Talk:Atlantic slave trade/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Indian enslavement in America"

@Magonz: It's better to discuss on this talk page than by edit summaries. I still object to the inclusion of the book by Andrés Reséndez. I don't doubt that Columbus and maybe some other conquistadors took Indigenous Americans to Europe into slavery. But since the demand for labour in the Americas soon became so strong that Africans were enslaved and taken to the Americas (and to Europe), I don't think that the numbers of Americans taken across the Atlantic to Europa totalled more than some thousand people. Since the Africans taken to the Americas numbered at least 12 million, the book seems pretty irrelevant for this article. However, I think it was a good addition for Slavery in the United States. From what I saw of the book (I took a look at the table of contents), it seems to focus on the enslaved people who remained in the Americas, which I see as an additional reason to remove it from this article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow a thousand people are not enough to be considered in the Atlantic slave trade? I am afraid you are quite wrong. Look at the ships that go from Africa directly to Europe, for example. This is part of the Atlantic slave trade. The direction was not just from Africa to America, but from Africa to Europe and from America to Europe.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_history_of_american_slavery/2015/06/animated_interactive_of_the_history_of_the_atlantic_slave_trade.html

Magonz (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Magonz: Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). The map is good, but doesn't support your claim that any significant number of enslaved Indigenous Americans was traded across the Atlantic. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Just how many people are enough for you to include a little known fact of the Atlantic slave trade? Also, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a broad introduction to a subject, and a book that sheds light into a little known part of the slave trade is good for the list? Magonz (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

WP follows academic scholarship, so what is considered relevant by reliable (see WP:RS) secondary sources (see WP:PSTS) is relevant for WP. This is discussed e.g. at WP:DUE. When I am wondering whether to include a certain fact or not, I often ask myself whether it will be helpful or confusing for the average reader, e.g. a student having to prepare a paper on a certain subject. From another point of view, the comment by SimonP below also gives an excellent explanation why that book should not be included. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: @SimonP: That is a non answer. Anyway, there is also another Wikipedia policy which is to include a broad introduction to a subject. By leaving out this book, the whole subject of indigenous slaves taken to the so called old world to be domestic servants, sexual slaves, cooks, babysitters, etc. is not going to be known. Indigenous peoples also come from Africa to Europe. Via the Atlantic. In the same ships of the Atlantic slave trade. Can you address this point as well? Magonz (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To add a third opinion, further reading is for books entirely related to a subject. If a book includes a few facts related to an article it should be used as a reference for those facts. I do think there is some content to be added in this area. The Slave Voyage database does have three vessels taking slaves from the Americas to Europe in the 18th century. It seems a big gap that we have Slavery in medieval Europe and Slavery in modern Europe, but nothing in between. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleted dubious part of 'Legacy of Racism'

I have deleted the following paragraph from the 'Legacy of Racism' section (italics mine), because it is dubious, uncited or irrelevant:

The belief that Caucasian Europeans were divinely ordained by an omnipotent Judeo-Christian God as 'superior' to other human races with darker skin, a major tenet of the White supremacy movement, was one of the misperceptions that would allow industrial-scale slavery across the Atlantic to thrive. In the Americas, slavery and racism seem to have strengthened each other. This would still have to be compared to racism in other parts of the world, as there was also Slavery in China and India for ages. Russia's over 23 million privately held serfs were freed from their lords by an edict of Alexander II in 1861. The owners were compensated through taxes on the freed serfs. State serfs were emancipated in 1866. The common decisive factor seems to be saving money on the overall cost of labor.

Scientific racism was also a commonly used justification for race based slavery and continued to be long after the abolition of slavery.

• The 'Judeo-Christian' God bit is dubious and unsupported. Not many 17th or 18th century Europeans would have referred to God as 'Judeo-Christian', and white superiority is not a 'tenet' of white supremacy, it is the same thing. And it doesn't need to be, and often is not justified with reference to God. And any claim that white people believed they are superior because of God needs to be backed up.
• Racism and slavery seem to have strengthened each other - plausible but really needs citation
• 'This would have to be compared' - A poorly worded sentence that does not belong in this article
• Russian serfdom - irrelevant to this article
• Scientific racism - Something about this probably should be here but the specific claim made above seems dubious since scientific racism was for the most part a later development, in its heyday after slavery had been abolished. If anything it is more closely tied to colonalism rather than slavery. Perhaps there should be something like 'Scientific racism was a phenomenon in which there was an attempt to provide scientific justification for prexisting ideas about racial hierachies developed during the era of Atlantic slavery'. But since I don't know that to be the case I won't add it. LastDodo (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Wikilinks

Please change Benin to Benin and add a wikilink to the Laws of Burgos. I can't add them myself as the article is edit-protected. 223.184.54.245 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I linked Laws of Burgos, but don't see any errors with Benin. The section refers to an apology by the President of the modern state of Benin for the involvement of the former Kingdom of Dahomey, rather than anything about the former Kingdom of Benin, the territory of which is in present day Nigeria. LastDodo (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about the Benin in Atlantic slave trade#African conflicts section. Apologies for the ambiguity.223.184.54.245 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to both LastDodo and the IP. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Is anyone able to find a citation for this statement (in bold)?:

"These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings were only interested in protecting their own ethnic group, but sometimes criminals would be sold to get rid of them."

Thank you, --Factssweetly (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Why do I see " David Moon, Abolition of Serfdom in Russia: 1762–1907 (2002)" under my post?

Can someone change citation 69 to the full citation? It currently reads "Hair and Law 1998", but I've tracked the citation down as Hair, P. E. H.; Law, R. (1998) 'The English in West Africa to 1700'. In N. Canny (ed) 'The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century', Oxford: Oxford University Press. (I don't have sufficient editing privileges) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.87 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Heritability of slavery in Africa

The present article states that in Africa (in contrast to the Americas) 'in general, slavery in Africa was not heritable', but in the same section a quote from Mungo Park directly contradicts this: 'slaves which are thus brought from the interior may be divided into two distinct classes—first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers; secondly, such as were born free, ...' People cannot be 'slaves from their birth' unless the status of slavery is inherited. I'm not going to argue about the facts here, I'm just pointing out an obvious inconsistency. Mungo Park may have been wrong, but at least he was there.86.139.81.90 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I too noticed this contradiction; it simply cannot stand... I do not know which is correct, but I seriously doubt that both are. We need to decide how to resolve this. Any suggestions? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of Africa, at Chuma and Susi#Background I've noted that "Many traders were Afro-Arabs, notably Tippu Tip, operating from Zanzibar. In addition, Portuguese and Afro-Portuguese landowners exported slaves to Brazil.[5] Livingstone noted slave trading by "Manganja" (Mang'anja) and "Waiyau" (Yao) African people, but this "strange idea of property in man that permits him to be sold to another" was not held by others such as the Xhosa, Zulu and Tswana people.[6][7]" "A History Of The Arab Slave Trade In Africa". Sovereign Nations. 30 April 2018. Retrieved 18 November 2021. may be of use: "The conditions of the enslaved Africans under Islamic Arabs, according to Ronald Segal (Islam’s Black Slaves, Atlantic Books 2003) was very different from the conditions imposed by Europeans Christians. The most fundamental difference between the two being that under Islam enslaved Africans were still considered human beings with some rights. Additionally unlike European Christian based slavery where even people who converted to Christianity were kept in perpetual bondage, the children of slaves who converted to Islam were born free." . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @Dave souza: but Segal was no academic historian, and I don't see how his words should be "of use" here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

The following starts with an unsubstantiated statement. It makes the assumption or sends the message that ALL slavery in America was Chattel slavery. I understand the focus of this article is the Atlantic Trade, but that doesn't change the fact that Chattel slavery existed in no less than North and Eastern Africa. Your article's statement contradicts another Wikipedia article. There is no evidence to the contrary. The East African and North African Slave trade was rife with chattel slavery. There are endless cases of slaves buying their freedom, receiving their freedom after a period of years, not unlike indentured servants. You will find endless sources contradicting the writer's presumptive notion that only in America were the children of Slaves were also enslaved. Several sources state that Africa practiced Chattel slavery. You will find references in the Yale link below to a paper mentioning chattel slavery continuing in Africa long after it was made illegal in the US.

Lebenlernen (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)user Lebenlernen Slavery in Africa and the New World contrasted

Further information: Slavery in Africa

Forms of slavery varied both in Africa and in the New World. In general, slavery in Africa was not heritable—that is, the children of slaves were free—while in the Americas, children of slave mothers were considered born into slavery. This was connected to another distinction: slavery in West Africa was not reserved for racial or religious minorities, as it was in European colonies, although the case was otherwise in places such as Somalia, where Bantus were taken as slaves for the ethnic Somalis.[94][95]

https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/events/cbss/Miers.pdf https://research.cornell.edu/news-features/curious-history-slavery-west-africa https://afrinik.com/chattel-slavery-most-common-form-of-slavery/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/827888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Africa Lebenlernen (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello there Lebenlernen, and welcome back to Wikipedia! When submitting an edit request it is necessary that you inform editors reviewing them what exactly you would like to be changed within the article. This should be phrased in the form of change X to Y. If you would like to have an overarching discussion regarding whether or not the article is accurate or true, then that would be something to have a discussion about here without an edit request. If you would like to get more eyes on this discussion, I would advise going to the teahouse and get guidance from more experienced editors than myself.

Alternatively, you may wait until you are autoconfirmed - which happens once you make 10 edits - and you may make any and all desired changes yourself.

Feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have on my talk page.

Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Slave Trade Act (1788)

Should the abolition part of this article not mention the Slave Trade Act 1788? It was a first, albeit tentative, step to ameliorate conditions and reduce mortality. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CERosas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about a source

I can't find the part in the BBC Article that's listed as a sources for the statement "while others had been captured directly by the slave traders in coastal raids"

The link leads me to a selection of three sublink-options and I checked them separately and still can't find the sentence. Can someone point it out specifically? Ridis B (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind guys I found it. The sentence simply starts differently than the Wikipedia preview shows. Ridis B (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Under "Background" then "European slavery in Portugal and Spain" the first sentence is "By the 15th century, slavery had existed in the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Spain) of Western Europe throughout recorded history." This sentence contradicts itself and also has no source to verify which is correct. Wikipesepi (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I made a slight clarification, but this is sourced, it as it's dealing with the Atlantic slave trade, it makes sense to mention that in the 15th century slavery was already present in those areas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A YouTube video as possible new entry in the section "External Links"

After viewing this excellent BBC documentary on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, I thought it worthwhile to suggest that it be added to the list of External Links treating on this important subject. Although the video is only one of many episodes, my view is that it encapsulates in its coverage of the African slave trade the essential points related to the trade.

• BBC News Africa, Slavery and Suffering - History Of Africa with Zeinab Badawi [Episode 16] on YouTube, BBC documentary / Oct. 2020

Enjoy!--Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Incompatible texts about born slaves in Africa

"In general, slavery in Africa was not heritable—that is, the children of slaves were free" 13 lines below: "first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers"

Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.St (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Catholic Church

@Moses Blomstein: There are lots of academic historians who wrote about the Atlantic slave trade. An analysis of the role of the Catholic, Anglican and other churches in supporting the trade is of course desirable, but it should be based on an academic work or at least on a summary by some paper that regularly features good historical summaries. The author of your Amsterdam News source doesn't even know that the Netherlands were one of the leading Protestants powers of those days. Please read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD before restoring your version again. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all the source from the Amsterdam website refers not only to Catholic countries but even to countries with heavy catholic influence such as England and the Netherlands. Second there were different sources cited within the Amsterdam newspaper such as Jonathan Chism at the University of Houston, and even an admission by Georgetown University for their role in the slave trade.Moses Blomstein (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We have two different problems now: The first one is that you are edit warring, see WP:WAR. The other one is the content problem. While I have to retract the word "obscure", I still have my doubts regarding the reliability of the source. Talking about heavy Catholic influence in the Netherlands seems unconnected to the historical reality. But its character as a summary of many centuries is what really disqualifies it in my eyes. Also, the claims The transatlantic slave trade was founded on Christianity and the Catholic Church was the backbone of the Atlantic slave trade are quite extraordinary, they have to be supported by extraordinarily good sources (see WP:REDFLAG). There are a lot of rules here on Wikipedia that can make it quite difficult to add things to an article, but those rules are designed to make WP a quality encyclopedia. So, please don't let those rules discourage you. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's go over your 2 statements:

"But its character as a summary of many centuries is what really disqualifies it in my eyes.

Wikipedia is based off of facts not about what something is to "your eyes".

"Also, the claims The transatlantic slave trade was founded on Christianity and the Catholic Church was the backbone of the Atlantic slave trade are quite extraordinary, they have to be supported by extraordinarily good sources (see WP:REDFLAG)."

The involvement of Christianity and the Catholic Church in the Atlantic Slave is backed up by mainstream sources, documented quotes from the trade and analyses from the academic professors. So it cannot be considered an "extraordinary claim".Moses Blomstein (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WP is based on WP:RS. Nobody denies the involvement of Christians (not "Christianity") and the Catholic Church. But your claims are going much further. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Moses Blomstein, for ease of discussion, could you put a draft of your proposed addition, complete with sources, here on the talk page? It would make reviewing and discussing much easier. Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, Here is my proposed draft addition, "The transatlantic slave trade was founded on Christianity. According to historians, the Catholic Church was the backbone of the Atlantic slave trade and that most slave traders and slave captains were 'very good Christians'. Dr. Jonathan Chism, an assistant professor of history at the University of Houston has said that, "Persons who considered themselves to be Christian played a major role in upholding and justifying the enslavement of Africans." In a book by Katherine Gerbner titled, "Christian Slavery: Conversion and race in the Protestant Atlantic World", she traces the transition over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries of "Protestant Supremacy", in which Protestant Christian planters claimed Christian identity for themselves while denying it to African slaves to one of "Christian Slavery", which "reconciled Protestantism with bondage" and promoted the conversion of enslaved people. Christian Slavery also mentions that the Church was at the center of England's 17th century overseas, countering assessments of English imperialism which place religion in a secondary role." Moses Blomstein (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A question for Moses Blomstein: have you read the article by Katie Cannon in full, or are you just going by the preview viewable on JSTOR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning "one book" and highlighting it is giving it undue weight. a WP article should summarize most available sources- not highlight favorites. So I would say remove that whole sentence- or (if it is decided it should stay in at all) change it to read "From the 17th to 18th centuries, there was a transition from "Protestant Supremacy", in which Protestant Christian planters claimed Christian identity for themselves while denying it to African slaves to one of "Christian Slavery", which "reconciled Protestantism with bondage" and promoted the conversion of enslaved people. The Church was at the center of England's 17th century overseas, countering assessments of English imperialism which place religion in a secondary role." However- I agree that more than 1 (semi-questionable) source is needed to insert these rather extreme sentences into the article. While you are correct- many many historians have discussed the role of Christianity in the slave trade- what you are claiming is that it was almost a conspiracy theory by the church itself to subjugate people. And maybe it was- but to say that as fact- you need a solid rock (pun intended) to build that argument on- so unquestionable sources and lots of them. However, there is absolutely room to further discuss the church and Christianity's role in the slave trade without outright making the claim that they were the driving force. And your sources could be used to increase this article's discussion of the role of the church- just be careful to not make giant claims built on flimsy sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a rephrased version: ""According to historians, the Catholic Church supported the Atlantic slave trade as well as stated that most slave traders and slave captains were 'very good Christians'. Dr. Jonathan Chism, an assistant professor of history at the University of Houston has said that, "Persons who considered themselves to be Christian played a major role in upholding and justifying the enslavement of Africans." Additionally, Katherine Gerbner has written in her book titled Christian Slavery that, From the 17th to 18th centuries, there was a transition from "Protestant Supremacy", in which Protestant Christian planters claimed Christian identity for themselves while denying it to African slaves to one of "Christian Slavery", which "reconciled Protestantism with bondage" and promoted the conversion of enslaved people. The Church was at the center of England's 17th century overseas, countering assessments of English imperialism which place religion in a secondary role."Moses Blomstein (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a major claim based on *ONE* newspaper article, a newswire piece from 2018. A claim like this cannot be referenced to a simple newspaper article. You would need reliable *Academic* sources referenced properly. The overall claim is also not articulated in correct and proper encyclopedic language. There is no place for such superficial, generic statements in Wikipedia, statements that are also not supported by reliable academic sources. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also- your suggested edit as written contains copyright infringement. The first sentence is lifted directly from the source with no quotations. You need to put in your own words or paraphrase. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually think the journal cite is pretty good, but we can't present it as a scholarly consensus based on that article alone. I am not even sure it alone represents a notable minority viewpoint. But if you can find more sources along these lines, you'd be wlel on your way to including the content in some form. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that the Cannon quote is relevant here. Cannon is a Christian theologian, not a historian. She writes for Christian readers advocating for a change in Christian spirituality based on the acknowledment of historic guilt. This is very well for a journal of Christian theology, but WP is no Christian encyclopedia, and so we cannot write something based on her article. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rsk6400 -- I would respectfully disagree here, to some small extent. While I don't think the quote (or source) belongs in the article devoid of context as a standalone, a theologian opining on the role of Christianity in history is, to me, a usable data point. Again, I am not saying it should go in now, but is along the lines of the kinds of sources we would need to include a claim of this kind. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I found more sources that further highlight the role of the Catholic Church and Christianity in the Slave Trade [[1]],[[2]]. What do you think about these? Cheers.Moses Blomstein (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Moses Blomstein, you might do well to do a little research into the distinction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, and where exactly Anglicanism stands within that divide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems like part of the problem here is that we have an editor who is seeking sources to support a statement or point of view that they very much want to see added to an article, however- this is a backwards approach for writing an article. Instead of finding sources to support your thesis- Editors on WP should write a thesis that supports the sources. Review as many available sources as possible and then write the article that they support. When you come up with your thesis and then start seeking sources that agree with it- you may find that the only sources that support your thesis are not as solid or strong as we like here. Again- I think there is a lot to be said about the role of Christianity and Christians in the slave trade..... but I think you would do better to go read all of the academic sources you can find that discuss that topic and then summarize what they say AFTER you have reviewed them. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, Nightenbelle. There's been some discussion of this so-called "backward editing," and while it's something I end up engaging in from time to time, you need to do so carefully and prepared to reach a different conclusion than the one with which you began. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Well said! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that backwards editing is always necessarily bad- but I do think it takes a very experienced editor to do it while also maintaining NPOV and also incorporating acceptable sources while not avoiding/ignoring contrary sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No mention of the Jews, which is odd. Especially odd since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moses_Blomstein brings up The Netherlands. I consider The Atlantic to be a respected reliable source, so one wonders what to do with this:

" Jewish citizens of the Netherlands were able to participate in domestic and foreign trade, including the slave trade on the coast of West Africa and in the Americas. These Jews, along with many Christian Dutch traders, supplied slaves not only to the Dutch colonial enterprises in Brazil and Surinam but also to Curaçao and other islands in the Antilles for transhipment to the New World colonies of other European nations. Ironically, Jews were therefore able to make major investments in landed enterprises--which in tropical America meant slave plantations--in Brazil and then Surinam." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/slavery-and-the-jews/376462/ Perhaps there should be a section on the participation of the Jews in The Atlantic Slave Trade article, perhaps not. 75.61.99.105 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References

No mention of Belgians

I would like to note that this article makes no mention of Belgium or Belgians. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the country has only existed in its modern form since 1830, was it involved in any way with a trade that was suppressed after 1807? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The country as it now stands didn't exist during the time of the Atlantic slave trade, but Ostend slave traders certainly did. The untold story of the Belgian slave trade AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting reading. It does, however, bring out that Ostend was part of the "Southern Netherlands", a part of Austria. If someone wants to write this up they'll need to ensure good citing and a care for local sensibilities. Even the subtitle would be problematic: "Belgian slave trade", "Ostend slave trade", "[Southern] Netherlands slave trade" or "Austrian slave trade"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The Austrian Netherlands were a part of the Austrian Habsburg empire, they were never a part of Austria itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Two tables and one chart have mistakes about Portugal

Firstly I will point out the mistakes in the table "Flag of vessels carrying the slaves" and in the timeline chart "the timeline chart when the different nations transported most of their slaves". Both of these belong to the section of the article named "Destinations and flags of carriers". Secondly, I will point out the mistakes in the table "Distribution of slaves 1519-1867" from the section of the article named "New World Destinations."

1. Starting with the table named "Flag of vessels carrying the slaves", there is a square titled "Portuguese Brazil". This square should be deleted and substituted by two different squares, one for Portuguese Brazil (1501-1822) and another for Brazil (1822-1875) already as an independent state. This is because Brazil as an independent state imported more than 1.310.000 slaves from 1822 to 1875, that have nothing to do with Portugal (there was no longer a Portuguese Brazil at that time since it ended in 1822). I repeat, once again, that the table should be edited to include a square named "Portuguese Brazil", where it shows the number of slaves from 1501 to 1822, and a different square named "Brazil" (for independent Brazil), which would show the number of slaves imported from Africa to Brazil from 1822 to 1875.
2. When it comes to "the timeline chart when the different nations transported most of their slaves" that shows the "total slaves transported per 25-year period", there is a big mistake there, because between the 25 years of 1826 to 1851 Portugal should not be represented there, Brazil should be there instead of Portugal. Brazil should be there instead of Portugal because that number of slaves (1.300.000), corresponds to the number of slaves imported by Brazil (from Africa) as an independent state (Brazil declared its independence in 1822, and got it recognized in 1825) between the years 1826 to 1851. I ask you then to remove Portugal and its vertical blue line from the chart between the years 1826 to 1851. I ask that you fix this and add independent Brazil to the chart with a new vertical line in a different color.
3. The last mistake I am going to point out is from the table named "Distribution of slaves 1519-1867", from the section of the article called "New World Destinations." Portuguese America does not account for 38.5% of the slaves that arrived in the New World because Portugal didn´t have any territories in America after 1822, and I am sure this table is counting the number of slaves imported by independent Brazil from 1822 to 1867, as part of Portugal (which is wrong and should be corrected). After 1822, Brazil was no longer a part of Portugal, and Portugal no longer had territories in the Americas. I ask that you write the real percentage in Portuguese America (which is for sure way less than 38.5%) and I also ask that you add a new square named "Brazil" that features the number of imported slaves to independent Brazil from 1822 to 1867. --TheDibest (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You should check the website of the Smithsonian they have more correct information.

The ships you have drawn out did not exist in that time period please correct that. There are many many wrong peices of information here I don't even know where to start but at the ships information. Javonedwards4587 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"ships" we're not transporting that many slaves that photo of a cargo ship is ridiculous

So much incorrect data — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javonedwards4587 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Also please study water currents and you'll understand A LOT more. So many errors here. Javonedwards4587 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have a concrete suggestion for improving the article, please make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Change the content that references BBC and arbitrarily claiming the Trade Merchants were a) British B) raiding the coast ? and C) mostly for America.

since we know that the west indies and Carrabian, plus much of the other new world land claims by the French, German, Dutch and others including Briton, not to mention the Americans that where certainly well financed and able to establ;ish themselves rather hasitly, I dont see the point of magnifying the disp[laced indiginous africans, many of whome became jamaicians or haitians or Amaericans, and certainly not to allege the Britons had any great interest in them,

since we all know quite well that INDIA was the breadboc of the Empire since time immemorial, and the Britons knew better than to retrain brand new stock. 

If this offends you I implore you to do your research, and if you can ernlighten me as to the validity of the misinformation, I would be pleasantly receptive. ]

hoop it 104.158.51.183 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what changes you want to have made, not even what you want to say. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

History

Briefly explain on the final destination of the Atlantic slave 41.57.95.34 (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There were many! I am afraid there is no good substitute for reading the article, or, ideally, the underlying sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Indian Ocean slave trade

The Indian Ocean slave trade page on Wikipedia is not even half as long as this one, and it is only translated in 4 different languages, while its slave route lasted much longer then the Western one... It basically says everything that there is to say about this so called encyclopedia... Wikipedia is clearly written from a very Western/Americanized point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_slave_trade 2A02:A03F:8B2C:9200:BD31:E40C:A53A:8813 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that at least in part, the English-language Wikipedia's article on the Indian Ocean slave trade's smaller size is a reflection of the relative lack of coverage in the sources we need to base our content on. As for coverage in other languages, each Wikipedia language-version is autonomous, and accordingly there isn't much we can do about it here. Ultimately though, everyone in all the projects is a volunteer, and we can't dictate what other people write about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and mainly from American/British coverage, putting the trans Atlantic (Western) slave trade and its abolition at the center point of attention, because it affected those nations most... 2A02:A03F:8B2C:9200:BD31:E40C:A53A:8813 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

@Rsk6400: The section on 'Legacy' means exactly that - "lasting impact on the world or on a people". The Sierra Leone Creoles are a direct result of the Atlantic slave trade. Sierra Leone was founded as a settlement for freed slaves from North America. It is not for you to decide whether their story is worthy of inclusion on WP or not. Ironically, the same section already contains material on Liberia, which was a minor settlement, compared to SL, for freed slaves established nearly half a century later. You seem determined to indiscriminately revert my contributions (and others) on WP but you must remember that this is nobody's personal project - the WP community decides what's worthy of inclusion, not you. You appear to be in a hurry to revert stuff without evidence of understanding the subject. By attempting to revert my contribution to this page, you inadvertently displayed ignorance of the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor. You wrongly assume this group was formed to address the plight of the newly-freed ancestors of the Americo-Liberians since your actions resulted in the 'Committee....' remaining a ' Main article' on the 'Liberia' subsection. The material on Rastafarianism clearly states that 92% of Jamaicans are descendants of enslaved Africans. I have included similar info about the descendants of the Liberian and Sierra Leonean ex-slave settlers. You may not be interested in this type of information but WP is an encyclopedia and I'm sure most readers are not bothered about a relevant one-sentence info on the legacy of the slave trade and the mass displacement of peoples. Again WP does not exist for any one person's convenience or entertainment - it can be edited by anyone, not just you. Do you know why the capital of Sierra Leone is called Freetown? Inamo11 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summaries, the material you entered is of poor quality (e.g. the starting sentence seems to be taken out of context and leaves the reader confused about why suddenly Canada is mentioned). IMHO, it is also too long. I don't object to the inclusion of material about Sierra Leone, and I would not object to shortening the section on Liberia. If you have specific complaints about my behaviour, please discuss them on my talk page, but keep the discussion specific and concise. You might also want to read WP:ONUS and WP:TPG. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Human Trade

This wasn't a trade of cargo - this was a trade of people. The article should be updated to reflect that these were actual human persons being traded as cargo. But it should focus on the fact that they were humans first. This was an Atlantic Human Trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.180.189 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Article also sates majority of slaves were sold by West Africans without and factual data. This is misinformation and needs to be removed. Trai330 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There are three sources cited for that claim; if you have others that dispute it, please feel free to point us to them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"South Atlantic" or "South American" economy dependent on slavery?

In the first paragraph it says:

"The colonial South Atlantic and Caribbean economies were particularly dependent on labour for the production of sugarcane and other commodities."

I think "South American" is meant. Ttulinsky (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Trans ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE

I need to know what hapended during the trans atlantic slave trade 90.218.88.170 (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You are in a good place to start then. Read the article. Look at the sources cited in the article. Many are available online. Read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible anti - semitism

No evidence that conversos were major players in slave trade - link cannot be clicked on. Prove or delete thank you. Max.mendelsohn (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A source need not be online to be usable in Wikipedia, so the fact that it's not clickable is not fatal. This strikes me as a large claim, however, and while I see no reason to doubt this source, I would need to see more to show me that it's within the mainstream of academic thought before I would find it acceptable to say in Wikivoice. As such, I have removed the claim. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The book is published by Brill Publishers who look to be reputable and well-established publishers (1683). Our article on them says: 'Brill today publishes 275 journals and around 1200 new books and reference works each year all of which are "subject to external, single or double-blind peer review."' The author, Prof. Jonathan Israel FBA, PhD is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey and previously was Professor of Dutch History and Institutions at the University College London (see the Wiki article). I've not read the book so cannot comment on the particular point, but it would appear to be WP:RS unless both of our articles need a significant re-write. Alanscottwalker appears to be a well-established and experienced WP editor, so I'm afraid to say that this deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

As I said above, I am not really disputing the RS status here; but as phrased (in Wikivoice) I would want to see some evidence that it is within the academic mainstream beyond a single book reference. If you'd like to rework it as an attributed quote, you are certainly welcome to do so, but in the meantime, I would suggest that WP:ONUS applies here. That said, should consensus be against me, I will have no problem standing down. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well as I said, I don't have the book. I saw a first edit by a new user to be the deletion of established and cited text. This is a common WP:POV problem and one that can be managed with tact and education, which is why I researched the book. It would be slightly odd to require all text to be direct quotations rather than the current WP policy of requiring citations to support an assertion. I do need to correct one thing though, it wasn't Alanscottwalker who originally added the sentence and citation, it was Taksen at 07:04 on 10 August 2020. He also is a long established editor, 16 years 4 months old, with 24,521 edits. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure if I am the "new user" to whom you refer; if so, I object--I think I have earned the right to be called "new-ish." I assure you I am not militant about this, but the claim is a large one, and I am not sure it is WP:DUE to include without attribution. Reasonable minds may certainly differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No. I'm not even sure you can claim new-ish, you're an old-timer by now. ;-) It was Max.mendelsohn I was referring to, he's currently 1 hour old with 1 contribution. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Hugh Thomas (The Slave Trade), early on, a majority of the major Portuguese slave-traders were conversos, but they would largely disappear from the scene later on. This was partly due to the increasing intensity of anti-semitic witch hunts against them by the Inquisition, whose efforts would do serious harm to Portuguese slave-trading networks in the new world. The association was strong enough that sometimes the auto-de-fés (burnings) of conversos were attended by jubilant crowds of slaves, Indians, free blacks or mixed-race 'mulattos'. Grim stuff! LastDodo (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

I found a fact online Edward is pro (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 13:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Legacy of racism

The section "Legacy of racism" states, "Eric Williams argued that "A racial twist [was] given to what is basically an economic phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery.

This seems to me only a partial truth, because it is surely no coincidence that Europeans and Americans of European descent enslaved people of different races from them. I am not well-read enough in the subject to cite a source that makes this point, but perhaps another editor is. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to remember that for most of history (and pre-history) it was people of neighbouring tribes and countries that were enslaved, not foreigners from thousands of miles away. Part of the reason that the Romans came to Britain was for slaves, Britons were physically larger on average than Italians or Greeks and were therefore valued as slave labour. As the centuries rolled on the sources moved slightly away, Europeans owned Slavs (the word "slave" comes from "Slav"), but they were the same colour. Whilst this was happening in Europe Black tribes were enslaving other black tribes in sub-Saharan Africa. Black slaves were traded across Arabia and some reached southern Europe. Likewise North Africans enslaved the coastal people of Spain, Ireland, Great Britain, Iceland and the United States. It was against this background that European countries discovered that they could purchase slaves on the African coasts from traders, ship them across the Atlantic and solve the shortage of cheap labour in the Caribbean and Americas.

So to sum up, Williams' argument makes total sense. If you have a large, oppressed, "work force" (ie slaves) then the masters are always fearful of a revolt. Again look to history, Spartacus nearly brought down Rome, and of course Haiti was established by a slave revolt. Racism grows out of fear. Not just fear of the revolt, but fear of the "other". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, European definitely enslaved black Africans because they saw them as inferior. They targeted them specifically because they were dark skinned, no North Africans we’re target despite the proximity. It’s no coincidence 2601:8C:B80:6660:E187:5387:8C9D:7A95 (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

One small point: Europeans rarely if ever enslaved black people. Generally they were enslaved by other black people and sold to traders who brought them to the coast where European slavers bought them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Before Europeans encountered black Africans, they had little reason to think anything of them. Only once slavery had been established was it necessary to develop an ideology which painted the Africans as in some way suited to being slaves, such as because they are inherently barbaric and unsuited to self-government. This is what Williams is talking about. LastDodo (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Again a small point. Europeans encountered black people from at least Roman times, some marched with the legions, some came as traders and some were slaves. Black people were also familiar in London in Elizabethan times, how else would Othello work as a play? But these were small numbers and your point about Williams' argument is perfectly correct. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, okay, they were encountered in tiny numbers. But they were not significant enough for Europeans to develop any kind of standard opinion about them. And Elizabethan times is some time after Europeans began encountering black Africans in larger numbers as a result of the slave trade, which began with Portugal in the mid-15th century, before Columbus had ever crossed the Atlantic. LastDodo (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did the slave come from

where did the slave come from 41.114.152.239 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ttipton20 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Annabellecrtrt.