Talk:Jews and the slave trade

Conspiracy theory? What?

That part should be removed, this article is not discussing whether Jews dominated the slave trade, that could be a conspiracy theory, this article is simply talking about Jews being part of it for a long time, that's not a conspiracy theory that's a fact of life.

Slavery in the Ottoman empire

There is one major section missing, Jewish slave owning in the Ottoman Empire.

As chronicled in various reports and official ordinances, the acquisition of slaves was widespread in the upper-class Jewish community. Within this community, slavery was commonly limited to females who would be capable of performing household services, including sexual ones. Most of the Ottoman Turkish sources are silent about the particular duties of the slaves in the household, however the Hebrew sources shed light on the role of the slave in the Ottoman Jewish household. Before being allowed to work, the slave in a Jewish household had to be taught not only basic household skills but also the Jewish dietary laws of Kashrut, among other Jewish practices. These slaves needed to master the cultural skills of both the secular world and the Jewish world that they would find themselves immersed in. These questions addressed to in the form of response(rabbinic rulings) as well as other printed halachic works in which the Rabbis struggled to negotiate and find balance with the Halachic problems that arose from the practice of slavery with the practices of the society in which they lived.

To avoid Halachic issues some slaves were converted upon arrival into their Jewish household, however this was not as simple a solution as would be presumed. If the slave was converted, while she would be allowed to prepare food, she would not be allowed to perform tasks on Shabbat. As such it was often preferable for the slave to remain non-Jewish. However, a slave no converted would only be allowed to perform work at their own will on Shabbat. It was therefore necessary for the slave to know the details of Jewish law in order to perform their job in a manner that was most beneficial to the family. Yet, the issue that troubled the Rabbis most was that of the owners “right to sexual intercourse with the slave". This practice, which was common among Muslim slave owners, was understood by the Rabbi’s to be a societal norm that they did not have full dominion over; moreover it was an issue that Halacha and biblical stories spoke very differently about. The Rabbis understood that sexual relations with a slave could lead to various halachic infractions, including the breaking of laws of neida-the laws of menstrual separation- and the law against cohabitating with a non-Jewish woman. While they could not fully prevent sexual transgressions the Rabbis issued rulings that prescribe mild punishments in addition to making clear in their writings that the sin was a grave offense whose sentence would be decreed in Heaven. Abbrickman (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I've removed the material you added as it had no reliable sources by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, as jewish criteria is not the only one here on wikipedia. though perhaps on the israeli one, which is jewish. instead a non biased source can be used instead. or is there any specific reason in wp:RS where you find his sources incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Abbrickman has been blocked as a puppetmaster. RS is not the default. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that 109.225.100.148 is from Sweden, which is the most Judeophobic country in Europe after Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is 114 still allowed to edit this page?

calling Sweden a Judeophobic country, using words like "Neo nazi" in an edit page but if you go to his contributions you can see he is anti-Islam.

why is someone with such a clear and evident bias allowed any say here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone correct the first paragraph of this article?

This first paragragh needs to have to be correted. The part "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." is incorrect. The jewish population was already heavily involved in the enslavement of black africans before they were expelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

hm should there be upper or lower paragraph countering some statement in this article? so it does seem that jews where the majority of slave owners after all. the pro-jewish sources seems extremely unreliable in this case. they are not neccesary anti-non semetic/anti-non jewish/anti-gentile, but it does seems like they defend slavery and try to hide it. according to the Jewish writer and scholar Solomon Grayzel in “A History of the Jews” "Jews were among the most important slave dealers” in European society."

There should perhaps be some rabbi who, like christian priests, apologize for their role in the slave trade. is there any source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is just a Judeophobic lie. The truth is that Muslims were the biggest slave dealers, so the Nation of Islam has no one to blame but themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that it is a "Judeophobic lie" ?

because "A history of the Jews" by Solomon Grayzel is a real book.

your bias and personal investment in this issue is transparent and overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does the entire article start with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not convinced any of you should be doing this. Before the first paragraph is changed, let's see what people want it changed to. At the moment it seems ok, but the 2nd paragraph seems to violate WP:LEAD. There are 8 sections, and the Nation of Islam stuff is just a subection, yet has over 1/3 of the lead. That doesn't make much sense. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Nation of Islam's The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews even being cited in this article, never mind the lead? Are there any scholars that defend rather debunk that self-published work by a fringe group? The claim that it is somehow notable could also by used to coatrack in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (with a note that many scholars have debunked that too). If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be way down the article after all the serious stuff has been taken care of. AndroidCat (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello? I'd prefer to discuss this, rather than stepping on old sore toes. Why are some fringe of a fringe group's claims being used to coatrack a bunch of stuff into the lead of this article? AndroidCat (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this article, you'll see it was written originally to say that Jews were prominent in the salve trade. The text you're talking about is probably left over from then. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Title change

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

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

I can't see anywhere in your sources, that the word "conspiracy" is used. The article should be called what the majority of sources call the subject, and you haven't demonstrated that this is what they call it. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The desire to use the word "conspiracy theory" seems to be an attempt to assert up-front in the article title that there is no substance to the assertion that Jews were predominant or even a major factor in European/African slave trading. Without personally weighing in on whether the assertion is true or false, I'd like to point out that the standard phrase for indicating the falsehood of such an assertion is to use the term "antisemitic canard" so that the title of this article would be changed to "Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard)". Of course, it would help if the article would provide more sourced evidence that this is considered an antisemitic canard. It is not sufficient to make a bunch of assertions that Jews were only somewhat involved in the slave trade. We need to find reliable sources that specifically state that it is an antisemitic canard to assert that Jews were predominant or even significant in the slave trade. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't such a source, don't we then need a source that says Jews were predominant or significant in the slave trade? Otherwise, "Jews and the slave trade" isn't a topic, it's a google search. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but untrue. There are multiple reliable sources regarding jews and the slave trade, also named as such. See the references in this article. Andries (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The article title should reflect the weight of academic opinion that Jews had a miniscule role in the slave trade which is the leitmotif of the multiple reliable sources that you refer to. Most of these sources were written to dispel the antisemitic canard predominantly propounded by the Nation of Islam and has been described as such by Saul Friedman in Jews and the American Slave Trade (p 250- 254) and Henry Louis Gates in Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars among other scholars. The context of the sources is a rebuttal of this canard, and this article, if it is to exist, should reflect this. I agree that changing it to Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) might be preferable. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Conspiracy theories" is the best title. Not every myth is a conspiracy theory. Marokwitz (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• I agree. I propose to write in the summary that the view that jews were disproportionally much involved in the slave trade is an anti-semitic canard. Andthen remove anti-semitic canard out of the title (which was by the way an improvement over conspiracy theory in the title). Andries (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Changed as described by Andries. Much of the article contents, such as the Abolition debate, is unrelated to the current title. Marokwitz (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly did Jews begin "trade on the Atlantic, including slave trade"?

The current lead includes the following text: "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." Is there strong support for the assertion that Jews only began participating in trade on the Atlantic BECAUSE they were expelled from Iberia? It seems to me that trade would have existed before the expulsion due to Jews being part of the mercantile trade between Iberia and Africa and that any participation of Jews in transAtlantic trade would have been a natural corollary to the development of that trade after the voyages of Columbus, the first of which occurred in 1492. In brief, I am not aware of an argument that says that Jews began participating in "trade on the Atlantic" specifically BECAUSE of the expulsions from Iberia. I would think that the participation in "trade on the Atlantic" continued DESPITE their having been expelled from Iberia.

I am no expert in this area so I could be wrong. I'm just sharing my very uninformed gut reaction to the sentence. If I'm wrong, please let me know where I've gone off the rails.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL@ the title

"(antisemitic Canard)"

How on earth was this allowed to be put up?

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

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

this website is a joke.

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