Talk:Atlantic slave trade

Weasel words

Wiki is clear about weasel words. When you say "Most" nobody went out theri an counted opinions. This "most" Eurocentric ideology has come up in this article b4 and it was agreed to show balance. It is well know that figure of 12 million is properly debated by MOST African scholars such as Zuberi, Asante etc. So to say SOME is in keeping with wiki policy on showing bias by using terms such as "Most Historians agree", or "It is accepted that..."--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS that dispute the figure of 9.4 and 12 million, please bring them. In the meantime, "most" is appropriate because the sources aren't individual historians but descriptions of what multiple historians believe. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

THe burden is on you to justify the weasle word usage. Who are these "multiply historians" no one can say what MOst historicans think about a disputed figure. Most people think the sky is blue is okay but most should never be used in a debataly situation. See policy. If it is most then show that it is most? One website cannot suggest the opinion of Most historians. Where is the list of these historians, or do White historians have a louder voice than the black ones? Until then respect the editors who edit these pages. Weasel words reflect bias an it is easy to avoid using them.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To save time here is a copy of wiki policy: Weasel words can present an apparent force of authority seemingly supporting statements without allowing the reader to decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable, or they can call into question a statement. If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to find sources that agree that these numbers are the scholarly consensus. For instance: "the most recent aggregate estimates of the volume and geographic distribution of the transatlantic slave trade, however, have largely confirmed Curtin's 1969 census. David Eltis' estimate that 9,468,000 enslaved Africans arrived in the Americans during the era of the transatlantic slace trade increases Curtin's totals by only 1 percent." James A. Rawley The transatlantic slave trade: a history, 2005. pg. 15 - SimonP (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What i have issue with since years of working here is this view that White Historians make up "concensus" on Africa. Or the authoritative voice. The bulk of Black historians just are not seen as "real" historians. Curtain work is the subject of great debate. Most people today copy and paste this one set of research, so a bad copy of misinformation doesnt get better with time. Whatever the truth weasle words r best avoided Agreed? Zuberi is heavily critical of curtin. In a nutshell Zuberi argues that he unduly has the dominant voice in history and Afrocentric challenges to these numbers r ignored. Naturally curtin and other White scholars wants to keep the number as low as possible. or is this an imagination that Fage, Curtin et al historically wash out Africa? Now forget Yotube but this is Zuberis position Zuberi on Curtin --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no "weasel words" in the lede. Please read footnote 7 carefully: "It is now estimated that 11,863,000 slaves were shipped across the Atlantic. [Note in original: Paul E. Lovejoy, "The Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade on Africa: A Review of the Literature", in Journal of African History 30 (1989), p. 368.]" A Review of the Literature—that means Lovejoy reviewed the scholarly papers concerning the Atlantic slave trade and found, based on that review, that approximately 12 million people were shipped. Hence the word "most" isn't a weasel word, it's an accurate description of what the source says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and not Journal of African History which i cannot edit or present. it is one source which is saying MOST, so does that make it true. I will now add, however Most African historians put the figure much higher and cite Asante "History Of Africa" you uncivil attitude is against the policy of Wikipedia. How can you put the opinion of one source as the slant of a wikipedia article. My argument stands that saying MOST introduces a false bias because anyone can say MOST. It is better for NPOV to avoid using Most or words which give false authority 2 statements. follow policy and use the talk page --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing from pride is not productive. I actually made it better by saying Contemporary historians, So there is no need for MOST. But as oppose 2 looking at my compromise the the editor calling himself Malik (?) reverted. disregarding my compromise.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a compromise unless all parties agree to it. Based on Hugh Thomas' analysis of the numbers and sources in an appendix to "The Slave Trade", I am very comfortable with the 11,000,000 estimate. Rather than quibbling over the word "most", how about presenting some SOURCED (i.e. work and page number) alternatives from reliable sources that should possibly be added to the article. There is no reason why the section under debate cannot be expanded to present other numbers (providing they are properly sourced). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular view on what the figure should be. This is a question of what is WP:RS, or in this case the most reliable source. This is not about the majority of historians, but the most reliable view. If there is a current academic conflict, but best solution is to quote both views and comment on their strength. I have little doubt that Journal of African History is a peer-reviewed journal. Accordingly, views published in this are likely to be based on the latest research, and to be robust. However, what appears in a "review of literature" is likely merely to reflect that a view has been published elsewhere: it would be necessary to assess the merits of the matter reviewed. It is important that a precise citation is given for all figures quoted are, and older views should not be given priority over newer revisionist research, which will usually have considered and rejected (for reasons) the older views. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lovejoy article does evaluate the various claims and draw an independent conclusion. Thomas does so to a much lesser extent. They both find that the numbers estimated in the studies they examined fall between 9 and 12 million. The YouTube talk referenced above throws out a number between 25 million and 100 million. If these numbers have actually made it to scholarly peer reviewed journal articles or books, then they probably should be included in the article. From what I could find on JSTOR regarding Zuberi, it does not appear that he has managed to put his opinions with hard numbers in publication. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

YouTube can hardly be regarded as WP:RS, (potentially) much more in the nature of WP:OR, probably the result of hyperbole (or plain exaggeration), which is unfortunately all to prevalent when journalists are involved. This is a subject on which there has been a great deal of scholarly research, and an article as well developed as this one should not allow the introduction of non-scholarly sources, however attractive. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1772

Some one else has just reverted the following:

From the 1770s onwards the West Indies were becoming less important to Britain, Cuba and Brazil could produce cheaper sugar. Many plantations in the West Indies were closed down. The demand for slaves fell. For example, in 1771 Barbados imported 2728 slaves, but in 1772 none were imported.

Lest this "fact" reappear, I think I should explain why the logic is false: the outbreak of the American War of Independence cut of a source of food for slaves in the West Indies. The result was a famine in which slaves were left starving. In consequence, plantation owners did not want to add to the number of mouths that they were having difficulty feeding. This had a knock-on effect in British trade on manufactured goods: not only was trade to the Continental Colonies cut off, but also to Africa (from which fewer slaves were exported) and the West Indies where planters who could not adequately fed their slaves could not afford British manufactures: see my article 'Production and Consumption of iron' in Economic History Review LVIII(1) (Feb. 2005). This will be a short term effect while the war lasted. It may well apply to other parts of the West Indies, such as Cuba, if they were also importing agricultural products from New England. Incidentally, this is an example of triangular trade, as the New England ships may somethimes have carried sugar to England and English manufactures to their home colony. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The American Revolution started in 1775. How could it have caused the number of slaves imported by Barbados to drop to zero in 1772? Pirate Dan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"This will be a short term effect while the war lasted. It may well apply to other parts of the West Indies, such as Cuba, if they were also importing agricultural products from New England." No. Spain prohibited its colonies from trading with anyone but the Spanish empire; to the extent Cuba etc might have needed to import food it came from the Central/South American mainland.Solicitr (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Five percent - 'Used to have a little, now I have a lot'

There is a rather sparce edit in 'effect on the economy of europe' that purports (without producing any figures) to show that the slave trade/slavery produced 'only' 5% of Britain's economy in the period of the industrial revolution. The intention is to suggest that the slave/trade was not really very significant, and so couldn't have affected the industrial revolution. This argument is nonsense.

The slightest knowledge of economics demonstrates that 'only' is not the proper term here. 5% is a gigantic amount of any economy. Let's take Britain today, for example. According to the google public data page, [1] Britain's current (2008) gdp is $2.67 Trillion (with trillion meaning a million million) Google's data comes from the world bank [2]. Five percent of this amounts to $133 billion. Only the foolish would argue that this is an 'insignificant' figure. According to Wikipedia [3] Britain's exports amount to $351 billion and imports are $473. If the 5% figure were applied to today's economy, that would mean that slave-labour/slave trading would have amounted to more than one-third of the income from total exports. Or conversely, that slave-labour/slavery would have equaled more than one quarter of the value of total imports. According to the the economist David Smith, [4] the UK private sector (the capitalist bit) amounted to $700 billion in 2009. If we apply the magic 'only' five percent figure ($133) then this would mean that income from slave-trade/slavery amounted to about 20% of all capitalist income!

The 'only' 5% ruse is simply a ploy in an attempt to pretend that slave-trade/slavery were not important, non-events, insignificant, etc. One fervently hopes that the motivation behind this ruse is not pure racism.

My contention is that, even if slave-trade/slavery amounted to only 1% of gdp (let's say, 26 billion every year for one hundred years), that would be more than enough to finance quite a few industrial start ups. Therefore, it remains entirely correct to say that slavery and the slave trade were a significant factor in the financing and economics of the industrial revolution (did anybody say the word 'cotton'?). Ackees (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FALSE GENERALISATIONS AND FAILURE TO MENTION PRE-EXISTING EUROPEAN AND ASIAN SLAVE TRADES

It is standard practice for those who want to minimize and justify the Christian organisation of slave labour camps and forced deportations to say that 'slavery existed in africa before europeans came'. What such weasle words neglect is that slavery existed in Europe and Asia and the Americas too.

In fact, clearly, if the enslavement of Africans was considered 'legitimate' by Christians, then they must have been a) familiar with the concept and 'b) accepted its legitimacy. Furthermore, in order for Europeans to have introduced slavery into the Americas, then (obviously) it must have already been legitimate there too.

To claim simplistically that 'African' states traded with 'Arab' states in slaves is a mischievous generalization. Some African states (not all) traded with some Arabic-speaking states. Many African states had very little (or no) contact with Arabic-speaking regions - for example, Kongo. However, as many of these Arabic-speaking states were in fact African themselves, then it is false to suggest that 'Africans' traded with 'Arabs'. We cannot accept a false dichotomy between African and Arab. Furthermore, it is also false to claim a simple dichotomy between 'European' and 'Arab' as in addition to the Arabic-speaking maghreb, there was also muslim Iberia. Ackees (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Have removed some false generalisations and useless citations. In the demographics section there was a POV statement that Thornton disagreed with Rodney's view of a demographic collapse because African traders 'let Europeans into the market'. The question of whether Europeans had permission to trade or not is a tangental issue to the question of whether there was a demographic collapse. Therefore both the POV and the inadequate citation (no page numbers, etc) were removed.

In a similar vein, the POV statement that Eltis compared numbers to European emmigration is irrelevant to the question of the demographics of Africa and no reason has been offered as what is the relevance of this comparison. Furthermore the Eltis reference was inadequate in that there was no page number or other information either. There is no evidence of the accusation of 'mischaracterization' either. This would require an actual citation.

The phrase ' J. D. Fage compared the number effect on the continent as a whole.' is completely meaningless. What is 'the number effect' - does that phrase have a meaning? 'Compared' to what? Where is the citation for this meaningless non-comparison between non-comparators. If editors want this article to be improved, we could make a start by removing silly POV edits that serve no purpose other than to push the POV that 'nothing really happened'.Ackees (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CORRECT USE OF REFERENCES

Joren failed to correctly read the reference [5] in the first sentence of the 'Origins' section.

Here is Joren's quote on my talk page: "In your edit here: [6] you added that slavery existed in other regions of the world as well. However, the source [7] doesn't say that - readers would be left with the false conclusion that the Britannica article mentions pre-existing slavery in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. Maybe it should have! But it didn't, so we can't change that statement without providing a new source. If you want to make the change, the best way to do it would be to say something like this: etc..."

But if Joren had actually read the Britannica source[8] they'd have seen that the very first sentence is, "The first known major slave society was that of Athens." (That's Athens in Greece, Europe, although, to be fair to Jorens, the whereabouts of Athens isn't stated explicitly).

The Britannica source goes on to give readers the perfectly correct conclusion that it 'mentions pre-existing slavery in Europe and Asia'. It talks about slavery in England's Domesday book, slavery amongst the Tartars and the Chinese, Iraq, Rome, etc, etc. I'm not quite sure why Joren didn't read the Britannia article[9]. Or maybe Jorens genuinely isn't aware that England, Rome, Iraq and China are in Europe and Asia, not Africa. But, Jorens, then took the opportunity of writing a long-winded and patronizing tome about how to use sources and references (although I confess, I couldn't be bothered to read it all) [10]. Obviously, I'd appreciate an apology on my talk page, along with the apologetic removal of all the patronizing remarks.

Finally, with regard to Joren's claim that, "I didn't write the article"[11]: sorry Joren, but we really have to take responsibility for our edits. If you either make or revert an edit, then you are responsible for the text you've inserted, deleted or allowed to stand. Of course, this doesn't mean that you personally 'own' the article, or wikipedia. It just means that 'you' the editor who tapped those keys and clicked that mouse, are responsible for 'your' contribution. Trying to evade responsibility by claiming you didn't write it won't wash. If you click on the 'View History' tab at the top of the article, you'll find that there's a record of all the editors who've contributed - even the robots!

Anyway, looking forward to reading Joren's fulsome apology.Ackees (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground. We are here to improve the article, and hopefully improve each other along the way. Whatever you may believe about what I've done, please at least note that in every case I have tried to adopt a friendly demeanor towards you at all times, and I will continue to do so. We're not here to "expose" each other. There's an old expression, "play the ball, not the man." If people make mistakes, quite simply and clearly point out what they were. There's no need to turn it into a personal battle; they're not really that fulfilling.

For what it's worth, somehow my browser (or, quite possibly, my brain) was tricked into reading a different Britannica article. I remember being quite diligent, reading it thoroughly, and searching for key words in case I'd missed anything, and being surprised that, while covering the Atlantic slave trade, the article I was reading didn't talk about pre-existing slave societies. So I will gladly apologize for that :)

For those new to the discussion, I would encourage you to read Ackees' talk page to get the full scoop. If you believe I was being patronizing, you are certainly welcome to correct me and offer better phrasing that I could have used. Of course, with the caveat that since I'd been reading the wrong article all along, that would be a contributing factor :-P anyway, my motivation was to improve the article, and I certainly appreciate removing the blinder that prevented me from seeing that particular statement did have a source after all.

-- Joren (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Joren, you wrote: "We're not hear to "expose" each other". Once again, this is a failure of comprehension on your part. Actually, Wikipedia is a public forum. Exposure is precisely what it is all about. The question is: expose what, and to whom?

Here's a hypothesis for you to chew on. There is the distinct possibility that white-nationalist editors (usually middle-class males), with too much time on their hands (and a big chip on their shoulder) troll around wiki articles about Africa, African people and African history. Like their slavery-justifying and abolitionist predecessors in the 18th-century, their mission is, 'protect the reputation of the white man at all costs'. So, they spend every effort trying to minimize Euro/American atrocities during the slavery and colonial period. In tandem to that, they constantly seek to implicate Africans in these Euro-American atrocities, or else cite as many inter-African atrocities as possible in the hope that this will somehow make them feel better about themselves. (Of course, their desire to feel better about themselves is understandable, when you consider that these guys have nothing better to do with their time than troll Africa-related wikis).

So, if a neutral editor comes along and (for example) pointed out the perfectly relevant fact that, actually slavery was not an exclusively African phenomena, but a pre-Columbian global phenomena, then the typical white-nationalist editor would launch a flurry of a) invective b) patronizing remarks c) dodgy references. Their aim being, to restore their world to what they see as its rightful symbolic order i.e. - white = good, black = bad. Of course, being trolls, these guys are very pedantic about 'THE RULES' so they will do their best to carry out their edit warring in a passive aggressive fashion, dissimulating and smiling as they go. My hypothesis is that it could be a bit like Blair and Bush, who only ripped people's bodies apart to help them to have better lives.

Now I know you're probably not one of those hypothetical white-nationalist editors Joren, because I always assume good faith. I'm finding it hard to accept your apologies though, because they are full of caveats and hypotheses. It is not a case of 'if' your remarks were patronizing. It is a case of you recognizing that, for you to make a series of absolutely fundamental editing mistakes; then remove another editor's correct edits; and then write hundreds of words on their talk page lecturing them about wikipedia's policies is unequivocally patronizing. And don't expect me to cite a wiki rule to prove it.

White nationalist states united to deny the human and civil rights of millions of black individuals for hundreds of years in the most appalling circumstances - citing 'religion', 'tradition' 'self-interest' and then 'race' as their justifications. When for various reasons, not least the unstinting resistance of the enslaved and colonised, the white nationalist states were forced to retreat from slavery, apartheid, segregation and colonialism, did they offer any kind of unequivocal apology, did they offer any recompense? No. They made their pathetic 'gone with the wind' excuses and tried to justify their behaviour.

Is there a connection between the editing of the 'Atlantic Slave Trade' article and the psychology and behavior of white nationalist states? Who knows, eh? But I think I'd have preferred it if your apology had been unequivocal rather than a series of self-justifications. Ackees (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but in reverse it's been tempting to have a similar impression of you, that you had a chip on your shoulder and a vision of the world as it should be and wanted to set everything "right", whatever "right" may be. I honestly believe most editors on Wikipedia are tempted to have that impression of "the other editors", because we're all mysteries talking to each other from behind computer screens, so we have to work against that impression. I can see you've had a lot of experience dealing with these white nationalist trolls you've been talking about, and I can understand how that would set anyone on edge. I really am pretty ignorant about white supremacism, symbolism, etc, but I can assure you if we get a white supremacist troll and I'm still watching this article, I'll be doing the exact same thing, asking for sources, undoing parts of edits that appear to fail policy, and also trying to talk to the person personally. Heck, maybe they'll feel condescended too as well (I hope not).

I won't pretend to know what your motives are (and I thank you for your stated desire not to assume mine), but I've also seen a fair number of trolls, and I can understand how over time it can cause one to see false positives where there isn't any mal-intent. It happens to me too. Your edits were not entirely correct, ok? We all make mistakes. So I felt like, rather than leaving an impersonal boiler-plate template, I should take the time to write you personally and talk about original research. And thank you, by the way, for not adding unreferenced new material. I noticed your editing style seems to be changing, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your removing some of the unsourced POV. I remember being a newbie, and being frustrated by boiler-plate warning templates, and wishing people would be specific about what they were talking about. So... I try to invest time and write personally and be specific when I can in the hopes that others don't have to experience that frustration. We all have different ideas about what feels condescending, and unfortunately, ours seem to be at odds :-) Apparently, we have different communication styles, and we're just gonna have to work through that. In the meantime, again, I hope we can continue working to improve this article.

-- Joren (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And furthemore, I've just seen your demand for a citation about timber, construction etc. (cur | prev) 06:30, 14 August 2010 Joren (talk | contribs) (70,439 bytes) (Since you added "the construction industry, timber, and shipping", that'll need a citation too to distinguish from Hugh Thomas "The Slave Trade", which is the original cited work) (undo)

Joren, do you think it would help your cause if you actually read some of the sources and references you're getting so animated about? If you, for example, had read Hugh Thomas's book, you'd know perfectly well that the citation adequately covers the additions. I'd hate to ever feel as though I'm working on an article with somebody who knows nothing about the subject at hand, has no scholarly interest in it and just makes random edits and provocative remarks in order to spark a bit of debate and controversy. But, luckily, this is wikipedia, so my feelings are irrelevant - we'll just have to go by the reams of evidence...Ackees (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem we all face on Wikipedia; not everyone has access to these books, so we have to make sure statements that were sourced by someone else still reflect that work. Your edit summary said "added industries", so I didn't know if you were aware that the citation existed. Sometimes people add things to statements without realizing that there is a source attached to it. All you needed to do was say in your edit summary that Hugh also talks about these things. If you've read the book, and you can affirm that it says these things, then that is good enough for me.

-- Joren (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am rather concerned at Ackees's POV in trying to imply that every one even remotely connected with slavery was guilty of the wirst of evils. Slavery was (indeed is) an evil institution, though not necessarily equally bad in all places. Britannica is an encyclopaedia. While it is WP:RS is certainbly not the best source. As an encyclopaedia, it is a derivative source, based on directly or indirectly on academic books and articles. As WP progresses, it should tend to be built directly on the best secondary sources. I am thus sorry to see arguments over what Britannica does or dies not say. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Britannica thing was my fault. It turned out I'd read the wrong Britannica article and not realized it. But, I do agree it would be good to have better sources. And page numbers! If you would like to help, by all means...this article needs it.

-- Joren (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peterkingiron,

I realise that your remark about people 'even remotely connected with slavery was guilty of the wirst [sic] of evils' is based on your concern for the reputation of Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital in London, and a man who made much of his fortune investing in a slave-trading company. I've looked through the article, and our discussion there. I didn't mention 'evil' or indeed make any judgments about Guy's character. In fact, it was you who talked of 'horror'. My irritation is rather at those editors who, feeling a personal investment in this or that 'white' nation or individual, attempt to cover up, disavow or in other ways minimize various unsavory activities and even atrocities against African or other colonized/enslaved people. I suspect that very few, if any, of the hundreds of edits I've made to wikipedia have ever included the word 'evil'. Sometimes, Peter, we have to grow up and realize that despite their excellent manners in front of the kids, in reality, mummy was a drunken whore and daddy was violent womanizer. This is also true of citizens of nations, and is why the anti-slavery advocate, Johnson described patriotism as 'the last refuge of the scoundrel'.Ackees (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Joren,

It's nice that you have such concern for newbies, but, as with other matters we've discussed, perhaps that's the kind of thing you could research (i.e. ask, rather than assume) before you decide to post on somebody's talk page. Anyway, I hope that you can muster up enough enthusiasm for this subject to start researching and writing about it from a neutral point of view! Ackees (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

List of nations

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)

Maybe, Joren, maybe. But, if you genuinely 'agree' that this list is 'kind of odd', then why are you reviving, emphasizing and representing it on the talk page? And why are you asking if it is 'useful'? After all, if anybody wanted to revive the imbalanced, anti-African list, they could have just got it from the article history log. Do you think that using the talk page to represent imbalanced, white-nationalist point-of-view information might be interpreted as a cowardly form of edit-warring? Probably not, as I'm sure cowardly, passive-aggressive, white-nationalist edit-warring just isn't your style:) Ackees (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are assuming good faith, then why do you talk about what you're "not" accusing me of?

-- Joren (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As it stands this list should be intigrated into the article. It shows the distribution of the Atlantic slave trade states whcih I believe to be an important point. Many forget that Western Africa was not a contributer to the Atlantic slave trade but instead to a seperate Western slave trade. A full list of receivers would be helpfull as well.--130.63.102.218 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a vast one. Including the list will probably unbalance the article, as would a list of European countries involved. However, we might have a sub-article List of African counties engaged in Atlantic slave trade. Perhaps there should be a similar European list, but any list (to be useful) needs to add something so that it is more than a mere list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

African/European Involvement

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 is clearly the case that Europeans had the ships and coastal Afrcian tribes supplied the slaves, so that both were heavily involved. However, that does not mean that every person who invested in the South Sea Company should be classified as a slave trader, if they were not directly involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 5 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)

dutch in the atlantic slave trade

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 doubt it was the Dutch who enslaved them, but coastal African chiefs who captured opponents in war and enslaved them. As the greatest European trading nation, the Dutch were certainly heavily involved. I leave the question of who was first to experts. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In August 1619 a Dutch ship brought the first Africans to English North America, at Jamestown. Solicitr (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of some 34,948 slave voyages chronicled on the slavevoyages.org website, 1,241 were in Dutch-flagged vessels. The Dutch lost their larger colonies in the New World fairly early on, as Portugal recaptured northern Brazil and Britain took New Netherland (modern New York), leaving the Dutch only with Suriname and tiny islands like Curacao and Aruba, not enough to produce a large demand for slave labor. The Dutch were definitely not the first to participate in the Atlantic slave trade; that dishonor falls to the Portuguese in the 15th century, before the Netherlands even became independent. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's to BLAME?

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)

That is purely a matter of opinion. The question is incapable of having a single encyclopaedic answer, and cannot properly be dealt with in this article. It might possibly be dealt with in a sub-article concerned with the Historiography of blame in the Atlantic slave trade, but count me out of contributing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:08, 15 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)

Be Careful

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 would second that. This article has been subject to frequent changes, some of which are the result of WP:POV-pushing. Now that every one condemns slave-trading, achieving a WP:NPOV is not easy. Equally, indirect involvement in the trade should not be used to tar people indscriminately. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perspective?

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)

Checkout the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#. This may answer your question, and have the data you note.(Dumarest (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

I understand. But there is no crosstalk or cross-reference, nor overlap text as is often found on Wiki in related articles For example, the section "human toll" creates the impression that the Atlantic trade, solely was responsible for various social and economic ills in Africa.--Solicitr (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I understand the concern about that... but we have to be careful to stay on topic, since this article is about the Atlantic slave trade specifically. If we give each slave trade it's own section, we'll end up with African slave trade, which has already done that. Without diminishing that need to stay on-topic, I agree it would be nice to have more cross-linked information... perhaps like a table comparing the human cost of the different slave trades, or notes about how the trades inter-related, etc...

...as to the "Human toll" section, what would you change? How would you propose cross-linking the trades?

-- Joren (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice how you can almost guess the race of the author by his/her objections. I fail to see how we need to compare considering the Atlantic Slave trade is so great, so long, so unique to history. And even what we have here doesnt do justice to it, we need to add more content on how horrible it was not fork out into what some Arabs did. Comparing pears and Porsche doesn't make sense. Especially when I fear the motive is to try and defocus what Europe did, has been doing, to African people. Go and try this on the Holocaust page and see real fireworks.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'm skeptical on the need for a change in the article's emphasis, I'd still like the chance to hear what Solicitr has to say without poisoning the well. Thanks for your understanding,

-- Joren (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this page just focusing on the Atlantic trade. The African slave trade article gives an overview of the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Saharan, and internal slave trades. Halaqah is wrong when he calls the Atlantic trade "so great, so long, so unique to history." The Arab slave trade lasted longer and involved more people. - SimonP (talk) 14:29, 19 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)

Ok, so... let's make this about the article, not the other editors. Now, before we can do anything, we need sources; otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. The section as it stands is sourced - it would help if we could verify the sources to see if they are really asserting that the Atlantic slave trade was the sole cause of all this, or the major portion, or a contributing factor, etc. We do have to follow the sources, so we can:

1. Verify the article accurately reflects the sources' conclusions
2. See if there are any other notable conclusions or perspectives drawn from verifiable, reliable sources not yet in this article.

Do you have any sources that can be used to supplement this article?

-- Joren (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the easiest and quickest would be a brief, brief paraphrase with cites of text borrowed from Arab Slave Trade. Quicker, anyway, than a trip to the library. Solicitr (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you wanting to paraphrase exactly? If you have a draft in mind, feel free to post it here and we can work on it... I did notice straight away that the top of Arab slave trade#Scope of the trade gives (or tries to give) a numbers comparison versus the Atlantic slave trade to place it in context. Perhaps we could do something similar.

I also did some poking around at #1. It seems that at least a couple (that I checked) of the sources being used here already place the Atlantic slave trade in the larger context of the African slave trade in general, but that the article was not using them that way, so that could be adjusted to better reflect the conclusion the source is drawing.

-- Joren (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am struggling to find out how an Arab slave trade with no confirmed agreed upon numbers (i mean no one can say either way - NO RECORDS) can be "greater" than the European trade in Africans. Longer doesnt mean greater. Look how short the British ruled the world and the impact that short rule created. (hence we are speaking English). I mean lets take a look at the two. Where are all of these Africans that went to Arabia? Cuz we see All the Africans that went to America - in prison. We have a page for Arabs we have one for Europeans and we have a white washed one for Jewish involvement (which reads like an ADL denial statement). Let this page speak about the subject without trying to balance it against something non-related. The best we should do here is stop pretending we are "just editors" clearly everyone has some agenda to defend.See the tone in the section below this. Had I made those remarks I would be up for review. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

we have a white washed one for Jewish involvement (which reads like an ADL denial statement). Yes, there are certainly political agendas at work here.

The fact of the matter, if everyone would step back and get some, yes, perspective, is that for 10,000 years of human history slavery has been the norm and not the exception. Even in those societies where full chattel slavery wasn't practiced, there was some form of unfree servitude (serfdom in medieval Europe and East Asia, untouchables in India). The move by Europeans from the 19th century first to abjure slavery and then abolish it elsewhere is an historical anomaly, and it's absurd to start pointing fingers at this, that or the other slaveowning society as uniquely or exceptionally guilty. --Solicitr (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2011 (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)

blaming entire nations?

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 think it is worth pointing out that the purchasing and owning of a slave, let alone many slaves, would be akin to a contemporary man or woman owning a modern, very high priced luxury item. In other worlds, you had to be quite wealthy to be a slave owner, and as we know, "quite wealthy" has always been the lowest number bracket in a population. Many white Europeans and Americans were simply too poor to afford slaves. Sadly, someone will probably try to tear this comment apart because they will construe it as diminishing the evils of slavery, if trends hold true...

Jews in the netherlands

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)

And I removed it because you did not include a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:07, 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)

Information in the lead of an article is supposed to be a summary of the material included in THIS ARTICLE, not some other article -- see WP:LEAD. This article has nothing in it about Jewish domination of the Dutch slave trade and even the article you refer to indicates that Jewish influence was limited to a very short period of time. I have also reverted this. Please stop edit warring and reach agreement on this discussion page before adding the material back to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:33, 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)

As Tom wrote, please see WP:LEAD. Also, please see WP:Reliable sources. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:08, 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)

If there are reliable sources there, you need to cite them here. You can't cite another Wikipedia article as a source.

And I don't respond to threats, you antisemitic son-of-a-bitch. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:30, 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)

Contrary to your claim earlier, the Dutch as slave traders are mentioned in the body of the article although there are no references to the Jewish influence in that trade. As at least three editors have told you, simply referencing another wikipedia article does not replace the need for reliable sources IN THIS ARTICLE. Further, the other article that you keep referring to does not support the broad claims that you want to make in this article.

I suggest if you are actually interested in arguing your case that you start discussing specific sources and specific language that those sources support. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:11, 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.

be aware that you do not WP:SYN take content and statements from multiple sources and put them together to make or imply a conclusion that none of the sources actually makes on its own. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for verification

'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)

"In the spring 1778 session Virginia became one of the first governments in the modern world to abolish the slave trade. The bill, which in all likelihood Jefferson composed although the evidence is not conclusive..." says The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783 by John E. Selby, Don Higginbotham online at google. Julian Boyd (the editor of the Jefferson Papers) also conclude TJ wrote the law--as Gordon Wood says, "There is no direct evidence that Jefferson was its author. But as Julian P. Boyd points out, the spirit and language of the bill were very characteristic of Jefferson and reflected his position toward the slave trade." [Wood, Russian-American dialogue on the American Revolution p 160] Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WP relate, very related

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)

Dutch Jews

User:Toddsmith199 added the word Jews to the following sentence:

The shippers were, in order of scale, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch Jews, and Americans.

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:

"the only places where Jews really came close to dominating the New World plantation system were the Dutch colonies of Curaçao and Surinam.... but the Dutch territories were small, and their importance shortlived."

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)

So why not just add what the sources say as oppose to deleting the entire content??? I could never understand this hyper sensitivity whenever Jew and slavery is mentioned and the policy across wiki to do damage control. It is an issue on the rise. is this reliable "Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. So the only issue is one word "dominated".--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The source indicates that "the shippers were, in order of scale, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and Americans". Nothing about Jews. Do you have something constructive to contribute, or are you just here to link to rense.com? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please observe wiki civil policy and refrain from commenting on my "constructiveness"- . Rense is a source that supports Toddsmith which came back from a basic google search (as if i have to explain why i post a link). I am however pretty certain that it will not be difficult for a source that supports this. And the content will not be so easily arbitrarily deleted if he comes back with a reliable source. That is his project so i wish him success in developing this article.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All of a sudden

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)

I didn't question him, I questioned the website (http://www.africanholocaust.net/) that is being used as a source. I can't find Nehusi's name anywhere on the site, but every instance of the word "Jew" is linked to http://www.jewishslavetrade.info/ To me, that says a lot about the site. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. See above issue with thornton. so that is your issue, what about the actual page in the link which talks about slavery. I dont care about Jews when we are discussing this topic (U cant sensor the world because a site has links you dont like, whats that about?). How many bad comments on Muslims in this page, and what I call Anti-Islamic sentiments. For years this site was here, I also see a link to Arab to Arab slave trade (which doesn't make it unreliable) | (not one single objection). Plus it is sympathetic to the Jewish Holocaust. In any event I am really interested in any dubious, crappy, bad scholarship specifically on that particular page in question. Nehusi is also in the video right next to the comment. I actually moved the remark from later down in the article. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My chief issue, aside from the site's antisemitism, is that we don't know who wrote the website, except you say it was Kimani Nehusi. I trust you and all, but it would be nice if the website actually had Nehusi's name somewhere on it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I will delete it in the interest of peace. And I agree it would be better if his name was stated overtly. But I passionately disagree with the charge of antisemitism, I have just browsed it and while it is certainly hostile to Israel (No escaping that and it doesnt even attempt to) it is very very respectful to Jewish people. I got the impression it was making the case that Jews by virtue of being Jews cannot be attacked for slavery. "To suggest a specific relationship between Jews and Slavery is problematic, "--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)