In the spirit of “thorough, fair and public scrutiny,” I read the linked-to article by Professor Tony Martin, who certainly appears to have legitimate and impressive academic credentials.
I don’t have any opinions on Jewish involvement in the African slave trade. I simply don’t know anything about it one way or the other. I suppose it might be an interesting area for an historian to research, but I’m not a historian. Or an academic. Or especially knowledgeable about the slave trade.
That said, Prof. Martin’s article certain contained some red flags.
"The long arm of Jewish intolerance reached into my classroom. . . "
A description of Prof. Henry Louis Gates of Harvard as “African America’s most notorious Judaeophile. . .”
Again speaking of Prof. Gates, “The Jews unilaterally anointed Gates with the mantle of head African American scholar in charge of Black academia.”
Speaking of Hillel, the Jewish students’ organziation, “Like their elders (for example in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, by whom Hillel operatives are formally trained in the art of deception and dirty tricks), they evinced a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of their intended victims.”
“. . . the Jewish onslaught against me. . .”
“. . . the Jewish rank and file simply fall in line. ‘Theirs not to make reply,/Theirs not to reason why,/ Theirs but to do and die…’ The power of the Jewish leadership over their constituency is impressive indeed, the presence of some dissenting voices notwithstanding. . .”
“. . . the well-documented dirty tricks that the Jewish groups have used against me in the context of the well-documented dirty tricks that the Jewish groups have used against Andrew Young, Jesse Jackson, David Dinkins, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Len Jeffries, Black parents in Ocean Hill-Brownsville (Brooklyn) and any number of Euro-American individuals and organizations. . .”
Professor Martin also recounts a conversation with someone, described as “the lady in charge,” at an unnamed “Jewish archive” that I find (admittedly without any factual knowledge of the conversation) incredible.
Professor Martin’s language is the language of anti-semites. It may be that he himself is not an anti-semite. I don’t know. And his work may be legitimate history. If so, he does himself a disservice by using the language he uses.