Jump to content

Talk:Jews and the slave trade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 21 March 2013 (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 90d) to Talk:Jews and the slave trade/Archive 1.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why does the entire article start with this?

"Like their Christian and Muslim neighbors, Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade. In the middle ages, Jews were minimally involved in slave trade"

This is factually correct, but why is this the first line in the article? immediately downplaying what happened and shifting responsibility to people outside those mentioned in the article....

it immediately gives a narrative of "no big deal, everyone did it" and would never be accepted on a page regarding European/Black slavery.

it should be deleted completely and mentioned further on in the article, not in the first line of the first section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.122.72 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that 99.232.122.72 is an admirer of a Swedish neo-Nazi political party[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion on the Swedish Democrats have nothing to do with this bias and intentionally misleading article, my Anti-Islamic friend.

are you going to edit the first paragraph, and correct your intentional "error" or will I ?

I'm not convinced any of you should be doing this. Before the first paragraph is changed, let's see what people want it changed to. At the moment it seems ok, but the 2nd paragraph seems to violate WP:LEAD. There are 8 sections, and the Nation of Islam stuff is just a subection, yet has over 1/3 of the lead. That doesn't make much sense. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Nation of Islam's The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews even being cited in this article, never mind the lead? Are there any scholars that defend rather debunk that self-published work by a fringe group? The claim that it is somehow notable could also by used to coatrack in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (with a note that many scholars have debunked that too). If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be way down the article after all the serious stuff has been taken care of. AndroidCat (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? I'd prefer to discuss this, rather than stepping on old sore toes. Why are some fringe of a fringe group's claims being used to coatrack a bunch of stuff into the lead of this article? AndroidCat (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history of this article, you'll see it was written originally to say that Jews were prominent in the salve trade. The text you're talking about is probably left over from then. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the OP. The whole page downplays the fact Jews took part and indeed Jewish-owned companies helped ship slaves to the States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.117.1 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me that it would be there at the start of the article. The "canard" that the page is talking about is the false accusation that Jews were somehow MORE involved in slavery than Non-Jews. So, it sounds relevant. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always trying to hide their crimes, calling people "antisemitic neo-nazi conspiracy nuts" when busted. Jews owned majority of slave ships. Jews did slavery in Congo under Leopold II, Jews did the Holodomor and the Gulags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.132.59 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not start with a denial of the topic which is supposed to be under neutral investigation. This just adds more fuel to the fire of the argument that Wiki is totally dominated by Jews. This question is not going away. People will give up on wiki if pages are seen to be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWeisel (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

Many of the sources describe the minimal role that Jews played in the slave trade and dispute the allegations made by a few fringe sources. As such, the article title should reflect the weight of academic opinion and should be called Conspiracy theories about Jews and slavery, or something that intimates the peripheral Jewish involvement.

  • Finkelman - All serious scholars consider this charge to be ludicrous...there were almost no Jews involved in the African slave trade
  • Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer - ...the Jewish presence was minimal. No Jews could be traced in Europe's leading slave trade centres...In the United States, as in Britain, France and Holland the Jewish role in the slave trade was peripheral.
  • Faber - "In no period did Jews play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades. They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean.
  • David Brion Davis - Medieval Christians greatly exaggerated the supposed Jewish control over trade and finance and also became obsessed with alleged Jewish plots to enslave..it is clear that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery."
  • Jacob R. Marcus - "The Jews of Newport seem not to have pursued the [slave trading] business consistently ... [When] we compare the number of vessels employed in the traffic by all merchants with the number sent to the African coast by Jewish traders ... we can see that the Jewish participation was minimal.
  • Bertram W. Korn - None of the major slave-traders was Jewish, nor did Jews constitute a large proportion in any particular community.
  • Junius P. Rodriguez - The historical rise and fall of slavery in the United States would not have been affectyed at all if there were no Jews in the South, and whatever minuscule part the Jews played...would have been more then compensated for by other non-Jewish whites
  • Seymour Drescher - "The available evidence indicates that the Jewish network probably counted for little in Atlantic slaving." Ankh.Morpork 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anywhere in your sources, that the word "conspiracy" is used. The article should be called what the majority of sources call the subject, and you haven't demonstrated that this is what they call it. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is by large not a treatment of the conspiracy theory that Jews dominated slave trade. The article describes to what extent the jews were involved in slave trade in varies periods and geographies. As such the word "conspiracy" should be removed from the title. Andries (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The desire to use the word "conspiracy theory" seems to be an attempt to assert up-front in the article title that there is no substance to the assertion that Jews were predominant or even a major factor in European/African slave trading. Without personally weighing in on whether the assertion is true or false, I'd like to point out that the standard phrase for indicating the falsehood of such an assertion is to use the term "antisemitic canard" so that the title of this article would be changed to "Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard)". Of course, it would help if the article would provide more sourced evidence that this is considered an antisemitic canard. It is not sufficient to make a bunch of assertions that Jews were only somewhat involved in the slave trade. We need to find reliable sources that specifically state that it is an antisemitic canard to assert that Jews were predominant or even significant in the slave trade. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't such a source, don't we then need a source that says Jews were predominant or significant in the slave trade? Otherwise, "Jews and the slave trade" isn't a topic, it's a google search. Tom Harrison Talk 01:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds plausible, but untrue. There are multiple reliable sources regarding jews and the slave trade, also named as such. See the references in this article. Andries (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article title should reflect the weight of academic opinion that Jews had a miniscule role in the slave trade which is the leitmotif of the multiple reliable sources that you refer to. Most of these sources were written to dispel the antisemitic canard predominantly propounded by the Nation of Islam and has been described as such by Saul Friedman in Jews and the American Slave Trade (p 250- 254) and Henry Louis Gates in Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars among other scholars. The context of the sources is a rebuttal of this canard, and this article, if it is to exist, should reflect this. I agree that changing it to Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) might be preferable. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "Conspiracy theories" is the best title. Not every myth is a conspiracy theory. Marokwitz (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the title back?

The current title "Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard)" doesn't make sense to me. The article covers a variety of information about "Jews and the slave trade", including the widely accepted view that it is a false statement to say that Jews had a disproportionately large role in the slave trade, and the additional view that such a statement is antisemitic. Since the article discusses all aspects of the factual involvement of Jews in the slave trade (since the Middle Ages), it's unnecessarily restrictive to include "(antisemitic canard)" in the title. It's also a bit misleading: "(antisemitic canard)" would make more sense attached to a title like "Major role of Jews in the slave trade" that is more obviously suspect of being false and/or antisemitic. --Kai Carver (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. I propose to write in the summary that the view that jews were disproportionally much involved in the slave trade is an anti-semitic canard. Andthen remove anti-semitic canard out of the title (which was by the way an improvement over conspiracy theory in the title). Andries (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

half if not more of the "sources" cited are themselves Jewish, the idea that they are a reliable source for information is almost as much of a joke as the discussion for this page.

and many of the Jewish sources acknowledge Jewish involvement however minimal, yet "antisemitic Canard" is still found in the title.

LOL

--Savakk (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title makes sense to me. The Canard is the claim that Jews dominated the slave trade and slave ownership. Like "blood libel," it "could" refer to something vague if you took it out of context. But, in context, it is clear that is referring to the Nation of Islam popularizing false claim that Jews dominated the slave trade and slave ownership. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL@ the title

"(antisemitic Canard)"

How on earth was this allowed to be put up?

why are there no "canard" comments in the titles for articles relating to Christians/Muslims and slavery?

I assume it's for the same reason that racist comments by Rabbis are not allowed to be put up in Wikipedia pages and the criticism of Judaism section is 1/100th that of the criticisms of Christianity/Islam despite it being a much older faith with a lot of historical controversy.

this website is a joke.

--Savakk (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title tells you everything you need to know about the content of the article. It is the first time i have seen a title like this on Wikipedia. But What worries me most is the editors, who have a duty to the fair play of Wikipedia being complicit in what is blatant POV agenda. What they do not realize is the title tells you in a flash the article is damage control and no good. The issue of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade is not a canard. Only the fact that they dominated. So if you want to discuss canards then the article should be Jewish domination in the slave trade (canard). But Jews and the slave trade does not need antisemitic. No more than Arab slave trade should be Arab Slave Trade (Islamophobic political agenda). Like i said most people who know the politics will look at the title and shake their head. And it tells you more about the editors.p.s. Not one single reference links to the opinions of these so-called antisemitic. (another worrying trend) a trial where only the prosecutor presents evidence.--Inayity (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

me: article needs to start with what was done. but it starts with how they have been falsely acused making even an article about jewish slaveowners, sound in their favour. no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.224.152 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) → Jews and the slave trade – We have consensus on the Talk page [2] to change the title back to what it was two months ago, so it shouldn't be a controversial change. However, I can't make the change myself because an article with the original title still exists as a redirect to the current title. So if an Administrator could make the change that would be great. Kai Carver (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By opening a requested move discussion the way you did, I think you may have invited an additional seven days of discussion before the move can be made. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and maybe it was a mistake, but this is why I did it that way:
1. the instructions for technical move request [3] say don't make technical move request if:
* There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
* Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
2. it's been 2 months, surely the rename can wait another week.
--Kai Carver (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation needed

In an article this hotly disputed, this well patrolled and this well sourced; how does this line remain?

Later scholars would challenge Raphael's assessment of the extent of Jewish participation in the slave-trade.[citation needed]

If it can't be sourced within a week then it should be removed. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can do better than citing "later scholars", we can give a cited retraction from the original author. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews_and_the_slave_trade&oldid=545849800"