Talk:Maafa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject African diaspora  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

I placed a link to Milwaukee, WI 's Black Holocaust Museum. I have not been there and am not read up enough to add to the stub/definition.

But I definately believe there should be a page for it and not just a definition. The word Maafa I've never heard of before I came to this page/site. Although Black Holocaust I have heard of several years ago. I am surprised there is not something here.

-Yu, (uh, not of wpr fame)


I agree, African Holocaust should be merged to the MAAFA page. -kiidogo


Merger looks good[edit]

Vote in favor of merger Mathiastck 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We disagree with the proposed merger.

Why is this article under History of slavery in the United States?[edit]

The article seems much broader than just the slavery in the United States, and in fact does not even mention slavery in the Unites States at all.

Also, it seems to me like there should be a page called Mama Africa since there isn't one, and it's meaning seems quite different and special. KarenAnn 13:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I added a few links under See also, but remove them if you think they are not appropriate. KarenAnn 13:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported as a possible copyright violation[edit]

This article is copied almost word for word from http://www.ligali.org/maafa/ KarenAnn 14:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Maafa - Copyright and Definition issues[edit]

Hi, we are the owners of the Ligali website and in particular the Maafa.org.uk domain.

We agree to the usage of the text used from our site and would recommend that the definition of Maafa is not merged with African holocaust. Ideologically and factually the two terms represent two distinct definitions which whilst sharing some history, are not the same.

The Maafa reflects African (not black) history and should not be limited to American or European history.

In order for this material to remain, an email needs to be sent to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org from an address associated with the source. Please eee WP:CP for more details Kcordina Talk 09:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. --Ligali, 17 October 2006

definition[edit]

hilst the word 'holocaust' can be used to refer to large scale deaths of humans by humans, if capitalised it only refers to the Jewish/German ignoring the African/German persecutions. This asserts that the Holocaust against Jewish people is the 'real' holocaust and that the African holocaust is nothing but a poor facsimile. It is similar to the concept of Churches and 'black' Churches. By European standards one is deemed authentic the other an ‘ethnic’ mimicry. Classicial music being another one, all civilizations have "classical" music; Indian and African classical music pre-dates the European classical tradition. However the word "classical music" implies European music. This is a direct reflection of racism within the very language. It is similar to the concept of Churches and 'black' Churches. By european standards one is deemed authentic the other an ‘ethnic’ mimicry. In Africa and the Caribbean this is the opposite, there are no 'black' Churches. They are simply referred to as Churches. Likewise there is no African Holocaust there is simply the Maafa.

i find this section problematic, this might be somebody's reasoning, it is not the general accepted fact. i think the usage of the term holocaust does assert nothing like that. it is just that it became synonymous with the shoah. --trueblood 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd consider this a personal rant. "if capitalised it only refers to the Jewish/German ignoring the African/German persecutions" doesn't make logical sense. There are no churches labelled as black as far as I know in Europe...we don't have "Our Lady of Lourdes Black Church" or "Black St Clement's Church". -- Dandelions (NLI)

NO Merger should Happen[edit]

I vote against. The African Holocaust should not be merged with Maafa. It should be linked to Maafa see example below. Also note the excerpt from the Jewish Holocaust here on Wikipedia. I recommend that the African Holocaust article should follow the same accepted pattern and practice as demonstrated in this excerpt. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here; an excepted pattern for this type of article is already in play.


The Holocaust, also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה) (Yiddish:האלאקאוסט Ha-lo-caust) and the Porajmos or Samudaripen in Romani, is the name applied to the state-led systematic persecution and genocide of the Jews and other minority groups of Europe and North Africa during World War II by Nazi Germany and its collaborators


The African holocaust, also known as The Black Holocaust (Kiswahilimaafa) The African Holocaust has been called the “middle passage” and the “slave trade”. More recently it has been referred to as World War Zero (WW0) because many have come to understand that Africans lost 100 million innocent man, woman and children in WW0. World War Zero was a state sanctioned systematic attack capture and murder of Black people from the continent of Africa by Europeans, Arabs and their collaborators. The one hundred million deaths qualifies for the term war as it is more deaths then all the individuals that died in WWI and WWII combined.

Note: The 100 million number is conservative I have seen higher and lower. Know one knows the exact number with any certitude. --Aunk 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Concidering there was probably only 100 million in Africa(maybe) at the time, I'd call it very liberal. When was the 1st billion on the planet? late 19th century? maybe? SRodgers--65.24.77.104 21:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

African or "black" people section[edit]

People keep talking about when "black" was first said. Come on, did "EUROPEANS" first call themselves white? This last part is quite bias, I'd say racial, but apparently I wouldn't be allowed to in the era of PC.

"There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan." Okay, where is "Whiteia" or Whiteistan".

SRodgers--65.24.77.104 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio removed[edit]

I removed text in the article Maafa which had been directly copied from this site. The tag made a big bruhaha about having an administrator remove the notice, but I figured since it was a clear-cut case of a bulk amount of text, the warning could be removed immediately. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards for articles[edit]

All articles must meet WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Check these policies out. If you provide this information via citing appropriate references, your article will not have a problem. Mattisse(talk) 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

African or "black" people section part two[edit]

It reads like it's "talking" to black people alone. I don't know how POV it is, but it reads like a sermon. Could someone make it seem NPOV sounding?SRodgers--65.24.77.104 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

capilization[edit]

Its capitalized status is a reflection of the duration of the process and magnitude of African people historically murdered, raped and inhumanly enslaved by invading Arabs and Europeans. This is not a neutral or valid point-of-view. Wikipedia on either side should not be a place for emotional politics. The capitalization of a word is governed by the grammar rules of English language and this is the only reason Maafa should be capitalized.

You wrote that the capitalisation of a word is goverened by the grammar rules of the English language. This fails to recognise that Maafa is not an English word and its grammatical syntax is governed by an African language. The aforementioned reference is not "emotional politics" but a statement of fact. - Ligali, 17 October 2006

Need for scholarship[edit]

African academia has become a big dustbin to support any and all arguments we have. Sweeping generalizations rooted in our limited knowledge swing high and low. “in Africa we didn’t have …” “African culture is generally…” these kind of statements fall out of our mouths and attach themselves to all forms of ideologies such as feminism and capitalism. When Europeans speak of aspects of their history they speak to the specific. “Romans culture in AD 100 was ….” So it is rooted in something. But Africa is so open and unexplored that we can fire blank statements without fear of academic retort. There needs to be an immediate demand for specifics. “In Wodaabe culture the society is structured around the …” so we can begin to advance the understanding of Africa beyond myth and trivial generalization. Maafa means "..." not opinion or niche slant, fact!!!! www. is not a validator of work, the work validates the site, anyone can buy a domain, or publish a book.Use real references!!!!

It is thus suggested that all work and submissions be backed up with reference and honest scholarship which doesn’t reflect prejudice or political agendas of minority groups. If our case with Europe is their tainting of history then how can we continue to support a plethora of empty opinions based on "feeling." Definitions need scholarship and support from people in the field that actually study and produce serious work. To become an authority on a subject must require some for of legacy of work and linage of academia. It is offensive for someone to come off the block and profess without any authority to be the source of African studies without any body of previous work to substantiate their claims--bring proof, bring truth, bring scholarship. --Halaqah 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Talmud Scholars[edit]

Overplaying the involvement of the Jews in the involvement of the African slavetrade is a known anti-semitic tactic. Unless credible references to the claim that "Jewish Talmud scholars" originated this particular myth can be found, it will be removed. I'd like to remove it right away but I'm giving someone the benefit of the doubt.


My God man why dont you sign that big statement. Over playing the involment of Africans in the slave trade is an Anti-African trait. I agree that sources are needed but r u playing fair? you havent even signed man. I think research must be done but your claim of anti-jew is a early Whistle call---Halaqah 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Judeo-Christian myth, provided one of the "moral pretext" upon which the Atlantic slave trade grew and flourished. According to Jewish Talmud scholars [citation needed]; from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b: "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin."

Other religious groups continued to see Ham as the progenitor of the African race and subsequent translations were stirred to reflect the biases and prejudice of the era. Islamic theocracy refuted this myth but this prejudice still filtered into the non-religious writings of some Arabs. The most profound manifestation occurred in imagery, which constantly portrayed white as God, and black as the Devil (see image).


i must thank you for making me go and look for it, now I know more----Halaqah 01:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is little or no evidence that this was ever interpreted by Jewish academia or society at large as a justification or pretext for the slave trade. Unless explicit evidence can be found to indicate that the Jewish people used this particular snippet of Talmudic text as a way to justify slavery, it should be removed. --yonkeltron 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your contribution and it will not be readded unless we have proper evidence and references.--Halaqah 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

MAAFA DEFINITION[edit]

Please google Maafa or visit the sites listed and see the general verdict on the definition of the term. the main site Maafa.org has it listed as the African Holocaust, while the site Africa within, African Holocaust has the definition seen on this site. --Halaqah 07:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy Do not vandalize[edit]

Please do not vandalize this page, refer to the wikipedia policies regarding edits. To make entries to the site sources must be used and objections must be discussed before being unilaterally installed. To remove entire work with discussion is considered vandalism. Any reoccurrence will be referred. If you have a valid contribution then the contribution must be made to the work others have done. You must state references, if any work has issues you are free as all the people above have done. This is how the quality of the article is improved. everyone has a view, the collective views make the article balanced. areas of disagreement are discussed here. the site is not a place for personal agendas and all claims and material added must be supported.---Halaqah 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues to resolve[edit]

Maafa is really a study of slavery from an African experience in the context of wikipedia at least. So it is a study of horrors against African people. But then where does Darfur and Rwanda come into the equation? Or is Maafa just when Africans blame others, or is it just horror affecting African irrespective of source? We need to get this 100% because I dont want our study of history to look like some joke show.This is why Europeans can come here and say this is emotion etc, but as much as i know their plan, they are correct, our standards must change, from emotion to academic accuracy. even places where i have added things i have added where i dont have evidence. --Halaqah 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Arab trade and African trade[edit]

There is a funny pattern where people dont want to come and do the work but they find time to make comments. Okay add your 2 cents isnt that the idea, everyone add?

The Arab trade isnt popular for many reasons, biggest of all is that African-Americans (incl Caribbean and Brazil) were not affected directly by this trade. So naturally these people who are the majority discuss the slavery closest to them. 2nd fact there is a lot more "we dont know" and the enslaved people who went to Arabia have become Arabs and their is no true African Arabian Diaspora.

The terms need fixing Arab Trade Islamic trade African trade, all these words need work because Arab trade was it a trade in Arabs, maybe Arab slavery is better. with or without religion people were being made slaves, so focus on who did it, why, when and how.--Halaqah 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


references[edit]

if you edit this site please keep it tidy and clean with references. please dont let it become a "emotional" page as was said above. Please dont let it become a community talk shop full of empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims based upon emotion and "i think, so it is so". I am here to do the work, join in!---Halaqah 16:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Americanism[edit]

Yeah i agree a lot of this has to do with America but it is a pan African topic. And hence the american history sidebar is a little out of place, maybe we can create another one, this is why i have the pan-African bottom bar.--Halaqah 23:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust[edit]

With "the" and with capital "H" have very specific meaning in English. As far as I can see, sources use the expression African Holocaust. Accordingly, this article needs to use the commonly accepted terminology and not to confuse our readers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

both versions are used and most African people use the capital case, African Holocaust is preceded by the word African identifying whoese Holocaust is under discussion. A note should be added to the article to discuss the issue of capitalization and all views be heard, if you google african holocaust you will find it more often than not Capitalized.--Halaqah 10:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

African is the keyword. Not The Holocaust. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some copyedits and forgot to mention in the edit summary that I removed a ref to Genesis. It is an original research to imply that the Africans are descendants of Canaanites, that the whoe slave trade was a result of that Bible verse. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you go to the curse of ham page and have that discussion as well.--Halaqah 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?[edit]

This article has a ridiculously obvious bias against Europeans. There are numerous examples. This should really be rewritten, it's a disgrace for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.118.142.29 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


What is the basis for this claim? Please cite specific examples of bias or POV. I also would like to ask what is the basis for the NPOV tag at the top of the article? After reading the talk page, I don't see any reference to it having been added and why it was added. The only issue that I see dealing with neutrality was the above comment which lacked specifics. If there are no good reasons for a Neutrality tag, it should be removed. Pihanki 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, and the 'Holocaust' article has a ridiculous bias against Nazis. Someone should really look into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Research and Unverified Tags[edit]

In accordance with Wikipedia policies on no original research and verifiability, I have added tags to the Beyond Slavery section as it makes 'uncited 'and 'unsourced' claims regarding the involvement of Judaism in the slavery trade. It is a known anti-semitic tactic to overplay the involvement of Jews in the slave trade. Taking certain textual snippets out of context is inappropriate as it implies interpretation which is covered under original research. If supporting sources cannot be found to verify that historically, these texts were used by individuals or groups within the Jewish community to propagate slavery, then the text should reflect the behavior of those groups or individuals. Best, --yonkeltron 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jews in Colonial Brazil (1960), pp. 72-3; [Note: Wiznitzer, Arnold Aharon, educator; Born in Austria, December 20, 1899; Ph.D., University of Vienna, 1920; Doctor of Hebrew Literature, Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Emeritus research professor, University of Judaism, Los Angeles; Contributor to historical journals in the United States and Brazil including the Journal of Jewish Social Studies and the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society. Former president, Brazilian-Jewish Institute of Historical Research.]Please just discuss the article and not the politics as it is exhausting to here the same rant everytime this issue comes up. Focus on what was written and improving it, not the conspiracy theories.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Those citations and sources need to be in the text of the article. You should use quotes in this instance. No conspiracy theories, just a whole bunch of remaining, legitimate fact tags... Best, --yonkeltron 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I will try and add sources, the issue is there needs to be an OR tag that doesnt break up the page and create a white space.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that accurate representation of content is more important than the continuity of page layout. In any case, it needs to be made clear that one paper asserts this. BTW, one paper that can't be fact checked by someone unless they pay the JSTOR fee. Best, --yonkeltron 02:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but wiki is for people to read. NOw discuss this original research or the tag is invalid, b/c you add it and now it has disrupted the article, so you must explain the original research as i only see missing refs. YOu can pay the fee and Fact check it, just like all the books referenced on Wiki, not all content is online and there is no violation citing a book, which you have to buy. So there is no issue with JSTOR, --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The bits that smell of original research are:

  • There are all these out-of-context quotes and no where are they sourced to verify that they were in fact used to propagate, defend or rationalize slavery.
  • Quotes used a certain way should be within quotations indicating that an outside source used the quotes as such. If the citations can't be found to verify that these quotes can be used to backup the point, then the author of the material is using interpretation and inference which both constitute original research under [no original research|the policy]].
  • The scope of that article seems to be Jews in Brazil specifically under that time period. The article is written by one scholar and doesn't seem to be corroborated by any other sources. As such, the article should make it clear that this is the opinion of a single scholar.

Best, --yonkeltron 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree it needs a clean up and the section about brazil should b elsewhere, like in its own section. however that single sourcces is a jewish source and a critical scholar he carries serious weight, look him up. i would like to have a section dedicate to jewish involvement/. but i would like ur views. i have no ill intent as you can c my own country is in this section, and my people 2 boot. truth is truth there is no sacred cows. i think the section is needed as it is a serious topic, and here would b a good place to bring factual balance. maybe even a seperate page, i am sure creating such a page would be very tricky.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

cecil roth and the next guy are more than enought for that section. dont u think? feel free to reduce the or section until it can be properly developed, see curse of ham--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 03:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked the pages cited (72-73) in the "Jews of Brazil" book and while they do mention the Jewish community of Brazil dealing with the West India Company and dominating slave trade from 1636-1645, they don't mention a single Talmudic passage or any other textual citation. I am removing the Talmudic quotes and any insinuation that slavery had a basis in Judaism. Best, --yonkeltron 22:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation[edit]

How do we pronounce Maafa?--TheEgyptian 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Ma A FA--RastaRule 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rodney is reliable[edit]

dont delete again because then we must assume onLY White web sites are authentic.--RastaRule 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a typo in your edit, I just don't get the meaning of the second part. Malc82 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking further, it might be that the section was removed because of it's completely unencyclopedic writing style and out-of-context assertions, rather than the reliability of Rodney's work. Malc82 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for tagging as "Totally Disputed"[edit]

I just tagged the "Scale" section as "totally disputed". Reasons are:

  • There are two sources, Rodney (from marxists.org) and Africanholocaust.org, both of whom fail WP:RS
  • While many statements in this sections have been part of the scientific debate, they are presented completely out of context, as an undisputed truth rather than only one of various positions.
  • The middle parts contain various weasel words, e.g. "It is estimated" or "An often-neglected study"
  • Parts of the section lack NPOV-tone ("But many more died in the villages fighting their enslavers").
  • Estimated underestimations are a logical fallacy unless presented in context.

Please add reliable sources, otherwise this section has to be removed or completely re-written.

Apart from the tagging: I think this article shouldn't get into details on the slave trade. We have articles on the Atlantic, African and Arabian slave trades and there is no need to keep this one as a POV-fork. Malc82 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Total disputed is the wrong tag, the tag you then need in encyclopedic, or NPOV, b/c just because you dont agree doesnt make it inaccurate. The article states a range of numbers which are valid.
  • I find it hard to believe they fail, as i have read it and there is zero ground for failure. The largest site on the Maafa is African Holocaust, not only that the same statements are echoed across the board. AH is used widely on this article, Black people, ethnic groups in Africa, African slave trade, Arab slave trade and on and on for years. So drop the WP:RS .
  • I dont see what is disputed.
  • "it is estimated" is not a weasel wor, nor is an often neglected study especially if it is a OFTEN neglected Study.
  • Am "people died fighting their enslaver" what is wrong with that? or would you rather "the slaves died fighting?" People (who they were) died (what happened to them) fighting (the action they were engaged in) their enslavers (the people who came to enslave them).

The above is my response to the above, i suggest you find a stronger case. But to be fair i have changed the language and deleted things which i think where copied and pasted in. Also deleted irrelevant ranting of Moorish whoever which has no reference or precedence in this argument,--RastaRule 11:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Walter Rodney is, as also mentioned in the article on him, not an unreliable source per se, but his theories are controversial and hence shouldn't be mentioned without context. Africanholocaust.net is a pretty good site, but the specific article is an essay by Owen ‘Alik Shahadah, who seems to be highly-acclaimed as a filmmaker and musician, but isn't a historian and thus not a RS here.
  • Best example for a disputed statement: There are much lower estimates than 40 million. The problem with the loss figure , apart from the lack of sources, is that it pretty much comes down to how much of the internal African warfare was motivated by the slave trade. There have been lenghty discussions about this at the Atlantic slave trade talk page, e.g. here and here.
  • These are classic examples of weasel words. Both statements aren't acceptable without a source. Please read WP:WEASEL, in fact it's secondary if they are true, they need proof.
  • The problem is that this is a prosaic writing style, not an encyclopedic one. It's written as the story of a tragedy. And while it obviously was one, NPOV rules say that the article should be written as neutral as possible, so the reader can draw his own conclusions. Btw, I think you know why you only quoted the second, not problematic, half of my example.

Thanks for the added refs and the deletion of the moorish part (which violated section 2.4 of WP:NPOV, forgot to mention that as one reason). I'm removing the tag, as it's too harsh for the improved version of this section. However, I suggest rewording to "up to 100 million" and removing (or adding context to) the "estimated underestimations" (at least the "usual range" of estimations should be given, if that's present there's nothing wrong with using Rodney as a reference).

I'll also reword the above writing-style things, hope that's okay by everyone. Malc82 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed intro paragraph[edit]

I removed a chunk of text from the intro to this article that seemed to be copy and pasted from http://www.amistadamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=284&Itemid=119 Could someone more framiliar with the topic examine the site and see if it has any place in the article? Bigmacd24 12:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Sourcing/Accuracy[edit]

This is a great, rich topic for wikipedia, but I am concerned that some of the scholarship is a bit sloppy. There have been some previous comments about the use of weasel words, but I think there might be a deeper problem with this article. As it is, it reads like a journalistic overview of the African holocaust, not an encyclopedia article. There are tons of unsourced claims and unfounded assumptions in the article, and I am concerned that this will detract from its utility. As an example, take this passage:

"The depiction of God, and subsequently the divine ethnic social dynamic, placed Whites as masters, Blacks as Slaves. These images single-handedly upheld a system of subjugation and oppression: Christianity became the context for the cultural prevalence of European culture, European names became Christian names and those who adopted or were forced into Christianity automatically adopted European culture in an attempt to become more "Christian.""

The first sentence is just useless; it does not tell us whose depiction of God we are referring to (I would assume “Europeans” or perhaps “Whites” -- which opens up a whole new can of worms regarding reductionism -- but regardless, the sentence is vague), provide evidence or corroboration for its claims, nor does it indicate what is meant by “divine ethnic social dynamic”. The second sentence is even more egregious, making a claim that appears nothing short of idealistic determinism but without any backing evidence. The claim that the subjugation and oppression of Africans was “single-handedly” upheld by religion is, intellectually, a huge claim. It could (and has) been argued that religious views shifted to conform with racism and slavery, rather than the reverse, but the article presents the singular opinion that theology itself drove the oppression of Africans. I could write a book about all the holes in this argument, but the point that I am trying to make is that it is irresponsible to make this sort of claim in an encyclopedic context without even citing a single source from the academic literature.

I’m not making any changes right now, I just want to get a sense from others regarding where they want to see this article go. I would like to see it become much more rigorous on a number of levels: sourcing, recognition of the multitude of interpretative systems (imperialist, feminist, Marxist, etc) for understanding the enslavement of Africans, recognition of competing theories regarding the emergence and development of the slave trade and racist ideology, a more comparative focus, and a greater attention to nuance (“European”, for example, is a pretty anachronistic word to use considering that there was no concept of “Europe” nationally, culturally, linguistically, religiously, ethnically, or racially at the time of the Maafa) and regional differences.

What do others think? Coreyander 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. An encyclopedic approach would be to make the Atlantic slave trade article focus on the topic's socio-economic role (as it is commonly done in historical studies) and make the Maafa article focus primarily on the effects on African culture and society. However, as someone who has tried to improve and maintain Wikipedia articles related to the Atlantic slave trade for some months, I can tell you that this is almost impossible in practice. In fact, all articles related to the Atlantic slave trade (Triangular trade, Middle passage) have a strong tendency to cover the whole topic at the expense of losing focus on their specific subject. It is generally very hard to enforce WP-guidelines and keep up a decent standard in these articles, mostly because a lot of the editors involved aren't used to write by these standards and are new to Wikipedia. From my experience, the best way to go is to give a rationale for your changes on the talk page (as well as in the edit summary), but to BE BOLD. Feel free to improve the article anyway you can. Malc82 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal aspect[edit]

Please note that the following statement : "While the denial of the Jewish Holocaust remains illegal in some European countries, and bodies such as the Anti-Defamation League exist to protect the history of Jewish suffering, no such laws or institutions exist for the African Holocaust" is incorrect by now : France has adopted a law called "loi Taubira" in 2001, acknowledging African slave trade, and qualifying it as a "crime against Humanity". This is one of the so-called "lois mémorielles" : [[1]] Bergame 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rwanda situation incoreectly described[edit]

in this section: Colonialism and the European scramble for Africa, so much untruth or nonsense is represented it might as well be the reult of a vandalisation. summing it up , there is only one correct fact in the whole story wich is that tutsis originated from an influx from the north . However the hutus lived alredi there at that time. One reason for the movement south is supposed to have been (arab) slave trade(not mentioned). The two groups mixed some but remaned rather strictly seperated. What seperated them was that the tutsi took the hills were the village were usually situated and as such control of the land. Perhaps there is some european or other tradition of judging it at the nr of cows, archeologically it is the living at the hilltop what defines the tutsi after their invasion. It is very probable it was more brotherly before europeans colonised, it is also very sure massive discrimination by tutsis (tribal politics) was a factor in the genocide. I always wonder how it is now, but not like in the article. Although there should be some reconciliation process going assuming the violence really has minimised.77.251.189.88 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Horribly disjointed[edit]

This article is horribly disjointed. It seems like a ragbag collection of "things you could say about the African slavery experience". Is anyone particularly invested in this article? If so, can you drop me a note on my talk page, because I think this needs restructuring and I'm willing to do it if it's not treading on anyone's toes. Grace Note (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should go ahead, it is quite unencylopedic, reads like an advocacy piece written by an academic. (collounsbury (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC))


Agains invisibility of africans and african american[edit]

I've traduced the article in catalan language. I think this article its very interesting, but it could be better, overcoat in the colonialism period. The exemple of rwuanda isn't incorrect but need citation and it could be better also. Excuse my english. I think it's very interesting the exposure of african history although there are thinks that they don't like to us, the europeans and americans. --Pitxiquin (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tippu Tip's mother and father[edit]

I am confused as to whether Tippu Tip's father was African or Arabic. This page states that his father was Arabic and his mother was African. The page devoted to Tippu Tip, though, states: "His mother, Bint Habib bin Bushir, was a Muscat Arab of the ruling class. His father and paternal grandfather were coastal Swahili who had taken part in the earliest trading expeditions to the interior." So which is it??? --Adrienne (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Notes to the person cleaning up[edit]

Clean up means repair not throw tags everywhere and anywhere. Going through an article and dropping [citation needed] when the reference are there is not a clean up. Terms like "many" do not need [quantify] when no historian can give an exact number. Again let me reiterate the primary problem. Maafa, is a term used by Pan-Africanist and African people to describe the African Holocaust of enslavement. So from this premise do you understand the sources will not be from Eurocentric historians? or from BBC and CNN and from J.D.Fage. If you want to bring those arguments then there already is an article for that. Maafa is an Afrocentric or Pan-African perspective on slavery hence using those people and those sources. And those scholars. If you are not familiar with that world of scholarship then it will be difficult to understand anything else.

I would also add how it can be perceived as disruptive and not constructive to tag drop in a complex and sensitive topic such as the Maafa. I think very few would have the same freedom or presumed power to do the same to this page Holocaust or Jews and slavery--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Do not add unreferenced material[edit]

There is enough written on this topic to find required info, stop adding content without a reference. It is not difficult to do a little work and get a source. unsourced content and original research will only be removed or attract unwanted critique.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Fix Dead links[edit]

can someone put on the agenda fixing the dead links. the content with dead links is widely available so add that to the Do- List.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the very existence of this article[edit]

The article Slavery in the United States should be the only to exist on this topic, discussing this practice from a neutral point of view. I don't disagree with the content of this article, that (taken from the introdution) Africans and African-Americans suffered, through slavery, imperialism, colonialism, invasion, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation. But that doesn't warrant making a Wikipedia article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.215.148 (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah, this article is clearly a disaster, and should be kept to showcase how much can go wrong when people are allowed to disregard every policy in the book. There can be a "Maafa" article, I suppose, but it will have to be strictly about the 1990s neologism in the Pan-African/Afrocentric movement in the US. The topics of Slavery in the United States and Trans-Atlantic slave trade have their own pages, and we only do one article per page. We don't do "counter-articles" under selective alternative terminology to express minority viewpoints. Minority viewpoints belong in the main article, with WP:DUE representation. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont know where to start but Maafa has nada to do with anything you just mentioned, it is called African Holocaust like all the other Holocaust is a subject which has the weight of most African scholars, from Karenga, to Asante, and unless you are saying these scholars are "Expressing a minority viewpoint" I dont think you get it. And b4 you get ahead of yourself in knowing everything, please use the talk page as you have deleted so much text to turn the article into a stub. You will also see a reference to this page on all the other slave related issues. Next you will want to delete Afrocentricity under WP:DUE. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

this was not an "article"; it was a disaster. Please read what I just wrote. You are not making any sense. If you want to discuss the term "Maafa", coined in 1994 as a political neologism in the United States, that's fine. But then don't try and write an Afrocentric essay and pretend it is a Wikipedia article. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be new to policy, you are deleting much of this article. DIscuss first act later. I am not making sense, it is you deleting a long standing article which is called African Holocaust (Maafa). Many have contributed you by yourself have no right to delete that content because of your issues. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion as a wiki article is not in question. So why are you deleting content? Now History of Slavery has in content from Arab slave trade, Slavery in Africa has in content from Slavery in America. I work on all of these so respect other peoples work. Maafa is an area of study which looks at the oppression of African people through African eyes. It is Pan-African it is Afrocentric so how is it in your language "Minority"? Does the article need work "OH YES", but that is another issue. Are there problems which should be fixed? Yes, again that is fixed by talk page not be deleting content. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not "new to policy". I have been actively helping to enforce policy since 2004. You should give me the benefit of doubt. Also, you should not edit topics on which you have a strong WP:COI. As you clearly are an adherent of the political movement under discussion here, you should be very quiet and let others do the work. Please find a topic on which you have no strong opinions and edit there. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do me a massive favor and edit the damn article and not the editor. discuss the issues you have with the content and that be that okay? Locate where policy is violated and if you are new to this topic of slavey then go and do your research. imagine tell me (who knows the topic) what I can an cannot comment on, And if you know so much about policy when you put a multi-tag on an article is that the correct way to do it? As I said every topic on slavery I have edited and all of them duplicate information. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are serious. Your behaviour is simply too bizarre, and it would be a personal attack on your intelligence to pretend that you are not trolling. This is not the first time I see you doing this. You are trying to avoid project policy by just being completely incoherent and bizarre. Sadly, this works surprisingly well on Wikipedia. I call trolling, because I cannot believe somebody can be as completely dim as you pretend to be. Trolls are actively trying to waste people's time with nonsense, and the only way I know how to deal with them is to pretend they aren't there.

The notability of this topic is bordernline notable as a 1990s political neologism in US Afrocentrism. This is no excuse to write ideological essays on topics covered elsewhere. Anyone pretending to be incapable of understanding this is either trolling, or should not go online without the supervision of an adult. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, any serious opinions about the article please post here. Next time you make a remark like the above I will have your reported for violation of assume good faith and violating wiki basic tenants of "civility". You may have seen me, but I have never seen you before. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article duplicates content from other articles. The section on the economics of slavery is a close duplication of the same section in the Atlantic slave trade article, for instance. The content in the Slavery in Africa duplicates that in the African slave trade article. There are also large parts of the article whose relevance to the subject is unclear. The article on the African slave trade already has a detailed section on its effects so there really is no need for the great majority of the content in this article. I think Dbachmann's initial attempt to trim the duplicated and irrelevant content from the article greatly improved it. Celuici (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked history of slavery vs. slavery vs Arab slave trade? or Atlantic slave trade vs. African Slave trade? there is an overlap which is normal on wiki. What we do on wikipedia is stub down the section and add a link. Thats how we solve that problem. It didnt greatly improve anything because Maafa is an area of study which is "Afrocentric", dealing with the oppression of African people in the last 500 years (certainly no minority issue unless we subscribe to Eurocentric racism). No shortage of persecution of Jews type articles as a valid article. And in that oppression slavery, colonialism, are all factors in the holistic body of the Maafa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that the persecution of the Jews article is analagous. The problem with this article is that it tries to do two things: (i) describe the 'maafa' idea as expressed in (mostly) academic literature, (ii) produce a history of the slave trade and colonialism through the paradigm of the 'maafa' concept. In my view, aspect (i) is fine, whereas there is no justification for all the other content since the 'maafa version' of the slave trade and colonialism remains a relatively obscure approach to the subject. The solution might be to produce a "The maafa interpretation of the slave trade" section within the article which explains the practical applications of the concept in more detail, but simply rehashing content from other articles doesn't do this. Celuici (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
re: "the history of Jewish persecution", the real difference is only that this article is poor and thus does not reflect that because of well -how do you say this, lack of African input from scholars who are very marginalized as someone said for every film on the African Holocaust there are 2000 films on the Jewish Holocaust. For you that means obscure, As a reader of African history, it is anything but obscure. The irony is this very debate of "African validity" is an aspect of the Maafa i.e. if it is not in the white circle of debate it is not "real" or fringe. But I agree, in part, that copy and pasting information is not good, but we do not need any "Versions" of history also. I mean how can Africans have a "version" of their own history? But it is as you said a paradigm of looking at a subject, butthe Maafa paradigm does not alter the historical facts hence why i believe it is not life threatening in its current state despite these issues. How many articles like the one i work on religious wars are a collection of other content around a paradigm? The 1000s of articles framed around a concept and then information placed in to satisfy the criteria of the lead, so this is not a serious issue which is solved by cutting out valid information which illuminates The African Holocaust of slavery, and all the other madness Africans have been victims of.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The maafa idea does not alter the facts, correct, but it is an interpretation of those facts. We can explain what the maafa idea is and how it works -- what we don't need is a very long exercise in applying this approach to the source material. I realise that African viewpoints may very well have been marginalised in historical debates, but it's not the place of Wikipedia to rectify that. What we have at the moment is essentially a content fork, which should be avoided. Celuici (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It might be the purpose of wikipedia to show balance across articles and not have double standards. Wikipedia does not have to become political to counter the re-definition of Maafa without sources, [2] or sources from its detractors, to better white wash African viewpoints. Balance then must mean good sources for showing balance are used. --41.177.4.26 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS: even assuming that a propaganda term has the notability for a standalone article about the term (as opposed to events it is used to refer to, such as the topic of Atlantic slave trade) is no excuse to turn that article into a propaganda essay written by the people who "own" the term. This goes without saying, really, but in this and related topics, it seems to be safe to ignore, because, apparently, nobody wants to rollback black nationalists. The reason being, of course, that while it is safe to point out generic nonsense, if you dare to point out nonsense spouted by "ethnic" people, you must obviously be a despicable racist. I don't know how to fix this though, its a problem of US society, not of Wikipedia as such.

Case in point, our articles on communism aren't written by communists, or from a communist perspective. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what this might imply for our articles on black nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're complaining about here. I reverted the article to the much shorter version created by yourself some months ago, and nobody has objected. Compare the current version with this one by yourself, for instance -- they're almost identical. I've removed the banners which you've created since I don't agree with your objections and it seems absurd to add them to a version of the article substantially created by yourself. Celuici (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Original Research and POV agendas Notice[edit]

I have just come to this article and was shocked by what was presented against the numerous ref given. [not in citation given] It seems one editor has a serious agenda to Push. No problem I have tracked down the offender and when/if it happens again, it will be reported directly to the admins as a violation of wikipedia's pillars. Does the term Bother you? Well we have forums and blogs for that. But on wikipedia what matters is the sources, not the editors take on the world. And try as you may but there is no changing these facts.--Inayity (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede Arrangement[edit]

I had to change your edits because I think we must realize these terms are used all the time interchangeable.(almost like African American and black -- and they really dont mean the same thing in that example--while Maafa and AH do largely mean the same-thing). Also African holocaust redirects here, so I can see that that was done because the terms are interchangeable. Like Jewish Holocaust and HaShoah. (rough example, it doesn't 100% mean the same thing because the Holocaust included non-Jews, the HaShoah does not)The difference between them is per one or two scholars, but even in this same page usage is a matter of preference. If the author is speaking to an African Centered crowd they say Maafa, if to a mixed crowd they might say AH (this is an example). Also we do not need to assert users of the term. The term is what it is an it is therefore redundant to introduce this language. --Inayity (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The focus of the article is certainly not on the term Maafa, most of the content refer to the African Holocaust (Mazrui et al) ref to AH not Maafa.--Inayity (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it certainly trimmed the lead, but I'm not so sure I agree that the more verbose explanation was entirely undesirable. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Please explain b/c not sure what you mean, The terms are used interchangeably. they are not separate ideologically in any profound way.And there is an entire section explaining details, it does not belong in a lede --Inayity (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

National Day of Observance of the Maafa in America[edit]

Omission of the National Day of Observance of the Maafa in America, part of the annual National Day of Reconciliation and Healing from the Enslavement, the 14th year of the observance in 2013, from the "Maafa" site by Wikipedia editors, claiming certain rules of insignificance is unjustifiable. Reference web sites, www.NationalDayofReconciliation.com and www.NationalJuneteenth.com, as well as Wikipedia sites for "Juneteenth" and "Ronald Myers" proves the historic relevance of the National Day of Observance of the Maafa in America.

The information should be added to the Wikipedia "Maafa" site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talkcontribs) 04:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure I agree with everything you said, now can you bring a reference to it outside of its own blog? i.e. like from a newspaper, a government website, a disconnected independent source?--Inayity (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed that bit because it was too promotional: an organization announcing its own program. What we need is a newspaper or magazine article describing the "national day" and what it entails—such as which politician signed it into law and which groups are observing it. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Binksternet have a look at Juneteenth if you know anything about the insertions of similar content there and the RS of those insertions. --Inayity (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, lots of similar organization URLs rather than news, magazine and book sources. When I get a moment I will try to work with it. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One source section[edit]

There is a section that relies on one website, but the content is from different authors. Not sure that makes it a trainwreck, but either way, the work is in fixing the problem not wholesale deletion. I have seen from previous edits, this article was rich with pictures and content and was stripped to almost a stub some years ago, before I was here. AHS = Maafa, per Google search I am not surprised it is used frequently.--Inayity (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah[edit]

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maafa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)