From The New Yorker: "My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader"

Bonk

God’s Son
Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
4,430
Reputation
1,139
Daps
16,770
Reppin
In Da 15th
Wikipedia merchant talking about checking for facts - how ironic. :russ:


Black bibles for black history & slavery

9780963687715-us-322x500.jpg

md30565846492.jpg


51ot5RqI4PL._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_ML2_.jpg


New-Project-87.png


As a black person, you have to read these books.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,062
Reputation
8,045
Daps
122,408
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Wikipedia merchant talking about checking for facts - how ironic.
:coffee:

Read ALL of them, chief.

None of them tell you how many Jews were directly involved in/benefitted from the trade or how many ships Jews owned that transported Africans to the Americas.

None of the authors possess the credentials/education to speak authoritatively on the subject of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade at all. Like an electrician trying to 'school' you about general relativity because they use some of the same formulas.

And 'The Secret Relationship....' is an utter JOKE.

:mjlol:

Keep trying. You may actually learn something.​
 
Last edited:

Bonk

God’s Son
Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
4,430
Reputation
1,139
Daps
16,770
Reppin
In Da 15th
They cited Jewish authors & Rabbis. I guess Jews were lying on themselves back then albeit they have suppressed the information now. However, you can still find the citations if you search properly.

That’s how scholarships work - you use citations to support your argument. And that’s basically what they did.

Keep spamming Wikipedia that has no academic relevance whilst arguing blindly with ulterior motive. It makes you look half-baked & you’re very transparent.
 

Bonk

God’s Son
Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
4,430
Reputation
1,139
Daps
16,770
Reppin
In Da 15th
@IllmaticDelta

I want to read your opinion on NOI’s books. I know you’re an encyclopaedia of AA history. How historically accurate are those books?
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,062
Reputation
8,045
Daps
122,408
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
They cited Jewish authors & Rabbis.
They actually 'cherry-picked' them....

But the bible of the new anti-Semitism is "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," an official publication of the Nation of Islam that boasts 1,275 footnotes in the course of 334 pages.
Sober and scholarly looking, it may well be one of the most influential books published in the black community in last 12 months. It is available in black-oriented shops in cities across the nation, even those that specialize in Kente cloth and beads rather than books. It can also can be ordered over the phone, by dialing 1-800-48-TRUTH. Meanwhile, the book's conclusions are, in many circles, increasingly treated as damning historical fact.

The book, one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled, was prepared by the historical research department of the Nation of Islam. It charges that the Jews were "key operatives"in the historic crime of slavery, playing an "inordinate" and "disproportionate" role and "carv [ ing ] out for themselves a monumental culpability in slavery -- and the black holocaust." Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.

To be sure, the book massively misrepresents the historical record, largely through a process of cunningly selective quotation of often reputable sources. But its authors could be confident that few of its readers would go to the trouble of actually hunting down the works cited. For if readers actually did so, they might discover a rather different picture.

They might find out -- from the book's own vaunted authorities -- that, for example, of all the African slaves imported into the New World, American Jewish merchants accounted for less than 2 percent, a finding sharply at odds with the Nation's of Islam's claim of Jewish "predominance" in this traffic.

They might find out that in the domestic trade it appears that all of the Jewish slave traders combined bought and sold fewer slaves than the single gentile firm of Franklin and Armfield. In short, they might learn what the historian Harold Brackman has documented at length -- that the book's repeated insistence that the Jews dominated the slave trade depends on an unscrupulous distortion of the historic record. But the most ominous words in the book are found on the cover: "Volume One." More have been promised, to carry on the saga of Jewish iniquity to the present day.

HUGE difference you'd see if you actually looked at their sources instead of just believing them without doing so just because they're Black.​
 
Last edited:

Bonk

God’s Son
Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
4,430
Reputation
1,139
Daps
16,770
Reppin
In Da 15th
Ok, cac.

Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas. Africans were running butt naked with long sticks in their noses before the white saviour civilised them. And Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Nile River flows from Europe into Africa.

The white man is the saviour & Jews ended slavery by stopping Africans from selling one another.

Happy now, Wikipedia Merchant?
 

Uncouth Savage

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
12,710
Reputation
-141
Daps
8,870
Reppin
NY
They cited Jewish authors & Rabbis. I guess Jews were lying on themselves back then albeit they have suppressed the information now. However, you can still find the citations if you search properly.

That’s how scholarships work - you use citations to support your argument. And that’s basically what they did.

Keep spamming Wikipedia that has no academic relevance whilst arguing blindly with ulterior motive. It makes you look half-baked & you’re very transparent.

is this a situation wherein it was a certain subset of them?
like a bunch of rich families
vs ALLLLLLLLLLL OF THEM?

there is a major difference there

for example in europe they had landowners and upper crust with vast wealth
whilst the majority were living in huts working the land
for example robinhood hunting on the rich people land
simply trying to feed those poor who were hungry

again pointing to a majority rich vs a minority poor

specifics matter
 

Bonk

God’s Son
Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
4,430
Reputation
1,139
Daps
16,770
Reppin
In Da 15th
is this a situation wherein it was a certain subset of them?
like a bunch of rich families
vs ALLLLLLLLLLL OF THEM?

there is a major difference there

for example in europe they had landowners and upper crust with vast wealth
whilst the majority were living in huts working the land
for example robinhood hunting on the rich people land
simply trying to feed those poor who were hungry

again pointing to a majority rich vs a minority poor

specifics matter

This is the type of debate worth having rather than outright dismissal of things that can be proven.

Obviously, it wasn’t all Jews. Heck, those involved would fall into the category of a small elite minority. Ditto the Africans involved in selling other Africans.

However, trying to dismiss it entirely is academically/historically disingenuous. And that’s what a lot of white historians like doing.

Most Jews back then were poor & they lived in ghettoes all over Europe. And they were also persecuted due to their religion. However, they also had extremely rich, powerful & influential elites that were involved in a lot of atrocities.
 

Uncouth Savage

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
12,710
Reputation
-141
Daps
8,870
Reppin
NY
This is the type of debate worth having rather than outright dismissal of things that can be proven.

Obviously, it wasn’t all Jews. Heck, those involved would fall into the category of a small elite minority. Ditto the Africans involved in selling other Africans.

However, trying to dismiss it entirely is academically/historically disingenuous. And that’s what a lot of white historians like doing.

Most Jews back then were poor & they lived ghettoes all over Europe. And they were also persecuted due to their religion. However, they also had extremely rich, powerful & influential elites that were involved in a lot of atrocities.

that is my point
if a small minority are doing it
let us point to those
they have names
they are still rich today

vs giving an impression that slavery was their thing
that title would more fall to the christians and muslims

the truth and fact is
all things done on a large scale are usually coordinated efforts
when criminals of all types come together as ONE
whether they selling slaves, crack, liquor, toys etc etc etc
ANYTHING profitable
they will do it

those groups have names
they have boards

specifics matter
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,062
Reputation
8,045
Daps
122,408
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
vs giving an impression that slavery was their thing
that title would more fall to the christians and muslims
No, it wouldn't, and for the SAME reasons you posted.

If anything, most Christians, worldwide, were leading the way to ABOLISH the trade while most Muslims accepted African slaves as part of their respective 'ummahs' (communities).​
 

Uncouth Savage

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
12,710
Reputation
-141
Daps
8,870
Reppin
NY
No, it wouldn't, and for the SAME reasons you posted.

If anything, most Christians, worldwide, were leading the way to ABOLISH the trade while most Muslims accepted African slaves as part of their respective 'ummahs' (communities).​

I refer to for example Columbus having to go to Queen Ferdinand and ask for ships and permission.
that was not the italian people
yet those in power and whom they hired

same thing for the jews
if they were involved then there were familes and businesses that are documented
not the jewish people as a whole

I am a bit harsh on the muslims and how they went about things
so I try not to say much
for it is the same as I described above
those in power vs the majority who have nothing much to do with anything

same for african kings/chiefs involved in the sale of other africans
most of the people did not benefit or have involvement

humans usually follow
and a small minority steers
 

Samori Toure

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
23,604
Reputation
7,375
Daps
114,932
No, it wouldn't, and for the SAME reasons you posted.

If anything, most Christians, worldwide, were leading the way to ABOLISH the trade while most Muslims accepted African slaves as part of their respective 'ummahs' (communities).​
Most Christians Worldwide WERE NOT leading the way for the abolition of slavery. Christians were actually the enslavers and most White Christians were very much in favor of the institution of slavery. First of all the Catholic Church authorized the practice of slavery when Pope Nicholas V authorized Alfonso of Portugal to enslave non-Christians. Meaning Africans and native people in the America's. It should be stated that a large number of Africans were Muslim.

In the USA both Protestant Christians in the North and the South engaged in slavery. So Christians were not against slavery.

The only Christians in the USA that were against slavery from the very beginning were Quakers, specifically those with Mennonite associations. That is the group of Christians that grew their small protest into a much larger protest that lay the seeds for the Civil War that eventually abolished slavery. Now days through revisionism everyone is pretending that there was widespread opposition by the Christians to slavery, which is a lie.
 

Uncouth Savage

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
12,710
Reputation
-141
Daps
8,870
Reppin
NY
Most Christians Worldwide WERE NOT leading the way for the abolition of slavery. Christians were actually the enslavers and most White Christians were very much in favor of the institution of slavery. First of all the Catholic Church authorized the practice of slavery when Pope Nicholas V authorized Alfonso of Portugal to enslave non-Christians. Meaning Africans and native people in the America's. It should be stated that a large number of Africans were Muslim.

In the USA both Protestant Christians in the North and the South engaged in slavery. So Christians were not against slavery.

The only Christians in the USA that were against slavery from the very beginning were Quakers, specifically those with Mennonite associations. That is the group of Christians that grew their small protest into a much larger protest that lay the seeds for the Civil War that eventually abolished slavery. Now days through revisionism everyone is pretending that there was widespread opposition by the Christians to slavery, which is a lie.

west africa?
correct me if I am wrong here
if muslims could not be enslaved and sold

and that was reserved for non muslims
how could that be so?

and from brazil, cuba, guyana etc etc etc
the people practice voodoo/obeah etc as ANCESTRAL religions
 
Top