own in wilderness and swamps filled with challenges that others steered clear of. It was very much an act of fierce resistance. It's no wonder that most of the written references to maroons were so tinged with a sort of a paranoia. It was probably one of those hidden little secrets everyone knew about, but tried so very desperately to pretend otherwise.
The label 'maroon' might have been used disparagingly originally, but I think it's a term that many would have embraced if we could ask them. Their lives were harsh, but they were fully their own: they didn't just escape slavery, but built up communities and lives that defied it with every breath they took. And in the backyards of the very people who sought to see them brought to heel. They certainly knew what the white world outside the swamps thought of them. They just didn't give a damn. As odd as it might sound to our ears, lacking the experiences that shaped their decisions, to be a 'fugitive slave' living as a maroon was very much a lifestyle. And what a remarkable, self-actualizing one at that.
It's a terrible loss that so little of their story is known today.
By your logic we should change all written language, the arts and every form of media from that time in order to 'feel' a connection. As if we're not able to contextualize phrasing from that era and are not emphatic enough to see how the victims suffered.
I'm not a revisionist, I don't think we should change what was, but we should be careful about holding too strongly to historical terms in our present speech.
It's nearly impossible to imagine a life knowing you couldn't leave your island-in-a-swamp for risk of being hunted like an animal.
The entire field is ripe for the picking for cross collaboration of people who can bring technical skills to "big data" and other problems.
Some poorly informed ideas: Artifacts of various make and size could be placed in history and culture by neural networks. We could guess the locations of undiscovered sites.
We could also analyze cultural trends in cultural anthropology and relate cultures to each other.
Socially speaking, a prof of mine studied African American representations in media and sentiment analysis on images could have helped him sift through that data.
I was recently thinking about what my life would be like if I grew up in Europe in the Middle Ages. Statistically, it is likely that I would have had a poor, unsatisfying life (maybe this interpretation is incorrect?). But lets say I somehow processed the same attitude that I do today, I almost certainly would have disapeared into the vast wilderness.
From what I could tell though not many made that choice. But perhaps they just weren't documented? Is there a term for these "off the grid" societies that have existed throughout time? I would certainly like to learn more about them...
Are you arguing that archeology should be off limits?
The other day an article led me to Atlas Obscura, great find.
But I can appreciate that some who want HN to remain strictly tech focused.