I could be wrong, but I've got an impression that there is a certain level of animosity between American Blacks and Jews. Why is that? Is it because the first slave traders were Jews? As far I know, Jews have dominated slave trade since Columbus times to the end of it.
Jews did not dominate slave trade, although they participated in it, as did blacks. Part of the current problem is the fact that (at least in Harlem) many of the shopkeepers are Jewish (a residue partly of the fact that Harlem was a Jewish neighborhood before it became a black neighborhood).
Dioxxomassey: I doubt the average negro knows anything about his history. In fact I know he doesn’t so that’s not why. Either way, slavery was rampant among the Mediterranean people- the Portuguese being among the most notorious. During Medieval periods, it was the mostly the Dutch, who were Christian, that traded slaves and the British who were either Protestant or Christian or some other Christian mutant form, not Jewish, who were responsible for most of the African transports to the New World. So the reasons why is not slavery. I believe its envy. The Jew is a minority and just as targeted as blacks are, yet the negro notices the difference. He is in a ghetto eating cheese with rats while the Jew is courted by the president. The negro knows its becuae he is an irresponsible wretch that he can never be what the Jew is and hates that he cannot use powerlessness or size as an excuse- they are both minorities. So his envious hate is a coping mechanism- it makes the government cheese taste better.
Blacks people in general don't have any problems with Jews. Many Black muslims however, do because of religious differences.
Too many Ku Klux Klan members on this forum who dislike any coloured person and are generally ignoramuses of the worst kind. Dioxxmassey is one such moron! Jew dominated slave trade, WHAT ! ?? What a pile of shit !
Fuck that, the blacks traded their own people to us. Besides all that, slaves have been a part of history since the dawn of civilization on Mesopotamia. We think we are above it, however, the slaves in capitalist society are the poor and working poor. Meanwhile the elitists collect on our stuggle to survive and pay for our lives.
Hideke, learn fucking history then bring your politcorrect crap here. Yes, Jews were major players in the slave trade, as blacks and whites were. Also, Jews were major players in fur trade (yes that means burnt indian villages, alcohol, lots of indian corpses....). Chew on that. Learn stuff before writing flaming shit here. I did not pass any judgement, just stated the fact. Everything else is your sick imagination. BTW, spanish Jews were the first who brought American Indian slaves to the Europe. Again no judgement, somebody would have brought them first anyway. If you have no clue, and just think in the terms of your common "sense" that does not mean shit. Facts come first, flaming shit comes second.
This would have been difficult. Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the jews from Spain in 1492- about when Columbus first dropped anchor in the Americas. For the same reason, jews can't have been involved in the slave trade while the Spanish had a monopoly in the sixteenth century. What are your sources for the claims that jews were involved in the slave trade and the fur trade? Certainly neither the Hudson's Bay Company nor the French companies in the american fur trade employed many- if any- jews. Jews would have been involved in the resale of furs ion the Nrtherlands, but not many of the natives supplying the furs would have known about that.
Okay, this site: http://www.pbs.org/wonders/fr_e3.htm tells when African slave trading became European slave-trading. this site: http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html tells you when the Spanish Inquisition began and talks about the driving out of the Jews, Protestants, and others. So Thersites is correct in saying that your timeline is wrong for Jews to have become involved in the slave trade. Historically, Jews have been a slave race as well. I personally don't see an animosity between American Jews and African Americans. Static76 may be correct about the religious differences, but that has nothing to do with a person being African American. I'd like to know the sources for your concept that there -is- an animosity between Americans in this sense.
Stat: This is true. But Harlem is notorious for black anti-semitism. Close quarters and financial gaps do this to people. Hideki Matsumoto: Why don't you shut the fuck up and shelf the inferiority tripe? Most of these 'kkk' members are at least acquainted with their background enough to know the reasons for their fury and not walking around angry at the world for stupid reasons like booga booga "skin'color” the way the supposedly disenfranchised black does- and never mind that he wears more gold than all of us put together. You can't even tell me about your great-great grandfather (watch you make something up) Money's on you knowing only as far back as when your mother moved into the dog pound to breed all your angry siblings. Darktrooper: Blacks are not mad because of slavery. They’re mad because they're incompetent. The same reasons you are, hiding behind poverty.
Most lower class black people would not be able to pick a Jewish person out of a crowd if they tried. Moreover, they would talk to me about things like reparations but I am mostly Irish with some Native American, thus none of my ancestors (except maybe some way out on the tree) ever had anything to do with slavery. Furtermore, the Native American blood in me would be owed reparations by the blacks for living on stolen land.=] Reparations are stupid, racial differences are stupid, and all people should learn to let go of their culture. the only thing anyone has to blame for their misfortunes is their own lack of motivation, nothing more.
Not so fast. Spaniard expelled only those Jews who refused to accept Christianity. Those who accepted Jesus as their "savior" under pressure had stayed (some of them did not really accept anything and kept old ways under cover). I do not remember the exact source, I have read about the fur trade, etc. somewhere long time ago. But, there is old friendly google. Type: Jews fur trade; you'll find a few hundreds pertinent sources.
My source of the animosity perception: I lived in Detroit metro for 2.5 years, spoke with people.... Also, I had a black roommate (from Detroit's inner city) in college. He was really nice and smart guy. Sure, he had a few "weak'' points like having sex with his girlfriend when I was asleep (originally). But otherwise, he was quite a nice guy. In my opinion, black people are much more sincere than whites. They have less to lose from being themselves, I guess.
Well, went into trouble to find some sources Jews and slave trade; "Who brought slaves to America" http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/whobroughtslaves.html (lots of interesting info) Quote: "If the Negro people ever learn what the Jews did to the Black people of Africa there could be an uprising unequalled in American history." Claims: 75% of 18th century American slave trade was controlled by Jews. http://www.tightrope.cc/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=94 Quotes: Columbus was accompanied by five 'maranos' (Jews who had foresworn their religion and supposedly became Catholics), Luis de Torres, interpreter, Marco, the surgeon, Bemal, the physician, Alonzo de la Calle and Gabriel Sanchez. (Ref. The International Jew by Henry Ford) Gabriel Sanchez, abetted by the other four Jews, sold Columbus on the idea of capturing 500 Indians and selling them as slaves in Seville, Spain, which was done. Columbus did not receive any of the money from the sale of the slaves, but he became the victim of a conspiracy fostered by Bemal, the ship's doctor. He, Columbus, suffered injustice and imprisonment as his reward. Betrayed by the five maranos (Jews) whom he had trusted and helped. This, ironically, was the beginning of slavery in the Americas. (Adventures of an African Slaver by Malcolm Cowley, 1928, p.11) ------------------------------------------------ The subjects "Jews and Indians", "Jews and fur trade" are also touched in the these books. --------------------------------------------------- I have no means/interest/knowledge/time to check book's claims. Info seems to be believable (books were printed before politcorrect revolution hit the fan). But who knows, evil antisemites could not sleep well without putting down defenseless Jews even then . So, if one wants always to be on the right side, one should use the Rule of thumb: never believe anything saying bad things about Jews (no matter how human those things are). Dark light=lie. -------------------------------------------------------------- And lastly, no, I am not an antisemite who cannot sleep well knowing that Jews are about to dominate the world or do other nasty things. I am just curious. Proof: I had a Jewish (not an orthodox one, obviously)girlfried for whole 3 yearsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. All we are imperfect humans, and I am responsible only for my imperfections.
Adventures of an African Slaver Editorial Reviews Book Description "One of those fascinating autobiographies ... of which there have never been enough."--Bookman "... worth reading for the sheer excitement of the narrative."--Boston Transcript "There is not a dull line."--Times [London] Literary Supplement Detailed account by a former captain of a slave ship--gathered together in 1854 from journals, memoranda, and conversations--describes the economic structure of the African kingdoms; the author's extensive travels to the interior of Africa for slaves; the harems and "factories" maintained by slavers; treatment and discipline of black Africans on slave ships; the suppression of a slave revolt at sea; and much more. Republication of the classic 1854 edition. --This text refers to the Paperback edition. ---------------------------------------------------------- Can we believe that man?
Then they weren't jews. I'm sorry, but your slave trade sources aren't much good either: Henry Ford was not a very good historian. The site you cite merely goes from one set of delusions to another, each supporting the other with no credible outside evidence. I presume the slave trader you refer to is Theodore Canot. No, we can't believe him. For his own life, he was trying to put as good a light as he could on his actions. Again, he knew nothing of history or Columbus's behaviour in 1492. Equally, there is no reason to believe Malcolm Cowley in his introduction to the book: he was not an historian. sorry.
I do agree that "Who brought slaves to America" is linked with agenda driven websites. Where else would they be published? NY Times will not publish that obviously. Does it automatically mean that those sources should be 100% rejected? Does it mean we should accept only stuff publishable in NY as the only possible truth? I do not think so. In every lie and semi-truth there is a grain of truth. Books give specific names of the major jewish slave traders (Aaron Lopez, for example) whose business records are well preserved. Jews are good at sell-buy/financial business. Obviously, there were no reasons why they would not be good at the slave trading business. There no reasons whatsoever they would have not controlled such a business in the local markets. Of course, if one comes from the paradigm "Jews could/can not dominate evil businesses just "good" ones" we have nothing argue about. Black prospective; http://www.blacksandjews.com/Jews_and_Slavery.html Here is Jewish prospective: http://www.blacksandjews.com/Brenner.letter.html (soft on slavery participation) http://www.jewishmag.co.il/83mag/usa6/usa6.htm (much softer) In two words, after delving into source browsing, I came to the old beaten observation: truth is somewhere between extremities (marginal jewish participation in the slave business on one side, and total jewish control of it on the other). However, Jews DID some control local slave markets, well, they are a nation of merchants after all.
I presume the slave trader you refer to is Theodore Canot. No, we can't believe him. For his own life, he was trying to put as good a light as he could on his actions. Sorry, do not buy that. Why (and how?) should he embellish his life "Jew wise"? Obviously, he did not think that something was wrong about the trade with jewish merchants or getting jewish $ for an enterprise to justify himself. Overall embellishing is possible. However, one may expect embellishing on the level: "I bravely fought 4 fierce tribesmen" instead of "I shit my pant all over and run after seeing club weilding blacks suddenly appearing in the front of me". Again, he knew nothing of history or Columbus's behaviour in 1492. Again, he may have overheard a conversation of the jewish merchants, etc. describing those things. Verbal transmission of history was a norm not so long time ago. One not necessarily needs to be a book warm to claim something. Equally, there is no reason to believe Malcolm Cowley in his introduction to the book: he was not an historian. sorry. Well, I know well that one may not trust professional historians too. Being a historian does not mean that one posseses the ultimate truth, etc. The man gives specific names. One, if interested, may check if those people 1) indeed existed 2) if they were Maranos 3) if they brought slaves 4) if they did nasty things to their partner in trade Columbus. Simple "I do not trust the man" his writing is heretical" is not enough. I have no interest to check those claims. Therefore, I do not insist they are correct. You, on the other hand, say "man is not a historian, therefore his writings are a lie". Well, that is one damn good argument.
Most blacks were sold as slaves by their own chiefs in their villages where they lived. So the start of slavery was started by the blacks themselves selling their own people so as to get more wealth for the chiefs.
I thought that chiefs sold mostly prisoners from the "foreign" lands. Secondly, if in Florida, for example, people legally will be able to sell a man or a woman to a slaver for say $50,000, Are you sure that your neighbors will not hunt you down and sell to the foreign slavers then? More than that, drug addicts would hunt you for $20 or a puff. However, the very same people will appear civil and pleasant (to a various extent) if $50,000 or $20 will not seduce them. Thus, putting all blame on sellers alone is not right. Sellers and buyers (and their creditors, shareholders) share responsibility for the slave trade 50/50 at least.
