Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Time stopping, end of days moment coming....



Slip and I have locked horns about the Midle East on many occasions. We probably would not agree on what colour the sand is over there.

I don't like is stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict and I think his arguments are flat out wrong.

But I can't recall him being flat out Anti-Semitic.
 
lol... err... thanks CanuckMA... I think.

I might also add that my company is in an industry that is dominated by Jews. The toy product industry. We wouldn't be doing any sort of business if we were anti-semitic... you wouldn't even get your sign up in the toy business if you were anti-semitic.

How could we be... my main partner is a Jew. Our office and showroom is on the same floor as a hassidic synagogue.

If I was anti-semitic... I wouldn't be in business.
 
Good grief, Tony Martin? Was the David Duke video unavailable? There are many respectable historians that talk about the jewish involvement in the slave trade.

I am not a fan of people using the term "truth" to describe their website (sounds pretentious to me). But I will give this site a pass as they are only reprinting a Boston Globe article that delves into Tony Martin.

http://www.truthinstitute.org/Jacoby_globe.htm
 
Slip already admitted that his historical facts are wrong.

Further, if pointing out ugly historical facts makes a person an anti-semite to the Greviance Industry, then I could get tarred by that brush as well for pointing out that jews were involved in the slave trade--in some cases disproportionately to their numbers in the population as a whole. In the past I had the anti-semite label thrown at me once for suggesting that the Poles suffered horribly under Hitler. But the fact that some of the world's a** holes happen to be jewish does not mean that anti-semitism doesn't exist. Slip says he is not one, I'll take him at his word--but I will call him out if I think he is wrong.

Beyond historical inaccuracy, the problem with Slip's original statement is that (a) there are no respected members of the historical community that accept the argument, and (b) this admittedly inaccurate argument is popular with people whom anyone in this thread would call anti-semetic.
 
err... no I didn't.

My historical fact weren't wrong.
I said Jews were involved in the slave trade... which they were.
I conceded that I overstated my case by referring them to as 'hugely' involved. They weren't execpt for in Suriname where they did play a central role in slavery.

There have been several titles on the issues of Jews involved in the slave trade. You can start with Eli Farbers book:

Jews, Slaves and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight

It's not in support of the theory that the Jews ran the slave trade. I wasn't either... if you read my original post in context... you'd have figured that out before calling me an anti-semite.
Of note in that book is that he only used English sources and data for his research. Which leaves out a lot of ground. A whole lot of ground given that the Dutch were heavily involved in the slave trade as were many others... even the Ottoman Empire.



Say whatever you want. But it's a bit rich to try and call someone on inaccruacy when you were the one that came in accusing me of being anti-semite. When asked to provide proof... you couldn't.
 
I think you are mistaken.

Generally you spring a trap on someone by pouncing on their response. Slip didn't do this, at all. In fact, his response was to back off the disputed claim of the huge influence . . . entirely . . . several times. So I am not sure how getting him to back down means that I got caught in a trap.

As for the arab claim, I am not disputing this part. But as you can see from Slip's response, his claim about the huge jewish influence was untrue. Its my understanding that the arabs were heavily involved in parts of the Atlantic slave trade. If I am wrong about the arabs, please feel free to jump in with righteous indignation and correct me.

As for my own righteous indignation, I thought I had a well reasoned response to the historical claims. And as for any anti-semitism, I thought I was careful not to make an accusation against Slip, but only to point out that the anti-semetic crowd uses the very same false accusation of the huge jewish influence in the slave trade as he used--and he has restated his point.

Now if Slip simply believes that jews were involved in the North Atlantic Slave trade, then I agree with him.
 
wow... for something I conceded many posts ago... you sure seem to still have issues with it. I suspect it has more to do with that you now realize that my historical facts of Jews being involved in the slave trade is in fact correct.

So sorry.



Source:

Title: Jewish Involvement In
Black Slave Trade
To The Americas

By: Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael




Source:

Title: The Jewish Onslaught
Despatches From The Wellesley Battlefront

By: Tony Martin

ISBN: 0-912469-30-7

If that's not involvement then I don't know what is.
 
slipthejab said:
err... no I didn't.[\QUOTE]

err...yes you did. You just corrected yourself after you got caught, which doesn't make your first statement any less wrong.



An excellent book that angered many in the jewish community. And unless I am mistaken, it never made the statement that they were huge in the slave trade. So I am confused where you found your original statement. I know several places where I found it.



Silly me, I was reading you out of context. That's kind of difficult to do in a thre paragraph post, but I can be so particularly dense. So what part of "huge influence" did I misunderstand?



I am not sure where you are going with this argument. Are you backing off from you previous backing off? Are you saying that by looking at these sources we may find out that "indeed, the jews really were a huge influence in the slave trade." So are you standing by your original point or are you arguing something else?



I am pointing out that you used an argument used by anti-semites. You should be happy that I am looking out for your good name. I also pointed out that in other threads you have brought jews into the discussion. My recollection of the last time was about a month or two ago, someone else commented at the time, I said nothing. By itself, it meant nothing to me at the time. Am I mistaken about this? I would apologize if I were.



I think you invited me to read every last one of you 10,000+ posts from the last 2 years. Needless to say, between my job, family, and the fact that I have other pursuits that I enjoy more than running a back ground check on you, I just haven't gotten around to it in the last 24 hours. Quite frankly, I can't say that I woul get around to it this week.

I am not going to say "Slipthejab is a racist." Quite frankly I find it to be extreme arrogance to presume to know what is in anyone's heart. But I will once again re-iterate that if you don't want to be known as a racist, be careful who and what you choose to quote.

I intend to address your first response post later. Save some invective until you lay eyes on that one.
Click to expand...
 
You just love twisting facts don't you--all those points were in my first substantive response to you. Are you saying that I never said that jews were involved? I expect an answer to this question Slip.





Dear Lord, YOU ARE USING TONY MARTIN AS A SOURCE!! I just posted a link about him, you might want to read it. Of course, you neglected to include his name in the citation. Are you covering up the fact that you are proudly quoting someone that the academic community considers an anti-semite?

Seriously, why did you not point out the author?
 
hmm... that sure is alot of hot air.

Frankly... I've posted my reference points of the Jews involvement in the slave trade. If you can refute them... then do so. If not just hush.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to address that issue - who wants to wade through long winded posts only to find that you can't back up what you're asserting?!

You also were not able to post anything that I'd said or posted that was anti-semitic.

Again you came into the conversation with 'what is it with you and Jews'... but you've failed to offer even one iota to back up any of that.

Unless you can provide us with something to that effect or refute the historical info I've posted... there really isn't any more point in this convo.
 
err... you need to look at what you just quoted... I did provide his name.
It's right there under By: Tony Martin.

What more could you want?

BTW - the link you posted doesn't even address the statistics or the research done by Tony Martin. It certainly doesn't refute it. It doesn't any more refute his numbers or factual data than does chalk = cheese.

I doubt you can either. Frankly.
 
For what it's worth...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Suriname.html

This corroborates much of what I've posted about Jews and the slave trade in Suriname.



One only has to look at the history of Dutch Sephardic Jews to understand how they fit into the issues of the slave trade. It's really not that hard to understand. It's not as if it's something made up by history crackpots. It's simple historical fact. So really... yet again... Buckeye Blue... if you can refute any of this then please do so... if not.. quite while your behind.



source: http://www.everyculture.com/Middle-America-Caribbean/Cura-ao-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html

I mean really... this can go on forever.



source: http://judicial-inc.biz/j_history_caribbean_jews.htm
 
Will do.


Umm, I'll drop my point as I'm not exactly sure what I was arguing. It's just that I'm on a mission to make sure people know the difference between religion, nationality and language. Seriously, the kind of questions I get asked:

Someone: "Do you speak Muslim?"
Me: "Umm..well.."


I was just pointing out a difference between the two, nothing more.
 
Do you remember this line: "Yes there were jewish slave traders. And as a disproportionate part of the merchant class they were disproportionately involved compared to the population as a whole."

That was me. That was my original response to your "huge" numbers statement, a statement that you immediately backed off from. I never said otherwise. Of course you keep pretending that I am refuting jewish involvement to cover for your repeition of an anti-semetic canard.

And the only reason you backed off at all is because you got caught.



Going back to my original post, I said that you drag jews into topics, you filled in the term anti-semetic. Whether that is a sign of a guilty conscience or a misreading of my post, you tell me. I then asked you if I were mistaken. You never responded.

I am hoping from some cooperation from you on this as I still have not managed to go through your 10,000+ posts in the last 48 hours. So help a neighbor out, am I mistaken about you dragging jews into conversations where they don't belong?

[/QUOTE]Unless you can provide us with something to that effect or refute the historical info I've posted... there really isn't any more point in this convo. [/QUOTE]

Again see my quote above. Everything you have cited supports my statement that the jews were involved, but not hugely involved. A position that you only adopted after you were caught in a mistruth. Indeed I applaud your change of heart Unless of course you are using the above evidence to say that they were "hugely" involved.

However, you are correct about your citation to Tony Martin, you did not shirk your responsibility from citing to the author. My mistake, I was up later than normal. I am curious what you are doing using a source from a discredited anti-semite and (alleged) holocaust denier like Tony Martin. Why you would associate with his works is a question you can leave for yourself.

But then again, facts without context are worse than lies. The source in question has 15 ships listed as being owned by jews. Between 1700 and 1800, the city of Bristol had over 2000 slaving ships fitted out. That is one city alone. Now your numbers look pretty insignificant. The funny thing is that I am almost certain that Tony Martin is such a pathetic scholar that he completely blew the number of jewish owned ships by low balling them. Any respecable scholar could have found much more over the many centuries and ports involved in the atlantic slave trade, but your authority is too inept for that.

In a nut shell.

The problem is that the debate is not whether some jews were or were not involved in the slave trade. The debate is whether they were involved or were involved in huge numbers. The normal historians say that they were involved, the sleaze bags say they were involved in huge numbers. And that is the difference from my position and the one you took, then defended, then backed away from. So your use of the word "huge" is not a silly little modifier, its the difference between acceptable and garbage. In essence, you did a 180 and no amount of 20 point texting will change that, try typing in 32 next time if you want to convince me.

Between you and I, I would like to move on to other things. Please feel free to respond if you do not concur.
 
wow.
You still haven't figured out that I conceded that the part of the slave trage they were 'hugely involved' in was Surinam and not the slave trade as a whole.

You came in trying to paint it out as if I was some sort of super-Anti-semite.
When you couldn't do that (because it was total pap you made up) you then had no choise but to continue to harp on something that I've conceded many pages ago?

The Jews were involved in the slave trade. Simple fact. Which I've shown to be true. You can argue the numbers or the significance all you like... but the fact remains... the Jews were involved in the slave trade. Period.
So sorry.

You go on to say that I'm dragging Jews into a conversation where they don't belong:

1) Who died and made you the mouthpiece for all Jews?
2) Jews were involved in the slave trade - they dragged themselves in
3) You've yet to show how I'm being anti-semitic for all your bluster

It sounds to me like your tripping over your own bruised ego than anything else. Get over it... move on.

Aside from harping continually on something that I've already conceded many pages ago... you've contributed really nothing of substance to this thread.

Time you got over it and moved on.
The rest of us have.
 
how can you possibly teach world history without teaching 2 of the most important events?
 
We might just as well ignore the Armenian genocide, the killing fields of Cambodia, Mao's great purge, Rwanda, Darfur, and all the rest. I hope that teaching history offends a lot of people. Our history id full of events that should offend and repulse you. The question is can we learn not to repeat them? adly the answer seems to be NO.
 
There's the rub. Who's to decide what the "two most important events" are?

(Difficulty level: Students from around the world).
 
Agreed.
It appears that they only make the radar when we are under immediate threat. By then it's usually too late to do anything.
 
I've heard that the Christians were involved in the slave trade - is this true??
 
Back
Top