Talk:The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews
- 1 Why "volume 1" in title?
- 2 Two aspects of criticism
- 3 Questions about the Book
- 4 What is factually wrong in the book?
- 5 Any positive reviews?
- 6 "Some" historians -- The use of "some" suggests there are significant numbers of historians that disagree
- 7 LMFAO
- 8 The Secret Relationship Between the Normans and Jews.
Why "volume 1" in title?
|The issue has been solved.|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Why was the title changed to include "volume 1"? I know there are 2 volumes, but can you name any other multi-volume work that has individual articles for each individual volume? A Study of History, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, etc, are all one article. Any differences between the two volumes can be addressed within the article by appropriate explanatory material, no? --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Two aspects of criticism
I think the more important aspect is whether the book is revisionist or objective. It is only of secondary importance that it is called "antisemitic", since antisemitic means "criticizing Jews". Our readers are probably more concerned with determining what scholars say about the books thesis, in terms of whether Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade. (It's obvious that the charge, whether true or not, is a criticism of Jews, but that has no bearing on whether it's true or not.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, which changes do you suggest should be made to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought that "any criticism of X" is considered hate speech by pro-X advocates. Since there's nothing in the article about hatred of Jews let's just say that scholars rejected the book's thesis as false.
- On the other hand, if anyone is suggesting that hatred of Jews was a motivation for making false charges, then by all means put back what I took out and expand on it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Antisemitism is a longstanding, academically studied form of racism. It is not mere "criticism". Reliable sources describe the work as antisemitism. Which changes do you suggest should be made to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you read the sources, that's exactly what well known scholars are saying, antisemitism was a motivation for the deliberate distortion of history by the authors of this book. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews, not mere criticism. Marokwitz (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't read all the sources. When I read an encyclopedia article, I must either trust the contributors to summarize the sources or (when possible) enjoy the benefit of reading extracts from the source material as quotations placed in the article.
- Would any of you have the time to put in a direct quote from a well known scholar, specifically saying that hatred of Jews was a motivation for the deliberate distortion of history by the authors of this book? I personally think you are probably right, but I wouldn't want my own opinion used as the basis for such a charge (see, e.g., WP:SYNTH). --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Uncle ed, did you find in the sources what they say about what the jewish researchers that was quoted and used by farrakhan for his book?
An interesting aspect is what are they names and see if they are self hating jews or bigoted jewish scholars. if they arent or are acording to other sources, then said sources about "distortion of history" is correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Article
After reading the Wikipedia article "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," here are a few questions that I have for the writers:
1. Is this an encyclopedia article about the book, or is it an attempt to discredit the work, through smear tactics (propaganda)? The reasoning behind the question would be the totally subjective manner that the writers handle this article. It would seem that the main objective of the writers, in producing the article, was to persuade readers that the book is "anti-semitic" than to allow interested parties to arrive at that decision by themselves.
2. Why no excerpts from the book? Is this a book review, or is it a smear campaign? Did the writers of this article even read the book, or did they just compile all of the criticisms of the book; accentuating the criticisms with their own biases as to what is contained therein? After reading this article several times, I can't seem to find one real quote that stems directly from the book. All I can seem to find are quotes of people who utter what they believe is the book's premise. It would make for a more balanced, objective article to provide an actual review of what is in the book, and include discourse on both sides of the debate. In simpler terms, this article is one-sided. It alleges that the book takes liberties with information from credible scholars, yet fails to give readers actual examples of how.
3. I've read both "Secret Relationship" books (Volume 1 and 2). I found nothing in either book expressing hatred towards Jewish people, or Judaism. All I encountered, in reading this book, was an objective, scholarly, well organized and referenced, piece of material. To say that liberties were taken with facts obtained from reputable Jewish scholarship may be plausible, if there were but a few facts from a few scholars. However, this book is full of facts from numerous reputable, Jewish scholars. Were all of the facts misused, mishandled, or misquoted? If so, it is binding upon the writers of this article to show the readers how, since this article is but a criticism of the book, as opposed to a review of it.
4. Finally, to consider something "anti-semitic" would take more than a lot of people repeating their belief that the book is anti-semitic. Especially when most of these people are come from the same school of thought. First of all, there is no Anti-Semitic content in this book. Criticism of Jewish involvement in the slave trade is no more Anti-Semitic than criticism of White complicity in the slave trade is anti-White, or criticism of Arab or African involvement in the slave trade is anti-Arab, or anti-African. One would have to prove that the reasons for compiling the book was for Anti-Semitic purposes. To do that, one would have to prove that the compilers of the book were Anti-Semites. Here are the main arguments:
a. Farrakhan called Judaism a "gutter religion." Despite the Minister defending himself on this point countless times, the media still asserts that he called Judaism a "gutter religion." Farrakhan has even played the clip of what he actually said, however what he says is ignored, unless it lends credibility to the "anti-semitic" charge. Here is what he really said:
"Israel has not had any peace in 40 years and she will never have any peace for there can be no peace structured on lying, murder, and injustice, using the name of Allah (God) as a shield for your dirty religion."
If one would be honest, they would admit that this is speaking in a completely political context. Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous. In fact, there are many Jews who disagree with Zionism, and harbor a similar position to Minister Farrakhan, as relates to the State of Israel. Are they anti-semitic too? Anyway, most of the Zionists who inhabit Israel are not Semitic anyway, considering the fact that a vast majority of them are Jewish by conversion, and not descendency. This fact is well documented.
b. Farrakhan praised Hitler: This is another point that people blindly attribute to the Minister. However, his words were totally taken out of context, and he was misquoted. Here is what he actually said: "...So I said to the members of the press, "Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler.' Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the first world war. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chief[s] of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers."
Calling a man a "wicked killer" could hardly being construed as praising him. These are the two main points that the media has used to charge Farrakhan with anti-semitism. Both of which, you can see here, are misquotes. That would be the foundation for saying that the source of the book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, is anti-semitic. Since it cannot be shown (Without manipulation and misquotes) that the Minister is anti-semitic, then the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews cannot be called anti-semitic, simply based on who compiled it. Minister Farrakhan didn't compile the book anyway. The Nation of Islam research team did, under his instructions. They compiled it as a reply to attacks that the Nation of Islam was receiving from the Zionist community.
To sum all of this up, the article on "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" is not a true encyclopedia article. It is propaganda, geared towards keeping interested parties away from information that is contained in the book.
Questions about the Book
1. Is there an author or authors?
- It is credited to the "Nation of Islam Historical Research Dept."
- The first volume was about Jews and their involvement in the African slave trade. There was a second volume published more than a decade later that focused on other aspects of the relationship between Jews and African-Americans. I don't recall reading anything about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
What is factually wrong in the book?
Based on the Critical Reception section, the main thesis of the book and its use of data must have been debunked in at least a few of those critics' responses.
Wouldn't it be worthwhile shedding at least some light on an actual refutation of content instead of just displaying a bunch of vague rumors about how horribly "anti-Semitic" it is?
- No you cannot do that, you see when you write something negative about Africans, Christians, and esp Muslims it is okay. But some topics on Wikipedia you just can say it was antisemitic and there is absolutely no need for any refutation. NONE. So Gates did not have to even read the book, he got told what to say and responded to the title in a knee jerk fashion. I will be honest and say the book has some major issues, but is a very powerful book on a hidden topic. I see the critical reception is (like other topics critical of Jewish issues larger than anything else-- See Israeli Lobby ) Yet Tony Martin, Molefi Asante all prasised the book (and most authentic African scholars). HOWEVER, none of them are RS to be mentioned against Fox and his clean record of fighting Defamation. --Inayity (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The wiki article states "and only identified certain regions (such as Brazil and the Caribbean) where the participation was "significant."
Brazil and the Caribbean is where most of the slaves went, thus the Jewish activity was disproportional afterall.
Any positive reviews?
"Some" historians -- The use of "some" suggests there are significant numbers of historians that disagree
"Some" historians -- The use of "some" suggests there are significant numbers of historians that disagree, are there? Is the consensus of historians that this book is **not** an anti-semitic canard? Is the consensus of historians that the Jewish role in the Atlantic slave trade was not minimal?
If so, that should be documented with citations. If not, if the consensus is that the book is not factually true and is an anti-semitic canard, "some" should be removed. It's only purpose is to deny what the article actually says by framing it with doubt. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
POV much? There is one small paragraph about the general theme of the book and the rest of the page is aimed at denouncing the book as anti-semitic propaganda. Clearly, the Zionist editors are hot on this one, so I won't even bother to try to alter this page. Been there done that. Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The Secret Relationship Between the Normans and Jews.
William Mamzer and all that.
Was not the late prof. Tony Martin writing a follow-on inspired by the Blacks and Jews one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:A956:103:F8BF:42CB (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)