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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In case anyone finds it useful, here's the list that was removed from the article:
Below are 29 nation states by country that actively or passively participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade:
- Senegal: Denanke Kingdom, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Jolof Empire, Kingdom of Khasso and Kingdom of Saalum
- Guinea-Bissau: Kaabu Empire
- Guinea: Kingdom of Fouta Djallon
- Sierra Leone: Koya Temne
- Cote d'Ivoire: Kong Empire and Gyaaman Kingdom
- Ghana: Asante Confederacy and Mankessim Kingdom
- Benin: Kingdom of Dahomey
- Nigeria: Oyo Empire, Benin Empire, Igala, Hausa Kingdoms, Fulani Empire, the Kingdom of Nri, and Aro Confederacy
- Cameroon: Bamun and Mandara Kingdom
- Gabon: Kingdom of Orungu
- Republic of Congo: Kingdom of Loango and Kingdom of Tio
- Angola: Kingdom of Kongo, Kingdom of Ndongo and Matamba
Maybe later we can expand it into a corresponding list of nations from around the world that participated (as buyers/sellers/victims), but for now, agree that it's kind of odd it only reflects Africa. -- Joren ( talk) 06:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
These two sections were written be different people wishing to prove their own point. The first says Africans were not very invovled the second says Europeans were not very involved. Someone who knows what they are talkign about without a personal goal should rewrite this properly. Additionally source used by th African section is a personal blog without references.-- 130.63.102.218 ( talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It might help if the article was more specific about which Africans and which Europeans were involved and how. That list of states on this talk page above at least refers to actual slave-trading states, whose elites were involved in it. It wasn't all Africans or all Europeans doing the same thing at all times, but very specific groups. You could describe the major slave trading nations, their role and the periods when they were most active and maybe something on how they were organized. Or maybe do separate articles on individual nations/companies/colonies and link to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.210.145.13 ( talk) 10:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this sentence hanging on to the end of the section on African participation in the slave trade, and it is totally irrelevant to the article: "Ashanti King Agyeman Prempeh (Ashanti king, b. 1872) also sacrificed his own freedom so that his people would not face collective slavery." This sentence refers to a figure who was active in the very late 19th and early 20th century, and is not related to the Atlantic slave trade described in this article. The Atlantic slave trade ended in the 1860s, according to sources cited in this article. I am removing this sentence because it's not material to this topic. BobCSmith ( talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This article does not give any information on the dutch involvement in the black african slave trade. Alot of african people assume that the dutch enslaved african people. Most school history textsbooks pretty much imply that it was the dutch who started the african slave trade. Is this true? If so how extensive was the dutch enslavement of africans? How does it compare with other european nations? Do black people hate dutch males? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be very careful of people who have an agenda, especially David Duke-wannabes. We must not let them and others try to rewrite history for their self-serving purpose and we must be vigilant in keeping this factual. B-Machine ( talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize I must tread very, very carefully here, as this is a 'powder-keg' page; but it is very much the case that distortion can sometimes arise not just from what is said but what is not said; that a photograph can distort simply by framing some things out.
The McCavity here is no mention whatsoever of the simultaneous, longer standing and arguably even greater Arab/Turkish slave trade, across the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Eastern Mediterranean as well as overland. Unfortunately the impression this page creates by omission is that the only Africans kidnapped and sent abroad against their will went westward for the profit of Europeans. -- Solicitr ( talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, the 'human toll' section should at least contain some mention of the fact that the ill effects on Africa were the result of the slave trade, generally; to mention that tahey were the combined effects of the Atlantic, trans-Sahara and Red Sea/Indian Ocean trades. As it stands, the section strongly implies that it was the Atlantic trade, alone; while I'm sure Halaquah would love that POV, it's not Wiki.-- Solicitr ( talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This may have been covered already, but why does Slave trade re-direct here, as though the Atlantic trade was the only time anyone has ever bought and sold people? 213.121.242.7 ( talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article blame the entire nations for enslaving blacks? I know the school history textbooks do it but wikipedia does not have to go along with mainstream historians generalization of history. It should be pointed out that only a very small percentage of people from each country were involved in the enslavement of blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Nations made enslavement an industry, a functioning business essentially. This only ceased when said nations officially outlawed slavery. The percentage of people actually involved is not particularly relevant. AlecTrevelyan402( Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
Entire nations did not enslave black africans, only a few people from some nations did. Do you have a source that says that every person who lived in the countries listed on this page were involved in black african slavery or knew about it? Blaming all people for black african slavery is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 ( talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I added that the jews who moved from Spain to the Netherlands made up a significant portion of the historian supposed dutch slave traders/owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 ( talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The reliable sources are in the wikipedia article Jews and the slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out that jewish people were as significant part of the "dutch" slave trade is very important. The jewish influence was integral to the "dutch" slave trade. If jews had not moved to the Netherlands the Netherlands would not have enough people involved in the atlantic slave trade to merit mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 ( talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The reliable sources are in the Jews and the slave trade article so it can be used. I am going to undo your change if you delete it again I will delete the Dutch from the list since the Dutch are not mentioned anywhere in this article except for the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not anti-semitic. Wikipedia can be much more specific than common encyclopedias. That is the reason why people like wikipedia and that is what I am doing. If you want a encyclopedia that is vague get britannica. Most all wikipedia articles link to other wikipedia articles-if you delete changes just because it links to other wikipedia articles to be specific then you would have to delete most of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 ( talk) 01:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the Jews and the slave trade article implies that the historically supposed "Dutch" slave trade would not funtion or be small if jews had participated then jews are a significant part of the black african slave trade concerning the netherlands. The sources are in the Jews and the slave trade and I will cite them.
'Verify source' tag added to the following: "Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the state of Virginia in 1778 became the first place in the world to end the international slave trade; it freed all slaves brought in after its passage." The passage is followed by two citations (which I have not read), but I've been unable to verify this claim anywhere else in WP. WCCasey ( talk) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No idea why a relate would have been removed. To the aliens visiting Earth (and some of us in attendance) not everyone knows the obvious and direct relationship (not to mention cross over) of these 3 slave systems; Arab, African (internal) and TST. The Atlantic preyed off of the Internal African slave trade, but the African slave trade is in itself a separate topic.(but even when you read it, it blends into the Atlantic - very easy to separate at times) They are all connected and easy to confuse. Deeply related and very necessary. It would be therefore wise to stop jumping to remove editors contents on a quick stroke of a click. Moreover only greater clarity is gained by the hat whatever edit. And use the talk page before making major changes.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Toddsmith199 added the word Jews to the following sentence:
As a source, the editor cited Austen, p. 135 (I assume that's a reference to Ralph Austen's African Economic History: Internal Development and External Dependency), with the following quote:
That sentence says that Jews did not dominate the slave trade except for maybe the small Dutch colonies, whose importance was short-lived. It does not say the shippers were Dutch Jews.
The source for the original sentence, about "the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and Americans", is Herbert S. Klein's Atlantic Slave Trade, in which the word Jew doesn't appear. —
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk 02:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
All of a sudden Kimani Nehusi is not a reliable source on slavery.
^ Thornton 1998. pp. 15-17. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 13. ^ Chaunu 1969. pp. 54-58. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 24. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 24-26. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 27. ^ Thornton, page 112 ^ a b Thornton, page 310 ^ Thornton, page 45 ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 28-29. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 31. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 29-31. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 37. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 38. ^ a b Thornton 1998. p. 39. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 40. ^ Rodney 1972. pp. 95-113. ^ Austen 1987. pp. 81-108. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 44. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 35. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 40-41. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 33. ^ Thornton, page 304 ^ Thornton, page 305 ^ Thornton, page 311 ^ Thornton, page 122 I have Throntons books, there are good, but not that good to be used this many times. You do not need to say "Thornton say," three times. What he said is not a unique opinion exclusive to Thronton. So the reference to him is enough. Neither is what Nehusi says "Reasons to go to war" in any mainstream dispute.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing section that is trying to discuss the ideas behind the article; however, this is not allowed per
WP:NOTFORUM. This page may only be used to improve article content, not debate the intricacies of the slave trade.
Qwyrxian (
talk) 04:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
Who are the main people to blame for the enslavement of black africans? Who should feel the worst? How do europeans pay for the enslavement of africans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You ask about "people to blame". That is not what history is about, but there might have have some underlying subjective comments here. Moreover, those people are not alive. Why would you think otherwise? If you are trying to blame a race or a culture, then you are clearly racist & bigoted, & your input is not welcome here. 76.102.100.72 ( talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Recent edit warring has occurred between myself and user Malik Shabazz regarding the wording of the section "Effects on Economy of Europe." The argument he is making is that both the statements of Eric Williams, who is said to have argued that profits from the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization, and David Richardson, who provides data that domestic investment in Britain's economy of slave trade profits was less than 1%, are equally valid and should be presented on equal ground. This user (Malik Shabazz) has done the same thing on the African Slave Trade page. One will observe, however, that the statements made by Eric Williams are unsourced, while the statements made by David Richardson, along with the statement pertaining to slave trade profits never exceeding 5% of Britain's economy, are sourced. Yet we see the Williams' statements completely untouched and unscathed and unquestioned by Mr. Shabazz, while the Richardson statements, as well as the Digital History link to the University of Houston (the source of the 5%) reworded and labeled as unreliable. Now, think about this for a second- what does it look like? What would cause someone to leave one set of statements (the Williams statements) unquestioned, despite no source being provided for them, but yet raise a brouhaha about wording and reliability about another set of statements (the Richardson and Digital History statements) that contradicts the first? Probably one thing: bias. Mr Shabazz realizes that he cannot outright delete these remarks, even though they likely do not fit in with his worldview, so he does the next best thing: make them less forceful by making them appear as opinions instead of facts. That way, both Eric Williams' unsourced contention that the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization and the opposing sourced statements by Richardson and Digital History (University of Houston) that it did not both are equally valid. This, children, is how history is rewritten and chipped away- slowly, through an edit here and an edit there. Please review the edit history of the article yourself and you'll notice exactly what Mr. Shabazz is trying to accomplish. I am barred from reverting his edits at the present because of the 3 revert rule, which I will respect. But at the expiration of 24 hours (perhaps a little longer since I do not want to appear to be gaming the system), I will correct Mr. Shabazz's edits to the more factually defensible position. Please comment here. And remember: the Williams statements have no source, yet they are are allowed equal footing with sourced material that makes use of established, tangible data. Even if the Williams material were provided with a source, would it matter? No, because I've read Eric Williams' statements on the slave trade- they are hypotheses and generalizations that are unsupported by factual data. Could this be the reason why Mr. Shabazz has completely sidestepped the missing source for the Eric Williams' statements? Please comment! Thank you! ElliotJoyce ( talk) 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Why do you not want Jews and the slave trade in this article? The jews and the slave trade is mostly about the enslavement of black africans and the atlantic slave trade. The arab slave trade should be the link that gets deleted since arabs were not involved in the atlantic slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadsmith ( talk • contribs)
I've added a WP:FRINGE-compliant sentence about this in the relevant section; I believe this should solve the problem. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This article contained a POV section template dating to November 2010. I've removed it per #3 in the instructions at Template:POV:
Looking at the archive, it's not fully clear to me what the original issue was, but in any case, it's clearly long dormant. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Because of a lot of overlap in content and some large missing holes in various issues, I started a discussion about clearly developing a plan for the content on the various Africa-slavery related pages. Please contribute at the discussion at Talk:Slavery in Africa#Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles. Thank you. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vincentmsexton ( talk) 00:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The geographic accounts of Pliny the Elder and of Strabo mention the Fortunate Isles but do not report anything about their populations. An account of the Guanche population may have been made around 1150 CE by the Arab geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi in the Nuzhatul Mushtaq, a book he wrote for King Roger II of Sicily, in which al-Idrisi reports a journey in the Atlantic Ocean made by the Mugharrarin ("the adventurers"), a family of Andalusian seafarers from Lisbon, Portugal. The only surviving version of this book, kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and first translated by Pierre Amédée Jaubert, reports that, after having reached an area of "sticky and stinking waters" (probably the Sargasso Sea), the Mugharrarin moved back and first reached an uninhabited Island ( Madeira or Hierro), where they found "a huge quantity of sheep, which its meat was bitter and inedible" and, then, "continued southward" and reached another island where they were soon surrounded by barks and brought to "a village whose inhabitants were often fair haired with long and flaxen hair and the women of a rare beauty". Among the villagers, one did speak Arabic and asked them where they came from. Then the king of the village ordered them to bring them back to the continent where they were surprised to be welcomed by Berbers. [1] Apart from the marvelous and fanciful content of this history, this account would suggest that Guanches had sporadic contacts with populations from the mainland.
During the 14th century, the Guanches are presumed to have had other contacts with Balearic seafarers from Spain, suggested by the presence of Balearic artifacts found on several of the Canary Islands. citation needed
A non-representative image is being inserted over and over again by user Tobby. This image came up a while ago and was discussed and deleted. I have been having to delete it several times. Here is why. One, because an image is depicting a slave ship is not grounds for adding it. Maybe it is propaganda. The particular image is making a mockery of the known conditions in which enslaved Africans were transported in. They certainly were not laughing and smiling feet up below decks. It was not a cruise ship it was a slave ship. The most complete book on the subject The Slave Ship: A Human History -- Marcus Rediker in addition to every major scholar African and other, shows no such description of life below decks. The image is ahistorical and does not belong here. Keep it on the authors page. -- Inayity ( talk) 15:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A general book on Genocide which is very geared to discussing Nazi Germany, Rwanda, etc. It happens to touch upon the Atlantic slave trade--barely. It is not an Scholarly book which we need to hear from with this tone of blacks killing blacks.(sounds like a Tabloid) Tell me is that even the tone or language of a scholar? Even if the book was notable the quote is ridiculous and the statement vague. Again he has no track record of expertise on Atlantic slave trade or Africa. He is not known in any circle for expertise about Atlantic slave trade--esp death toll. On Amazon alone there are 1000s of books that mention in passing the Atlantic slave trade, do we also add them as scholarly opinions? Why is this notable when no review even ref the Atlantic slave trade when discussing his book and it is only a footnote in his book on a totally different subject. [3] Quote someone who has that scholarship or is recognized in that field. -- Inayity ( talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Rjensen (
talk) 20:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Two things. What is that sentence about Jewish Involvement connected to? It just jumps out of nowhere. Also I just noticed it was not enough to list a statement which favored a good Image of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade. No, there is an extensive "note" vigorously pushing an unbalanced POV which serves as damage control. Is this Wikipedia or the ADL? Because I am confused, can gentile White people or Africans get to do that also. I mean put extensive notes whitewashing their role in the trade? There is already a Link to Jews and the Slave trade, an entire article. A ref should be enough, and we will also need to hear the POV of those that say They did play whatever role. B/c I fear (based on what I have read) this sentence is misrepresenting its detractors by marginalizing their reference. -- Inayity ( talk) 14:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If a 100 books were written on the effects on Africa 80 of them probably say 100% Bad. It is almost like saying Jews profited from Holocaust b/c one or two Jews got rich--nonsense. Really it is. Now that section admits most document the negative, yet even in that section so much is dedicated to prioritizing the "Good". Fage and Thornton dominate, they are not NPOV--they both represent the race that took African across the Atlantic. And please do not suggest it is not about race, b/c it is a racialized issue. With Afrocentrics on one side and Eurocentrics on the other. There was nothing good about the Atlantic slave trade in Africa--logic alone tells us this. Please do not focus on 1 or 2 kings, if 15 million arrived, and millions upon millions were displaced why talk about these handful of kings? What about 98% of the population in Africa? It is like saying African leaders are rich so Africa is doing well. What about the countries?-- Inayity ( talk) 09:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there any common link between Lebensborn and The Slave Trade?
5.68.36.78 ( talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The idea across wikipedia is when there is a reaction to an event (like an apology) it is pretty standard to do it by country. because reading by dates makes no sense. The date is not important!, the country replying to slavery is what is important. What is the USA response? People using the site want to go straight there. Meles Zenawi death has a response by country. All article use that format-- Inayity ( talk) 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 00:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This further reading section is expanding outside of the theme of this page. Now I will not go as far to say which of these wonderful books should be excluded, but I do think Further reading, in general, should be restricted to specialist books dedicated to the Atlantic Slave trade, or books with significant focus on the AST. You decide which ones are outside of this criteria. -- Inayity ( talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say she was not RS. I said she was not notable enough for LEAD, and the content is not particular lead quality either. It belongs in Body. If she is so notable then where is her WP:NOTABLE Wiki page? A google search of here turns up very little. So why is her name being mentioned in the lead? Is She Du Bois or even Henry Louis Gates? Also the content is saying what? It is not lead material. Hence removed on numerous grounds. This is her Google search nada. Look at her books, barely any reviews. belongs in body. And what does it mean "their destinations were based on religion etc". That is not a universal truth. Is that a total statement? Its vague. And does not fit WP:LEAD criteria. Why not put something significant that Anne Bailey (Author) said? So many quality contributions from so many others what is so important about her? -- Inayity ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
the process of enslavement did not end with arrival on the American shores; the different paths taken by the individuals and groups who were victims of the Atlantic slave trade were influenced by different factors—including the disembarking region, the kind of work performed, gender, age, religion, and language What does this mean in the context of this article, where does it fit in? What does she mean by "The process of enslavement didnt end with arrival" it is pretty obvious that the entire TST was to enslave Africans so obviously *duh* it did not end upon arrival. The citation is poor. Its fluffy at best, almost poetry not history. Help me understand why this entire statement is needed in this article. B/c You can have 100 PhD and be on PBS every other week, your statements still have to make sense, be true and help the article.-- Inayity ( talk) 16:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In case anyone finds it useful, here's the list that was removed from the article:
Below are 29 nation states by country that actively or passively participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade:
- Senegal: Denanke Kingdom, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Jolof Empire, Kingdom of Khasso and Kingdom of Saalum
- Guinea-Bissau: Kaabu Empire
- Guinea: Kingdom of Fouta Djallon
- Sierra Leone: Koya Temne
- Cote d'Ivoire: Kong Empire and Gyaaman Kingdom
- Ghana: Asante Confederacy and Mankessim Kingdom
- Benin: Kingdom of Dahomey
- Nigeria: Oyo Empire, Benin Empire, Igala, Hausa Kingdoms, Fulani Empire, the Kingdom of Nri, and Aro Confederacy
- Cameroon: Bamun and Mandara Kingdom
- Gabon: Kingdom of Orungu
- Republic of Congo: Kingdom of Loango and Kingdom of Tio
- Angola: Kingdom of Kongo, Kingdom of Ndongo and Matamba
Maybe later we can expand it into a corresponding list of nations from around the world that participated (as buyers/sellers/victims), but for now, agree that it's kind of odd it only reflects Africa. -- Joren ( talk) 06:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
These two sections were written be different people wishing to prove their own point. The first says Africans were not very invovled the second says Europeans were not very involved. Someone who knows what they are talkign about without a personal goal should rewrite this properly. Additionally source used by th African section is a personal blog without references.-- 130.63.102.218 ( talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It might help if the article was more specific about which Africans and which Europeans were involved and how. That list of states on this talk page above at least refers to actual slave-trading states, whose elites were involved in it. It wasn't all Africans or all Europeans doing the same thing at all times, but very specific groups. You could describe the major slave trading nations, their role and the periods when they were most active and maybe something on how they were organized. Or maybe do separate articles on individual nations/companies/colonies and link to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.210.145.13 ( talk) 10:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this sentence hanging on to the end of the section on African participation in the slave trade, and it is totally irrelevant to the article: "Ashanti King Agyeman Prempeh (Ashanti king, b. 1872) also sacrificed his own freedom so that his people would not face collective slavery." This sentence refers to a figure who was active in the very late 19th and early 20th century, and is not related to the Atlantic slave trade described in this article. The Atlantic slave trade ended in the 1860s, according to sources cited in this article. I am removing this sentence because it's not material to this topic. BobCSmith ( talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This article does not give any information on the dutch involvement in the black african slave trade. Alot of african people assume that the dutch enslaved african people. Most school history textsbooks pretty much imply that it was the dutch who started the african slave trade. Is this true? If so how extensive was the dutch enslavement of africans? How does it compare with other european nations? Do black people hate dutch males? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be very careful of people who have an agenda, especially David Duke-wannabes. We must not let them and others try to rewrite history for their self-serving purpose and we must be vigilant in keeping this factual. B-Machine ( talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize I must tread very, very carefully here, as this is a 'powder-keg' page; but it is very much the case that distortion can sometimes arise not just from what is said but what is not said; that a photograph can distort simply by framing some things out.
The McCavity here is no mention whatsoever of the simultaneous, longer standing and arguably even greater Arab/Turkish slave trade, across the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Eastern Mediterranean as well as overland. Unfortunately the impression this page creates by omission is that the only Africans kidnapped and sent abroad against their will went westward for the profit of Europeans. -- Solicitr ( talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, the 'human toll' section should at least contain some mention of the fact that the ill effects on Africa were the result of the slave trade, generally; to mention that tahey were the combined effects of the Atlantic, trans-Sahara and Red Sea/Indian Ocean trades. As it stands, the section strongly implies that it was the Atlantic trade, alone; while I'm sure Halaquah would love that POV, it's not Wiki.-- Solicitr ( talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This may have been covered already, but why does Slave trade re-direct here, as though the Atlantic trade was the only time anyone has ever bought and sold people? 213.121.242.7 ( talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article blame the entire nations for enslaving blacks? I know the school history textbooks do it but wikipedia does not have to go along with mainstream historians generalization of history. It should be pointed out that only a very small percentage of people from each country were involved in the enslavement of blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Nations made enslavement an industry, a functioning business essentially. This only ceased when said nations officially outlawed slavery. The percentage of people actually involved is not particularly relevant. AlecTrevelyan402( Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
Entire nations did not enslave black africans, only a few people from some nations did. Do you have a source that says that every person who lived in the countries listed on this page were involved in black african slavery or knew about it? Blaming all people for black african slavery is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 ( talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I added that the jews who moved from Spain to the Netherlands made up a significant portion of the historian supposed dutch slave traders/owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 ( talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The reliable sources are in the wikipedia article Jews and the slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out that jewish people were as significant part of the "dutch" slave trade is very important. The jewish influence was integral to the "dutch" slave trade. If jews had not moved to the Netherlands the Netherlands would not have enough people involved in the atlantic slave trade to merit mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 ( talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The reliable sources are in the Jews and the slave trade article so it can be used. I am going to undo your change if you delete it again I will delete the Dutch from the list since the Dutch are not mentioned anywhere in this article except for the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not anti-semitic. Wikipedia can be much more specific than common encyclopedias. That is the reason why people like wikipedia and that is what I am doing. If you want a encyclopedia that is vague get britannica. Most all wikipedia articles link to other wikipedia articles-if you delete changes just because it links to other wikipedia articles to be specific then you would have to delete most of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 ( talk) 01:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the Jews and the slave trade article implies that the historically supposed "Dutch" slave trade would not funtion or be small if jews had participated then jews are a significant part of the black african slave trade concerning the netherlands. The sources are in the Jews and the slave trade and I will cite them.
'Verify source' tag added to the following: "Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the state of Virginia in 1778 became the first place in the world to end the international slave trade; it freed all slaves brought in after its passage." The passage is followed by two citations (which I have not read), but I've been unable to verify this claim anywhere else in WP. WCCasey ( talk) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No idea why a relate would have been removed. To the aliens visiting Earth (and some of us in attendance) not everyone knows the obvious and direct relationship (not to mention cross over) of these 3 slave systems; Arab, African (internal) and TST. The Atlantic preyed off of the Internal African slave trade, but the African slave trade is in itself a separate topic.(but even when you read it, it blends into the Atlantic - very easy to separate at times) They are all connected and easy to confuse. Deeply related and very necessary. It would be therefore wise to stop jumping to remove editors contents on a quick stroke of a click. Moreover only greater clarity is gained by the hat whatever edit. And use the talk page before making major changes.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Toddsmith199 added the word Jews to the following sentence:
As a source, the editor cited Austen, p. 135 (I assume that's a reference to Ralph Austen's African Economic History: Internal Development and External Dependency), with the following quote:
That sentence says that Jews did not dominate the slave trade except for maybe the small Dutch colonies, whose importance was short-lived. It does not say the shippers were Dutch Jews.
The source for the original sentence, about "the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and Americans", is Herbert S. Klein's Atlantic Slave Trade, in which the word Jew doesn't appear. —
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk 02:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
All of a sudden Kimani Nehusi is not a reliable source on slavery.
^ Thornton 1998. pp. 15-17. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 13. ^ Chaunu 1969. pp. 54-58. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 24. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 24-26. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 27. ^ Thornton, page 112 ^ a b Thornton, page 310 ^ Thornton, page 45 ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 28-29. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 31. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 29-31. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 37. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 38. ^ a b Thornton 1998. p. 39. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 40. ^ Rodney 1972. pp. 95-113. ^ Austen 1987. pp. 81-108. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 44. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 35. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 40-41. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 33. ^ Thornton, page 304 ^ Thornton, page 305 ^ Thornton, page 311 ^ Thornton, page 122 I have Throntons books, there are good, but not that good to be used this many times. You do not need to say "Thornton say," three times. What he said is not a unique opinion exclusive to Thronton. So the reference to him is enough. Neither is what Nehusi says "Reasons to go to war" in any mainstream dispute.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing section that is trying to discuss the ideas behind the article; however, this is not allowed per
WP:NOTFORUM. This page may only be used to improve article content, not debate the intricacies of the slave trade.
Qwyrxian (
talk) 04:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
Who are the main people to blame for the enslavement of black africans? Who should feel the worst? How do europeans pay for the enslavement of africans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 ( talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You ask about "people to blame". That is not what history is about, but there might have have some underlying subjective comments here. Moreover, those people are not alive. Why would you think otherwise? If you are trying to blame a race or a culture, then you are clearly racist & bigoted, & your input is not welcome here. 76.102.100.72 ( talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Recent edit warring has occurred between myself and user Malik Shabazz regarding the wording of the section "Effects on Economy of Europe." The argument he is making is that both the statements of Eric Williams, who is said to have argued that profits from the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization, and David Richardson, who provides data that domestic investment in Britain's economy of slave trade profits was less than 1%, are equally valid and should be presented on equal ground. This user (Malik Shabazz) has done the same thing on the African Slave Trade page. One will observe, however, that the statements made by Eric Williams are unsourced, while the statements made by David Richardson, along with the statement pertaining to slave trade profits never exceeding 5% of Britain's economy, are sourced. Yet we see the Williams' statements completely untouched and unscathed and unquestioned by Mr. Shabazz, while the Richardson statements, as well as the Digital History link to the University of Houston (the source of the 5%) reworded and labeled as unreliable. Now, think about this for a second- what does it look like? What would cause someone to leave one set of statements (the Williams statements) unquestioned, despite no source being provided for them, but yet raise a brouhaha about wording and reliability about another set of statements (the Richardson and Digital History statements) that contradicts the first? Probably one thing: bias. Mr Shabazz realizes that he cannot outright delete these remarks, even though they likely do not fit in with his worldview, so he does the next best thing: make them less forceful by making them appear as opinions instead of facts. That way, both Eric Williams' unsourced contention that the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization and the opposing sourced statements by Richardson and Digital History (University of Houston) that it did not both are equally valid. This, children, is how history is rewritten and chipped away- slowly, through an edit here and an edit there. Please review the edit history of the article yourself and you'll notice exactly what Mr. Shabazz is trying to accomplish. I am barred from reverting his edits at the present because of the 3 revert rule, which I will respect. But at the expiration of 24 hours (perhaps a little longer since I do not want to appear to be gaming the system), I will correct Mr. Shabazz's edits to the more factually defensible position. Please comment here. And remember: the Williams statements have no source, yet they are are allowed equal footing with sourced material that makes use of established, tangible data. Even if the Williams material were provided with a source, would it matter? No, because I've read Eric Williams' statements on the slave trade- they are hypotheses and generalizations that are unsupported by factual data. Could this be the reason why Mr. Shabazz has completely sidestepped the missing source for the Eric Williams' statements? Please comment! Thank you! ElliotJoyce ( talk) 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Why do you not want Jews and the slave trade in this article? The jews and the slave trade is mostly about the enslavement of black africans and the atlantic slave trade. The arab slave trade should be the link that gets deleted since arabs were not involved in the atlantic slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadsmith ( talk • contribs)
I've added a WP:FRINGE-compliant sentence about this in the relevant section; I believe this should solve the problem. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This article contained a POV section template dating to November 2010. I've removed it per #3 in the instructions at Template:POV:
Looking at the archive, it's not fully clear to me what the original issue was, but in any case, it's clearly long dormant. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Because of a lot of overlap in content and some large missing holes in various issues, I started a discussion about clearly developing a plan for the content on the various Africa-slavery related pages. Please contribute at the discussion at Talk:Slavery in Africa#Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles. Thank you. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vincentmsexton ( talk) 00:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The geographic accounts of Pliny the Elder and of Strabo mention the Fortunate Isles but do not report anything about their populations. An account of the Guanche population may have been made around 1150 CE by the Arab geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi in the Nuzhatul Mushtaq, a book he wrote for King Roger II of Sicily, in which al-Idrisi reports a journey in the Atlantic Ocean made by the Mugharrarin ("the adventurers"), a family of Andalusian seafarers from Lisbon, Portugal. The only surviving version of this book, kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and first translated by Pierre Amédée Jaubert, reports that, after having reached an area of "sticky and stinking waters" (probably the Sargasso Sea), the Mugharrarin moved back and first reached an uninhabited Island ( Madeira or Hierro), where they found "a huge quantity of sheep, which its meat was bitter and inedible" and, then, "continued southward" and reached another island where they were soon surrounded by barks and brought to "a village whose inhabitants were often fair haired with long and flaxen hair and the women of a rare beauty". Among the villagers, one did speak Arabic and asked them where they came from. Then the king of the village ordered them to bring them back to the continent where they were surprised to be welcomed by Berbers. [1] Apart from the marvelous and fanciful content of this history, this account would suggest that Guanches had sporadic contacts with populations from the mainland.
During the 14th century, the Guanches are presumed to have had other contacts with Balearic seafarers from Spain, suggested by the presence of Balearic artifacts found on several of the Canary Islands. citation needed
A non-representative image is being inserted over and over again by user Tobby. This image came up a while ago and was discussed and deleted. I have been having to delete it several times. Here is why. One, because an image is depicting a slave ship is not grounds for adding it. Maybe it is propaganda. The particular image is making a mockery of the known conditions in which enslaved Africans were transported in. They certainly were not laughing and smiling feet up below decks. It was not a cruise ship it was a slave ship. The most complete book on the subject The Slave Ship: A Human History -- Marcus Rediker in addition to every major scholar African and other, shows no such description of life below decks. The image is ahistorical and does not belong here. Keep it on the authors page. -- Inayity ( talk) 15:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A general book on Genocide which is very geared to discussing Nazi Germany, Rwanda, etc. It happens to touch upon the Atlantic slave trade--barely. It is not an Scholarly book which we need to hear from with this tone of blacks killing blacks.(sounds like a Tabloid) Tell me is that even the tone or language of a scholar? Even if the book was notable the quote is ridiculous and the statement vague. Again he has no track record of expertise on Atlantic slave trade or Africa. He is not known in any circle for expertise about Atlantic slave trade--esp death toll. On Amazon alone there are 1000s of books that mention in passing the Atlantic slave trade, do we also add them as scholarly opinions? Why is this notable when no review even ref the Atlantic slave trade when discussing his book and it is only a footnote in his book on a totally different subject. [3] Quote someone who has that scholarship or is recognized in that field. -- Inayity ( talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Rjensen (
talk) 20:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Two things. What is that sentence about Jewish Involvement connected to? It just jumps out of nowhere. Also I just noticed it was not enough to list a statement which favored a good Image of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade. No, there is an extensive "note" vigorously pushing an unbalanced POV which serves as damage control. Is this Wikipedia or the ADL? Because I am confused, can gentile White people or Africans get to do that also. I mean put extensive notes whitewashing their role in the trade? There is already a Link to Jews and the Slave trade, an entire article. A ref should be enough, and we will also need to hear the POV of those that say They did play whatever role. B/c I fear (based on what I have read) this sentence is misrepresenting its detractors by marginalizing their reference. -- Inayity ( talk) 14:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If a 100 books were written on the effects on Africa 80 of them probably say 100% Bad. It is almost like saying Jews profited from Holocaust b/c one or two Jews got rich--nonsense. Really it is. Now that section admits most document the negative, yet even in that section so much is dedicated to prioritizing the "Good". Fage and Thornton dominate, they are not NPOV--they both represent the race that took African across the Atlantic. And please do not suggest it is not about race, b/c it is a racialized issue. With Afrocentrics on one side and Eurocentrics on the other. There was nothing good about the Atlantic slave trade in Africa--logic alone tells us this. Please do not focus on 1 or 2 kings, if 15 million arrived, and millions upon millions were displaced why talk about these handful of kings? What about 98% of the population in Africa? It is like saying African leaders are rich so Africa is doing well. What about the countries?-- Inayity ( talk) 09:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there any common link between Lebensborn and The Slave Trade?
5.68.36.78 ( talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The idea across wikipedia is when there is a reaction to an event (like an apology) it is pretty standard to do it by country. because reading by dates makes no sense. The date is not important!, the country replying to slavery is what is important. What is the USA response? People using the site want to go straight there. Meles Zenawi death has a response by country. All article use that format-- Inayity ( talk) 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 00:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This further reading section is expanding outside of the theme of this page. Now I will not go as far to say which of these wonderful books should be excluded, but I do think Further reading, in general, should be restricted to specialist books dedicated to the Atlantic Slave trade, or books with significant focus on the AST. You decide which ones are outside of this criteria. -- Inayity ( talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say she was not RS. I said she was not notable enough for LEAD, and the content is not particular lead quality either. It belongs in Body. If she is so notable then where is her WP:NOTABLE Wiki page? A google search of here turns up very little. So why is her name being mentioned in the lead? Is She Du Bois or even Henry Louis Gates? Also the content is saying what? It is not lead material. Hence removed on numerous grounds. This is her Google search nada. Look at her books, barely any reviews. belongs in body. And what does it mean "their destinations were based on religion etc". That is not a universal truth. Is that a total statement? Its vague. And does not fit WP:LEAD criteria. Why not put something significant that Anne Bailey (Author) said? So many quality contributions from so many others what is so important about her? -- Inayity ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
the process of enslavement did not end with arrival on the American shores; the different paths taken by the individuals and groups who were victims of the Atlantic slave trade were influenced by different factors—including the disembarking region, the kind of work performed, gender, age, religion, and language What does this mean in the context of this article, where does it fit in? What does she mean by "The process of enslavement didnt end with arrival" it is pretty obvious that the entire TST was to enslave Africans so obviously *duh* it did not end upon arrival. The citation is poor. Its fluffy at best, almost poetry not history. Help me understand why this entire statement is needed in this article. B/c You can have 100 PhD and be on PBS every other week, your statements still have to make sense, be true and help the article.-- Inayity ( talk) 16:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)