Talk:African slave trade/Archive 2

WRONG AND UNREFERENCED INFO
This has got to be the worst article on Wikipedia.

Just like ignorant and hateful people to pin the whole slavery on black people themselves and actually, can you imagine actually try to pass the credit for the abolition of slavery to white people. Can you imagine such lies and nonsense. Guess you have the right to publish what you want for now.

Like black folks went to beg your ships to come across the seas. The writers of this article must either be racist or just pure lazy/hateful people. WHAT NONSENSE.

Where did the weapons and ships come from? Did Africans ask for this? Where U even there? Didn't the helpless people try to fight for themselves?

Did U even talk about the economic loss to Africa and its effect to date? or the gains to white countries?

GET A LIFE WIKIPEDIA (or stop writing at all- Lately you guys articles have been full of lies and inaccuracies anyway but this is by far your greatest deception of all).

P.S. Found this on Ur link on Trans Atlantic Slavery - maybe U can start from here.

In letters written by the Manikongo, Nzinga Mbemba Afonso, to the King João III of Portugal, he writes that Portuguese merchandise flowing in is what is fueling the trade in Africans. He requests the King of Portugal to stop sending merchandise but should only send missionaries. In one of his letter he writes:

"Each day the traders are kidnapping our people—children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family. This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves." Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects.... They sell them. After having taken these prisoners [to the coast] secretly or at night..... As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron."[67]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.14.205 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion to Include "Nevertheless" in one of the Paragraphs and to revert POV edits
The section in question is "Effects on Europe's Economy", 2nd paragraph therein (the paragraph that starts with "Eric Williams"). I have been reverted several times for including the word "nevertheless" at the start of the last sentence of that paragraph. This is to add contrast to the claims of Eric Williams, since the last sentence directly undermines the contentions of Williams' claims. The sources provided are from the University of Houston and from David Richardson's "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," both seemingly reliable sources, one of which, the former, has been questioned as "unreliable" by the user Malik Shabazz. Given that many other sources within this article could be labeled "unreliable" as well, I believe this is an attempt to discredit this information, possibly due to an underlying bias. Nevertheless, I am opening the discussion as to whether the word "nevertheless", or "however", should be included in this part of the article. The claims by Eric Williams are just that- his claims. The counter to his claims are grounded in factual sources that speak to numbers: less than 5% and 1%, respectively per the two sources cited at the end of the 2nd paragraph within the "Effects on Europe's Economy" section; thus, the latter should have more weight as fact, as opposed to the claims of Eric Williams which have not been supported by anything else in the article except a source by Mr. Williams himself. Please discuss here. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost


 * Please comment on content, not on the contributor; and don't get me started on your underlying bias, okay?
 * Your assertions about Williams and Richardson—that one merely makes claims and the other is a factual source—could be applied just as well backwards as forwards. Two historians disagree about how to interpret the data. It is not our job to select the "correct" set of facts; we simply report that there are two conflicting sets of claims. Please read WP:NPOV. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of my edits, they are bias-correcting, not bias-adding, so I'm not really sure what you mean by your first comment. Your own edit history is far from what I would call "unbiased", but I'm not about to go to the effort to link your contributions page here- users can easily access that through your handle. Secondly, your argument about Williams and Richardson is incorrect; Richardson's claims are backed by tangible evidence that is cited in his publication; Williams' claims are generalizations and hypotheses. Have you even read one sentence of these sources? Therefore, you're incorrect to state that it can be applied "just as well backwards as forwards." Comparing Richardson's sources to Williams' would be akin to comparing a scientific finding in support of evolution and a religious claim that existence originates with a deity. They are not on the same level as far as what we hold to be "fact." Your argument therefore fails; at the expiration of 24 hours, I am reverting your edits back to before this edit war began. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost
 * Furthermore, if you look at the information regarding Eric Williams' statements, there is not even a source to back this up- it is just thrown out there. And what happens when this is contradicted with statements that actually do have a source? The user Malik Shabazz questions the reliability of the sources while leaving the unsourced statements of Eric Williams completely untouched. So let me get this straight: you question a source that contradicts Williams, but you do not even question the fact that the information on Williams does not have any source at all? And you are calling me biased? Nice argument there buddy. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost


 * Please read WP:NPOV. And WP:NPA. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to comprehend my argument. A neutral point of view does not mean placing material that can be supported with tangible data on the same level as one that cannot so be supported. Therefore, your WP:NPOV argument fails. Secondly, I am arguing against your relevant actions on the African Slave Trade article and the Atlantic Slave Trade article, not against you personally. Therefore, your WP:NPA argument fails. As I've stated previously, factual information will not stand on the same footing as non-factual. Eric Williams' statements are not only unsourced, but the source that provides them is entirely circular: they originate with hypotheses and generalizations by none other than Mr. Williams himself. Conversely, the sources refuting Mr. Williams are Richardson and the Digital History cite from the University of Houston, among others. ElliotJoyce (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost
 * Given the above, your comment at 3RR - "At this point, I don't even care about the "nevertheless" or "however"- I just want the pages to read the way they did before Malik Shabazz came in and edited without justification or rationale" is hard to understand. If you don't care, then drop it. If you think Williams is not a reliable source, go to RSN. If you change your mind again and think there are NPOV reasons to include 'nevertheless'then go to NPOVN. Or find a way to word that others are happy with. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both historians provide tangible data in their respective books. You would elevate the view that slaving was a minor feature of the British economy. Well, too bad. Data supports the other analysis as well. That's why we present both arguments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have stated that both historians provide "tangible data in their respective books", and this is precisely what I've challenged. Williams' assertions are hypotheses and generalizations that are unsupported by factual accounts. I'm re-reading exactly the pages you've cited at the moment to make sure I did not miss anything. Before I brought up the fact that the Williams' statements were unsourced, you completely passed over this fact on your way to denigrate the Richardson and Digital History sources. This marks your bias. The fact that profits from slavery comprised less than 5% of the British economy, and that even less (1%) was domestically invested, should be enough to relegate Williams' to a lower level than both of the other two sources. And Dougweller, thanks for your suggestions. I am less concerned about the "nevertheless" and more so about the bias that Malik Shabazz is inserting into this article.ElliotJoyce (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost
 * I've added a quote in the reference by Williams that appears on the bottom of page 105 and top of page 106, justifying my revision. Also, in the pages you provided, Mr. Shabazz, I did not find where Mr. Williams stated that it was in Britain's economic advantage to abolish slavery at the time that it did so. I will not remove that part for now, but if you do not provide a location within the book where this is stated, I will look for it myself, and if I do not find it, I will delete that part of the article since it is unsourced.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost


 * I was remiss in not including pp. 169–177, which support that part of Williams' thesis. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the original pages you added, pages 98-107, do not establish Williams' assertion that the slave trade was "essential" in financing the Industrial Revolution. His argument therein is that it had a significant effect, but he acknowledges, through the quote I had previously inserted which you deleted, that it must not be thought from his argument that the slave trade was the sole or even major part of influence on the Industrial Revolution's financing. In the last 2 days, I've researched this, and the established position in academia is that the Williams thesis is flawed and ultimately untenable. I will not modify the information in the article (for now) regarding Eric Williams, even though it is taken out of context and presents Williams' own position much stronger than Williams' himself did, although I have added numerous other reputable historians that have shown the William thesis to be, in a word, wrong.ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

It's usually better to avoid nevertheless and similar. "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second," says Manual of Style/Words to watch. If the sources in general say Williams is wrong, we should just say so directly. If we can't say that, we shouldn't subtly imply it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about "nevertheless" and similar words, that in principle, they do convey a certain relationship between juxtaposed ideas or statements. But prior to this whole brouhaha, you'll note that Williams, as it remains now, is the prime advocate of what has come to be called the "Williams Thesis" in academia. I found so much scholarly work dismissing or contradicting Williams, that I could only include a small portion of it (which I did, with the articles by Engerman and Pares). In my opinion, the Williams Thesis has been proven untenable, therefore I find inclusion of the word "nevertheless" appropriate in conveying to the reader this state of affairs in academia, but since the word has proven to be contentious, I will leave it at that, for now.ElliotJoyce (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Digital History -- Reliable source?
Digital History is cited as a source in the article. I don't believe it is a reliable source, because it is part of a lesson plan for K-12 teachers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that a source is part of a lesson plan for K-12 teachers does not make it unreliable; furthermore, the Digital History source is from the University of Houston and was created by one Stephen Mintz, who is currently Director for the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Teaching Center at Columbia University (http://history.columbia.edu/fac-bios/Mintz/faculty.html). Therefore, your argument fails to properly communicate why this is an unreliable source. But, all this is moot anyways since I've removed the source and added one from JSTOR.org, the online catalog of academic journals.ElliotJoyce (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost


 * This should be a reliable source for general history - Washington crossing the Delaware, for instance. It's probably not such a good choice for details of economic history, or for contested points. A textbook used in an undergraduate course at a major university is often a good source. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already replaced the questioned source, Mr. Harrison, to a more widely accepted site (JSTOR). Despite this, I remain unconvinced that simply because material is used in a K-12 lesson plan it becomes "unreliable."ElliotJoyce (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Factual References
This article is too biased. No one obviously wants to take the blame for such a horrible thing some authors have come up with a smart way of passing the buck to the victims themselves.

I suggest you read the works of Chinua Achebe on slavery and find out the facts on how the trade started and what encouraged it.

Here is a youtube link to get you started: youtube.com/watch?v=mNdjcFOoVi8&feature=related

He answers very interesting questions.

Thank you.


 * Fact: Black Africans sold their own people (other blacks) to the Europeans.
 * Fact: When the Europeans ended the slave trade, some of the leaders of certain black African kingdoms protested, saying they wanted the slave trade to go on.
 * Fact: Many black African leaders knew of the harsh slavery that awaited those sold into slavery for the New World- some visited these places, some sent their children to be educated in Europe, and former slaves returned to Africa to settle what today is Sierra Leone and Liberia.
 * Fact: If they had not been sold into slavery, but rather had remained in Africa, some slaves headed for the New World would have been sacrificed in violent rituals, such as the ones practiced by the Kingdom of Dahomey called the "annual customs." ElliotJoyce (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of Vost

Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles
Because of a lot of overlap in content and some large missing holes in various issues, I started a discussion about clearly developing a plan for the content on the various Africa-slavery related pages. Please contribute at the discussion at Talk:Slavery in Africa. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be WP:BRD removing large content in the next couple of days from this page (to move to other pages). It will be a large blanking, so please contribute at the discussion at Talk:Slavery in Africa if there are any inputs on this process. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, that was some test edits. Removed a lot of bytes of content from the page. All the content is located on (or was moved to) other pages.  If anyone has a problem with it, please restore the content and then I'll buy us a round of beers at the Slavery in Africa talk page (linked above) to discuss it. If these blankings are generally unreverted, more will happen tomorrow.  The total migration will be done in about four days. Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk)
 * The "Slavery in Somalia" section was actually discussing about the internal slave trade in Africa. As it was part of a wider slave trade. Is the content removed or replaced? And there is no problem when the content exists in an other page, it's just a summary of that page and its relevant to this article. Runehelmet (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, please feel free to restore any cuts which happen, I am not trying to impose a right article but start discussion about what goes in. The concern (reflected by some of the long-standing tags on this page) is that the "African slave trade" page should focus primarily on the slave trade within Africa not 1. All slavery issues in Africa or 2. those international trades which are covered elsewhere. I agree that the Somalia issue does show connections to the Arab Slave trade, but content does not establish A. any indigenous slave trade (like we might find in West Africa and the Sahel, and B. It seemed more than a summary of the connection and extended into a larger discussion (Once again--please feel free to disagree and revert the edit.) For example, the discussion of Oromo enslavement is not about any trade at all, it is about war capture. The interpretation I'm working with is: This page should be limited to discussion of A. indigenous slave trades in Africa, B. how they were augmented by the Arab and Atlantic slave trades, and C. the impacts of these trades in Africa.  The Somalia content thus was more appropriate on other pages where it fit more clearly (either Slavery in Africa or Arab slave trade). Other options could include a more focused summary or the full content restored. Somalia and West Africa were test cases, so the answer we come up with is important: Thanks for the discussion look forward to a response. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that "Slavery in Somalia" is discussing the internal slave trade within Africa. The trade routes were spreaded throughout the Horn region. So my thoughts are:"Why do you think it is not an indigenous slave trade?", as the slave trade was maintained by Somalis, an African ethnic group, and sold to 'customers' in the Horn of Africa. But I must say that you are right about the "Oromo enslavement". Regards. Runehelmet (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly see your point. It seems very reasonable. Let me briefly put my thought on the issue. There were three "slave trades" in Africa (connected, but separate): the Atlantic slave trade, the Arab slave trade, and an African slave trade. When looking at content, I think we should ask are 1. Where, in terms of the three trades, is this discussed in context by the literature? and 2. Were the trade networks something in-Africa or just an extension of the other trades?  My reading of the Horn of Africa content was in the literature it is often connected directly with the Arab slave trade and I did not get an idea that unique trade networks were designed other than inland raiding to supply coastal ports.  If either of these are incorrect, please say so or if the questions are not the proper questions you think we should be asking for this page.(I do feel this has been a very productive exchange and am happy I choose to delete the Somalia section because it got us to the heart of the question so quickly and with good examples.  For the time being, I am restoring the Somalia section so that we can more clearly see it. If we decide to scale it down or cut it entirely will be decided here on the talk page.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternative idea is to Merge all content on this page into Slavery in Africa and then there is no need to keep this page so it redirects to that page. Reasons: 1. "African slave trade" is a rarely used term to describe the slave trade inside Africa and more often the Atlantic slave trade. 2. The African slave trade was rarely separate enough from other slave trades to justify a separate article (and probably the reason this page sprawled). 3. No need to make tricky decisions about what to keep, what to move. Just move it all. So Somalia stuff stays in (Midday added it today) and all the other content also stays. It may be a simpler way to achieve similar ends. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should be better to merge/move this article. Regards. Runehelmet (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I didnt even know there was another article Slavery in Africa. But I think the modern and historical should be separated. There will be overlap as reality is hardly going to fit into Arab, Atlantic and local. at many times what started local ended up in the Atlantic. So Atlantic impacted local, etc.--Inayity (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bring that content over here and change the name of this one to Slavery in Africa, it is true that the word "trade" is more common only when discussing it in relation to Arab and European. B/c that article is not 1/2 as developed as this one.
 * OK proposed merger at my sandbox. The Atlantic and Arab slave trade section was paired down to the one on Slavery in Africa which is much more concise and avoids the long-standing tag. Other than that all content was retained on both pages. I'll do more thorough editing to repair some links and remove other tags, but for now this is a general merge of the content.  Comment here what you think, feel free to edit my Sandbox, and I'll do the switcheroo (exactly what Inayity suggested) on Feb. 24th. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged content done. Comments on content gaps in the merger process appreciated. Move request tomorrow. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Making It better
The new material is of a much lower standard that what existed here before. The old lede is far superior and succinct. While there needs to be a merger, that merger should fill in missing information, not add in huge chunks of unreference material. It seems the old version focuses on Islam and Slavery in Africa, this is not true to the name of the article. Slavery existed in many societies in Africa, esp West and North and East Africa long long before Islam. After Islam they continued, were modulated (in some cases), modified in others until the Atlantic slave trade. The lede or sub-lede should speak of the continent, not make it look like slavery was unique or flourishing only in certain parts. More than enough books (manning, Thornton) speak of warfare and slavery in Africa. Let us reference stuff (with balance) or leave it out. --Inayity (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created a "Overview of slavery in Africa" so as not to delete the material moved over. It needs serious work. It needs ref and I have left tagging it alone because I know it is a WIP. I think trying to sum up slavery (as the section has done) has not reflected the width and breath of slavery in historical Africa. --Inayity (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree about this edit on a number of issues. First, the Lead was unsourced because it reflects the content of the article (per WP:Lead).  If you want a shorter lead, that is great, but there is only "huge chunks of unreferenced material" with recent edits. Second, the new content is not of lower standard (actually higher standard). It all comes from top-flight scholarly works (like those you mention and Lovejoy). I think a more thorough reading of the page may be appropriate.  Third, it is ok to improve the lead, please do, but the lead reflects the content that was added throughout the article in order to merge it exactly with the content you want (pre-medieval slavery in Africa and warfare). Fourth, I'm fine with an overview section, but it doesn't need to just be the stuff taken from the lead and thrown below.  We can write that section just like every other section.  Fifth, succinctness is of course a laudable goal, but it seems the lead at this point is too brief and does not introduce the topic sufficiently. In summary, if you want a shorter lead that is fine.  But it seems unwise to take a lead that reflects the extensively sourced content of the page and just skewer it to transform it into "unsourced content." AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

African slave trade or Slavery in Historical Africa
The later name is actually more accurate, much of the slaving was not part of a trade but part of warfare (Thornton). Trade was limited. So the best name is Slavery within Africa (or something like that). However, the most popular name used everywhere is African slave trade (per Amazon), per Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades By Patrick Manning. etc. See Wikipedia naming policy, --Inayity (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Notice when Karenga says African Slave trade he is not speaking about slavery within Africa but the trade in Africans for the Atlantic market. So the term is (in my opinion confusing), far better to say Slavery within Africa or Historical Africa. --Inayity (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees that African slave trade is a poor title, that's why we are merging this to Slavery in Africa, right? AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the topic of confusing names, there is a dull discussion of moving the page Slavery in modern Africa to "Contemporary slavery in Africa" because of similar confusion caused by the names (I agree with Inayity and others that "African slave trade" is a confusing title). That name request is also based upon Manning's book; where "modern" for him means 1500-1900, but the wikipedia article is focused on persistent forms of slavery in the world today--so another confusing title. It would be great to get some input in the name change request over there. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)