So @sccit is an open zionist on a black hip hop forum?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

More people got that impression, so there has to be some true to it.

Natural human tendency of suspicion towards the 'other'.
​

You went out of your way to prove anti-Catholic literature and disprove Jewish involvement in transatlantic slavery, while nobody asked you to do so.

I did no such thing. Jews couldn't have any appreciable impact on the slave trade. No one's arguing that they weren't involved.​

​

 

[Ish Gibor]

Natural human tendency of suspicion towards the 'other'.
​

​

Shims.

​

I did no such thing. Jews couldn't have any appreciable impact on the slave trade. No one's arguing that they weren't involved.​

​

You didn’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted all that stupid stuff you did. You’ve buttfukked yourself in multiple ways.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This is just laughable. The part you skipped on is the conversation to Catholicism. I told you before that a lot converted their names. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

I actually do as the Jews forced to Convert stayed in Spain and Portugal, but they were Christians, not Jews. They no longer observed Judaism or they were executed, imprisoned, tortured, etc. This continued from the 16th to the 18th Century. Most emigrated to Holland.

This is why last names are not indicative of Jewish adherence.​

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

This is just laughable. The part you skipped on is the conversation to Catholicism. I told you before that a lot converted their names. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Secondly, it also directly contradicts your claims of religious freedom for Africans to practice indigenous, the Islam and the Judaic fait.

Converso - Wikipedia

You were born to be battered and brushed. That’s why you have to eat all these punches.

Conversos were subject to suspicion and harassment from both what was left of the community they were leaving and that which they were joining.[5] Both Christians and Jews called them tornadizo (renegade). James I, Alfonso X and John I passed laws forbidding the use of this epithet. This was part of a larger pattern of royal oversight, as laws were promulgated to protect their property, forbid attempts to convert them back to Judaism or the Muslim faith, and regulate their behaviour, preventing their cohabitation or even dining with Jews, lest they convert back.

Conversos did not enjoy legal equality. Alfonso VII prohibited the "recently converted" from holding office in Toledo. They had supporters and bitter opponents in the Christian secular of general acceptance, yet they became targets of occasional pogroms during times of social tension (as during an epidemic and after an earthquake). They were subject to the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions.

did you even read that link?

if your point is that there were some slave owners that had jewish ancestry but no longer identified as jewish..then ok sure..but its impossible to quantify. it seems pretty clear that around the time of the atlantic slave trade...many european jews were disadvantaged due to the inquisition so im failing to see how they could have a monopoly over the endeavor or a majority (in quantity of jewish people)

 

[Ish Gibor]

I actually do as the Jews forced to Convert stayed in Spain and Portugal, but they were Christians, not Jews. They no longer observed Judaism or they were executed, imprisoned, tortired, etc. This continued from the 16th to the 18th Century.​

Actually the converted spread out, into the North, Western Europe and New World. I even posted books for you to read. lol

Most emigrated to Holland

The above proves that you can’t comprehend very well. Either that or you don’t read what people write. I have literally posted sources on this.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You didn’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted all that stupid stuff you did.

Not my fault you went left. Told you a while ago you were arguing a strawman and not my actual position.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

my strawman my actual position.​

You never showed what the strawman arguments are, as a matter of fact I am still waiting for you to disprove me.

It’s been almost 24 hours and you still haven’t shown anything, other then your repetitive claims that you did. That’s the only strawman I have seen being posted here.

Literally every single thing you’ve claimed has been debunked in multiple ways.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Actually the converted spread out, into the North and New World. I even posted books for you to read. lol

That's fine. We know that Jews settled in Holland from Spain, Portugal, Brazil, the German states, and Poland. We also know they numbered about 1,600 by 1695 in London. We also know they reverted to Judaism once out of Inquisitor lands.

The numbers just don't allow for Jews to be major contributors to the enslavement of Africans.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

did you even read that link?

if your point is that there were some slave owners that had jewish ancestry but no longer identified as jewish..then ok sure..but its impossible to quantify. it seems pretty clear that around the time of the atlantic slave trade...many european jews were disadvantaged due to the inquisition so im failing to see how they could have a monopoly over the endeavor or a majority (in quantity of jewish people)

Ok?

Tobias Smollett - The Critical Review, Or, Annals of Literature, Volume 57

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You never showed what the strawman arguments are

Anything outside "Jews were not major contributors to the enslavement of Africans" is a strawman.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

That's fine. We know that Jews settled in Holland from Spain, Portugal, Brazil, the German states, and Poland. We also know they numbered about 1,600 by 1695 in London. We also know they reverted to Judaism once out of Inquisitor lands.

The numbers just don't allow for Jews to be major contributors to the enslavement of Africans.​

You are wasting people’s time with all that gobbledegook.

I am still waiting for you to disprove my supposed strawman arguments.

This is what I have posted earlier on, so I don’t see the point you’re trying to make?

Tobias Smollett - The Critical Review, Or, Annals of Literature, Volume 57

This explanation may also elucidate the situation in the Amsterdam (Spanish-Portuguese) Jewish community of the 17th century in regard to the black and mulatto Jews (negros e mulatos judeos). They were buried in a separate section of the Jewish cemetery and they were not called to the Torah in the synagogue service; their women could sit in the women’s gallery in the synagogue only in the back rows. “For the most part, these blacks and mulattos were slaves and servants who had converted to Judaism and lived on the margins of the Jewish community

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ry-a-kushyte/BF53C0F9A93E32387E5204B8951D10E4

 

[Ish Gibor]

Anything outside "Jews were not major contributors to the enslavement of Africans" is a strawman.​

Now we get to the point where you are just confused.

Your strawman argument claim was on the data I have posted pertaining the racial wealth gap, the school funding wealth gap between Black and White schools, mass incarceration of Black males, false accusations, arrest and imprisonments etc. That was what this was about.

You have never refuted any of this data. All you claimed was that it’s strawman.

Why is it for you as a self proclaimed Black person so hard to disprove me on that data?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Ok?

Tobias Smollett - The Critical Review, Or, Annals of Literature, Volume 57

150-3000 slaves in st thomas producing sugar? I just want clarification on what that document is saying.

Sidenote..the use of F instead of S was perplexing to me. Not saying that to diminish the source whatsoever. I just was not expecting that

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You are wasting people’s time with all that gobbledegook.

Then don't respond.
​

I am still waiting for you to disprove my supposed strawman arguments.

Why would I have to refute a strawman that isn't attacking my actual position?​

 

[Ish Gibor]

150-3000 slaves in st thomas producing sugar? I just want clarification on what that document is saying.

Sidenote..the use of F instead of S was perplexing to me. Not saying that to diminish the source whatsoever. I just was not expecting that

You’re asking me clarification on what a document is saying that you can read for yourself? That’s odd.