Tricia Osbourne | ‘Trading’ the language (Mek wi chried di langwij)

There are varying opinions regarding the term ‘triangular trade’, which has been used to describe the transatlantic slave trade. While many agree that its shape was triangular, most people of African descent know that it was not a ‘trade’ in the true sense, hence the term is, at best, misleading. The trafficking of Africans for items cannot be deemed a ‘trade’ in any rational context.

The triangular trade refers to the horrific transatlantic slave trade that began in the 16th century. Over approximately four centuries, some 19 million Africans were forcibly transported under inhumane conditions to the Americas by European powers such as the English, Spanish, French, and Dutch. The conditions aboard the ships were so horrifying that many did not survive the journey. This brutal system continued until the full abolition of chattel slavery in 1838.

In its simplest definition, ‘trade’ refers to the act of giving one thing in exchange for another, typically goods or services, not people. The so-called trade between African and European traders involved Africans receiving ‘trinkets’ in exchange for human beings. One example of this was highlighted in Eric Williams’ Capitalism and Slavery. Williams described an exchange in which a slave dealer traded a “fine negro” in exchange for beads, amber, bells, and bracelets - items that Williams labelled “pacotille”, the French word for ‘junk’. This was not trade; it was exploitation.

Historically, the first documented use of the term ‘slave trade’ dates back to 1836 in a work authored by FH Rankin. The term ‘slave trade’ was defined as “the trafficking of enslaved people”, encompassing the capture, transport, and sale of individuals into chattel slavery, particularly black Africans who were taken to the Americas before the middle of the 19th century. ‘Trade’ traditionally refers to the exchange of products and services, but its application to human trafficking distorts the true nature of the transaction. Linguistically, this is a form of euphemism - as the word ‘trade’ is a milder term used to soften the brutality of the event. Thus, minimising the gravity of the crime which reduces its emotional and ethical weight.

IMMENSE POWER

Language holds immense power in shaping narratives, influencing perceptions, and establishing societal norms. The term used to describe the transatlantic slave trade is now widely recognised as misleading and outdated. With this as a backdrop, it is high time for the term ‘trade’ to be removed from discussions of slavery due to the false connotation, its association with racial exploitation, and the need for a shift in language towards more accurate terminology. As linguist Robin Tolmach Lakoff explains, language encodes power structures that reinforce social inequalities. This linguistic framing allowed European societies to justify the exploitation of Africans by treating them as mere products rather than as human beings.

The transatlantic ‘slave trade’ bears striking similarities to modern-day human trafficking yet referring to it as ‘trade’ implies legitimacy. Human trafficking is understood as a gross violation of human rights while ‘trade’ implies mutual benefit. The language uses perceive how historical events are viewed. Therefore, the continuous use of the term downplays its savagery and injustice.

Caribbean author Jamaica Kincaid highlighted: “For isn’t it odd that the only language I have in which to speak of this crime is the language of the criminal who committed the crime? And what can that really mean? For the language of the criminal can contain only the goodness of the criminal’s deed.” Kincaid’s critique speaks to the way language sanitises history, masking the atrocities committed under the guise of such words as ‘trade’. The term reflects the oppressor perspective, consequently, it cannot portray the tragedy of the transatlantic slave trade.

WORDS EVOLVING

As societies grow more conscious of the power of language, words are evolving to reflect greater respect for individual and collective identities. The mid-20th century saw the rise of civil rights movements, where black communities rejected labels such as ‘Negro’ that carried negative connotations. New terms, among them, ‘black’, ‘African American’, and ‘Native American’ emerged, reflecting pride in identity and rejecting language rooted in racial subjugation.

An example of this shift is the change made by US-based rapper Latto, who altered her stage name from ‘Mulatto’ due to the racial slur it represented. Such changes in language reflect a broader trend towards positive self-identification, allowing marginalised communities to define themselves on their own terms, free from the dehumanising language imposed by others.

From a linguistic standpoint, the word ‘trade’ in the context of the transatlantic slave trade carries negative ideological, social, and historical connotations. It not only refers to the trafficking of Africans into slavery but also symbolises centuries of racial hierarchy, systemic discrimination, and exploitation.

From a linguistic, historical, and ethical perspective, the word trade is insufficient to define the magnitude of what was the transatlantic slave trade. It implies mutual benefit, conceals the brutality and exploitation involved, and reinforces a colonial mentality that dehumanises Africans. It is our duty to use language that honours dignity, respect, and the whole range of human experiences. ‘Trade’ should thus be replaced with more appropriate vocabulary such as ‘trafficking’ and ‘enslavement’ in conversations about slavery.

As language evolves, we must ensure that we honour the humanity of individuals who suffered under this horrific system. Similar to the way we evolved past labels such as ‘negro’ to embrace terminologies that represent pride and dignity, the word ‘trade’ must now be abandoned in favour of vocabulary that truly reflects the realities of slavery and the current battle against racial injustice.

Tricia Osbourne is a linguist at Centre for Reparation Research, UWI. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com