The Irish - The "Forgotten" "White" Slaves

Irish the ‘forgotten white slaves’ says expert John Martin

 

Ireland was the greatest victim of British slave trade he says

 
swf+White+sugar+slaves+barbados+snippits+and+slappits
White sugar slaves photographed in Barbados
Photo by Snippets and Slappits
 

The history of the African slave trade into the America’s is one that is well-documented as well as largely taught in American schools today.

However, as John Martin of the Montreal-based Center for Research and  Globalization points out in his article ‘The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten ‘White’ Slaves,’ it was not just Africans who were traded as slaves.

Indeed, the Irish have a gruesome history as being traded as slaves as well and subjected to similar and sometimes worse treatment than their African contemporaries of the time.

Strangely though, the history of Irish and ‘white’ slavery is by and large ignored in the American educational curriculum today.

In his article, John Martin writes “The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70 percent of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.”

Read more articles on Irish history here

“Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.”

Martin writes how at the hands of the British, the Irish population plummeted due to the slave trade of the 17th century.

“During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.”

Martin goes on to explain that for some reason, the Irish slaves are often remembered as ‘indentured servants.’ However, in most cases during the 17th and 18th centuries, they were no more than “human cattle.”

“…the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.”

During the late 1600s, writes Martin, African slaves were far more expensive than their Irish counterparts – Africans would sell for around 50 sterling while Irish were often no more than 5 sterling.

Further, the treatment of Irish slaves was thought to be more cruel than that of African slaves. If an Irish slave was beaten by their owner, it wasn’t considered to be a crime.

The Irish were further exploited when the British began to “breed” Irish women – or girls, sometimes as young as 12 – with African males.

Read more: Our unusual Irish ancestors – the poets, madmen and scoundrels who hail from Ireland

“These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.”

Martin concludes, “In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.”

 

Click here to read John Martin’s article ‘The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves’ in its entirety.

 

*************************************************************

 

THE IRISH SLAVE TRADE – THE FORGOTTEN “WHITE” SLAVES

The Slaves That Time Forgot

By John Martin

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?

King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories. But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

http://afgen.com/forgotten_slaves.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm just trying to make a way out of no way, for my people" -Modejeska Monteith Simpkins

 

AFRICAN AMERICA IS AT WAR

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICA

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICANS

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

AMERICA'S RACISTS HAVE INFILTRATED AMERICAN POLICE FORCES TO WAGE A RACE WAR AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

THE BLACK RACE IS AT WAR

FIRST WORLD WAR:  THE APPROXIMATELY 4,000 YEAR WORLD WAR ON AFRICA AND  THE BLACK RACE

Original Post
Originally Posted by Cholly:

THE IRISH SLAVE TRADE – THE FORGOTTEN “WHITE” SLAVES.

 

 

I don't give a fuck.

 

Next.

 

You are crazy, Cholly.  LOL!

 

But, honestly, I don't believe ANY Human Beings should EVER be enslaved, ever, even the Irish, who, no sooner than Black people blinked in this country, they turned on Black people like German Shepherds, and turned out to be some of the most racist White people in America.  

 

However, another reason I posted that is because it is evidence that the people who Hate Black people the most, are usually the ones with the most in common with Black people, the Black struggle and our history of oppression.  

 

 

Quote by Norland: "Oh God, Cholly!!!"

 

I just don't care.

 

White people and especially White academic scholars, have always wanted to try and assimilate the plight of today's White Americans and their European ancestors slave history to that of today's African Americans in order for Blacks to feel some type of compassionate "guilt" remorse about what matters to them historically when they don't as a collective American White race, don't even care nor have the will, courage and stones collectively to have a raced based mass conversation with African Americans and face/debate what their ancestors (many American slave owners who were or Irish descent) did to enslaved Blacks.

 

So the Irish were enslaved and sold as slaves all around the world.

 

Why should I care?

 

I don't.

 

People get angry at me when I also say that I don't care about what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.

 

Adolf Hitler was elected the chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945.

 

The Holocaust and the genocide in which approximately six million Jews and another 5 million non Jewish victims (11+ million total) were systematically killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators that took place throughout Nazi Germany and German occupied territories from 1941 to 1945 (5 years) when Jews were targeted and methodically murdered in a genocide, one of the largest in history IMO, does not even remotely compare to the countless millions of American slaves who were taken from homeland Africa, killed for fear of being captured and chained on African soil, died in holding cells while awaiting entry onto slave ships, killed in passage or purposely threw themselves overboard on those slave ships to defy slavery and the countless hundreds of millions of enslaved Blacks in America and Caribbean countries for over 400 years, so please excuse me for not giving a good unhealthy, corn laced toilet shit about a Jewish holocaust and genocide that ONLY LASTED 5 SHORT years during WWI while Hilter was the Chancellor and then Fuhrer of Germany when considering if Hilter wasn't elected and not in charge, the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Hitler's Nazi Germany would have more than likely, never even happened and that also includes World War II.

 

Never even happened.

 

The Holocaust is defined as the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

 

So was American slavery at the hands of racist American and British Whites.

 

Those Jews in Germany weren't purposely captured and enslaved, they weren't initially denied their full rights as men, women and children, they were never denied of their history, culture and heritage, they didn't lose their original names and given "Christian" names, they were not denied an education; the ability to read, write or count or practice their religion, they religion wasn't systematically changed, they didn't work for many generations enslaved for free labor of travel within the plantation boundaries limits with no pay.....And when the Holocaust ended, they weren't systematically oppressed by federal laws at every turn and made to endure generations of threatened voluntary and involuntary debt slavery that continues to this very day..........Instead after 5 short years, they were rescued.

 

They were one of the main reasons why Germany prospered socially, politically and financially.

 

One man changed all that before he was stopped and in order to avoid military capture, committed suicide.

 

The Jews like my late uncle used to say "just ran into the wrong nasty, no good son-of-a-bitch" that changed everything for them at that "blip on the screen" period of time in their Jewish history.

 

Hitler is said to had a network of about 42,500 facilities in Germany and German occupied territories were used to concentrate, confine, and kill Jews and other victims.

 

How many American and Caribbean slave plantations in 400 years of Black enslavement where they especially when you consider that in the American South, it only took one slave owned by a single White man, woman or child to be legally considered a single (one) plantation.

 

I visited and took a tour of the Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany many years ago. The first concentration camp opened in Nazi Germany located in Dachau, Germany.

 

I sat and watched the introduction film.

 

I saw and touched the shower rooms and shower heads used to pump poison gas into the crowded showers when they thought it would be water to take a shower.

 

I saw and touched the ovens used to burn Jews for heat in the winter and also used to burn them "just because".

 

I saw and touched the hard wooden beds they slept on and the concrete blood ditches on the outside of their housing designed to allow the catching of human blood to flow downhill into containers when prisoners were executed against the wall with a pistol or rifle bullet to the neck.

 

And yes I felt bad for the Germans I toured with who were sad and crying because it was at the hands of their Nazi ancestors who were the direct cause of all of it.

 

Doesn't compare to American slavery.

 

Noooooooooo!

 

Maybe my simple math is all fucked up but.......

 

5 short years and 11+ million purposely exterminated Jews to me does not equal in no way, shape or form, 400+ years of enslaved and countless killed in the hundreds of millions of enslaved Blacks.

 

"Jews didn't deserve and weren't supposed to be treated that way. We didn't do anything wrong except for being Jewish living in Germany!".....The exact same for Africans.

 

Jewish or Irish person?

 

Present your argument and convince me to give even a smidgen of a care..........If you can.

I would be the last person to ever dismiss even one once of African people's suffering centuries of kidnappings, enslavement, torture, brutalization, maiming, "experiments", rape, and having not only their land and natural resources stolen, but also even their Legacy stolen to serve as the "WELFARE" to sustain and empower Western nations/Europeans.

 

But, I'm not going to dismiss any other Crimes Against Humanity because our people suffered them too or because so far, and since it still continues to this day, we have suffered the longest.

 

What I posted is merely a historical reference that I found interesting, really, mainly because it points to the fact that almost always, the very people that "hate Black people" the most, really, historically, have been treated the same way, been look on the same way, have been oppressed, tortured, terrorized, murdered, dehumanized, vilified and enslaved the very same way Africans/Black people have.  

White people are taught that their looks make them superior to us.  How they figure that, I don't know.  The reality is, that if you really look closely at these jokers, they'll make you lose control of your inner workings.  There is SOMETHING WRONG with these people.  It's not our fault.  We've been here with them for 500 plus years.  All we do is complain; all they do is kick our ass, royally.  We can't kick back, they'll execute ya under some fake rules and regulations that came from some one's mind, that were put on paper, placed into effect.  We are so jacked up in this country.  I no longer want to play.  I just try to stay the hell away from everyone except family.  So far it's working, and I'm not mad at anyone.  White people can make me mad!!!!!   Not lately.

 

I'm not passing judgment, Cholly.  It was just funny as hell to read that when hitting the thread.  I laughed out loud and expressed the moment, is all!!  

 

Look quickly at those "Irish" folks and they look Black. Lots of white folks look Black.  I think that's what's wrong with them. They're fighting their inner Nigritude. The hair's straight; the skin's light, the inner Blackaditty's still there.

 

Can't figure these people out.  As of tonight, the world's still going, although many people are suffering from some bastards' grown children right now. All we can do is thank God for our blessings up to this time.  We know not what's in store tomorrow.  Gotta sign off.  nite-nite folks, nite-nite Cholly

So it's true? For at least a decade, I've encountered white folks online and in various presentations that say BUT THE IRISH WERE SLAVES TOO AND THEY WERE TREATED WORSE THAN BLACKS/AFRICANS. They always ALWAYS say it within the context of minimizing how atrocious whites were to black people.  I've always been annoyed by such interjections as I felt they were tantamount to whites saying oh shut up and get over it, blacks weren't even the only people enslaved. We were slaves too and you don't see us bellyaching about it!

With that said I've always been under the impression that whites sent to the colonies could work off their debts/sentences or had the ability to walk away and blend in with white residents in general. I was also aware of white looking mulattos, quadroons, and octaroons, (sounds like girl scout cookies) who were bred into slavery by their white fathers for the purpose of increasing slave stock.

I thought they were indentured servants?

When you enslave people, you're too damn lazy to do the job yourself, plus you're beyond mentally ill to do that to ANYONE's once upon a time child, or child.  If the whole human race had some people capable of giving mental tests, which isn't in existence, no one would pass at this stage of the game.  The animals in the wild have it more together than we do.  Lions and tigers aren't biting off each other's heads. We're a 7 billion strong, sorry lot of breathing skin and bones.

Originally Posted by NSpirit:
"So it's true? For at least a decade, I've encountered white folks online and in various presentations that say BUT THE IRISH WERE SLAVES TOO AND THEY WERE TREATED WORSE THAN BLACKS/AFRICANS. They always ALWAYS say it within the context of minimizing how atrocious whites were to black people.  I've always been annoyed by such intersections as I felt they were tantamount to whites saying oh shut up and get over it, blacks weren't even the only people enslaved. We were slaves too and you don't see us bellyaching about it!"
Oh, it annoys me to, and it does not get pass me that the only reason that it's pointed out is a feeble attempt at trying to minimize the struggle, oppression and genocide of the Black Race.  But the short answer to such feeble attempts is:  "Yeah, but [at least in America], are the Irish still being treated that way?  Are the Irish still being discriminated against?  Are the Irish still hated and vilified for no other reason than that they are Irish or because at least half of an entire nation is racist against the Irish?  

"With that said I've always been under the impression that whites sent to the colonies could work off their debts/sentences or had the ability to walk away and blend in with white residents in general. I was also aware of white looking mulattos, quadroons, and octaroons, (sounds like girl scout cookies) who were bred into slavery by their white fathers for the purpose of increasing slave stock."
We should know better than anyone that it is the job of Revisionists to re-write history, changing facts with lies and half-truths for the purpose of keeping people ignorant and controlling what the masses think and believe. It is the job of Revisionists to "edit" history so that the masses will be kept ignorant of the fact thatthe powers-that-be have always oppressed, vilified, enslaved, brutalized, exploited, tortured, and enslaved those within the masses to enrich and empower themselves.  Hiding historical truths keeps the masses divided into neat little ignorant, manageable Divisions that a chosen few Oligarchs can easily control like puppets on a string.  
 

"I thought they were indentured servants?"
At one point in history some of them were, but Revisionists re-write history to tell the lie that they were always only "indentured servants", completely erasing or glossing over the fact that the Irish [as only one example of groups of people globally], were done exactly the same way the Africans were - had their country invaded by European invaders who occupied their land[colonization] enslaved, tortured, brutalized, vilified, raped and murdered them and used them for free labor to enrich themselves and their own nations.   
 

 

EXACTLY the same? I'm not sure I can wrap that around my mind.

Where are the stories? The songs? The art? The literature of this phase in white American history? Where are the remnants of laws dealing with their sale, movement and disenfranchisement? Their ability to move freely and own property? To read and write? To marry and inherit?

How is it that so many so-called "Scots-Irish" ancestry people in the South became AFRICAN slaveowners?

My brain is not trying to embrace the treatment of the Irish in America as somehow exactly like the African experience. I'll have to do more reading I guess.

I don't find that this helps the case for reparations at all. *shrug*
Originally Posted by Cholly:

Quote by Norland: "Oh God, Cholly!!!"

 

I just don't care.

 

White people and especially White academic scholars, have always wanted to try and assimilate the plight of today's White Americans and their European ancestors slave history to that of today's African Americans in order for Blacks to feel some type of compassionate "guilt" remorse about what matters to them historically when they don't as a collective American White race, don't even care nor have the will, courage and stones collectively to have a raced based mass conversation with African Americans and face/debate what their ancestors (many American slave owners who were or Irish descent) did to enslaved Blacks.

 

So the Irish were enslaved and sold as slaves all around the world.

 

Why should I care?

 

I don't.

 

People get angry at me when I also say that I don't care about what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.

 

Adolf Hitler was elected the chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945.

 

The Holocaust and the genocide in which approximately six million Jews and another 5 million non Jewish victims (11+ million total) were systematically killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators that took place throughout Nazi Germany and German occupied territories from 1941 to 1945 (5 years) when Jews were targeted and methodically murdered in a genocide, one of the largest in history IMO, does not even remotely compare to the countless millions of American slaves who were taken from homeland Africa, killed for fear of being captured and chained on African soil, died in holding cells while awaiting entry onto slave ships, killed in passage or purposely threw themselves overboard on those slave ships to defy slavery and the countless hundreds of millions of enslaved Blacks in America and Caribbean countries for over 400 years, so please excuse me for not giving a good unhealthy, corn laced toilet shit about a Jewish holocaust and genocide that ONLY LASTED 5 SHORT years during WWI while Hilter was the Chancellor and then Fuhrer of Germany when considering if Hilter wasn't elected and not in charge, the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Hitler's Nazi Germany would have more than likely, never even happened and that also includes World War II.

 

Never even happened.

 

The Holocaust is defined as the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

 

So was American slavery at the hands of racist American and British Whites.

 

Those Jews in Germany weren't purposely captured and enslaved, they weren't initially denied their full rights as men, women and children, they were never denied of their history, culture and heritage, they didn't lose their original names and given "Christian" names, they were not denied an education; the ability to read, write or count or practice their religion, they religion wasn't systematically changed, they didn't work for many generations enslaved for free labor of travel within the plantation boundaries limits with no pay.....And when the Holocaust ended, they weren't systematically oppressed by federal laws at every turn and made to endure generations of threatened voluntary and involuntary debt slavery that continues to this very day..........Instead after 5 short years, they were rescued.

 

They were one of the main reasons why Germany prospered socially, politically and financially.

 

One man changed all that before he was stopped and in order to avoid military capture, committed suicide.

 

The Jews like my late uncle used to say "just ran into the wrong nasty, no good son-of-a-bitch" that changed everything for them at that "blip on the screen" period of time in their Jewish history.

 

Hitler is said to had a network of about 42,500 facilities in Germany and German occupied territories were used to concentrate, confine, and kill Jews and other victims.

 

How many American and Caribbean slave plantations in 400 years of Black enslavement where they especially when you consider that in the American South, it only took one slave owned by a single White man, woman or child to be legally considered a single (one) plantation.

 

I visited and took a tour of the Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany many years ago. The first concentration camp opened in Nazi Germany located in Dachau, Germany.

 

I sat and watched the introduction film.

 

I saw and touched the shower rooms and shower heads used to pump poison gas into the crowded showers when they thought it would be water to take a shower.

 

I saw and touched the ovens used to burn Jews for heat in the winter and also used to burn them "just because".

 

I saw and touched the hard wooden beds they slept on and the concrete blood ditches on the outside of their housing designed to allow the catching of human blood to flow downhill into containers when prisoners were executed against the wall with a pistol or rifle bullet to the neck.

 

And yes I felt bad for the Germans I toured with who were sad and crying because it was at the hands of their Nazi ancestors who were the direct cause of all of it.

 

Doesn't compare to American slavery.

 

Noooooooooo!

 

Maybe my simple math is all fucked up but.......

 

5 short years and 11+ million purposely exterminated Jews to me does not equal in no way, shape or form, 400+ years of enslaved and countless killed in the hundreds of millions of enslaved Blacks.

 

"Jews didn't deserve and weren't supposed to be treated that way. We didn't do anything wrong except for being Jewish living in Germany!".....The exact same for Africans.

 

Jewish or Irish person?

 

Present your argument and convince me to give even a smidgen of a care..........If you can.

Why be in a Hell-Vs- Hell holocaust competition in the first place? 

Originally Posted by NSpirit:
EXACTLY the same? I'm not sure I can wrap that around my mind.

Where are the stories? The songs? The art? The literature of this phase in white American history? Where are the remnants of laws dealing with their sale, movement and disenfranchisement? Their ability to move freely and own property? To read and write? To marry and inherit?

How is it that so many so-called "Scots-Irish" ancestry people in the South became AFRICAN slaveowners?

My brain is not trying to embrace the treatment of the Irish in America as somehow exactly like the African experience. I'll have to do more reading I guess.

I don't find that this helps the case for reparations at all. *shrug*

 

I'm merely trying to point out the fact that the powers-that-be have really been doing this to ALL people, along with revising history, controlled and deliberate propaganda, and their victims' own voluntary Stockholm Syndrome, they are able to continue to exalt themselves over the masses.  

 

It has nothing to do with particularly embracing the Irish, but that real Irish history is just an example.  I could have just as well inserted Islamic Africans and the Arab Slave Trade, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, India and it's history with the British, the history of The Catholic Church,  damn near all of China's history, Organized Religion in general, the list is really endless.

 

I don't think that pointing out these comparisons hurts the case for Reparations, because one does not negate the other.  But I do believe that if the masses stood together, instead of continue to remain divided into the 'compartmentalized' divisions fashioned by the powers-that-be in the first place, and demanded the Reparations they are owed, globally, EVERYONE would get Reparations due them, and it would equalize humanity into the level playing fields it was always supposed to be.  

 

The entire world is being ruled by about a mere 1% of the entire human population that obtained its wealth and power from the suffering, brutalization ignorance, brainwashing, enslavement, murder, and above all, the Division of the masses in the first place.  What Africa and Black/African people have suffered (and still are suffering) is the greatest example of how this all plays out, and almost everyone's history is evidence that it is a global phenomenon that has been happening for centuries, thousands of years, over and over and over again, a continuum, globally, that relies on people being ignorant of those facts in their own histories. 

Originally Posted by Cholly:

Quote by Norland: "Oh God, Cholly!!!"

 

I just don't care.

 

White people and especially White academic scholars, have always wanted to try and assimilate the plight of today's White Americans and their European ancestors slave history to that of today's African Americans in order for Blacks to feel some type of compassionate "guilt" remorse about what matters to them historically when they don't as a collective American White race, don't even care nor have the will, courage and stones collectively to have a raced based mass conversation with African Americans and face/debate what their ancestors (many American slave owners who were or Irish descent) did to enslaved Blacks.

 

So the Irish were enslaved and sold as slaves all around the world.

 

Why should I care?

 

I don't.

 

People get angry at me when I also say that I don't care about what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.

 

Adolf Hitler was elected the chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945.

 

The Holocaust and the genocide in which approximately six million Jews and another 5 million non Jewish victims (11+ million total) were systematically killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators that took place throughout Nazi Germany and German occupied territories from 1941 to 1945 (5 years) when Jews were targeted and methodically murdered in a genocide, one of the largest in history IMO, does not even remotely compare to the countless millions of American slaves who were taken from homeland Africa, killed for fear of being captured and chained on African soil, died in holding cells while awaiting entry onto slave ships, killed in passage or purposely threw themselves overboard on those slave ships to defy slavery and the countless hundreds of millions of enslaved Blacks in America and Caribbean countries for over 400 years, so please excuse me for not giving a good unhealthy, corn laced toilet shit about a Jewish holocaust and genocide that ONLY LASTED 5 SHORT years during WWI while Hilter was the Chancellor and then Fuhrer of Germany when considering if Hilter wasn't elected and not in charge, the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Hitler's Nazi Germany would have more than likely, never even happened and that also includes World War II.

 

Never even happened.

 

The Holocaust is defined as the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

 

So was American slavery at the hands of racist American and British Whites.

 

Those Jews in Germany weren't purposely captured and enslaved, they weren't initially denied their full rights as men, women and children, they were never denied of their history, culture and heritage, they didn't lose their original names and given "Christian" names, they were not denied an education; the ability to read, write or count or practice their religion, they religion wasn't systematically changed, they didn't work for many generations enslaved for free labor of travel within the plantation boundaries limits with no pay.....And when the Holocaust ended, they weren't systematically oppressed by federal laws at every turn and made to endure generations of threatened voluntary and involuntary debt slavery that continues to this very day..........Instead after 5 short years, they were rescued.

 

They were one of the main reasons why Germany prospered socially, politically and financially.

 

One man changed all that before he was stopped and in order to avoid military capture, committed suicide.

 

The Jews like my late uncle used to say "just ran into the wrong nasty, no good son-of-a-bitch" that changed everything for them at that "blip on the screen" period of time in their Jewish history.

 

Hitler is said to had a network of about 42,500 facilities in Germany and German occupied territories were used to concentrate, confine, and kill Jews and other victims.

 

How many American and Caribbean slave plantations in 400 years of Black enslavement where they especially when you consider that in the American South, it only took one slave owned by a single White man, woman or child to be legally considered a single (one) plantation.

 

I visited and took a tour of the Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany many years ago. The first concentration camp opened in Nazi Germany located in Dachau, Germany.

 

I sat and watched the introduction film.

 

I saw and touched the shower rooms and shower heads used to pump poison gas into the crowded showers when they thought it would be water to take a shower.

 

I saw and touched the ovens used to burn Jews for heat in the winter and also used to burn them "just because".

 

I saw and touched the hard wooden beds they slept on and the concrete blood ditches on the outside of their housing designed to allow the catching of human blood to flow downhill into containers when prisoners were executed against the wall with a pistol or rifle bullet to the neck.

 

And yes I felt bad for the Germans I toured with who were sad and crying because it was at the hands of their Nazi ancestors who were the direct cause of all of it.

 

Doesn't compare to American slavery.

 

Noooooooooo!

 

Maybe my simple math is all fucked up but.......

 

5 short years and 11+ million purposely exterminated Jews to me does not equal in no way, shape or form, 400+ years of enslaved and countless killed in the hundreds of millions of enslaved Blacks.

 

"Jews didn't deserve and weren't supposed to be treated that way. We didn't do anything wrong except for being Jewish living in Germany!".....The exact same for Africans.

 

Jewish or Irish person?

 

Present your argument and convince me to give even a smidgen of a care..........If you can.

 

It’s true. The Irish were never chattel slaves!!!!

 

Not to care about other human beings is an argument. It proves that a person has lost their way. To make light of the genocide of any people shows that we cannot identify with other human beings. That’s a problem.

The Irish were chattel slaves at one point in their history and for a long time, and not always "indentured servants" as history revisionists would have people believe, now that the Irish are fully incorporated and accepted into White society and the White race.  

 

 

These people would put Samoyed dogs into the white race, if they haven't already. Anything white; a white can of paint, a white lint ball, a bowl of air. Anything white that's right or not right at all, that's all fucked up, will go into the White Race with open arms, legs, anuses, whips and chains and whipped cream and guns hanging off each hip and off each side of a cowboy hat. Bullets stuck into every body orifice they'll fit.

Here's a post that describes the assertion that the Irish were Chattel slaves in America as a myth and further says people are conflating indentured servitude with chattel slavery.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/...0%99-convenient-myth

"It was with a heavy heart and no small amount of anger that I decided it was necessary to write a public refutation of the insidious myth that the Irish were once chattel slaves in the British colonies. The subject of this myth is not an issue in academic circles, for there is unanimous agreement, based on overwhelming evidence, that the Irish were never subjected to perpetual, hereditary slavery in the colonies, based on notions of ‘race’. Unfortunately this is not the case in the public domain and the ‘Irish slaves’ myth has been shared so frequently online that it has gone viral.

The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free. The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. While these forced deportees would have included political prisoners and serious felons, it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable. This forced labour was in essence an extension of the English Poor Laws,e.g in 1697 John Locke recommended the whipping of those who ‘refused to work’ and the herding of beggars into workhouses. Indeed this criminalisation of the poor continues into the 21st century. In any case, all bar the serious felons were freed once the term of their contract expired...."
So it seems like the British were evil toward the Irish in their imperialist actions IN IRELAND and even shipped some indentured servants to the Caribbean Islands....but the Irish as slaves (not indentured servants) in America...Is romantic myth. We're they held in bondage for life? We're their children kept in bondage in perpetuity? We're their laws about their movement, inheritance, enfranchisement?  We're they considered property? Or people under contact?
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Here's a post that describes the assertion that the Irish were Chattel slaves in America as a myth and further says people are conflating indentured servitude with chattel slavery.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/...0%99-convenient-myth

"It was with a heavy heart and no small amount of anger that I decided it was necessary to write a public refutation of the insidious myth that the Irish were once chattel slaves in the British colonies. The subject of this myth is not an issue in academic circles, for there is unanimous agreement, based on overwhelming evidence, that the Irish were never subjected to perpetual, hereditary slavery in the colonies, based on notions of ‘race’. Unfortunately this is not the case in the public domain and the ‘Irish slaves’ myth has been shared so frequently online that it has gone viral.

The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free. The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. While these forced deportees would have included political prisoners and serious felons, it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable. This forced labour was in essence an extension of the English Poor Laws,e.g in 1697 John Locke recommended the whipping of those who ‘refused to work’ and the herding of beggars into workhouses. Indeed this criminalisation of the poor continues into the 21st century. In any case, all bar the serious felons were freed once the term of their contract expired...."

 

That is really the lies written by historical revisionists.  

 

Yes, plenty of Irish were indentured "servants" at one time in history, but even more were Chattel Slaves at other times in history.  So, there is no "conflation" of Chattel Slavery with "Indentured Servitude" where the Irish was concerned, because they have been both.  

 

People cherry-pick from history what they want the people/world to believe, and people also try to hide certain truths about their own history; it's like I said before, that since the Irish are now accepted into White society and the White race, they want to gloss over or completely dismiss the fact that the Irish had been made into not only into "indentured servants", but also Chattel Slaves as well.  If the Irish were never made into Chattel Slaves, then I guess Africans held on cotton plantations in America, really were "unpaid workers" as the Texas School Board wanted them classified as in their "History" textbooks.

 

The British invaded their country, took their country from them and sold most of the ones that survived into Chattel Slavery -- it just a fact.  Hell, Britain still "occupies" Ireland in reality, under the facade of "Peace" Agreements; hell the IRA (Irish Republican Army) was still bombing and fighting against British Rule as late as the '80s.  The Irish were done just like the Native Americans, the Africans, the Indians, the Australian Aborigines.  

 

 

Sunnubian, how are you defining chattel slavery?  Also where in America were the Irish considered chattel? I don't get it.

Doesn't chattel slavery mean it never ends? There is never an opportunity to walk away? Ones children are so born into it?  One is owned like a cow?

BTW, The guy in my link says the revisionism is done by those who insist Irish were slaves in America when they were not. He also says that myth has been so easily circulated online until people actually think the Irish were enslaved in America.

Yes the Brits exploited the Irish, invaded, raped, dominated their resources leading up to the famine. They shipped Irish to Caribbean plantations as a cheap source of labor but not in chains and as perpetual slaves. If they survived their servitude they were able to move, buy land, marry, raise their children. Etc. Those were bad conditions...but they were indentured.
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Sunnubian, how are you defining chattel slavery?  Also where in America were the Irish considered chattel? I don't get it.

Doesn't chattel slavery mean it never ends? There is never an opportunity to walk away? Ones children are so born into it?  One is owned like a cow?

BTW, The guy in my link says the revisionism is done by those who insist Irish were slaves in America when they were not. He also says that myth has been so easily circulated online until people actually think the Irish were enslaved in America.

Yes the Brits exploited the Irish, invaded, raped, dominated their resources leading up to the famine. They shipped Irish to Caribbean plantations as a cheap source of labor but not in chains and as perpetual slaves. If they survived their servitude they were able to move, buy land, marry, raise their children. Etc. Those were bad conditions...but they were indentured.

 

The revisionism is done by those who have tried to write those facts out of history, by doing things like making sure it is only Irish "servitude" that will be covered in your average history book, textbook, class, etc., which gives the false idea that if it is not written about, spoken of or studied, it never happened.    

 

Irish Chattel Slavery, at a given time in history, ended, just like African Chattel Slavery did.  

Okay hold up...I read about this before but I decided to  Google Irish slaves just to see if there was any new information about this and then Irish Slave Myths pop up.

 

Then I find out that White people are saying that they were the first slaves in the Americas and got over it....

 

So this theory of Irish being the slaves is made by White people that seek to discount African slavery.

 

This story or theory is from White nationalists, Irish Nationalists and Neo Nazis not academia...which I didn't know.

 

Academia states they were indentured servants that could make money in the colonies instead of being in the streets the UK.  Eventually some of them became PLANTATION OWNERS.

 

This article best sums it up, it's in PDF so I can't copy and paste

 

https://www.academia.edu/94759...aves_in_the_Colonies

 

Bottom line.

 

Irish being slaves comes from White Nationalists, Irish Nationalists and Neo Nazis that want to discount slavery.

 

Irish indentured servants could eventually became Plantation owners.

 

Irish indentured servants didn't have their children become slaves and etc.

 

Black people shouldn't give a corny infused shit.

 

I downloaded the Irish Slave Myth article that debunks the notion of Irish Slaves

 

 

Here are the important parts...

 

 

 

Indentured Servitude

 

The majority of the indentured labourers from Ireland who emigrated to the West Indies in the 17th and 18th century, did so voluntarily.6 This was part of a much larger migratory trend and it has been estimated that the majority of Europeans who emigrated to the American colonies were indentured servants.7 There is a dispute over the origin of the indenture system but it appears that it was an innovation of two English customs: apprenticeship and husbandry: this innovation occurred as “some such system was necessary to finance the crossing of the Atlantic.”

 

8 Agreeing to an indenture meant that the cost of the migrants’ voyage to the colony was paid for, and the “recruits in turn promised to work for stated periods..”9 Once an indenture’s term of service was complete (usually between two to seven years) they were automatically emancipated. It is important to note that potential servants in Ireland did not board the transport ships without some knowledge of the conditions on the various colonies. Anchored in Kinsale in 1636, Capt. Thomas Anthony found that the Irish labourers had a surprising amount of knowledge about the different conditions on the islands. Akenson describes how they were well informed about comparative wage rates and knew that they would be better paid in the West Indies than Virginia. So Captain Anthony was forced to change his plans and to make St Christopher his destination: this is where most of them wanted to go..[...]..fifty-three survived the journey to St Christopher [there were eight deaths], where their contracts were sold for between 450 and 500 pounds of tobacco apiece.10

 

Once an indentured servant’s term of service was over they received their “freedom dues” which was around £10 sterling, or its equivalent in tobacco or sugar. They were now free, with cash in hand. If they wished they could lease or buy land, buy or trade in slaves or hire them out to others. Alternatively they could migrate to another colony where there were better opportunities. This was all in accordance with the various colonial laws which treated indentures as bonded labour under strict contract and control, and which treated chattel slaves as non-human objects of property, i.e. livestock.

 

In 1656, John Hammond, a former servant who had first hand experience of the indenture system, advised potential indentured labourers who were thinking of moving to Virginia that "Those Servants that will be industrious may in their time of service gain a competent estate before their Freedoms, which is usually done by many, and they gain esteem and assistance that appear so industrious".11 The social mobility he refers to can be observed among Irish immigrants.

 

In Montserrat, a colony where many Irish settled in the 17th century, we find that by 1729 over sixty six percent of all the sugar planters/slave owners on the island were Irish.12 In 1670 ten percent of the property owners in Jamaica were Irish, and in 1729 “twenty percent of the colonial assemblymen possessed Irish names.”13

 

This is further illustrated, in a moderate sense, in the case of Cornelius Bryan, an emigrant labourer from Ireland. Bryan was 4 10 Donald Harman Akenson, charged with slandering the English (he was accused of threatening to drink their blood) before a Barbados Council in the 1650s. He received 21 lashes of the whip on his back as punishment. Yet by the time he died in 1687 he had progressed to the status of a small planter in Barbados. He had acquired thirteen slaves and twenty two acres of land.14 This potential for upward social mobility can also be observed in the case of two former indentured servants from Ireland, Daniel Dulany and William Killeen.15 Dulany, who was educated at Trinity College Dublin and indentured in Maryland in 1703, became the Attorney General of Maryland, while Killeen who, “was imported as an indentured servant from Co. Clare in 1737”, eventually became the Chief Justice of the state of Delaware.16

 

It shall be noted that in many cases indentured servants were abused and overworked. There was even an indentured servants’ revolt in Barbados in 1647 and one in Virginia in 1663. The leaders of the Barbadian revolt were hanged but “no particular part was imputed to the Irish.”17 Indentured servants were essentially the white, European underclass in colonial societies that were stratified by assumptions of racial superiority; ergo only nonwhite, non-Europeans were chattel slaves. The Indentured servants work was often brutal and the mortality rate in the colonies, across all classes, was extremely high, particularly among the first generation of settlers. Many did not survive to see the expiration of their contract. Not all Irish indentures were employed as tradesmen, servants or labourers. Many served as soldiers in militias or in colonial armies. In this role they were charged with upholding their white supremacist society by suppressing the chattel slaves’ capacity to revolt, as well as protecting the colony from raids by other European powers. The former role was underlined in a letter sent from the Governor of Barbados, William Willoughby, to the Privy Council with regard to the shortage of white indentured servants in the colony 5 14 Jenny Shaw, n.p...If the supply be not of good and sure men the [safety] of this place will always be in question; for though there be [no] enemy abroad, the keeping of slaves in subjection must still be provided for...18 Near the end of this letter the Governor implores the Council to not send any more Catholic Irish servants to Barbados.

 

The Barbadian planters saw them as potential saboteurs who may coordinate with the French. This fear became a reality in St. Kitts in 1666 when during a French attack on the British forces it was recounted that “the Irish in the rear, always a bloody and perfidious people to the English Protestant interest, fired volleys into the front and killed more than the enemy of our own forces.”19 The planters in Barbados had cause for worry in this regard as by 1667 the Irish constituted over 50% of their 4000-man militia.20 They were also paranoid that the poor Irish would connive with the African slaves to foment rebellion. But this fear was never realised; as Rodgers put it “in the last resort the Irish did not make common cause with the slaves..[...]..they were white and wished to exercise the advantage it conferred upon them.”21 Nevertheless in Barbados in 1685, this paranoia spilled over into arrests. Twenty two slaves and eighteen Irish servants were interrogated on suspicion of being involved in a plot to revolt. All the slaves were executed and all the Irish walked free.22

 

 

 

White Slaves

 

Famously, indentured labourers were sometimes referred to as “white slaves” by contemporaries, including chattel slaves. This was a solely derogatory label, as destined as they were to be integrated into colonial society, they could neither regard themselves nor be regarded as slaves.2

 

Rodgers perceptively suggests that the “white slavery” description springs “from an acceptance that slavery was for Negroes” and that this “took firm root in Ireland.”

 

The word ‘Slavery’ was often used in 19th century Ireland to describe any form of injustice. The addition of the word ‘white’ was intended as a criticism of a person condemning chattel slavery in the United States, but ignoring domestic strife. We see this in the case of Charles Lenox Remond, the famous black abolitionist, who toured in Ireland in 1841. During one of his lectures in Dublin he was asked “what are you going to do for the white slaves [in Ireland]?” This person was likely referring to the desperate situation of the poor tenantry, and while they also deserved advocacy on their behalf, this interjection illustrates the blinkered view that some had towards chattel slavery.

 

Remond was accompanied on this tour by Richard Davis Webb, a founding member of the Hibernian Anti-Slavery Society. Webb believed that many in Ireland struggled to understand the full meaning of chattel slavery. He explains that his fellow citizens were so used to abject want and enormous luxury, that slavery is not readily looked on so much in the robbery of rights, as a privation of advantages [thus] the wickedness of man’s holding property in man is forgotten in the description of the supply of food, the imposition of labour, the quantity of clothing, and the animal wants of the man [...] Slavery being unknown amongst us, we are tempted to confound it in our minds with the lowest position of humanity with which we are familiar. This is perfectly natural, but extremely fallacious.

 

The “white slave” term was also used in a classic piece of propaganda deployed by proslavery interests in the Antebellum South. At one meeting in South Carolina in 1833 it was toasted that “we of the South feed, clothe, and pay the doctor for attending our slaves. Let the North do as much for their white slaves as we do for our black ones.”

 

Were indentured servants from Ireland “cheaper” than slaves? This is another misunderstood aspect of colonial history. This was not a value judgement, they were simply less profitable (for obvious reasons) The Governor of Barbados wrote in 1676 that ..the planters are weary of [the Irish labourers] for they prove commonly very idle and [the planters] do find by experience that they can keep three blacks who work better and cheaper.

 

Better because they can be tortured/murdered at will to encourage the others to work harder and for longer. Cheaper because they are more profitable. They will own them for their entire life, feed them less expensive food, clothe them less, house them in worse conditions, will own their children, and will never have to pay them their freedom dues. Planters did attempt to extract the maximum amount of labour from their indentured servants while they were still in contract, but as soon as they had enough capital accumulated they invested heavily in slaves. McCusker and Menard (2004) relate a letter sent in 1645 from a Barbadian planter who explains that his colleagues had bought over one thousands slaves up to August of that year. This planter outlined how “the more [slaves] they buy, the better able are they to buy, for in a year and a half, they will earn (with god's blessing) as much as they cost.” McCusker and Menard surmise that the cost of indentured servants who would work for five or six years no longer made any sense given the profits to be made in the sugar boom. Under the new circumstance, the larger investment in a slave could be recouped in eighteen months - and slaves could be worked a lifetime long.

 

 

Belief in the myth that Irish labourers were treated worse than slaves has endured and mutated; as evidenced by its frequent deployment in relation to Irish immigrants in the Antebellum South. This year an Irish blogger published a post which claimed that Irish immigrants, which he refers to as “Irish slaves”, were worse off than actual chattel slaves in the U.S. during the 19th century as “Irish workers were often used instead of Black slaves for dangerous jobs.”29 This simplistic reading of labour relations unintentionally repeats the same spurious argument put forward by Michael A. Hoffman II, an infamous Holocaust denier, anti-semite and conspiracy theorist.

 

This rationalisation erroneously removes all agency from the Irish workers, who were, unlike slaves, free to down tools and look for work elsewhere. If a slave refused to work it could lead to torture or possibly death. After all, many homicide laws in the South did not apply to the killing of “any slave dying under moderate correction.”

 

 It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that Irish workers were paid for their efforts, for that is the sole reason they were choosing to do the work in the first place. The work the slaves were forced to do enriched their owners, exclusively.

 

The foundation for this myth appears to be the belief that free workers who undertook dangerous work were worse off than slaves, but only if slaves were not doing said dangerous work. This is disingenuous for the same argument cannot exist in a situation where all the workers are freemen, i.e. “I don’t want to do this dangerous work, can I be a chattel slave instead.” To paraphrase David T. Gleeson, historians have yet to encounter evidence of a free labourer pining for enchattlement.32 Gleeson challenged this pervasive Irish-migrant-as-passive-victim narrative in his seminal work, The Irish in the South 1815-1870, and he found that this implication that the Irish were passive and lacked control over their lives is incorrect. Unlike slaves, the Irish chose to live in the urban South.

 

Those migrants [made a] conscious and rational decision [and] were not victims of this urbanisation..[they] came to the towns and cities for economic opportunity [...] the complex social networks created in the South by the Irish diaspora would not have existed if the immigrants had only dug ditches, laid railroads, and loaded steamboats.

 

Forced Labour

 

The most common form of unfree labour in the present age are situations that involve Forced Labour. This was defined by the Forced Labour Convention (1930) as all" work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily."

 

34 The Irish that were forcibly transported to the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries can be classified in the first instance as forced labourers. This classification includes those souls who were deported from Ireland due to military design as well as the victims of notorious criminal activity such as deceptions and kidnapping. It is important to state that, with the exception of serious criminals, on their arrival to the colonies they were invariably prescribed the same rights as voluntary indentured servants.35 Therefore we cannot exactly equate their form of servitude with the Irish POWs that suffered the horrific Nazi Forced Labour camp at Bunker Valentin, or with the women who spent most of their lives toiling in the Magdalene Laundries, institutions in which they were wrongfully detained and subject to forced labour practices. Forced Labour was also the central feature of the infamous penal colonies in Australia, to where so many Irish were deported.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×