Talk:Atlantic slave trade/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why Europeans didn't enslave other Europeans and ship them to Americas?

Why did the European traders use Africans for slavery instead of using other Europeans or other ethnic group such as South Asians for slavery for the Atlantic Slave Trade? Sonic99 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (aka Homer33)

Huh? This isn't the subject of the article, you can try asking your question at the help desk. though. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They did, often. There is a modern perception that slavery was about race, or more accurately a European belief in the inferiority of Africans. That wasn't generally the case. Slavery was an economic system, pure (or rather impure!) and simple. The major reason why most slaves were African is because then, as now, humanity is the only resource which Africa is rich in. It was said that many African kings sold their own people into slavery. They would have sold gold or diamonds if they had them instead.

JohnC (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The link is to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, which is indeed the right place for this question; there is also a Wikipedia:Help desk, which is for questions about using Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If Europeans had tried to enslave and ship to America other Europeans, it would have led to a war between European nations. However, something not totally dissimilar was done to some Europeans, but they were sold into temporary enforced service (rather than permanent) as indentured servants. This is referred to as Transportation, and was applied to criminals, including revels captured at the Battle of Worcester and Battle of Sedgemoor. Asians were probably not subject to the European slave trade becasue the distances were too great, but (free) indentured labour was imported inot some British colonies in the West Indies from India after the abolition of slavery. Peterkingiron 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They were a number of factors,

• Europeans were actually shipped to the americas as indentured servants. In the early days of slavery there was no distinction based on race or ethnicity. Blacks and whites worked alongside one another.
• African were from the tropics and had developed resistance to a number of diseases that Europeans had no resistance to. The high death rate of europeans was a discouragement to bringing europeans to the americas in large numbers.
• Africans were already experienced farmers, the iron age technology in Africa was similar to that of European technology at the start of the slave trade.
• Africa had poor soils, that were much less fertile than europe. Therefore a European could produce more from a field in Europe than an African could produce in Africa. This was a disincentive to enslave europeans. However an African could produce more in the Americas because American soils were more fertile than African soils. Furthermore the climate in the Americas had fewer pests and crop diseases than in Africa. Because of these tough African conditions, African farmers had to become very skilled in exploiting their land. All these factors made africans valuable to business in the Americas.Muntuwandi 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question u bring up. The answers u have already gotten are pretty spot on, but I'd like to bring some other things to ur attention. To understand why things went down as they did, you have to understand that most slaves were sold to Europeans and not taken by Europeans (as portrayed in ROOTS). When Europeans began exploring Africa (roughly around the same time they started exploring the Americas) there were already many slave markets in existence. Slavery had been in Africa longer than just about anywhere else, though the forms of slavery varied depending on where u were. It was far easier to buy slaves from Africans more than willing to sell them than to steal them from the Africans (whom militarily were more or less on par with europeans up to the 18th century) or for that matter other Europeans. If a vast slave market existed in Europe at the time of its exploration of the Americas, it surely would have been exploited. But Europeans weren't that big into slavery cuz there was a huge peasant labor force already existing. The only reason slavery was so big in Africa, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa, is because the continent has always had a low population and thus a small labor force. Basically, in Europe people fought for and purchased land. In africa, people fought for and purchased PEOPLE. This circumstance led to the development of many slave markets where kingdoms sold prisoners of war to whoever could afford them as a way of removing hostile military elements from their land. The reasoning behind this becomes clear when you look at the Haitian Revolution, where the French unwisely filled a valuable New World colony full to the brim with african prisoners of war from a dozen different wars and civil wars. Hoped that helped out. Holla back if u have any other questions.Scott Free 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It was primarily Africans and Native Americans who were enslaved because the Europeans considered themselves Christians and did not want to enslave other Christians. In the early part of the slave trade the Europeans did not have an issue with enslaving white Muslims. BradMajors (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Most North Africans were not Christians. The Europeans could of enslave the North Africans in the early part of the slave trade and shipped them to America, but they didn't. Why? North Africa is closer to Europe than Sub-Sahara Africa. Sonic99 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If they had tried that, they would probably themselves have been enslaved; see Barbary Coast.  --Lambiam 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, a transatlantic slavatrade had already been established by Portugal and Spain (to sugar plantations in Brasil). It was relatively easy to include North America in the route. Second, africans dark skin made them easy to identify. European contract labourers could run away and blend in with the crowd, african slaves could not. Slavery was also favorable because the contract never ended and would include the slaves offspring. You also need to consider racism. Many europeans believed that black people should be slaves by nature. Owners of plantations encouraged this view so they wouldn't be hindered by people pointing out the immoral and inhuman treatment of slaves. Source: The Teaching Company - An Economy Based on Slaves \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blidah92 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

London as a major slave trade port

Hi, when you mention Britain's involvement in the slave trade, you make the statement that Bristol and Liverpool were the main slaving ports. However, London initiated the English slave trade, long held a monopoly on the African trade and continued to be heavily involved after the monopoly was broken. Although Liverpool transported more slaves than any other English port, London was next with a traffic estimated at twice that of Bristol, the next largest port. Surely if Bristol and Liverpool are highlighted then so should London? Tonyddyer (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few words on this (but without a reference). This is a broad article and it would not be right to say more. A more detailed article on "British Involvement in the Slave Trade" might be appropriate, but this article is long enough already. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted a reference and changed the wording in the article slightly as it gave the impression that London's involvement had effectively ceased after Bristol and Liverpool had become involved, whereas the analysis of port records as illustrated in Rawley shows that except for the period 1730-1750 (when Bristol dominated) and the odd year thereafter, London remained the second largest slaving port in Britain. I don't believe the changes have significantly added to the length of the article but will look at creating an article along the lines that you have suggested. Tonyddyer (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect you know much more of this subject than I do, and I will await developemtns with interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

YOU NEED SOURCES Smith Jones (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tonyddyer added a citation of Rawley, which I assume supports his amended version; it is not a work that I know. What I wrote was based on (I think) K. G. Davies, The Royal Africa Company (which is now about 50 years old) and other books that I have read. I am not an expert on this and was thus merely reacting to his first comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First image used

I noticed that the first image in the article has been changed recently. I'm not married to the old one, but the replacement is very similar to another one already in the article and doesn't really add information. I think we should go back to the old version or choose a third image instead. Malc82 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't look carefully at all the pictures before I added mine. File:Blush.png I've restored the previous image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted additions to the "Beginnings"-section

I have (once more) reverted User:Pularoids additions to the Beginnings section of this article. Reasons for this are the following:

1. All of these additions are unreferenced.
2. Given the large scope of this article, there really is no reason to go into so much detail for the beginnings. If you can find sources you may create a new article and let this section link to that article.

Thanks for the additions though, hope we can find a way to use them. Malc82 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Beginnings section of this article. Reason for the additions:

We can't create an article and state: ooh the X are bad; ooh the X are ugly, ooh the X are evil because they invented all the wrong things of this world... But then you don't tell the true full story from the beginning. Pularoid (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we've gone to lenghts in removing the "Europeans are the source of all evil" stance from this article. I don't think that it has a generally accusing tone against any side right now. If you disagree, name the problem and we can try to sort it out.

On the other hand, we can't go into every little detail, if a topic is worthy of its own article you can create this, but the AST article would get much too long. More importantly, your additions are unreferenced, which basically mean they don't belong into the article anyway. Malc82 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the view expressed by Malc82. The additions by Pularoid may well be vaild information, but they do not belong here. The right place would be on an article on the Portuguese exploration of west Africa or Portuguese trade with Africa in the late medieval period, and that might be cross-referenced here. The reason is that this article is long enough already: it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, not a book! In a sense this is a reason why new users should be discouraged from altering long complicated articles, and particularly ones that are becoming well-referenced. Slavery is a controversial subject and particualrly subject to WP:POV issues. Potentially Pularoid's contributions ought to be welcomed, provided they are accurate, referenced, and display WP:NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember from my vacations in Portugal (which included visits to Sagres Point and Lagos, two very important locations to the issue) and some texts on the Portuguese explorations (which focussed on sea exploration, though), Pularoids additions are absolutely correct and could/should be used in an article. Unfortunately he has added them just as unreferenced to the history of slavery article, where they were of course removed for the same reasons. Hope Pularoid can name one or two sources and I'd be happy to help in creating Portuguese exploration of Africa. Malc82 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume Pularoid is a new user, since his name comes up as a redlink. Such people are to be encouraged. I think his additions should be recovered and made into a new article, which should then be tagged "unreferenced". Pularoid has had his information from somewhere, and this should encourage him to work it up into something better. My previous comment was specifically supporting your action, in view of apparent edit-warring. Unfortunately it is too late for me to do anything tonight. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Economics of the slave trade

I deleted the leading sentence in this section that slavery was one of the "most profitable" ventures in history. The claim is vague and no source is given. Furthermore, there are reasonable counter-examples and counter-arguments. Cotton, sugar, and slaves are commodities. A venture with a monopoly (patented invention or cartel) would probably be more profitable. Also, slaves are very inefficient workers due to lack of motivation and education. An educated and motivated workforce makes improvements. Slaves rarely consciously try to improve productivity of their employer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about what the sentence said. It didn't say that "slavery was one of the 'most profitable' ventures in history", it said that "slavery was involved in some of the most profitable industries in history". Then the paragraph gave examples of some of those industries: the labor-intensive production of sugar, coffee, cotton, and tobacco. I'm going to restore the sentence and I'll try to find a source for it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you find a source, then restore the sentence? If you put in the sentence first, that seems like editorializing-- write your opinion, then dig around to find sources to support it. Such methods are not appropriate for a encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.142 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be editorializing... if it were an opinion and not a fact. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of superlatives is dangerous, becasue it is often a matter of opinion. It might be better to use some such phrase as "highly profitable". However, I suspect that the subject is a controversial issue, which would be better discussed in a later section, not in the introduction where the objective is to define the subject. It is a common mistake of new editors to introduce unnecessary detail into the introduction. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The section involved is not the introduction, nor is the editor involved a newbie.  --Lambiam 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "highly profitable" would be better. Superlatives should only be used when they are sourced and uncontroversial. Malc82 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

End of slave trade II redux

Copied here from Talk:Atlantic slave trade/Archive1#End of slave trade II because of the unresolved POV tag in the article.  --Lambiam 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Yo I realize that section is too lengthy and needs some cuts, but cutting it down to one tiny paragraph is inappropriate. It's just too important an issue. The tag says we should discuss the edits here before making drastic changes, so let's do that. Suggestions???Scott Free 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged and up for discussion since May 2 with no single suggestion or comment on the tagging. The section needed a complete rewrite, not improvements. I haven't got the sources to do this myself at the moment. My attempts basically convinced me that one can only write such an extremely short paragraph or has to go into details to avoid undue weight. In the end I decided to enforce Wikipedia's policy to removed unreferenced statements, which meant removing the section. I don't see this as a huge problem, the End of slavery is basically given by the three numbers mentioned, and abolitionism simply is a very complex topic that can't be summed up in 5 sentences without getting POV. Malc82 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The main problem here wasn't even the lack of sources, it is that this section is embarrassingly POV and completely against scientific consensus. I have read the opinions of about 10 authors on the subject now and have yet to find someone who says that slave rebellions were "the" main cause for abolition, much less someone who shares the idea that every success was a direct consequence of a rebellion. This has already been discussed in the other "End of slavery" section above. Malc82 22:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found the edit that brought the POV-slant into this article. It was this edit by an obvious POV-pusher from December 18, 2006. Undo isn't a good possibility after so many edits, but would anybody object if I removed all of his changes manually? Malc82 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a much better solutionScott Free 19:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV-edit now, but left the article tagged as "neutrality disputed". The reason is that it is still somewhat POV, only in the opposite direction. The section now focusses almost entirely on British abolitionism and (more important) doesn't mention the scientific debate about British motivation and other factors. The Royal Navy's patrolling sounds (maybe unintentionally) like it was entirely done out of humanism, while scientific consensus is that there were also economic reasons for it. Williams' theory should at least be mentioned (but not too detailed, there is a main article about that topic). I don't have enough sources handy right now to do that myself, so if one of the other contributors could do it that would be great. Malc82 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Muslim basis

A very recent addition indicates that the beginning was the need for Muslim countries to have slaves, but by the Koran not enslaving their own peoples - so they went to Africa. That may well be true for slavery in general, but it seems to me to not belong in the article on the Atlantic Slave Trade. --Dumarest (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do not know specifically, it is certainly the case that the Muslims were in the habit of enslaving non-Muslims, and were forboidden to enslave their fellow Muslims. However, slavery was endemic in the ancient world, so that I am not sure that one can really say who started it. There are clearly different degrees of servitude, some of which we do (and others we do not) categorise as slavery today. Should be categorise medieval villeins, who were tied to the land as subject to a variety of slavery? Some might. Perhaps it would be better to congratulate Mohammed for abolishing slavery (though only to a limited extent), rather than blaming his followers for continuing it for others. I write that as a Christian who has no time for his beliefs. I am not sure that this blame game is helpful to the article. Possibly we need an article forked off this on the the origins of slavery, but that may take us into areas of which nothing is certainly known. It is an issue of West African history, rather more than of Atlantic trade. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that recent addition, which said the Atlantic slave trade "was first introduced by the new Muslim religion". Since the first sentence of the article says that the Atlantic slave trade "was the trade of African people supplied to the colonies of the 'New World'", it's unlikely that it was started by Muslims of the 7th and 8th century. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

References

who wants to go and fix them i tried but got completly lost and im trying to lind a source for an essay damn it so im just pointing that out and hope someoone answers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerpunk (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers debate

This article appears to be using a quite high estimate for the numbers of Africans transported across the Atlantic. Also, there is no discussion of the debate over the numbers, which for the most part has been settled by scholars who have agreed on lower figures. The article does not reference the most important works on this subject, Philip Curtin's _The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census_ (University of Wisconsin Press, 1969) and Paul Lovejoy's “The volume of the Atlantic Slave Trade: A consensus,” _Journal of African History_ 22 1982. This debate is as you can see 25 years old. Stewart king (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart king (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with those studies is that while they were and are important, they are TOO OLD. The numbers included for this article come from sources that are at least within the last decade. The numbers are higher, because we know more today than we did backin `82 or `69.Scott Free (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We also have less investment in talking the numbers down. At least, most of us do. Grace Note (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree that the numbers appear to be high. Especially those referring to the number of human beings that died (8 mlo and 16 mlo). There are various sources reporting different numbers. One such source is:

http://www.slaverysite.com/Body/facts%20and%20figures.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.60.89 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the numbers talking about deaths are on the website. And I'm not sure if that counts as the best of sources. the guy seems reputable enough, but I like publications from respectable houses (colleges and such). I don't think the number is all that high when you consider how the majority of slaves were procured (war). Plus the trip (really bad conditions).Scott Free (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, but a great deal of workj has been done on the slave trade. I am sure there must be some more recent estimates (not more than 20 years old). These need to be cited from published academic sources, not websites, which are generally (at best) tertiary sources, and often more remote than that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In "Africas History" by Jarle Simensen the numbers are significantly lower. The total number of exported slaves is estimated to be about 12 million altogether, while between 9.6 and 10.8 million slaves made it to America. The book stresses the fact that nobody is sure of the exact number. However, few historians would go higher than 13-15 million - which is exactly what Wiki does.

Triangle Trade

The discussion seems a bit simplistic. It ignores altogether the role of Asian manufactured goods imports into Africa as an important element in the trade. Most African purchasers were not terribly interested in European manufactured goods, though bulk imports of European iron, and Italian glass were important African imports. Further, the suggestion that some African rulers "faced the choice of trading with Europe or becoming slaves themselves" vastly overrates the power of European players in the trade. The article cites Thornton's _Africa and Africans in the Atlantic World_ but doesn't seem to take into consideration Thornton's conclusion that Africans largely controlled the terms of trade for most of the period. Stewart king (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken. :) Scott Free (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be some logical inconsistencies in the Human Toll section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.230.77 (talk • contribs) 20:35, October 5, 2008

Would you care to be a little more specific?

iOU JE SUIS kEVIN bOU ROSE JAI UNE BALAFRE SUR LE CRANE ET JE VOUDRAI SAVOIR COMENT LA CAMOUFLET APART AVEC LES CHEVEUX CAR JE SUIS BEAU RAZéé GROS BISOUX JATENT VOS REPONSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.237.2 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Endemic warfare.

Please source this:

"Europeans bought slaves who were captured in tribal wars between African kingdoms and chiefdoms, or from Africans who had made a business out of capturing other Africans and selling them. Europeans provided a large new market for an already-existing trade, and while an African held in slavery in his own region of Africa might escape or be traded back to his own people, a person shipped away was sure never to return."

The strong implication of this is that the slaves were sitting around waiting for a market, whereas you can equally argue that a small-scale slave trade was blown out of proportion by European demand, provoking more warfare simply to capture slaves for the Europeans. This article has quite a strong revisionist tone, so I think some of the more controversial statements need sourcing. In particular, the notion that the trade already existed seems like it needs careful sourcing, because this is like saying that Wal-Mart merely pursues an already existing trade because there were corner shops before it grew into a giant of retail. Grace Note (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your assertions.

JohnC (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you on that specific implication. All the statement says is that Europeans provided a large new market (absolutely true) for an already existing trade (definately true). It doesn't say the slaves were simply in holding. Slaves had been traded to other Africans (both above and below the Sahara) for thousands of years. The existence of a slave trade within Africa is not controversial or revisionist. it is just true. And your assertion that the Atlantic slave trade provoked more warfare (and by extension more slave trading) has been rejected in much of the new work done on the subject. Internal factors (mostly the expansion/consolidation of African states like Kongo and Benin) caused the Atlantic slave trade to erupt. Once these states stopped expanding, they generally slowed the pace of the trade or stopped it altogether. Yeah you can make the argument that Europeans goaded Africans into slaving, but you'd be wrong.Scott Free (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your assertions. Grace Note (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And see your talk. I'm not suggesting at all that there was no slave trade in pre-European West Africa. I'm suggesting that it is wrong to suggest that Europeans simply became participants in an already existing trade, rather than more accurately suggesting that they altered the structure of the trading system sufficiently that it could no longer be considered the same. The strong implication of your edit is that the Africans fought wars and enslaved each other and continued to do so just the same, while the Europeans simply replaced other consumers of slaves. This is not what happened. The Europeans (to an extent you could argue one way or the other) altered the structure of the slave trade, and of the economy of the region. Please provide sources for your assertions about the cause of the expansion of the slave trade. I recognise that there is a revisionist literature, so reputable sources only please. Grace Note (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How did Europeans significantly alter the system by which slaves were procured or distributed other than what the previous poster mentioned (moving them from the continent)? Of course the trade system was different. That's why they have different names. I'm glad you understood my "implication". It is the truth. Before Africans were supplying Europeans with slaves, they were supplying Arabs with slaves (and even each other). Until the 19th century, Europeans were (more or less) just another customer base. The only major exception to this is in Angola. You can read John K. Thornton and Linda Heywood for some good work on this subject. But let's be frank. Your edits go well beyond a difference of opinion. They are a personal attack and a waste of your time and mine. I made no attack on you. I just stated you were wrong (sorry if that damaged your delicate sensibilities). I just wanted to bring you up to speed on the subject at hand. Your comments on my talk page make me think you don't really understand the topic. I don't mind providing sources, in good time, but i do mind you deleting whole portions of an article on a whim. You have no more of a right to blot out several paragraphs of an article because of your personal beliefs (and so far that's all you've provided...not sources) than I do to add things because of mine. In effect, you are saying (with your actions) that your assertions are okay to act upon, but no one else's are. We don't need to have a discussion to keep an article the same, but we do need one if we are making drastic changes. I'm currently working on another article that is taking a lot of time (almost finished now). When I'm done, I will add some more sources to this article. However, I challenge you to provide sources for your assertions. I have a giant library of sources for everything I stated. So let's keep this professional and graceful (lol).Scott Free (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do. Please see WP:RS. You must provide reputable sources for the material you want to include. I do not have to provide sources for excluding material. I simply put it here on talk and you must justify it. Please do so without reinstating it. Do not indulge in waving WP:NPA at me. No one has attacked you and you will not be able to reinstate your opinions by claiming that I have. I understand the subject very well. I think you have a particular viewpoint, and are pushing it. I understand that too. So you can push it, but you will push it with sources. I do not need to source anything. I'm adding nothing and do not intend to. I'm content simply to have your entirely unsourced opinion removed. Please see this section of policy: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material for clarification on why I have removed your material to talk. I do not consider it absurd, but I do consider it sufficiently harmful to the article, for the reasons I have given, to remove it to talk. Please do not breach the policy further by replacing it without sourcing it.Grace Note (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And please note that what is in contention is not that there was a slave trade before the advent of the Europeans. You repeatedly answer that contention, but your material claims much more than that. If you wish to tone down your material to that, you can, and we can reinstate it temporarily until you provide sources. Grace Note (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The section quoted at the head of this section may indeed be correct. That is not the point. This is a subject on which a great deal of academic research has been done. This article has reached a stage where much of the material has academic citations. If Scott Free can provide a WP:RS for his statement, his text should be restored (with a reference), but not otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll post the sources and refs as soon as I get home from work. Thank you for your conderation. I'd like to point out that it's not my info in question. I just came to the defense of already existing content. Do you think we can hold off on deleting big chunks of article for like 5 hours? Scott Free (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

just added the refs. i used thornton's "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800 (second edition)". It's a Cambridge publication so that should be acceptible for all I hope. I did a little rewriting of the section in question as well , but everything is sourced. As for Grace, go get some. Stop meddling in subjects you don't really understand. What you claim as editing is nothing more than vandalism. That's why I reverted you and will continue to revert you at my leisure as long as you do stupid stuff to important articles.Scott Free (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a bad attitude, son. You don't own this article and you won't include unsourced material in it. Hope that's clear now. Grace Note (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Also, please take care not to rely on one (somewhat controversial) source. You may have been particularly enamoured with Thornton's book, but that doesn't make it gospel. I am updating the text to reflect that this is not consensual, but the opinion of Thornton. Grace Note (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

lol. i guess cambridge and routlege are kinda controversial. why don't you just put up a source saying something different. i used that one book cuz it was already used on this page. just concede the point and add something to positive to wikipedia instead of being a pest.Scott Free (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Both are reputable academic publishers, and their publications will have had some kind of peer-review. They are potential WP:RS, but may still be controversial. If an academic work is controversial, the best solution is for the article to et out both views, and if possible an assessment of their respective merits. I say "if possible", becasue the source for the synthesis (or criticism) itslef needs to be a reliable source, not original research. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Europeans

A statement about Europeans captured in war being enslaved has correctly been removed. What the person who added it has probably picked up is that Scottish soldiers captured at the Battle of Worcester were sent to America, as were many of those convicted of treason by participation on the Duke of Monmouth that ended with the Battle of Sedgemoor and Judge Jefferies, Bloody Assizes that followed, when many men were repreaved and transported to the colonies. The mistake is that these people were not "enslaved", but forced into indentured labour (as an "indentured servant"). The difference was that at the end of the term of the indentures, the convict automatically became a free man, whereas an enslaved African was sold into perpetual slavery. I have not heard of this being done other than in civil conflicts. Prisoners of war (from international conflicts) were held as prisoners until exchanged or the war ended. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Added to intro

I felt it necessary to add this to the lead:

• This figure (12 million) does not include; those who died on the ships on the way to the Americas; those who were captured and not deported; those who were born inside the Atlantic system.

The source used is very reputable, and I hope there is no problems with my edit. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

There were a couple of problems. First, the sentence already says that "9.4 and 12 million Africans arrived in the New World, although the number of people taken from their homestead is considerably higher," which means that 12 million doesn't include those who died along the way. Second, you stuck your sentence in the middle of a sentence, making gibberish of it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article, (after your revert shabaz), reads although the number of people taken from the homestead is considerably higher, this still does not include those who were born inside the Atlantic system. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

What does that mean, to be born inside the Atlantic system? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The children of slaves automatically became slaves upon being born, hence you could say they were born inside the Atlantic system. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

Well of course 12 million Africans who arrived in the Americas doesn't include children who were born in the Americas, does it? Or are you suggesting that there were significant numbers of African children born on the slave ships themselves? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they were born on the ships. I am suggesting that they were born, either on the plantations their parents worked on, or wherever else. It may be obvious to me and you that the figure 12 million doesn't include children who were born in the Americas or Africa, but it may not be obvious to the average Wikipedia reader, friend. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm also not sure why we need to add that caveat. This is an article on the Atlantic slave trade. Slaves who were born in the Americas don't really fall under that subject. I thus don't think that information is needed in the lead. It might be a good idea to discuss the ultimate slave population in the Americas in the effects section though. - SimonP (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that slaves who were born in America have nothing to do with the article (?!). (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)).

don't make up terms like "Atlantic system". There is no such thing as an "Atlantic system". The trade is called "Atlantic" because the transport was trans-Atlantic. Obviously, those born into slavery in the Americas aren't part of the Atlantic slave trade because they were not transported across the Atlantic. If you have a reliable headcount of slaves kept in the Americas, add it to slavery in the Americas, not to this article.

Interestedinfairness, honestly, every single edit of yours I have seen is either off topic, or clueless, or both. --dab (𒁳) 18:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Transatlantic slave trade. The number of slaves transported is the subject of academic debate, so that certainty cannot be achieved. Mortality in the holds of slave ships was indeed considerable. but care needs to be taken about believing everything that the abolitionists claimed: the rhetoric of political debate is likely to be exaggerated; likewise that of the slaving lobby is likely to be exaggerated in the opposite direction. Slaves born in America were a product of the system of slavery, but clearly were not shipped and so do not belong here. None of us support slavery (I hope), but the NPOV principles of WP mean that the subject must be treated dispassionately, which measn that the POV statements on both sides in the abolition debate must be taken with a pinch of salt. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Human toll

Several paragraphs under this heading have been deleted in the past 10 days. I am not clear why, as some of the material is at least credible. A citation of BBC News is not an adequate WP:RS in an article largely based on academic works. I think some of the material might usefully be restored, but I do not claim to be an expert on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work Peterkingiron for catching that. I think that was just pure vandalism. I placed the section back and reworded the biased caption next to the manikongo pic. CHEERS Scott Free (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete subsection African versus European slavery

I nominate the subsection "African versus European slavery" for deletion, for the following reasons.

1) It is unsourced.

2) The one datum in the subsection, that slaves in Africa could sometimes own property and buy their freedom, is useless to distinguish African from "European" (actually colonial) slavery. Slaves in the Americas could also buy their freedom in many cases, and in a few cases could own at least personal property. There are meaningful distinctions that can be drawn between slavery in Africa and in the Americas, but this isn't one of them.

3) The name "European slavery" is misleading; the vast amjority of the African slaves were not going to Europe, but to European colonies in the Americas.

Pirate Dan (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, rather than delete the section, I've reworked it to put in citations and concentrate on more meaningful differences between slavery in the New World and Africa. Pirate Dan (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

length of the entire voyage?

Would anyone know what the exact length was for the entire voyage of the slave trade? From Europe to Africa, to the Americas and back to Europe?

I have tried to find the length in months it must have taken for the entire voyage, but only the Africa to Americas length of the trip seems to be abundantly available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.111.134 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast answer to your question, because the trade used sailing ships whose speed varied greatly depending on the strength and direction of the winds, as well as the ships' own design and the skill of their captains. Also, the time spent on the whole voyage included not just the ocean travel, but also could include many weeks at anchor off the African shore while negotiating the purchase of slaves or waiting for freshly imprisoned or kidnapped victims to arrive at the markets. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of voyage lengths taken from http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/database/search.faces, which are not necessarily typical or representative.

The ship William and Jane left London on Nov. 11, 1701, brought slaves from the Bight of Benin to Antigua, and got back to London on Dec. 20, 1702 (almost 58 weeks).

The brig General d'Antonio left Lisbon on Oct. 9, 1821, arrived at Bissau on Jan. 24, 1822 (almost 17 weeks), delivered slaves to Maranhão on July 26, 1822, and got back to Portugal on Dec. 5, 1822. Round trip: over 60 weeks. '

The brig Aimable Henriette left Nantes on Jan. 5, 1821, delivered a load of slaves in Havana on May 6, 1821, and after a two-month layover in Cuba, arrived back in France on Sept. 14, 1821, for a 36-week voyage. She then repeated the circuit next year with a new captain, leaving on March 21, 1822 and returning on Dec. 28, 1822, a bit over 40 weeks.

The brig Coureur left Nantes on Sept. 1, 1822, brought slaves from São Tomé to Havana, and got back to France on April 23, 1823, a journey of over 33 weeks.

On October 25, 1693, the East India Merchant left London. She bought slaves at Whydah and Ardra, left Africa on July 27, 1694, and arrived in Jamaica on December 11, 1694, a 137-day passage which killed an unbelievably grisly 70% of the 650 slaves on board. She set sail for England on April 30, 1695 and arrived on July 23, 1695, almost 91 weeks after she left.

As you can see, the round trip could take anything from 33 weeks to 91 weeks out of a sample of just six voyages. Feel free to examine the database for more information.

Pirate Dan (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

1772

Some one else has just reverted the following:

From the 1770s onwards the West Indies were becoming less important to Britain, Cuba and Brazil could produce cheaper sugar. Many plantations in the West Indies were closed down. The demand for slaves fell. For example, in 1771 Barbados imported 2728 slaves, but in 1772 none were imported.

Lest this "fact" reappear, I think I should explain why the logic is false: the outbreak of the American War of Independence cut of a source of food for slaves in the West Indies. The result was a famine in which slaves were left starving. In consequence, plantation owners did not want to add to the number of mouths that they were having difficulty feeding. This had a knock-on effect in British trade on manufactured goods: not only was trade to the Continental Colonies cut off, but also to Africa (from which fewer slaves were exported) and the West Indies where planters who could not adequately fed their slaves could not afford British manufactures: see my article 'Production and Consumption of iron' in Economic History Review LVIII(1) (Feb. 2005). This will be a short term effect while the war lasted. It may well apply to other parts of the West Indies, such as Cuba, if they were also importing agricultural products from New England. Incidentally, this is an example of triangular trade, as the New England ships may somethimes have carried sugar to England and English manufactures to their home colony. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The American Revolution started in 1775. How could it have caused the number of slaves imported by Barbados to drop to zero in 1772? Pirate Dan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"This will be a short term effect while the war lasted. It may well apply to other parts of the West Indies, such as Cuba, if they were also importing agricultural products from New England." No. Spain prohibited its colonies from trading with anyone but the Spanish empire; to the extent Cuba etc might have needed to import food it came from the Central/South American mainland.Solicitr (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Five percent - 'Used to have a little, now I have a lot'

There is a rather sparce edit in 'effect on the economy of europe' that purports (without producing any figures) to show that the slave trade/slavery produced 'only' 5% of Britain's economy in the period of the industrial revolution. The intention is to suggest that the slave/trade was not really very significant, and so couldn't have affected the industrial revolution. This argument is nonsense.

The slightest knowledge of economics demonstrates that 'only' is not the proper term here. 5% is a gigantic amount of any economy. Let's take Britain today, for example. According to the google public data page, [1] Britain's current (2008) gdp is $2.67 Trillion (with trillion meaning a million million) Google's data comes from the world bank [2]. Five percent of this amounts to $133 billion. Only the foolish would argue that this is an 'insignificant' figure. According to Wikipedia [3] Britain's exports amount to $351 billion and imports are $473. If the 5% figure were applied to today's economy, that would mean that slave-labour/slave trading would have amounted to more than one-third of the income from total exports. Or conversely, that slave-labour/slavery would have equaled more than one quarter of the value of total imports. According to the the economist David Smith, [4] the UK private sector (the capitalist bit) amounted to $700 billion in 2009. If we apply the magic 'only' five percent figure ($133) then this would mean that income from slave-trade/slavery amounted to about 20% of all capitalist income!

The 'only' 5% ruse is simply a ploy in an attempt to pretend that slave-trade/slavery were not important, non-events, insignificant, etc. One fervently hopes that the motivation behind this ruse is not pure racism.

My contention is that, even if slave-trade/slavery amounted to only 1% of gdp (let's say, 26 billion every year for one hundred years), that would be more than enough to finance quite a few industrial start ups. Therefore, it remains entirely correct to say that slavery and the slave trade were a significant factor in the financing and economics of the industrial revolution (did anybody say the word 'cotton'?). Ackees (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FALSE GENERALISATIONS AND FAILURE TO MENTION PRE-EXISTING EUROPEAN AND ASIAN SLAVE TRADES

It is standard practice for those who want to minimize and justify the Christian organisation of slave labour camps and forced deportations to say that 'slavery existed in africa before europeans came'. What such weasle words neglect is that slavery existed in Europe and Asia and the Americas too.

In fact, clearly, if the enslavement of Africans was considered 'legitimate' by Christians, then they must have been a) familiar with the concept and 'b) accepted its legitimacy. Furthermore, in order for Europeans to have introduced slavery into the Americas, then (obviously) it must have already been legitimate there too.

To claim simplistically that 'African' states traded with 'Arab' states in slaves is a mischievous generalization. Some African states (not all) traded with some Arabic-speaking states. Many African states had very little (or no) contact with Arabic-speaking regions - for example, Kongo. However, as many of these Arabic-speaking states were in fact African themselves, then it is false to suggest that 'Africans' traded with 'Arabs'. We cannot accept a false dichotomy between African and Arab. Furthermore, it is also false to claim a simple dichotomy between 'European' and 'Arab' as in addition to the Arabic-speaking maghreb, there was also muslim Iberia. Ackees (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Have removed some false generalisations and useless citations. In the demographics section there was a POV statement that Thornton disagreed with Rodney's view of a demographic collapse because African traders 'let Europeans into the market'. The question of whether Europeans had permission to trade or not is a tangental issue to the question of whether there was a demographic collapse. Therefore both the POV and the inadequate citation (no page numbers, etc) were removed.

In a similar vein, the POV statement that Eltis compared numbers to European emmigration is irrelevant to the question of the demographics of Africa and no reason has been offered as what is the relevance of this comparison. Furthermore the Eltis reference was inadequate in that there was no page number or other information either. There is no evidence of the accusation of 'mischaracterization' either. This would require an actual citation.

The phrase ' J. D. Fage compared the number effect on the continent as a whole.' is completely meaningless. What is 'the number effect' - does that phrase have a meaning? 'Compared' to what? Where is the citation for this meaningless non-comparison between non-comparators. If editors want this article to be improved, we could make a start by removing silly POV edits that serve no purpose other than to push the POV that 'nothing really happened'.Ackees (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CORRECT USE OF REFERENCES

Joren failed to correctly read the reference [5] in the first sentence of the 'Origins' section.

Here is Joren's quote on my talk page: "In your edit here: [6] you added that slavery existed in other regions of the world as well. However, the source [7] doesn't say that - readers would be left with the false conclusion that the Britannica article mentions pre-existing slavery in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. Maybe it should have! But it didn't, so we can't change that statement without providing a new source. If you want to make the change, the best way to do it would be to say something like this: etc..."

But if Joren had actually read the Britannica source[8] they'd have seen that the very first sentence is, "The first known major slave society was that of Athens." (That's Athens in Greece, Europe, although, to be fair to Jorens, the whereabouts of Athens isn't stated explicitly).

The Britannica source goes on to give readers the perfectly correct conclusion that it 'mentions pre-existing slavery in Europe and Asia'. It talks about slavery in England's Domesday book, slavery amongst the Tartars and the Chinese, Iraq, Rome, etc, etc. I'm not quite sure why Joren didn't read the Britannia article[9]. Or maybe Jorens genuinely isn't aware that England, Rome, Iraq and China are in Europe and Asia, not Africa. But, Jorens, then took the opportunity of writing a long-winded and patronizing tome about how to use sources and references (although I confess, I couldn't be bothered to read it all) [10]. Obviously, I'd appreciate an apology on my talk page, along with the apologetic removal of all the patronizing remarks.

Finally, with regard to Joren's claim that, "I didn't write the article"[11]: sorry Joren, but we really have to take responsibility for our edits. If you either make or revert an edit, then you are responsible for the text you've inserted, deleted or allowed to stand. Of course, this doesn't mean that you personally 'own' the article, or wikipedia. It just means that 'you' the editor who tapped those keys and clicked that mouse, are responsible for 'your' contribution. Trying to evade responsibility by claiming you didn't write it won't wash. If you click on the 'View History' tab at the top of the article, you'll find that there's a record of all the editors who've contributed - even the robots!

Anyway, looking forward to reading Joren's fulsome apology.Ackees (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground. We are here to improve the article, and hopefully improve each other along the way. Whatever you may believe about what I've done, please at least note that in every case I have tried to adopt a friendly demeanor towards you at all times, and I will continue to do so. We're not here to "expose" each other. There's an old expression, "play the ball, not the man." If people make mistakes, quite simply and clearly point out what they were. There's no need to turn it into a personal battle; they're not really that fulfilling.

For what it's worth, somehow my browser (or, quite possibly, my brain) was tricked into reading a different Britannica article. I remember being quite diligent, reading it thoroughly, and searching for key words in case I'd missed anything, and being surprised that, while covering the Atlantic slave trade, the article I was reading didn't talk about pre-existing slave societies. So I will gladly apologize for that :)

For those new to the discussion, I would encourage you to read Ackees' talk page to get the full scoop. If you believe I was being patronizing, you are certainly welcome to correct me and offer better phrasing that I could have used. Of course, with the caveat that since I'd been reading the wrong article all along, that would be a contributing factor :-P anyway, my motivation was to improve the article, and I certainly appreciate removing the blinder that prevented me from seeing that particular statement did have a source after all.

-- Joren (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Joren, you wrote: "We're not hear to "expose" each other". Once again, this is a failure of comprehension on your part. Actually, Wikipedia is a public forum. Exposure is precisely what it is all about. The question is: expose what, and to whom?

Here's a hypothesis for you to chew on. There is the distinct possibility that white-nationalist editors (usually middle-class males), with too much time on their hands (and a big chip on their shoulder) troll around wiki articles about Africa, African people and African history. Like their slavery-justifying and abolitionist predecessors in the 18th-century, their mission is, 'protect the reputation of the white man at all costs'. So, they spend every effort trying to minimize Euro/American atrocities during the slavery and colonial period. In tandem to that, they constantly seek to implicate Africans in these Euro-American atrocities, or else cite as many inter-African atrocities as possible in the hope that this will somehow make them feel better about themselves. (Of course, their desire to feel better about themselves is understandable, when you consider that these guys have nothing better to do with their time than troll Africa-related wikis).

So, if a neutral editor comes along and (for example) pointed out the perfectly relevant fact that, actually slavery was not an exclusively African phenomena, but a pre-Columbian global phenomena, then the typical white-nationalist editor would launch a flurry of a) invective b) patronizing remarks c) dodgy references. Their aim being, to restore their world to what they see as its rightful symbolic order i.e. - white = good, black = bad. Of course, being trolls, these guys are very pedantic about 'THE RULES' so they will do their best to carry out their edit warring in a passive aggressive fashion, dissimulating and smiling as they go. My hypothesis is that it could be a bit like Blair and Bush, who only ripped people's bodies apart to help them to have better lives.

Now I know you're probably not one of those hypothetical white-nationalist editors Joren, because I always assume good faith. I'm finding it hard to accept your apologies though, because they are full of caveats and hypotheses. It is not a case of 'if' your remarks were patronizing. It is a case of you recognizing that, for you to make a series of absolutely fundamental editing mistakes; then remove another editor's correct edits; and then write hundreds of words on their talk page lecturing them about wikipedia's policies is unequivocally patronizing. And don't expect me to cite a wiki rule to prove it.

White nationalist states united to deny the human and civil rights of millions of black individuals for hundreds of years in the most appalling circumstances - citing 'religion', 'tradition' 'self-interest' and then 'race' as their justifications. When for various reasons, not least the unstinting resistance of the enslaved and colonised, the white nationalist states were forced to retreat from slavery, apartheid, segregation and colonialism, did they offer any kind of unequivocal apology, did they offer any recompense? No. They made their pathetic 'gone with the wind' excuses and tried to justify their behaviour.

Is there a connection between the editing of the 'Atlantic Slave Trade' article and the psychology and behavior of white nationalist states? Who knows, eh? But I think I'd have preferred it if your apology had been unequivocal rather than a series of self-justifications. Ackees (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but in reverse it's been tempting to have a similar impression of you, that you had a chip on your shoulder and a vision of the world as it should be and wanted to set everything "right", whatever "right" may be. I honestly believe most editors on Wikipedia are tempted to have that impression of "the other editors", because we're all mysteries talking to each other from behind computer screens, so we have to work against that impression. I can see you've had a lot of experience dealing with these white nationalist trolls you've been talking about, and I can understand how that would set anyone on edge. I really am pretty ignorant about white supremacism, symbolism, etc, but I can assure you if we get a white supremacist troll and I'm still watching this article, I'll be doing the exact same thing, asking for sources, undoing parts of edits that appear to fail policy, and also trying to talk to the person personally. Heck, maybe they'll feel condescended too as well (I hope not).

I won't pretend to know what your motives are (and I thank you for your stated desire not to assume mine), but I've also seen a fair number of trolls, and I can understand how over time it can cause one to see false positives where there isn't any mal-intent. It happens to me too. Your edits were not entirely correct, ok? We all make mistakes. So I felt like, rather than leaving an impersonal boiler-plate template, I should take the time to write you personally and talk about original research. And thank you, by the way, for not adding unreferenced new material. I noticed your editing style seems to be changing, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your removing some of the unsourced POV. I remember being a newbie, and being frustrated by boiler-plate warning templates, and wishing people would be specific about what they were talking about. So... I try to invest time and write personally and be specific when I can in the hopes that others don't have to experience that frustration. We all have different ideas about what feels condescending, and unfortunately, ours seem to be at odds :-) Apparently, we have different communication styles, and we're just gonna have to work through that. In the meantime, again, I hope we can continue working to improve this article.

-- Joren (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And furthemore, I've just seen your demand for a citation about timber, construction etc. (cur | prev) 06:30, 14 August 2010 Joren (talk | contribs) (70,439 bytes) (Since you added "the construction industry, timber, and shipping", that'll need a citation too to distinguish from Hugh Thomas "The Slave Trade", which is the original cited work) (undo)

Joren, do you think it would help your cause if you actually read some of the sources and references you're getting so animated about? If you, for example, had read Hugh Thomas's book, you'd know perfectly well that the citation adequately covers the additions. I'd hate to ever feel as though I'm working on an article with somebody who knows nothing about the subject at hand, has no scholarly interest in it and just makes random edits and provocative remarks in order to spark a bit of debate and controversy. But, luckily, this is wikipedia, so my feelings are irrelevant - we'll just have to go by the reams of evidence...Ackees (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem we all face on Wikipedia; not everyone has access to these books, so we have to make sure statements that were sourced by someone else still reflect that work. Your edit summary said "added industries", so I didn't know if you were aware that the citation existed. Sometimes people add things to statements without realizing that there is a source attached to it. All you needed to do was say in your edit summary that Hugh also talks about these things. If you've read the book, and you can affirm that it says these things, then that is good enough for me.

-- Joren (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am rather concerned at Ackees's POV in trying to imply that every one even remotely connected with slavery was guilty of the wirst of evils. Slavery was (indeed is) an evil institution, though not necessarily equally bad in all places. Britannica is an encyclopaedia. While it is WP:RS is certainbly not the best source. As an encyclopaedia, it is a derivative source, based on directly or indirectly on academic books and articles. As WP progresses, it should tend to be built directly on the best secondary sources. I am thus sorry to see arguments over what Britannica does or dies not say. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Britannica thing was my fault. It turned out I'd read the wrong Britannica article and not realized it. But, I do agree it would be good to have better sources. And page numbers! If you would like to help, by all means...this article needs it.

-- Joren (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peterkingiron,

I realise that your remark about people 'even remotely connected with slavery was guilty of the wirst [sic] of evils' is based on your concern for the reputation of Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital in London, and a man who made much of his fortune investing in a slave-trading company. I've looked through the article, and our discussion there. I didn't mention 'evil' or indeed make any judgments about Guy's character. In fact, it was you who talked of 'horror'. My irritation is rather at those editors who, feeling a personal investment in this or that 'white' nation or individual, attempt to cover up, disavow or in other ways minimize various unsavory activities and even atrocities against African or other colonized/enslaved people. I suspect that very few, if any, of the hundreds of edits I've made to wikipedia have ever included the word 'evil'. Sometimes, Peter, we have to grow up and realize that despite their excellent manners in front of the kids, in reality, mummy was a drunken whore and daddy was violent womanizer. This is also true of citizens of nations, and is why the anti-slavery advocate, Johnson described patriotism as 'the last refuge of the scoundrel'.Ackees (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Joren,

It's nice that you have such concern for newbies, but, as with other matters we've discussed, perhaps that's the kind of thing you could research (i.e. ask, rather than assume) before you decide to post on somebody's talk page. Anyway, I hope that you can muster up enough enthusiasm for this subject to start researching and writing about it from a neutral point of view! Ackees (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)