Talk:Atlantic slave trade

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ttipton20 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Annabellecrtrt.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Under "Background" then "European slavery in Portugal and Spain" the first sentence is "By the 15th century, slavery had existed in the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Spain) of Western Europe throughout recorded history." This sentence contradicts itself and also has no source to verify which is correct. Wikipesepi (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I made a slight clarification, but this is sourced, it as it's dealing with the Atlantic slave trade, it makes sense to mention that in the 15th century slavery was already present in those areas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Catholic Church

@Moses Blomstein: There are lots of academic historians who wrote about the Atlantic slave trade. An analysis of the role of the Catholic, Anglican and other churches in supporting the trade is of course desirable, but it should be based on an academic work or at least on a summary by some paper that regularly features good historical summaries. The author of your Amsterdam News source doesn't even know that the Netherlands were one of the leading Protestants powers of those days. Please read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD before restoring your version again. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all the source from the Amsterdam website refers not only to Catholic countries but even to countries with heavy catholic influence such as England and the Netherlands. Second there were different sources cited within the Amsterdam newspaper such as Jonathan Chism at the University of Houston, and even an admission by Georgetown University for their role in the slave trade.Moses Blomstein (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We have two different problems now: The first one is that you are edit warring, see WP:WAR. The other one is the content problem. While I have to retract the word "obscure", I still have my doubts regarding the reliability of the source. Talking about heavy Catholic influence in the Netherlands seems unconnected to the historical reality. But its character as a summary of many centuries is what really disqualifies it in my eyes. Also, the claims The transatlantic slave trade was founded on Christianity and the Catholic Church was the backbone of the Atlantic slave trade are quite extraordinary, they have to be supported by extraordinarily good sources (see WP:REDFLAG). There are a lot of rules here on Wikipedia that can make it quite difficult to add things to an article, but those rules are designed to make WP a quality encyclopedia. So, please don't let those rules discourage you. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's go over your 2 statements:

"But its character as a summary of many centuries is what really disqualifies it in my eyes.

Wikipedia is based off of facts not about what something is to "your eyes".

"Also, the claims The transatlantic slave trade was founded on Christianity and the Catholic Church was the backbone of the Atlantic slave trade are quite extraordinary, they have to be supported by extraordinarily good sources (see WP:REDFLAG)."

The involvement of Christianity and the Catholic Church in the Atlantic Slave is backed up by mainstream sources, documented quotes from the trade and analyses from the academic professors. So it cannot be considered an "extraordinary claim".Moses Blomstein (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WP is based on WP:RS. Nobody denies the involvement of Christians (not "Christianity") and the Catholic Church. But your claims are going much further. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Moses Blomstein, for ease of discussion, could you put a draft of your proposed addition, complete with sources, here on the talk page? It would make reviewing and discussing much easier. Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, Here is my proposed draft addition, "The transatlantic slave trade was founded on Christianity. According to historians, the Catholic Church was the backbone of the Atlantic slave trade and that most slave traders and slave captains were 'very good Christians'. Dr. Jonathan Chism, an assistant professor of history at the University of Houston has said that, "Persons who considered themselves to be Christian played a major role in upholding and justifying the enslavement of Africans." In a book by Katherine Gerbner titled, "Christian Slavery: Conversion and race in the Protestant Atlantic World", she traces the transition over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries of "Protestant Supremacy", in which Protestant Christian planters claimed Christian identity for themselves while denying it to African slaves to one of "Christian Slavery", which "reconciled Protestantism with bondage" and promoted the conversion of enslaved people. Christian Slavery also mentions that the Church was at the center of England's 17th century overseas, countering assessments of English imperialism which place religion in a secondary role." Moses Blomstein (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A question for Moses Blomstein: have you read the article by Katie Cannon in full, or are you just going by the preview viewable on JSTOR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning "one book" and highlighting it is giving it undue weight. a WP article should summarize most available sources- not highlight favorites. So I would say remove that whole sentence- or (if it is decided it should stay in at all) change it to read "From the 17th to 18th centuries, there was a transition from "Protestant Supremacy", in which Protestant Christian planters claimed Christian identity for themselves while denying it to African slaves to one of "Christian Slavery", which "reconciled Protestantism with bondage" and promoted the conversion of enslaved people. The Church was at the center of England's 17th century overseas, countering assessments of English imperialism which place religion in a secondary role." However- I agree that more than 1 (semi-questionable) source is needed to insert these rather extreme sentences into the article. While you are correct- many many historians have discussed the role of Christianity in the slave trade- what you are claiming is that it was almost a conspiracy theory by the church itself to subjugate people. And maybe it was- but to say that as fact- you need a solid rock (pun intended) to build that argument on- so unquestionable sources and lots of them. However, there is absolutely room to further discuss the church and Christianity's role in the slave trade without outright making the claim that they were the driving force. And your sources could be used to increase this article's discussion of the role of the church- just be careful to not make giant claims built on flimsy sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a rephrased version: ""According to historians, the Catholic Church supported the Atlantic slave trade as well as stated that most slave traders and slave captains were 'very good Christians'. Dr. Jonathan Chism, an assistant professor of history at the University of Houston has said that, "Persons who considered themselves to be Christian played a major role in upholding and justifying the enslavement of Africans." Additionally, Katherine Gerbner has written in her book titled Christian Slavery that, From the 17th to 18th centuries, there was a transition from "Protestant Supremacy", in which Protestant Christian planters claimed Christian identity for themselves while denying it to African slaves to one of "Christian Slavery", which "reconciled Protestantism with bondage" and promoted the conversion of enslaved people. The Church was at the center of England's 17th century overseas, countering assessments of English imperialism which place religion in a secondary role."Moses Blomstein (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a major claim based on *ONE* newspaper article, a newswire piece from 2018. A claim like this cannot be referenced to a simple newspaper article. You would need reliable *Academic* sources referenced properly. The overall claim is also not articulated in correct and proper encyclopedic language. There is no place for such superficial, generic statements in Wikipedia, statements that are also not supported by reliable academic sources. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also- your suggested edit as written contains copyright infringement. The first sentence is lifted directly from the source with no quotations. You need to put in your own words or paraphrase. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually think the journal cite is pretty good, but we can't present it as a scholarly consensus based on that article alone. I am not even sure it alone represents a notable minority viewpoint. But if you can find more sources along these lines, you'd be wlel on your way to including the content in some form. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that the Cannon quote is relevant here. Cannon is a Christian theologian, not a historian. She writes for Christian readers advocating for a change in Christian spirituality based on the acknowledment of historic guilt. This is very well for a journal of Christian theology, but WP is no Christian encyclopedia, and so we cannot write something based on her article. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rsk6400 -- I would respectfully disagree here, to some small extent. While I don't think the quote (or source) belongs in the article devoid of context as a standalone, a theologian opining on the role of Christianity in history is, to me, a usable data point. Again, I am not saying it should go in now, but is along the lines of the kinds of sources we would need to include a claim of this kind. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I found more sources that further highlight the role of the Catholic Church and Christianity in the Slave Trade [[1]],[[2]]. What do you think about these? Cheers.Moses Blomstein (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Moses Blomstein, you might do well to do a little research into the distinction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, and where exactly Anglicanism stands within that divide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems like part of the problem here is that we have an editor who is seeking sources to support a statement or point of view that they very much want to see added to an article, however- this is a backwards approach for writing an article. Instead of finding sources to support your thesis- Editors on WP should write a thesis that supports the sources. Review as many available sources as possible and then write the article that they support. When you come up with your thesis and then start seeking sources that agree with it- you may find that the only sources that support your thesis are not as solid or strong as we like here. Again- I think there is a lot to be said about the role of Christianity and Christians in the slave trade..... but I think you would do better to go read all of the academic sources you can find that discuss that topic and then summarize what they say AFTER you have reviewed them. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, Nightenbelle. There's been some discussion of this so-called "backward editing," and while it's something I end up engaging in from time to time, you need to do so carefully and prepared to reach a different conclusion than the one with which you began. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Well said! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that backwards editing is always necessarily bad- but I do think it takes a very experienced editor to do it while also maintaining NPOV and also incorporating acceptable sources while not avoiding/ignoring contrary sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No mention of the Jews, which is odd. Especially odd since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moses_Blomstein brings up The Netherlands. I consider The Atlantic to be a respected reliable source, so one wonders what to do with this:

" Jewish citizens of the Netherlands were able to participate in domestic and foreign trade, including the slave trade on the coast of West Africa and in the Americas. These Jews, along with many Christian Dutch traders, supplied slaves not only to the Dutch colonial enterprises in Brazil and Surinam but also to Curaçao and other islands in the Antilles for transhipment to the New World colonies of other European nations. Ironically, Jews were therefore able to make major investments in landed enterprises--which in tropical America meant slave plantations--in Brazil and then Surinam." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/slavery-and-the-jews/376462/ Perhaps there should be a section on the participation of the Jews in The Atlantic Slave Trade article, perhaps not. 75.61.99.105 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References

A YouTube video as possible new entry in the section "External Links"

After viewing this excellent BBC documentary on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, I thought it worthwhile to suggest that it be added to the list of External Links treating on this important subject. Although the video is only one of many episodes, my view is that it encapsulates in its coverage of the African slave trade the essential points related to the trade.

• BBC News Africa, Slavery and Suffering - History Of Africa with Zeinab Badawi [Episode 16] on YouTube, BBC documentary / Oct. 2020

Enjoy!--Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Incompatible texts about born slaves in Africa

"In general, slavery in Africa was not heritable—that is, the children of slaves were free" 13 lines below: "first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers"

Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.St (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)