Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

[GreenbackPartyMember]

If we look at the Dutch, the French, The English and the Americans... then yes I think we can say that there were Christians involved in the slave trade. The majority of them would have been Christian (or Catholic which is a Christian denomination).

For the most part... ones religeous conviction didn't in any way hinder someone from being involved in the slave trade.

There are people who've argued that in fact certain religions (Judaism and Islam) have tennets that predispose them to slavery. Whether or not that's all together accurate I can't say.

 

[ElenaM]

There are a number of laws in Torah on the treatment of slaves. They relate to Jewish slaves, which was more of an indebtured servant, to be treated well and freed in the Jubilee year, unless the slave made a public declaration that they did not want to be freed.


On the Slave Trade we're talking about, I don't think too much emphasis should be put on the religion of the traders. It was simple economic transactions undertaken by all. What we should focus on is that now that the world has moved on, why are certain countries still engaged in slavery.

 

[Someoneyouknow]

1. In the future, when you concede a point, just concede the point. Don't rant and carry on.

2. Don't pat yourself on the back for proving anything, as all you were doing is citing evidence of the point I made days ago and have continued to make. Your Johnny-come-lately point about "some" involvement happened well after that argument had been established by others in order to refute your echoing of the Farrakhanesque "huge" involvement. Now you want to take credit for it? I don't think repeating my original post makes you the bearer truth. I think Stalin mentioned that if you mentioned a lie often enough people may start to believe it.

3. If you don't want people to think you are a racist, don't echo the racist line. If you make a mistake, admit it and move on.

4. I have asked you three times whether I was wrong in saying you dragged jews into the conversations in the past. The fact that you have not responded once causes me to think that I was not mistaken.

5. As for who died, no one needs to die in order for someone to call a lie a lie, and a racist lie a racist lie. That you agree that "huge" is incorrect is commendable. But someone doesn't need a mandate from heaven to challenge anyone's view, then you live in a sheltered world.

6. If you want to move on, then just move on. If you feel you need respond (for instance, by throwing invective, taking credit for other peoples statements, etc.), then don't immediately say "time to move on!" It reminds me of the little kid who would throw a snowball and then run into the house shouting "snowball fight over." If you feel the need to carry on, please find another location so we don't disturb the present discussion any further. I will be more than happy to oblige.

 

[AlexisInfectious®]

Of course you don't.

 

[agirlnameelainee]

blah blah blah..

in the future improve your reading comprehension so that when a point is clearly and concisely conceded you understand that and don't bore us with your drivel for several more pages.

additionally... when you come in implying that someone is antisemitic or racist... be prepared to back it up. In this particular case you didn't - because you couldn't - because what you were asserting was garbage and you know it.

My original point stands... the Jews were involved in the slave trade. Both directly and indirectly. I provided enough historical fact to bear that out.
You're still massaging your bruised ego.

 

[danalea]

I suggested we take this elsewhere, so as not to be rude to others. Apparently that is not acceptable to you. Incidentally, you seem to suggest that other people need to improve their reading comprehension quite a lot, usually when you get defensive when they call you out.



If you parrot racists, if you later cite to racists, and if you declare that you have no problem citing to racists what do you expect me to think. And you still have not denied that you drag jews into discussions. You can still do so if you like. I am hoping that you do.



No silly, that was my original point. It is a huge mistake to say otherwise.

Your original point was "huge" involvement. You only jumped to "some" involvement after I called you out.

"Huge" involvement is what the racists say when they jump into discussions such as "they controlled the slave trade" or "they were a driving force in the slave trade." I sincerely hope that you were not aware of that distinction when you said huge. Most people who are familiar with this debate are aware of that distinction.

Incidentally, that is the second time that you mentioned hurt "egos" in as many posts. What so you think I am inferring from that?

 

[lolt]

Yes, exactly, he withdrew it once you pointed out it was overstated, not only that but in numerous posts throughout this thread he has reiterated that his original point was overstated. So why in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are you still busting his chops over it? Seriously if you hold onto little things like that I feel sorry for your future ex-spouses, of which there may be several.

 

[darbus]

Dayum, Blue, gotta agree with this. You've spent days wittering on about this (retracted) point and yet you still haven't managed to find time to type the word 'Jew' into the search engine and find a post with Slip's name attached to it that proves he has brought Jews into an argument unwarrantedly.

You have good points about quoting racists, and about historical context... but you have strongly accused Slip of something for which you've provided no evidence.

 

[kayle]

The difference between 'The Slave Trade' and the general slave trade is what? There isn't one, and to say that there is is further contributing to a misunderstanding about the evils of white people.

 

[musicxbang]

again... you're still moaning about something that I conceded many pages ago. Do you realize how many pages you've waffled on for because you failed to realize the point I conceded? Does it require that many words... or would it just have been more efficient to read and comprehend what I typed about conceding the point?

I think we know the answer to that.

Moreover that my main point was that Jews were involved in the slave trade. Which they were... which I've shown.

You still have yet to show any evidence of the racism or antisemitism that you implied in your original and subsequent posts.

You have yet to provide any sort of historical or factual data that disproves what I've posted in regards the involvement of Jews in the slave trade in Surinam and in regards the Dutch slave trade. Regardless of whether Tony Martin has an agenda I doubt that you're able to show his historical work to be lacking. Again if you can please do so. I don't agree with his agenda... but I do believe his research methodology to be relatively accurate.. and in fact... wider in scope than Farbers.

But again... if you can show that it's not... please do so... until then you are simply waffling.

 

[StanM]

Actually (from Wikipedia), one of the Ten Coofftopicndments explicitly condones slavery: "Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.".

Personally, I believe in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them").

 

[andyjr]

That is the kinda country we live in now, if your speech offends people they want it taken away. Look at the Imus situation over the last week. That was insane

 

[Crystalline_Embrace]

I wouldn't say moaning. I am experiencing an odd, and probably unhealthy, amusement as to where the conversation has meandered.



A point no one took issue with in the first place--that should be clear by the fact that it was my original point. I am more offended by you taking credit for taking credit for other people's ideas.



Am I up to 4 times or 5 times asking you to deny that you drag jews into discussions? I have lost track. Either way, I will let your lack of denials speak for itself.



That's because no one is disputing the above. You might notice that most people don't spend a lot of time trying disproving things that they believe. Or is that a habit of yours. That must not leave you with a lot of spare time does it?



"Waffling" means going back and forth between positions, for instance the position of Louis Farrakhan and the position of legitimate scholars. I thought I was being pretty consistent as to what I thought of your original opinion or your attempt to save face by taking credit for the ideas of others.

 

[atomicdoug171]

Which is all the more ironic seeing as you're the main culprit to blame for the meandering.



Why should he deny it? You made the assertion, if you dont back it up with E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. then he has no case to answer, or more specifically to deny.


isn't that pretty much what you are asking slip to do?



Actually my understanding of the term waffle, is to circle a point without actually making it. What you are describing is 'Flip-Flopping' a trait demonstrated by Politicians and basic logic devices but not by Slip. At no point has he switched sides in this argument.

 

[PJ]

I wouldn't say meandering. If I apologized for anything it would be for pressing two specific points rather forcefully. Although I know where you are going with that.



I did regarding at least one incident. All that needs to be said is "no I did not." The alternative is to sift through 10,000+ posts, which is unreasonable in light of this message board. Another alternative is for pepole to keep records of objectionable comments made by others, which is bordering on Orwellian.

isn't that pretty much what you are asking slip to do?

No, nor would I ask anyone to do so. Despite the overall tone of our disagreement, I do not disagree with specific instances cited.



The term is synomous with waivering (beating around the bush) and to vacilate/fluctuate, as you put it "flip-flopping". I don't think Slip would say that I have been waivering as I have been rather focused on a few points. Of course, I also consider my criticsm to be consistent. I used the term to mean fluctuation.

I don't want to beat this into the ground, but there is a major issue that Slip and I disagree over . I apologize for the "current" history lesson to follow, but it seems to be the point of confusion.

In the debate between historians regarding jewish involvement in the slave trade there is a strong disagreement. It is not between those who say "yes jewish involvement" and "no jewish involvement"--indeed if someone were to say "no jewish involvement", feel free to roll your eyes for that is not true. The debate is between legitimate historians who say, "yes there was some involvement", and a small but loud number of bomb throwers who say "huge/controlling/driving force."

Slip's original statement of "huge" put him squarely in the one camp no respectable person wants to associate with. Trust me, its not just the jews that those people don't like. So when he changed his statement, it was not tweaking a detail, it was a complete 180 from one end of the spectrum to the other. So I strongly disagree that he was right all along. If someone else has a different understanding of the current historical debate, please raise your hand.

To the group, I apologize for my part for this public p***ing match with Slip, this whole argument snowballed days ago. However, I do not apologize for calling him out. That was an ugly misconception and it should have been corrected.

 

[aries_clare]

Man, this thread is a testament to why I never want to get in an arguement with Slip.

 

[Zizkio]

I don't know why people are getting worked up Buckeye Blue seems to be making decent posts and not getting into a hissy fit and slip as we know can usually handle debates.

After reading the last few pages of arguments I actually found myself more convinced by Buckeyes points but just now I went back and had a look at the original posts by slip and I now am firmly on slip's side...

Buckeye looking at slips initial post it said:

Now the point you should be disputing here is the term 'many' not 'huge' as huge related to the amount of involvement of 'many' Jews and Arabs. If a Jewish person was a slave trader their involvement would have been 'huge'.

And that aside slip immediately conceded that he had overstated their involvement on the same page. So its worth moving on from this point.

As for quoting Tony Martin in that I agree with Buckeye. I understand slip was using his book to highlight that the Jews were involved with the slavetrade but I really don't see why you would chose the work on a noted anti-semite to make this point. In the link Buckeye it is mentioned that "a majority of Wellesley's faculty (the university he teaches at) signed a statement repudiating it [Tony Martin's 'Jewish Onslaught'] for its racial and ethnic stereotyping and for its anti-Semitism.'' Respecting the scholarship of such a dubious character is quite an error I suspect not to mention that the book quoted from was basically a pamphlet published privately by Tony Martin in response to criticism over setting an extremely anti-semitic pamphlet from the Nation of Islam (discussing Jewish responisiblity for the slave trade) as a core text for his students. Slip there are also a large amount of academic refutations to a lot of Tony Martins claims...

Lastly, accusing slip of being anti-semitic means the burden of proof is on you. I was involved with a thread discussing holocaust denial in which slip seemed to be firmly on the side of mainstream historians which would be an odd position for an anti-semite. He has made his position clear on not being anti-semitic so Buckeyes continuous call for him to make a statement about his previous antics is unnecessary. As it is painfully obvious even after a quick glance over the thread that he does not agree hence why he asked for evidence that he has dragged the Jews into unrelated discussions in the past so Buckeye you can stop waiting for an answer it's already been given!

 

[tinaandsteve]

CKava, I think you summed up tightly where the debate lies.

And again I apologize to the group for my contribution to this public p***ing match, which is pretty much what the argument devolved into.

 

[yawnep]

Yay it's finally finished. Btw Mods don't you think its time to close this thread since the OP has been answered and the slave trade discussion has ended, just a suggestion.

 

[Gertrude]

lol... this whole thing would have been solved several pages ago if somone had bothered to actually read what was posted and understand it.