‘Terminology’ - How a museum reckons with language choice
“The names and terminology used to describe and categorise people played a vital role in the whole edifice of slavery. Certain words became the tools of racism and, regrettably, are still in use today.
We have tried to be careful in our use of language in this gallery. In particular we have tried to avoid using terms that strip individuals of their humanity -- since this was a tactic central to the imposition of slavery.
The world 'slave,' for example, implies a thing or commodity rather than a human being. We have used the term 'enslaved African' wherever possible.
In the main we have avoided using the terms 'Black' and 'White,' preferring 'African' or 'European.' But in the Legacies section of the gallery we engage with the word 'Black' as it is used to refer to the non-White post-war migrant settlers in Britain.”
While perusing the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands last weekend, I was pleasantly surprised to come across this sign, which provides one of the most in-depth explanations I’ve ever seen of a museum’s linguistic choices.
The museum, a branch of the Museum of London, focuses primarily on the history of the docks and London as a site of trade, which of course is heavily intertwined with the UK’s long history of slavery.
Discussing painful historical events comes with many challenges, including how and when [not] to use certain words that carry historical baggage or offensive meanings. I applaud the Museum of London for acknowledging these challenges and facing them head-on by providing an explanation of why they use the language in the exhibit.
Other signage used an interesting tactic in profiling important historical figures. Instead of highlighting the individual’s name, the placards led with that person’s relevance to the context: “Slaveowner” or “Abolitionist,” followed by a textual explanation that included their name. This approach makes the information easier to digest (understanding a concept rather than trying to memorize names), and avoids reverential treatment of history’s villains.
I did not encounter the concept of using “enslaved person” instead of “slave” until I was well into my sociology coursework at university, and I regret that it did not come up earlier in my education. It is just one of countless examples of how the linguistic repertoire available to us shapes the way we think about our world, our history, and other people. Hopefully other museums, schools, and spaces of education are being similarly thoughtful about explaining their terminology choices.