24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 316:
Line 316: + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 17:17, October 8, 2009
, 17:17, October 8, 2009→Should slavery be translated differently?
: Our project seeks the original intent without political bias. Translating Roman (and pre-Roman) slavery into the appropriate English terminology that carries the same meaning is the challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
: Our project seeks the original intent without political bias. Translating Roman (and pre-Roman) slavery into the appropriate English terminology that carries the same meaning is the challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::''"The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that."'' I am afraid not. The modern slave trade, while not that well established in the United States, is now so endemic in the rest of the world that today, English-speaking or not, slavery is now associated with three words: poor, dispossessed and vulnerable. Skin colour doesn't come into it as all too often today's slaves have come from areas of the world that have experienced a recent outbreak of war, lawlessness, famine or severe economic crisis. Indeed, so pernicious is the slave trade that were you to ask somebody living in the UK what slavery meant they would in all likely-hood answer East European and Russian women being illegally shipped into the UK to work as prostitutes, or male Chinese workers being illegally shipped into the country to work for gangmasters (the Chinese workers left to drown on a beach that they were combing for cockles being a good example).--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 13:17, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
== Oversight? ==
== Oversight? ==