![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is shocking - selective quoting and misinterpretation of sources in an extreme way, to the extent which I never encountered in Wikipedia. Some sources were completely turned on their head to prove the absolute opposite of what the author intended. Serious fact checking is needed to verify all the citations in this article and correct the parts which were taken out of context. It seems to be based to a large extent on the quotes used in the widely discredited propaganda book "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews". Help is needed. Marokwitz ( talk) 11:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The sections "Antislavery Movement in the Nineteenth Century" and "Modern Times" seem to have quite a bit of material that is more appropriate for the article Judaism and slavery. That article was the original article, and this "slave trade" article was broken-out as a WP:Content fork. The material in this article should have a rather specific relation to the slave trade (vs. slavery in general). The "Modern Times" section does have some material on L. Jefferies, which is directly related to the slave trade, but the other material is not. I dont propose to delete any material, but some of it should be moved into Judaism and slavery. Noleander ( talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1991/9112/9112RES.CFM
"The American Historical Association Council strongly deplores the publicly reported attempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." Hetware ( talk) 00:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Salamaater: The sentence
is incomprehensible. You'll need to make it sensible before you can insert it.
What source do you have for "no earlier "in :
Why do you want to remove the sentence "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and they owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in .." The fact that this was in the context of Europeans moving to the Americas is key.
-- Noleander ( talk) 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is enough that such a dreadful "page" exist, not accurate to compare to Islamic or Christian slavery, don't overdo (your distortion of history) it. Lawsmass ( talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Lawmass/Salamaat: The 1st sentence in the article is not comprehensible: "Though disproprotionate, like Christian and Muslim neighbors, few Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade.". That was pointed out above, and you declined to participate in a dialog. Please fix it.
What source do you have for "no earlier "in :
Why do you want to remove the sentence "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and they owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in .." The fact that this was in the context of Europeans moving to the Americas is key. -- Noleander ( talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The name Curaçao should be spelled with a cedilla. JamesBrownIsDead ( talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is Nation of islam racist crap. Jews were a tiny, virtually insignificant part of the total slave trade. Where is the article on "Anglicans and the Slave Trade" or "Catholics and the Slave Trade"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 ( talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
NPOV or not, why is this an article here? Joe407 ( talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)"...it is now clear that Jews did not dominate the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and/or the Americas,[2][3] and that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery.[2][3][4][5] They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades."
Jehochman: Thanks for pointing out that a couple of paragraphs need citations. I'm 99.9% sure that text accurately represents what the secondary sources say, but give me a couple of weeks to hunt down the sources. I think some of those assertions are (either explicitly or implicitly) detailed in the following subsections. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What most of the sources imply is that the percentage of the jewish population involved in black african slavery was much larger than the percentage of whites involved in black african slavery. Since all history textbooks unfairly blame the entire population of white people for the enslavement of blacks even if only a few white people were involved with in it, it is not so unjust to blame all jews for there part in the slavery of black africans since they were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you think this tone should be in the LEDE, I really prefer if you edit it since you have more experience here than me. I would also suggest using reference for Curacoa and Suriname . I think the evidence should speak without the sections i have placed in bold.
In the 1490s, the Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, at the same time that trade with the New World was opening up, leading to their participation in Atlantic trading in general, and the Atlantic slave trade in particular. Jewish participation in the slave trade was in Brazil, Curacao, Suriname, and Rhode Island, but otherwise was modest or minimal, and Jews had virtually no role in the slave trading of England or France. The Anti-Jewish organization Nation of Islam published The Secret Relation between Blacks and Jews in 1991, which asserted that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade
and This statement has nothing to do with this topic. It might work better here antisemitism
In modern times, American Jews have been very active in fighting prejudice and discrimination, and have historically been active participants in civil rights movements, including active support of and participation in the black civil rights / desegregation movement. unbalanced opinion?
--
Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (
talk)
20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ, what in the lead is not sourced in the rest of the article? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove in this edit: "The book's thesis was that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade, and the book supported that thesis with numerous quotations from scholarly works, including Arnold Wiznitzer and Marc Lee Raphael." ? And why did you change it from "which documented involvement" to "alleged that Jews dominated" ? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are somewhat clunky and redundant with the body of the article. Would anybody mind if I trimmed them out? -- GHcool ( talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I"m wondering if the Modern Times section should be merged into the African-American – Jewish relations article. The section seems to have little to do with Slavery, and the other article is exactly about that material. Maybe the section could just be reduced to a small summary, with links to the other article? -- Noleander ( talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi: The sources are quite clear that Morris Jacob Raphall argued in favor of slavery, as found in the South, and based his arguments on the approval of slavery in the bible. Yes, Raphall, was personally opposed to slavery, but he and Einhorn did engage in a public debate on the matter, with Einhorn taking the anti-slavery view, and Raphall taking the pro-slavery view (and his motives, apparently, were primarily to save the union)). I'm open to improved wording that clarifies all that. -- Noleander ( talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can it be included that the jews use the Dutch as a scapegoat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I'm against slavery (my Jewish ancestors were slaves in Egypt for 430 years), but what I don't see is why the ADL calls Louis Farrakhan " anti-semitic" for declaring that Jews were involved in the slave trade.
This article (correctly, I believe) asserts that Farrakhan's view on Jews and the slave trade is distorted. But the question for Wikipedia is not whether Farrakhan is right or wrong; that would involve taking a stance.
We should describe the historical or scholarly controversy over the degree Jews were involved in owning or selling slaves "fairly" but without taking sides. Rather than saying in the article that scholars demonstrated that Jews did not dominate the slave trade ("refuting that thesis"), we should say that they dismissed NOI's thesis, asserting that Jews did not dominate the slave trade.
The reader should not come away from the article with the idea that Wikipedia disagrees with NOI's extremist views. Rather, they should be able to tell all and sundry which scholars disagree with Farrakhan and why. We are not writing an authoritative encyclopedia; we merely report what authoritative sources say. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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 WP:LEADThe lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Now WHAT IS THE TOPIC? So why doesn't the lead service the topic? Why is the lead an ADL damage control statement? This article is not about Jews and Middle ages Slavery so why is it talking about it. How is that NPOV? Question why doesn't the Islam and slavery have such a warm and cuddly lead? I would put a tag buy someone will delete it. -- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Zero balance or display of counter arguments. "most scholars refuse everything NOI is saying about Jews and slavery" (most meaning a bunch of White people and maybe Henry Louis Gates) what about the numerous African scholars? Apart from the inability of other editors to add constructive edits, (tags are being removed by admins) despite this being a violation of Wiki policy. If any editor has an issue with a pages balance then it is proper to add tags. No one should have to use the talk page before adding tags - we are not children with some hierarchy. The article is seriously one-sided. It attacks arguments but those things it attacks are not presented (NOI is wrong and we all say so)- no sources from NOI in any balanced way to know what they are so "wrong" about. It also only uses "friendly" references from defenders of the POV. I..e pro-Jewish sources, despite being a controversial issue with NOI , Farrakhan and Tony Martin and other Africans being involved not one reference (or position) from these people is represented with any balance. Such references have been labelled not reliable but they are "reliable" enough to be critiqued! and only the critique given not what is being critiqued. It is white washed and damage control. which misrepresents the plethora of arguments NO et al have produced. And this article is about Jews enslaving Africans, yet no African voices like Molefi Asante, John Henrik Clarke etc. All references and comments come from one side.
I just read an RS last month (Hebb, Piracy and the English Government) about the Barbary corsairs in which it noted that Jews (Sicilian Jews, if I remember right) were indispensable to English authorities as brokers in ransoming Christian slaves held in North Africa back to freedom. It leads to an interesting ambiguity; on the one hand, these Jews were instrumental to the liberation of thousands of Christian slaves, but on the other hand they helped the English to enrich the Barbary slavers and provide incentive to capture more slaves. Does this belong in the article, or is it limited to the issue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade? Pirate Dan ( talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
What is the full title of the book "Drescher: JANCAST" and what is it's ISBN? If it is not provided I will delete the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 ( talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Slavery took place here, it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 ( talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Like their Christian and Muslim neighbors, Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade. --This article is not about Christian or Muslim slave trade. It is about the Jewish slave trade. The introduction should be rewritten. The intro pretty much says "Well everyone else was doing it."
"The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab World." "The Jewish slave trade was the practice etc etc...."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 ( talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
== This article needs a rewrite ==
[1]
There is an image used of an ad for a slave auction, reprinted in Stowe's "Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin." In the image, the auctioner is named as Levin, but the caption says Lewis. The other footnote, besides to Stowe, cites "Jews and the American Slave Trade" by Saul Friedman. This source, too, gives the surname as Levin. ( Google books)
Can't edit because it's semi-protected and I don't have an account.
Just passing through, no comment on anything controversial :)!!! --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.182.15 ( talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is one major section missing, Jewish slave owning in the Ottoman Empire.
As chronicled in various reports and official ordinances, the acquisition of slaves was widespread in the upper-class Jewish community. Within this community, slavery was commonly limited to females who would be capable of performing household services, including sexual ones. Most of the Ottoman Turkish sources are silent about the particular duties of the slaves in the household, however the Hebrew sources shed light on the role of the slave in the Ottoman Jewish household. Before being allowed to work, the slave in a Jewish household had to be taught not only basic household skills but also the Jewish dietary laws of Kashrut, among other Jewish practices. These slaves needed to master the cultural skills of both the secular world and the Jewish world that they would find themselves immersed in. These questions addressed to in the form of response(rabbinic rulings) as well as other printed halachic works in which the Rabbis struggled to negotiate and find balance with the Halachic problems that arose from the practice of slavery with the practices of the society in which they lived.
To avoid Halachic issues some slaves were converted upon arrival into their Jewish household, however this was not as simple a solution as would be presumed. If the slave was converted, while she would be allowed to prepare food, she would not be allowed to perform tasks on Shabbat. As such it was often preferable for the slave to remain non-Jewish. However, a slave no converted would only be allowed to perform work at their own will on Shabbat. It was therefore necessary for the slave to know the details of Jewish law in order to perform their job in a manner that was most beneficial to the family. Yet, the issue that troubled the Rabbis most was that of the owners “right to sexual intercourse with the slave". This practice, which was common among Muslim slave owners, was understood by the Rabbi’s to be a societal norm that they did not have full dominion over; moreover it was an issue that Halacha and biblical stories spoke very differently about. The Rabbis understood that sexual relations with a slave could lead to various halachic infractions, including the breaking of laws of neida-the laws of menstrual separation- and the law against cohabitating with a non-Jewish woman. While they could not fully prevent sexual transgressions the Rabbis issued rulings that prescribe mild punishments in addition to making clear in their writings that the sin was a grave offense whose sentence would be decreed in Heaven. Abbrickman ( talk) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, as jewish criteria is not the only one here on wikipedia. though perhaps on the israeli one, which is jewish. instead a non biased source can be used instead. or is there any specific reason in wp:RS where you find his sources incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 ( talk) 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that 109.225.100.148 is from Sweden, which is the most Judeophobic country in Europe after Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 ( talk) 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is 114 still allowed to edit this page?
calling Sweden a Judeophobic country, using words like "Neo nazi" in an edit page but if you go to his contributions you can see he is anti-Islam.
why is someone with such a clear and evident bias allowed any say here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This first paragragh needs to have to be correted. The part "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." is incorrect. The jewish population was already heavily involved in the enslavement of black africans before they were expelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
hm should there be upper or lower paragraph countering some statement in this article? so it does seem that jews where the majority of slave owners after all. the pro-jewish sources seems extremely unreliable in this case. they are not neccesary anti-non semetic/anti-non jewish/anti-gentile, but it does seems like they defend slavery and try to hide it. according to the Jewish writer and scholar Solomon Grayzel in “A History of the Jews” "Jews were among the most important slave dealers” in European society."
There should perhaps be some rabbi who, like christian priests, apologize for their role in the slave trade. is there any source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 ( talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That is just a Judeophobic lie. The truth is that Muslims were the biggest slave dealers, so the Nation of Islam has no one to blame but themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 ( talk) 05:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source that it is a "Judeophobic lie" ?
because "A history of the Jews" by Solomon Grayzel is a real book.
your bias and personal investment in this issue is transparent and overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That part should be removed, this article is not discussing whether Jews dominated the slave trade, that could be a conspiracy theory, this article is simply talking about Jews being part of it for a long time, that's not a conspiracy theory that's a fact of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.214.157 ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The current lead includes the following text: "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." Is there strong support for the assertion that Jews only began participating in trade on the Atlantic BECAUSE they were expelled from Iberia? It seems to me that trade would have existed before the expulsion due to Jews being part of the mercantile trade between Iberia and Africa and that any participation of Jews in transAtlantic trade would have been a natural corollary to the development of that trade after the voyages of Columbus, the first of which occurred in 1492. In brief, I am not aware of an argument that says that Jews began participating in "trade on the Atlantic" specifically BECAUSE of the expulsions from Iberia. I would think that the participation in "trade on the Atlantic" continued DESPITE their having been expelled from Iberia.
I am no expert in this area so I could be wrong. I'm just sharing my very uninformed gut reaction to the sentence. If I'm wrong, please let me know where I've gone off the rails.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
why: probably a very honorable selfless desicion? they had to, it hurt them more than it hurt the slaves? why dont we write it like that.
as an austrian, i want history about hitler, and my people, to be as exact as possible. i want the records about jewish history just as accurate. written in the same way, without excuses for things like a slavetrade. they only did it because of blabla .. give me a break. im aware of the dangers of my people, you be the same about yours! peace
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.
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)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) → Jews and the slave trade – We have consensus on the Talk page [1] 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)
"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)
It should be noted that 99.232.122.72 is an admirer of a Swedish neo-Nazi political party [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 ( talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
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 ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"(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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is shocking - selective quoting and misinterpretation of sources in an extreme way, to the extent which I never encountered in Wikipedia. Some sources were completely turned on their head to prove the absolute opposite of what the author intended. Serious fact checking is needed to verify all the citations in this article and correct the parts which were taken out of context. It seems to be based to a large extent on the quotes used in the widely discredited propaganda book "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews". Help is needed. Marokwitz ( talk) 11:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The sections "Antislavery Movement in the Nineteenth Century" and "Modern Times" seem to have quite a bit of material that is more appropriate for the article Judaism and slavery. That article was the original article, and this "slave trade" article was broken-out as a WP:Content fork. The material in this article should have a rather specific relation to the slave trade (vs. slavery in general). The "Modern Times" section does have some material on L. Jefferies, which is directly related to the slave trade, but the other material is not. I dont propose to delete any material, but some of it should be moved into Judaism and slavery. Noleander ( talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1991/9112/9112RES.CFM
"The American Historical Association Council strongly deplores the publicly reported attempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." Hetware ( talk) 00:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Salamaater: The sentence
is incomprehensible. You'll need to make it sensible before you can insert it.
What source do you have for "no earlier "in :
Why do you want to remove the sentence "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and they owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in .." The fact that this was in the context of Europeans moving to the Americas is key.
-- Noleander ( talk) 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is enough that such a dreadful "page" exist, not accurate to compare to Islamic or Christian slavery, don't overdo (your distortion of history) it. Lawsmass ( talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Lawmass/Salamaat: The 1st sentence in the article is not comprehensible: "Though disproprotionate, like Christian and Muslim neighbors, few Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade.". That was pointed out above, and you declined to participate in a dialog. Please fix it.
What source do you have for "no earlier "in :
Why do you want to remove the sentence "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and they owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in .." The fact that this was in the context of Europeans moving to the Americas is key. -- Noleander ( talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The name Curaçao should be spelled with a cedilla. JamesBrownIsDead ( talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is Nation of islam racist crap. Jews were a tiny, virtually insignificant part of the total slave trade. Where is the article on "Anglicans and the Slave Trade" or "Catholics and the Slave Trade"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 ( talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
NPOV or not, why is this an article here? Joe407 ( talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)"...it is now clear that Jews did not dominate the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and/or the Americas,[2][3] and that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery.[2][3][4][5] They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades."
Jehochman: Thanks for pointing out that a couple of paragraphs need citations. I'm 99.9% sure that text accurately represents what the secondary sources say, but give me a couple of weeks to hunt down the sources. I think some of those assertions are (either explicitly or implicitly) detailed in the following subsections. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What most of the sources imply is that the percentage of the jewish population involved in black african slavery was much larger than the percentage of whites involved in black african slavery. Since all history textbooks unfairly blame the entire population of white people for the enslavement of blacks even if only a few white people were involved with in it, it is not so unjust to blame all jews for there part in the slavery of black africans since they were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you think this tone should be in the LEDE, I really prefer if you edit it since you have more experience here than me. I would also suggest using reference for Curacoa and Suriname . I think the evidence should speak without the sections i have placed in bold.
In the 1490s, the Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, at the same time that trade with the New World was opening up, leading to their participation in Atlantic trading in general, and the Atlantic slave trade in particular. Jewish participation in the slave trade was in Brazil, Curacao, Suriname, and Rhode Island, but otherwise was modest or minimal, and Jews had virtually no role in the slave trading of England or France. The Anti-Jewish organization Nation of Islam published The Secret Relation between Blacks and Jews in 1991, which asserted that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade
and This statement has nothing to do with this topic. It might work better here antisemitism
In modern times, American Jews have been very active in fighting prejudice and discrimination, and have historically been active participants in civil rights movements, including active support of and participation in the black civil rights / desegregation movement. unbalanced opinion?
--
Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (
talk)
20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ, what in the lead is not sourced in the rest of the article? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove in this edit: "The book's thesis was that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade, and the book supported that thesis with numerous quotations from scholarly works, including Arnold Wiznitzer and Marc Lee Raphael." ? And why did you change it from "which documented involvement" to "alleged that Jews dominated" ? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are somewhat clunky and redundant with the body of the article. Would anybody mind if I trimmed them out? -- GHcool ( talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I"m wondering if the Modern Times section should be merged into the African-American – Jewish relations article. The section seems to have little to do with Slavery, and the other article is exactly about that material. Maybe the section could just be reduced to a small summary, with links to the other article? -- Noleander ( talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi: The sources are quite clear that Morris Jacob Raphall argued in favor of slavery, as found in the South, and based his arguments on the approval of slavery in the bible. Yes, Raphall, was personally opposed to slavery, but he and Einhorn did engage in a public debate on the matter, with Einhorn taking the anti-slavery view, and Raphall taking the pro-slavery view (and his motives, apparently, were primarily to save the union)). I'm open to improved wording that clarifies all that. -- Noleander ( talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can it be included that the jews use the Dutch as a scapegoat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I'm against slavery (my Jewish ancestors were slaves in Egypt for 430 years), but what I don't see is why the ADL calls Louis Farrakhan " anti-semitic" for declaring that Jews were involved in the slave trade.
This article (correctly, I believe) asserts that Farrakhan's view on Jews and the slave trade is distorted. But the question for Wikipedia is not whether Farrakhan is right or wrong; that would involve taking a stance.
We should describe the historical or scholarly controversy over the degree Jews were involved in owning or selling slaves "fairly" but without taking sides. Rather than saying in the article that scholars demonstrated that Jews did not dominate the slave trade ("refuting that thesis"), we should say that they dismissed NOI's thesis, asserting that Jews did not dominate the slave trade.
The reader should not come away from the article with the idea that Wikipedia disagrees with NOI's extremist views. Rather, they should be able to tell all and sundry which scholars disagree with Farrakhan and why. We are not writing an authoritative encyclopedia; we merely report what authoritative sources say. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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 WP:LEADThe lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Now WHAT IS THE TOPIC? So why doesn't the lead service the topic? Why is the lead an ADL damage control statement? This article is not about Jews and Middle ages Slavery so why is it talking about it. How is that NPOV? Question why doesn't the Islam and slavery have such a warm and cuddly lead? I would put a tag buy someone will delete it. -- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Zero balance or display of counter arguments. "most scholars refuse everything NOI is saying about Jews and slavery" (most meaning a bunch of White people and maybe Henry Louis Gates) what about the numerous African scholars? Apart from the inability of other editors to add constructive edits, (tags are being removed by admins) despite this being a violation of Wiki policy. If any editor has an issue with a pages balance then it is proper to add tags. No one should have to use the talk page before adding tags - we are not children with some hierarchy. The article is seriously one-sided. It attacks arguments but those things it attacks are not presented (NOI is wrong and we all say so)- no sources from NOI in any balanced way to know what they are so "wrong" about. It also only uses "friendly" references from defenders of the POV. I..e pro-Jewish sources, despite being a controversial issue with NOI , Farrakhan and Tony Martin and other Africans being involved not one reference (or position) from these people is represented with any balance. Such references have been labelled not reliable but they are "reliable" enough to be critiqued! and only the critique given not what is being critiqued. It is white washed and damage control. which misrepresents the plethora of arguments NO et al have produced. And this article is about Jews enslaving Africans, yet no African voices like Molefi Asante, John Henrik Clarke etc. All references and comments come from one side.
I just read an RS last month (Hebb, Piracy and the English Government) about the Barbary corsairs in which it noted that Jews (Sicilian Jews, if I remember right) were indispensable to English authorities as brokers in ransoming Christian slaves held in North Africa back to freedom. It leads to an interesting ambiguity; on the one hand, these Jews were instrumental to the liberation of thousands of Christian slaves, but on the other hand they helped the English to enrich the Barbary slavers and provide incentive to capture more slaves. Does this belong in the article, or is it limited to the issue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade? Pirate Dan ( talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
What is the full title of the book "Drescher: JANCAST" and what is it's ISBN? If it is not provided I will delete the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 ( talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Slavery took place here, it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 ( talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Like their Christian and Muslim neighbors, Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade. --This article is not about Christian or Muslim slave trade. It is about the Jewish slave trade. The introduction should be rewritten. The intro pretty much says "Well everyone else was doing it."
"The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab World." "The Jewish slave trade was the practice etc etc...."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 ( talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
== This article needs a rewrite ==
[1]
There is an image used of an ad for a slave auction, reprinted in Stowe's "Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin." In the image, the auctioner is named as Levin, but the caption says Lewis. The other footnote, besides to Stowe, cites "Jews and the American Slave Trade" by Saul Friedman. This source, too, gives the surname as Levin. ( Google books)
Can't edit because it's semi-protected and I don't have an account.
Just passing through, no comment on anything controversial :)!!! --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.182.15 ( talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is one major section missing, Jewish slave owning in the Ottoman Empire.
As chronicled in various reports and official ordinances, the acquisition of slaves was widespread in the upper-class Jewish community. Within this community, slavery was commonly limited to females who would be capable of performing household services, including sexual ones. Most of the Ottoman Turkish sources are silent about the particular duties of the slaves in the household, however the Hebrew sources shed light on the role of the slave in the Ottoman Jewish household. Before being allowed to work, the slave in a Jewish household had to be taught not only basic household skills but also the Jewish dietary laws of Kashrut, among other Jewish practices. These slaves needed to master the cultural skills of both the secular world and the Jewish world that they would find themselves immersed in. These questions addressed to in the form of response(rabbinic rulings) as well as other printed halachic works in which the Rabbis struggled to negotiate and find balance with the Halachic problems that arose from the practice of slavery with the practices of the society in which they lived.
To avoid Halachic issues some slaves were converted upon arrival into their Jewish household, however this was not as simple a solution as would be presumed. If the slave was converted, while she would be allowed to prepare food, she would not be allowed to perform tasks on Shabbat. As such it was often preferable for the slave to remain non-Jewish. However, a slave no converted would only be allowed to perform work at their own will on Shabbat. It was therefore necessary for the slave to know the details of Jewish law in order to perform their job in a manner that was most beneficial to the family. Yet, the issue that troubled the Rabbis most was that of the owners “right to sexual intercourse with the slave". This practice, which was common among Muslim slave owners, was understood by the Rabbi’s to be a societal norm that they did not have full dominion over; moreover it was an issue that Halacha and biblical stories spoke very differently about. The Rabbis understood that sexual relations with a slave could lead to various halachic infractions, including the breaking of laws of neida-the laws of menstrual separation- and the law against cohabitating with a non-Jewish woman. While they could not fully prevent sexual transgressions the Rabbis issued rulings that prescribe mild punishments in addition to making clear in their writings that the sin was a grave offense whose sentence would be decreed in Heaven. Abbrickman ( talk) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, as jewish criteria is not the only one here on wikipedia. though perhaps on the israeli one, which is jewish. instead a non biased source can be used instead. or is there any specific reason in wp:RS where you find his sources incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 ( talk) 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that 109.225.100.148 is from Sweden, which is the most Judeophobic country in Europe after Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 ( talk) 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is 114 still allowed to edit this page?
calling Sweden a Judeophobic country, using words like "Neo nazi" in an edit page but if you go to his contributions you can see he is anti-Islam.
why is someone with such a clear and evident bias allowed any say here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This first paragragh needs to have to be correted. The part "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." is incorrect. The jewish population was already heavily involved in the enslavement of black africans before they were expelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
hm should there be upper or lower paragraph countering some statement in this article? so it does seem that jews where the majority of slave owners after all. the pro-jewish sources seems extremely unreliable in this case. they are not neccesary anti-non semetic/anti-non jewish/anti-gentile, but it does seems like they defend slavery and try to hide it. according to the Jewish writer and scholar Solomon Grayzel in “A History of the Jews” "Jews were among the most important slave dealers” in European society."
There should perhaps be some rabbi who, like christian priests, apologize for their role in the slave trade. is there any source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 ( talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That is just a Judeophobic lie. The truth is that Muslims were the biggest slave dealers, so the Nation of Islam has no one to blame but themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 ( talk) 05:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source that it is a "Judeophobic lie" ?
because "A history of the Jews" by Solomon Grayzel is a real book.
your bias and personal investment in this issue is transparent and overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That part should be removed, this article is not discussing whether Jews dominated the slave trade, that could be a conspiracy theory, this article is simply talking about Jews being part of it for a long time, that's not a conspiracy theory that's a fact of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.214.157 ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The current lead includes the following text: "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." Is there strong support for the assertion that Jews only began participating in trade on the Atlantic BECAUSE they were expelled from Iberia? It seems to me that trade would have existed before the expulsion due to Jews being part of the mercantile trade between Iberia and Africa and that any participation of Jews in transAtlantic trade would have been a natural corollary to the development of that trade after the voyages of Columbus, the first of which occurred in 1492. In brief, I am not aware of an argument that says that Jews began participating in "trade on the Atlantic" specifically BECAUSE of the expulsions from Iberia. I would think that the participation in "trade on the Atlantic" continued DESPITE their having been expelled from Iberia.
I am no expert in this area so I could be wrong. I'm just sharing my very uninformed gut reaction to the sentence. If I'm wrong, please let me know where I've gone off the rails.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
why: probably a very honorable selfless desicion? they had to, it hurt them more than it hurt the slaves? why dont we write it like that.
as an austrian, i want history about hitler, and my people, to be as exact as possible. i want the records about jewish history just as accurate. written in the same way, without excuses for things like a slavetrade. they only did it because of blabla .. give me a break. im aware of the dangers of my people, you be the same about yours! peace
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.
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)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) → Jews and the slave trade – We have consensus on the Talk page [1] 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)
"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)
It should be noted that 99.232.122.72 is an admirer of a Swedish neo-Nazi political party [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 ( talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
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 ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"(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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)