Your post is technically correct. The Jewish role in the British-US slave trade was minimal, also their role in plantation ownership was minimal.
We should understand the reasons for this in the broader context of the Atlantic Slave trade.
The slave trade to the Americas was dominated by three large slave trading companies, The Royal African Company (British), Geoctrooieerde Westindische Compagnie (Dutch) and Compagnie Française des Indes occidentales (French).
Of these companies, the French and the British banned Jews from participating in the slave trade.
However, the Dutch company had 10% Jewish ownership and shipped nearly 40% of all slaves ever shipped to the Americas through the Atlantic slave trade. Roughly, 5.3M individuals (Patrick Manning, The Atlantic Slave Trade: Effects on Economies, Societies and Peoples in Africa, the Americas, and Europe, Duke University Press, 1992)
The Great majority of these slaves were shipped to Brazil, and the Caribbean, where retail traders and resellers were overwhelmingly Jews. (David Lowenthal, "West Indian Societies", Oxford Press, 1972).
Jews dominated the market providing African slaves to plantation owners, and had little to no interest in actually owning plantations themselves (Arnold Wiznitzer, "Jews in Colonial Brazil", Columbia University Press, 1960).
Thank you for trying in moving the goal posts but you failed. Dont forget to read theblink I shared in than previous post. It saves my time in debunking your nonsense.
Jewish settlers were an essential part of the fabric of the slave trade, although the actual number of slaves they might have purchased and then sold as middlemen amounted to a minute fraction of the huge number of Africans brought to Brazil over the course of more than three centuries
You can try to trivialize it all you want, but even if we ignore the retail/resale aspect, and just go for proportional 10% ownership in the Dutch company, that amounts to more than half a million people trafficked for enslavement.
But by all means, ignore this level of brutality and suffering to rationalize your point of view.
And you care? You only care because only a tiny minority of Jews owned some slaves somewhere in the world(And a discussion only started because a moron thought to blame Jews of owning slaves in America on a thread about woke washing in hollywood), otherwise, you would rejoice on it. And despite that tiny minority owning slaves, it still was a tiny minority and the whole doesn't deserve the blame you are placing.
Your post is technically correct. The Jewish role in the British-US slave trade was minimal, also their role in plantation ownership was minimal.
We should understand the reasons for this in the broader context of the Atlantic Slave trade.
The slave trade to the Americas was dominated by three large slave trading companies, The Royal African Company (British), Geoctrooieerde Westindische Compagnie (Dutch) and Compagnie Française des Indes occidentales (French).
Of these companies, the French and the British banned Jews from participating in the slave trade.
However, the Dutch company had 10% Jewish ownership and shipped nearly 40% of all slaves ever shipped to the Americas through the Atlantic slave trade. Roughly, 5.3M individuals (Patrick Manning, The Atlantic Slave Trade: Effects on Economies, Societies and Peoples in Africa, the Americas, and Europe, Duke University Press, 1992)
The Great majority of these slaves were shipped to Brazil, and the Caribbean, where retail traders and resellers were overwhelmingly Jews. (David Lowenthal, "West Indian Societies", Oxford Press, 1972).
Jews dominated the market providing African slaves to plantation owners, and had little to no interest in actually owning plantations themselves (Arnold Wiznitzer, "Jews in Colonial Brazil", Columbia University Press, 1960).
Thank you for your scholarly post.
Thank you for trying in moving the goal posts but you failed. Dont forget to read theblink I shared in than previous post. It saves my time in debunking your nonsense.
Ihttps://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/jewsslavesandtheslavetrade.htm
You can try to trivialize it all you want, but even if we ignore the retail/resale aspect, and just go for proportional 10% ownership in the Dutch company, that amounts to more than half a million people trafficked for enslavement.
But by all means, ignore this level of brutality and suffering to rationalize your point of view.
And who owned the other 90% of the company?
And you care? You only care because only a tiny minority of Jews owned some slaves somewhere in the world(And a discussion only started because a moron thought to blame Jews of owning slaves in America on a thread about woke washing in hollywood), otherwise, you would rejoice on it. And despite that tiny minority owning slaves, it still was a tiny minority and the whole doesn't deserve the blame you are placing.
"And you care? You only care because only a tiny minority of Jews owned some slaves somewhere in the world"
I care because I am of Sephardic ancestry and because I find the selling of another human being abhorrent, let alone half a million people.
Why do you so rabidly not care about the suffering of these people?
Why do you so ardently minimize responsibility of those who victimized them simply because they were jews?