Talk:Seymour Drescher

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

This article quotes historians in praise of Drescher without noting that all of them had already advanced a version of his interpretation of the slave trade before he published his own. In other words, people whom he had agreed with praised him. What is more important is that many--and probably most--historians have seriously questioned his work, which remains highly controversial as it is part of one of the most contentious historical debates of the 20th Century.

Let's just face it, anyone who titles a book about the abolition of slavery "Econocide" is asking for controversy.

Yes, "Econocide" is a controversial book, and it's flawed. I've referenced an academic article that refutes "Econocide" and argues that the main arguments of the Williams thesis remain intact.Mikesiva (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drescher Refutation of Capitalism and Slavery Substantially Remains[edit]

The argument that Drescher's several books on the subject of British abolition actions taken in the 18th and 19th has been ultimately largely ineffective in refuting the claims made by Eric Williams in Capitalism and Slavery is overstated. I think more needs to be written about the long-running debate among many historians, the most important being Drescher, on the subject of the efforts by the British in suppressing the Atlantic Slave Trade and the motives for their having done so. The idea that one can be humanitarian in suppressing the slave trade, which occurred by 1808 in both the United Kingdom and the United States, but then only economic reasons for the emancipation of slaves, which came later, is not supported by historians writing on the matter (an important one being Drescher, to which this article applies). I can a few things to make it more accurate, and quote an historian who has written a recent (2018) article on the historians debate -- he for one believes the entire Williams decline thesis should be scrapped.

I have deleted the reference to Alexander Ramdass's paper, as it is an unpublished and unpeer-reviewed source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebagge (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]