Talk:Tony Martin (professor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: This article falls considerably short of the standards of Wikipedia; it is full of unsourced claims and it is completely biased in its presentation of a controversial, if obscure, individual. Tony Martin is "considered by many to be the foremost scholar on the life of Marcus Garvey"? Really: by whom, exactly? What is the rating system for evaluating scholars of Marcus Garvey? The article also claims that Martin's work, "The Jewish Onslaught," one of the most ludicrously anti-Semitic diatribes to have been published in America in recent years, was written in response to efforts by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups to repress Martin's scholarship. Is this claim documented? Is it even credible? It is further worth asking why this article stops its narration of Martin around the year 1993: has he done anything of merit since then? Has he published a book since the Jewish Onslaught? Or have "the Jews" succeeded in their efforts to "silence" him? Far from being a first-rate scholar of Marcus Garvey, Martin since the mid-nineties has been nothing better than a second-rate Leonard Jeffries. His Wikipedia article, to the extent that he merits an article at all, should reflect this. (edit)

I have cleaned up the article, removed unsourced and poorly sourced material, NPOVed the article text and wikified it as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

==

[edit] slave trade sources

This is a bio article about a Professor. These sources don't belong here.Kaisershatner 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

• "The Ebb and Flow of Conflict: A History of Black-Jewish Relations Through 1900" by Harold David Brackman (Los Angeles: University of California, 1977)

• "The Jews of Mobile, Alabama, 1763-1841; (1971) Bertram W. Korn
• "Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South, 1789-1865 (1961) Bertram W. Korn
• "The Early Jews of New Orleans (1969) Bertram W. Korn
• "The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West.1450-1800" (Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, 2001, 527 p.) by Paolo Bernardini and Norman Fiering (the work of reference)
• "The Slave Trade and the Jews" by David Brion Davis, 1994,
• "Jews, Slaves and the Slave Trade, Setting the Record straight" by Eli Faber (New York University Press, New York and London, 1998, 366 p.)
• The Slave Trade. The History of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870 ( Papermac, Oxford, 1993, 926 p.) by Hugh Thomas

[edit] Point of view

This article is far more neutral and informative than the previous versions written by Martin himself, under the guise of "avocadop". Given his propensity to censor i.e. remove any material that is less than fully flattering, as well as the addition of the aforementioned non-biographical material simply to incite hatred of Jews, I suggest that this current version be given "protected" status.

There is so much unfairness is the above presentation. Anything that embarasses Jewish self esteem is deemed to be anti-semitic - and I am Jewish too. He has been accused of seeking to incite hatred by telling the truth! If the truth is embarassing, apologies and get over it. I have amended the text to show that there are Black Jews who support Tony Martin's right to discuss the role of Jews in the Slave Trade.Napata102 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Dapo Ladimeji

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the article. Keep in mind Wikipedia:weasel words- "some say" isn't as good as "X, Y, Z say"(with a citation). And I disagree with your view that Martin is telling "the truth," but that's just my POV. Let's make sure all of our POVs stay out of the article. Kaisershatner 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm reading more about Martin, I have to say it's amazing to me that he could read a pamplet that asserts the Holocaust was a fiction fabricated by the Allies and the Jews, and say "Yep, sounds like normal scholarly inquiry to me!" The fact that he chose to defend the publisher and also lent his credentials to a Holocaust Denial conference is just a coincidence? Kaisershatner 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Napata102" appears to be the latest of Martin's designated lackies, assigned to whitewash his/her idol's lies, slanders, incitement and outright support for genocidal racism against Jews, regardless of Napata's proclaimed ethnic/religious identity. In fact, many so-called "Black Jews" - such as the kind one sees with bullhorns on 42nd Street in Manhattan - regularly chant the most vile racist diatribes against what they call the "false" (i.e non-black) Jews, replete with the usual Nazi slogans. In that case, this hardly disproves the viewpoint of Martin's critics that his singling out of the Jewish role in the slave trade is disproportionate, and quite possibly motivated by a far more deep-seated racism against Jews and desire to incite hatred and violence against them.

It seems like this article is getting to be a collection of "this side thinks" and "that side thinks". I agree that very often, truth is not on one side, and there are at least two points of views on each story. But last time I checked wikipedia, the Holocaust did happen, and those who deny it did are called holocaust deniers. So let's not start fake debates, like, quote: "Anything that embarasses Jewish self esteem is deemed to be anti-semitic", followed by the ever-popular argument "and I am Jewish too". Benisek00 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slandering Henry Louis Gates, Jr.?

I have tried to edit this article several times in vain efforts to introduce something resembling a neutral point of view. Lately, I've attempted several times to delete one particularly egregious paragraph under the rubric of Professor Martin's anti-Semitic "Jewish Onslaught" screed; the paragraph I have tried to delete deals with an editorial written by Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates about the Nation of Islam's anti-Jewish conspiracy on the slave trade. The paragraph essentially amounts to a gratuitous smear of Professor Gates, who wrote his editorial two years before Martin wrote "The Jewish Onslaught": the paragraph in question contributes nothing to either the factual content of the dispute or to the questions that motivated Martin's fulminations. It is merely a slander of Gates, one using an offensive and racially insensitive epithet, at that. It has absolutely no place in a Wikipedia article, and yet every time I delete it "somebody" ("avocadop"?) re-introduces it, whole cloth.... Little help, anybody?! Zarafan 16:23, 4 March 2007

Hey, Zarafan. Thanks for your comments. I have to agree with you that the nasty criticism of Gates was poorly placed, since it had to do with a prior issue, Gates' view of the NOI work. On the other hand, "no place in a WP article" - there I disagree with you. This is a biographical article about an academic; his views about other prominent academics in his field (and in this case, arguably the most famous or prominent among them), are relevant to his biography. I put the quotation into its own section to avoid the problem you pointed out. Also, what about the article isn't neutral, in your view- since you say you are making an effort to "introduce something resembling a neutral point of view." Where can we do better? Kaisershatner 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kasisershatner: Thank you for your response. I think Martin's criticism of Gates is something of a non-issue: instead of raising a substantive critique of Gates's scholarship or politics, he offers a series of increasingly offensive insults--to a person who has never baited, attacked, or responded to Martin directly. Is every aspect of Martin's personality of issue in a WP article? How much rope do we need to give for this guy to hang himself? In an article about Lyndon LaRouche, for example, is it enough to say that he's a conspiracy theorist who makes reckless charges about world leaders, or do we have to quote exactly why he thinks Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth are involved in the drug trade?

With respect to the general neutrality of the article, I think it's much better than it once was, and as I say I've tried to play a role in changing it from a puff piece into an encyclopedia article. But it's an "objective" truth that Tony Martin is a pathetic bigot who has squandered whatever academic reputation he once had in service of his own anti-Semitic obsessions, and that's something that a WP article cannot speak to, for obvious stylistic and methodological reasons. Barring a unanimous and universal consensus that he's merely a nutjob, I think there are two areas where this entry might be improved: (1) the so-called academic responses to the Jewish Onslaught--from the likes of Molefi Asante (a fellow Afrocentrist, and though a more important academic figure than Martin, not exactly a neutral observer) and "Jewish scholar" Steve Bloom (whoever in the world that is)--really amount to flak-work on behalf of Martin. They need at least to be better contextualized, if not deleted. (2) There really needs to be a better concluding or summary paragraph for this entry; the assertion that the Holocaust did occur, or else that Martin has signed on to a pamphlet which denies the existence of the Holocaust, though suitably goofy enough to discredit Martin in the eyes of nearly anybody, reads too much like an equivocation or anti-climax. Thanks again for your response to my query. Zarafan

Zarafan, I don't want to get too metaphysical but it isn't that simple to decide what to include and what not to include, there's a whole category of Wikipedia:Inclusionist and Deletionist commentary on that. Generally I'm in favor of keeping- if Martin warrants a page at all, his public comments are all fair game for inclusion. The vicious one about Gates just serves as additional evidence of Martin's general viewpoint, which is something the article should address (and is also what makes him notable- I think he got comparatively less national media attention for his work about Garvey). As far as the fleshing out of the Asante and Bloom quotations, I agree. Some googling suggests Bloom may the a prof at U of Iowa, there is one by that name with some Jewish writings, but right now I'm not up to digging at it. The "Jewish scholar" descriptor probably could be deleted. If it's a comment about Bloom's religion then it's irrelevant (the views of any one Jewish person aren't a litmus test for what is anti-Semitic. Jews, like anyone else, will disagree about that. If it's a point about his job, as in he writes about Jewish issues, then that might be different (although I would still disagree with his view). Kaisershatner 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kaisershatner: Thanks for your clarification; I'll continue to keep an eye on this article. zarafan

[edit] Something worrying here

Weasle words are all over this, is this allowed in a BIO?? No it isnt so why is it here. Why have a section about Holocaust denying when Martin Never denied the holocaust and said it isnt his area to say anything for or against. But putting it in that language paints the picture that he is part of some crowd. And that stupid tag is history let me tell you that. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Martin remains proudly a son of Trinidad, West Indies.