Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 9, 2017 at 0:30 comment added Robert Affinity I think you may be misunderstanding what he meant.
Jun 9, 2015 at 11:32 comment added two sheds Rodriguez's sentence has been taken out of context. When he says "THEY represent a very tiny percentage of the 20,000 Jews residing in the antebellum South," he is referring to those "few Jews [who] became prominent slaveowning planters." That is, 25% of Jewish households may have owned slaves, but very few Jewish households owned enough slaves to run a plantation. This is because Jews generally lived in urban areas, and so most Jewish slaveowners had only one or two domestic slaves. [Source: I found all this in Korn's work while researching my answer above]
May 11, 2015 at 17:03 comment added Joël Yes, and also 100% of the jewish assassins are assassins, and 100% of the black rapists are rapists, etc. No one has denied here your figure of 25% of jews in the south owning slaves, and you're right that the sentence of Rodriguez you quote is plainly false.But the point is that 25% is not a meaningful figure because jews in the south were very few, almost inexistent: 20000, that is less than 0.2% of the jews worldwide. Also, at that time Jews constituted about 2% of the population of Europe/America, but only about 0.36% (20000 out of 5.5 millions) of the total white population of the south.
May 11, 2015 at 11:44 comment added two sheds My answer shows that similar percentages of Christian and Jewish households in the South owned slaves. That's the relevant comparison, and it shows that Duke's point is wrong.
May 11, 2015 at 9:29 review Low quality posts
May 11, 2015 at 20:45
May 11, 2015 at 6:33 review Late answers
May 11, 2015 at 6:37
May 11, 2015 at 6:14 review First posts
May 11, 2015 at 8:36
May 11, 2015 at 6:09 history answered Derekbrown60 CC BY-SA 3.0