400 years of Slavery?

[Cecilie1200]

The term Agnostic is derived from the ancient Greek word gnosis-knowledge. By the word agnostic, the Greeks seem to have meant one who has no knowledge in a very general sense. In 1869, Thomas Huxley used the word to describe how he did not know about things metaphysical.

Why Agnosticism? - TheHumanist.com

Not knowing = ignorance

Sorry, the definition of agnosticism is not ignorance. It's understanding that you do not know whether god exists. Ignorance would be placing the proof of god on a book of fiction.

If there was proof of God, or proof that God does not exist, then we wouldn't need faith. Not a hard concept to grasp. Ignorance is attempting to insult the intelligence and/or sincerity of those that do not believe as you believe.

Is faith needed?
Is faith logical?

The answer to both is "No"

The answer to both is "Yes". You're just too ignorant and tunnel-visioned to realize it.

Explain how faith is needed, or logical?

You are what's ignorance, the issue is your lack of Human intellect.

Do you have any idea how many things you take on faith, every day of your life, without even realizing it? No, you don't, because you're too busy petting your ego and preening yourself for your "intellect" and "knowledge", utterly oblivious to how much of your "knowledge" is nothing more or less than faith in what someone else told you.

Faith is necessary because none of us have time to reinvent the wheel and redo the work that others have already done to research, experiment, and discover information. The only logical way we can function is by learning from people who have already done that work, also known as "having faith in what they tell us".

 

[Cecilie1200]

[...]

*******You will not read about this in American history courses as written by Anglophile historians. Bridgetown is a historic site, preserved for tourists by UNESCO. No wonder! UNESCO!"

Saint Patrick and Irish Slaves: The Slave Trade in Barbados

Thanks again. This is very useful information. The time has come when it needs to be more readily and broadly disseminated.

You cannot prevent the evils of the past from recurring if you refuse to acknowledge that they happened the first time.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sorry, the definition of agnosticism is not ignorance. It's understanding that you do not know whether god exists. Ignorance would be placing the proof of god on a book of fiction.

If there was proof of God, or proof that God does not exist, then we wouldn't need faith. Not a hard concept to grasp. Ignorance is attempting to insult the intelligence and/or sincerity of those that do not believe as you believe.

Is faith needed?
Is faith logical?

The answer to both is "No"

The answer to both is "Yes". You're just too ignorant and tunnel-visioned to realize it.

Explain how faith is needed, or logical?

You are what's ignorance, the issue is your lack of Human intellect.

Do you have any idea how many things you take on faith, every day of your life, without even realizing it? No, you don't, because you're too busy petting your ego and preening yourself for your "intellect" and "knowledge", utterly oblivious to how much of your "knowledge" is nothing more or less than faith in what someone else told you.

Faith is necessary because none of us have time to reinvent the wheel and redo the work that others have already done to research, experiment, and discover information. The only logical way we can function is by learning from people who have already done that work, also known as "having faith in what they tell us".

Well, I told my Trig Professor that I'd be more than willing to take those identities on faith, but the bastard still demanded proof!

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Hispanics are a lot closer to White Anglo-Saxon traditions and culture than Blacks, and Hispanics work a helluva lot harder, too.

[...]

Therein lies the tale.

Back in the seventies, a major trucking company was charged with discriminatory hiring practices by a Black community organizer. In addition to White employees the company employed a large number of Hispanics but zero Blacks. The company was absolved of any racial impropriety because Hispanic minority status is equal to that of Blacks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

wonder not - RW's would be content with another 400 years of owing slaves.

I would be more content if you would just go to the bottom of the ocean and stay there. I would rather work for myself than have some shit like you working for me.

you couldnt afford me.

You are right, I cannot afford an asshole who sits around all day doing nothing expecting minimum wages, and produces squat.

You're so very, very wrong about Siete.

He would NEVER sit around doing nothing and producing squat for minimum wage. He expects at least twice that.

 

[tinydancer]

And yes the first slaves in America were white from Britain and Ireland. Historical fact.

That's true. But I understand the conditions of servitude were different, i.e. the Black Africans were sold into chattel slavery, meaning ownership under the same terms as inanimate property, while the Irish were transferred by the British into bonded servitude, meaning they were able to earn their freedom after a number of years in service.

Yeah . . . no. Yet another example of a simplistic, vagued-up idea of American history replacing the effort needed to learn the REAL, often complicated, history.

People like to pretend that, because there WERE indentured servants in the US, ALL white people in bondage in the US were indentured servants. However, indentured servitude is a voluntary contractual agreement, and it is documented history - although not WELL documented, since far too many people have a vested interest in preserving slavery as a special province of blacks - that English kings such as James II and Charles I made a practice of selling Irish political prisoners as slaves. And when the wives and children of Irish men sold into slavery became destitute and unable to feed themselves, they were also auctioned off into slavery.

Again, this is all sanitized and disguised as "indentured servants". But as the vast majority of these people did not choose to enter into this state and had no option available to win free of it, since it became extremely common to forcibly breed Irish women against their will in order to create even more "indentured servants" - since the law at that time was that the free status or lack thereof of a child was derived from the mother's status - since these people could be, and all too often were, tortured and maimed and killed for disobedience, I don't think an honest person can describe it as anything other than slavery.

Like impoverished people of other nationalities, many emigrated from Ireland to the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries as indentured servants; a smaller number were forcibly banished into indentured servitude during the period of the English Civil Wars; indentured servants often lived and worked under harsh conditions and were sometimes treated cruelly.

Unlike institutionalized chattel slavery, indentured servitude was neither hereditary nor lifelong; unlike black slaves, white indentured servants had legal rights; unlike black slaves, indentured servants weren't considered property.

Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan wrote a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.” There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says. People who claim there were are conflating indentured servitude with chattel slavery — two distinct forms of servitude with more differences between them than similarities

More

There has been no debunking of the Irish slave reality. Its not a myth. Cromwell in particular sold slaves to all the colonies in the Caribbean and New England as well. This is a true record.

I'm sick to death of this shit where some asshole needs to "interpret and spin" historical truths for an agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Black folks have suffered generational problems that are the result of slavery.

Everybody needs to stop denying that FACT.

Families were ripped apart because of slavery. Husband and wife sold to different owners. Children were taken from mothers and sold, never to see their mothers again. This type of breakdown of the family unit causes problems that last for decades and generations. Strong black family units with a husband and wife raising children were less stable from that time forward, which continued and still continues, because it is a cycle that is difficult to break.

Add to that, black folks were still not given full participation in society as equals until the 1960s.

What pisses me off is that the Democrats have perpetuated those problems, have promised to help, and have done NOTHING to really help the black community. Democrat policies have created society where a black man is unnecessary to the financial success of a family. Marriages or relationships that would have been necessary to survive for the financial benefit of the children have become unnecessary. Mothers of multiple children can survive without the help of a partner because government has replaced the father.

The way to fix this (other than never voting for democrats) is to find options to help as many black men as possible to start and run successful businesses. Several generations of this type of success will do MUCH MORE to fix problems than welfare can. Many large businesses would be willing to contribute to that cause.

Oh, my holy freaking GOD, would you stop sipping the Koolaid?

You honestly think the breakdown of the family unit in the black community is due to "families ripped apart because of slavery", that two-parent families became less common "from that time forward"? Then why is it that census data from just one generation after the end of the Civil War show that black families were slightly MORE likely to have both parents present than white families? Why is it that the incidence of single motherhood in the black community didn't go above 22% (1960) until a hundred years AFTER slavery officially ended?

Why is it that labor force participation for black people was higher than for white people from 1890 until 1950?

If slavery is the source of all ills in the black community, and the 1960s was the "great cure" for them, why is it that all the data shows that the alarmingly high rates of various social ills - such as teenage pregnancy, poverty, and dependency - were all declining prior to the 60s relative to white people, and black income was rising?

What pisses ME off is that even people who recognize that the left has fucked over the black community STILL allow their lies and misdirections about "the legacy of slavery" to infiltrate their thinking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And yes the first slaves in America were white from Britain and Ireland. Historical fact.

That's true. But I understand the conditions of servitude were different, i.e. the Black Africans were sold into chattel slavery, meaning ownership under the same terms as inanimate property, while the Irish were transferred by the British into bonded servitude, meaning they were able to earn their freedom after a number of years in service.

Yeah . . . no. Yet another example of a simplistic, vagued-up idea of American history replacing the effort needed to learn the REAL, often complicated, history.

People like to pretend that, because there WERE indentured servants in the US, ALL white people in bondage in the US were indentured servants. However, indentured servitude is a voluntary contractual agreement, and it is documented history - although not WELL documented, since far too many people have a vested interest in preserving slavery as a special province of blacks - that English kings such as James II and Charles I made a practice of selling Irish political prisoners as slaves. And when the wives and children of Irish men sold into slavery became destitute and unable to feed themselves, they were also auctioned off into slavery.

Again, this is all sanitized and disguised as "indentured servants". But as the vast majority of these people did not choose to enter into this state and had no option available to win free of it, since it became extremely common to forcibly breed Irish women against their will in order to create even more "indentured servants" - since the law at that time was that the free status or lack thereof of a child was derived from the mother's status - since these people could be, and all too often were, tortured and maimed and killed for disobedience, I don't think an honest person can describe it as anything other than slavery.

Like impoverished people of other nationalities, many emigrated from Ireland to the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries as indentured servants; a smaller number were forcibly banished into indentured servitude during the period of the English Civil Wars; indentured servants often lived and worked under harsh conditions and were sometimes treated cruelly.

Unlike institutionalized chattel slavery, indentured servitude was neither hereditary nor lifelong; unlike black slaves, white indentured servants had legal rights; unlike black slaves, indentured servants weren't considered property.

Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan wrote a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.” There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says. People who claim there were are conflating indentured servitude with chattel slavery — two distinct forms of servitude with more differences between them than similarities

More

If I hadn't already been ignoring you for being an ass napkin, I'd be ignoring you now for being an IGNORANT ass napkin and citing Snopes like it's a meaningful source of something.

Since you didn't get the message before, let me reiterate: You lost. You're dismissed. Fuck off.

 

[IM2]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

 

[Cecilie1200]

If there was proof of God, or proof that God does not exist, then we wouldn't need faith. Not a hard concept to grasp. Ignorance is attempting to insult the intelligence and/or sincerity of those that do not believe as you believe.

Is faith needed?
Is faith logical?

The answer to both is "No"

The answer to both is "Yes". You're just too ignorant and tunnel-visioned to realize it.

Explain how faith is needed, or logical?

You are what's ignorance, the issue is your lack of Human intellect.

Do you have any idea how many things you take on faith, every day of your life, without even realizing it? No, you don't, because you're too busy petting your ego and preening yourself for your "intellect" and "knowledge", utterly oblivious to how much of your "knowledge" is nothing more or less than faith in what someone else told you.

Faith is necessary because none of us have time to reinvent the wheel and redo the work that others have already done to research, experiment, and discover information. The only logical way we can function is by learning from people who have already done that work, also known as "having faith in what they tell us".

Well, I told my Trig Professor that I'd be more than willing to take those identities on faith, but the bastard still demanded proof!

LOL

I'm just glad physics professors don't require every student to recreate the research in order to learn about nuclear energy.

 

[EGR one]

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

So get off your dumbass pedestal.

It's from the Greek word agnōstos which means unknowable. I does not mean ignorant.

The term Agnostic is derived from the ancient Greek word gnosis-knowledge. By the word agnostic, the Greeks seem to have meant one who has no knowledge in a very general sense. In 1869, Thomas Huxley used the word to describe how he did not know about things metaphysical.

Why Agnosticism? - TheHumanist.com

Not knowing = ignorance

Sorry, the definition of agnosticism is not ignorance. It's understanding that you do not know whether god exists. Ignorance would be placing the proof of god on a book of fiction.

If there was proof of God, or proof that God does not exist, then we wouldn't need faith. Not a hard concept to grasp. Ignorance is attempting to insult the intelligence and/or sincerity of those that do not believe as you believe.

Is faith needed?
Is faith logical?

The answer to both is "No"

Your answer is nonsensical. Of course faith is needed, either to believe that God exists, or to believe that God does not exist. Without evidence, faith is all that backs the belief. And yes, faith is logical, whether based on evidence, or based on deduction.

 

[IM2]

Black folks have suffered generational problems that are the result of slavery.

Everybody needs to stop denying that FACT.

Families were ripped apart because of slavery. Husband and wife sold to different owners. Children were taken from mothers and sold, never to see their mothers again. This type of breakdown of the family unit causes problems that last for decades and generations. Strong black family units with a husband and wife raising children were less stable from that time forward, which continued and still continues, because it is a cycle that is difficult to break.

Add to that, black folks were still not given full participation in society as equals until the 1960s.

What pisses me off is that the Democrats have perpetuated those problems, have promised to help, and have done NOTHING to really help the black community. Democrat policies have created society where a black man is unnecessary to the financial success of a family. Marriages or relationships that would have been necessary to survive for the financial benefit of the children have become unnecessary. Mothers of multiple children can survive without the help of a partner because government has replaced the father.

The way to fix this (other than never voting for democrats) is to find options to help as many black men as possible to start and run successful businesses. Several generations of this type of success will do MUCH MORE to fix problems than welfare can. Many large businesses would be willing to contribute to that cause.

Oh, my holy freaking GOD, would you stop sipping the Koolaid?

You honestly think the breakdown of the family unit in the black community is due to "families ripped apart because of slavery", that two-parent families became less common "from that time forward"? Then why is it that census data from just one generation after the end of the Civil War show that black families were slightly MORE likely to have both parents present than white families? Why is it that the incidence of single motherhood in the black community didn't go above 22% (1960) until a hundred years AFTER slavery officially ended?

Why is it that labor force participation for black people was higher than for white people from 1890 until 1950?

If slavery is the source of all ills in the black community, and the 1960s was the "great cure" for them, why is it that all the data shows that the alarmingly high rates of various social ills - such as teenage pregnancy, poverty, and dependency - were all declining prior to the 60s relative to white people, and black income was rising?

What pisses ME off is that even people who recognize that the left has fucked over the black community STILL allow their lies and misdirections about "the legacy of slavery" to infiltrate their thinking.

The "breakdown" of the black family is irrelevant to any discussion abut race.

The left has nothing to do with the great recession that further increased the damage in black communities.

You guys need to really stop the lying.

 

[EGR one]

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

So get off your dumbass pedestal.

It's from the Greek word agnōstos which means unknowable. I does not mean ignorant.

The term Agnostic is derived from the ancient Greek word gnosis-knowledge. By the word agnostic, the Greeks seem to have meant one who has no knowledge in a very general sense. In 1869, Thomas Huxley used the word to describe how he did not know about things metaphysical.

Why Agnosticism? - TheHumanist.com

Not knowing = ignorance

Sorry, the definition of agnosticism is not ignorance. It's understanding that you do not know whether god exists. Ignorance would be placing the proof of god on a book of fiction.

If there was proof of God, or proof that God does not exist, then we wouldn't need faith. Not a hard concept to grasp. Ignorance is attempting to insult the intelligence and/or sincerity of those that do not believe as you believe.

I don't really care who is religious and who isn't. Doesn't change what I said, the bible is a book of fiction.

Your opinion of the Bible is not worth the time it took you to type it. Don't like it? Don't read it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

So you're assuming that being Irish makes them more believable, unbiased, and lacking an agenda than if they had been blacks? But . . . doesn't that mean you're admitting that blacks are inherently untrustworthy?

Seriously, dude, you have GOT to learn to stop being such an instinctive bigot and try thinking of people as individuals, instead of members of a collective.

As it happens, there are a lot of people with their own vested interests in burying the history of Irish slavery in the New World, including the Irish themselves. Bragging about one's slave ancestors and trying to compete to see whose forebears suffered more so as to assume victim status for oneself is a very recently-developed hobby. Up until the late 20th century, it would have been shameful and humiliating to be descended from slaves, not to mention that for those only a generation or two removed from that slavery, it could be downright dangerous to cop to it. The Irish in America went to a great deal of effort to assimilate into society; bringing up Irish slavery wasn't likely to help that goal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Black folks have suffered generational problems that are the result of slavery.

Everybody needs to stop denying that FACT.

Families were ripped apart because of slavery. Husband and wife sold to different owners. Children were taken from mothers and sold, never to see their mothers again. This type of breakdown of the family unit causes problems that last for decades and generations. Strong black family units with a husband and wife raising children were less stable from that time forward, which continued and still continues, because it is a cycle that is difficult to break.

Add to that, black folks were still not given full participation in society as equals until the 1960s.

What pisses me off is that the Democrats have perpetuated those problems, have promised to help, and have done NOTHING to really help the black community. Democrat policies have created society where a black man is unnecessary to the financial success of a family. Marriages or relationships that would have been necessary to survive for the financial benefit of the children have become unnecessary. Mothers of multiple children can survive without the help of a partner because government has replaced the father.

The way to fix this (other than never voting for democrats) is to find options to help as many black men as possible to start and run successful businesses. Several generations of this type of success will do MUCH MORE to fix problems than welfare can. Many large businesses would be willing to contribute to that cause.

Oh, my holy freaking GOD, would you stop sipping the Koolaid?

You honestly think the breakdown of the family unit in the black community is due to "families ripped apart because of slavery", that two-parent families became less common "from that time forward"? Then why is it that census data from just one generation after the end of the Civil War show that black families were slightly MORE likely to have both parents present than white families? Why is it that the incidence of single motherhood in the black community didn't go above 22% (1960) until a hundred years AFTER slavery officially ended?

Why is it that labor force participation for black people was higher than for white people from 1890 until 1950?

If slavery is the source of all ills in the black community, and the 1960s was the "great cure" for them, why is it that all the data shows that the alarmingly high rates of various social ills - such as teenage pregnancy, poverty, and dependency - were all declining prior to the 60s relative to white people, and black income was rising?

What pisses ME off is that even people who recognize that the left has fucked over the black community STILL allow their lies and misdirections about "the legacy of slavery" to infiltrate their thinking.

The "breakdown" of the black family is irrelevant to any discussion abut race.

The left has nothing to do with the great recession that further increased the damage in black communities.

You guys need to really stop the lying.

YOU need to stop thinking that asserting something makes it true.

You call what I said a lie? Prove me wrong. Because I can certainly prove myself right.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

So you're assuming that being Irish makes them more believable, unbiased, and lacking an agenda than if they had been blacks? But . . . doesn't that mean you're admitting that blacks are inherently untrustworthy?

Seriously, dude, you have GOT to learn to stop being such an instinctive bigot and try thinking of people as individuals, instead of members of a collective.

As it happens, there are a lot of people with their own vested interests in burying the history of Irish slavery in the New World, including the Irish themselves. Bragging about one's slave ancestors and trying to compete to see whose forebears suffered more so as to assume victim status for oneself is a very recently-developed hobby. Up until the late 20th century, it would have been shameful and humiliating to be descended from slaves, not to mention that for those only a generation or two removed from that slavery, it could be downright dangerous to cop to it. The Irish in America went to a great deal of effort to assimilate into society; bringing up Irish slavery wasn't likely to help that goal.

I’ve yet to hear of any Irishman whining for special benefits because of what occurred a century and a half ago.

 

[tinydancer]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

http://www.thenewportbuzz.com/the-irish-slave-trade-the-slaves-that-time-forgot/7191

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

So you're assuming that being Irish makes them more believable, unbiased, and lacking an agenda than if they had been blacks? But . . . doesn't that mean you're admitting that blacks are inherently untrustworthy?

Seriously, dude, you have GOT to learn to stop being such an instinctive bigot and try thinking of people as individuals, instead of members of a collective.

As it happens, there are a lot of people with their own vested interests in burying the history of Irish slavery in the New World, including the Irish themselves. Bragging about one's slave ancestors and trying to compete to see whose forebears suffered more so as to assume victim status for oneself is a very recently-developed hobby. Up until the late 20th century, it would have been shameful and humiliating to be descended from slaves, not to mention that for those only a generation or two removed from that slavery, it could be downright dangerous to cop to it. The Irish in America went to a great deal of effort to assimilate into society; bringing up Irish slavery wasn't likely to help that goal.

I’ve yet to hear of any Irishman whining for special benefits because of what occurred a century and a half ago.

Like I said, telling people about it was shameful and dangerous, so it's hardly surprising their own descendants don't know.

 

[IM2]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot

Tell this to the Irish scholars who wrote the article I posted.

 

[OldLady]

We can pretty much trust than any discussion of slavery here will end up in a spirited debate about Irish slaves. This was indentured servitude and it was not slavery.