image reads: psychology of war, and other components of war-making, particular instances of war, say, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, would not be theorizable. We have been able to theorize colonialism as a practice of subjection, exploitation, and dominance in the modern arsenal of European power, beyond its various particular instantiations in and by respective countries, because we have a term, even though it had to be reappropriated from imperial historiography critically and antagonistically. Slavery, by contrast, exists in the Western intellectual critical imaginary only as an isolated event, since our very language has axed it from our inner and outer worlds of critical thought. The ‘event’ can be described, and historiography, at this point, fills libraries, but does not translate into a cause for and lever of theorization, and that is not happenstance, but has method, and purpose. The humanist white subject has been supposed to remember, address, articulate, empathize with, rejoice in, question the brutality, and elicit other particularly emotional responses to the specific situation, to the imagined ‘event’ of being a slave in slavery. The image of slavery as traumatic occurence, situated often beyond the frame of human rational understanding, that limit event - in an act of perverse theft - has given metaphorical heft to modern and postmodern protest against white human suffering and bondage. The idea of slavery as ‘event,’ and of the slave as a generic, naturalized term for the being held in slavery, however, has never put the white subject’s practice of forcing Black being into
from: “Legacies of Enslavism and White Abjectorship” by Sabine Broeck
## an argument for using the term “Enslavism” over “Slavery”. The latter being reduced to an “isolated event” with a “limited temporal and spatial sequence” and the former possessing “structure-generative systemic practice, including theorizable geneological function”.