You may have already heard the term “enslaved people” as a replacement for “slaves” This was new to me though. The linguistic shift from “slaves” to “enslaved” is deliberate. The thinking is this: “slave” defines a person by their condition and becomes their primary identity. “Enslaved person” describes the condition of slavery as something imposed on a person. “Person-first language” is a growing movement.
The shift from “slave” to “enslaved person” has been pushed by historians, museum professionals, and activists for the past 30 years or so. Organizations like the Smithsonian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture were influential in formalizing it. The Associated Press Stylebook, which journalists follow, also made the shift.
Interesting how subtle use of language affects how you think about things. I agree with the shift in emphasis, but, for me, one problem with “enslaved person” is it sounds so neutral. I’ve been conditioned to think of “slave” as bring brutally treated, though in other than the U.S. South slavery, while wrong, was sometimes and somewhat more benign (think Ancient Greece or Ottoman Turkey [where slaves often rose to high rank]. Then again I wouldn’t have wanted to row a Roman galley).