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. Irelands 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. Britains 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. Theyll 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 masters 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 its own to end its participation in Satans 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 theyve 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.
I'm also Finnish, and the Russians and Swedes did not treat my people all that much differently. Karelia is still part of Russia - a good place to dump toxic waste.
I'm also Bohemian - the Slavs were not so nice to the ethic Germans amongst them that my great-grandparents stuck around. This cruelty to ethnic Germans was part of Hitler's justification for the annexation of The Sudetenland.
And it's funny - I don't really hold any animus toward English, Russian, Swede, or Slav persons today.
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.
I often hear that Black Americans have lighter skin than Africans because some of their ancestors are white, and those ancestors were white slave-owning men who raped their female slaves.
Could it actually be the case that some -- or most -- of this white ancestry is due to the above paragraph?
I believe you are right Rex. Sounds like the white slave owning men raping the africans is a cover story to gin up all the anger and resentment we keep seeing. The real story is just as heinous, but certainly places a different light on it.
Yes, and quite a bit of what you have been told as truth is outright fabrication.
Just ask yourself one question:
We are told that slaveowners viewed slaves as less than animals, that they prized their livestock higher than their slaves, that their dogs were treated and fed better.
If that were the case, and you were a distinguished gentleman landowner, would you ever have the desire to bring one to your bed?
If that were the case, and you were a distinguished gentleman landowner, would you ever have the desire to bring one to your bed?
I made that exact argument to a professor (female, but not a radical feminist) when in college, and the response was (as you might predict) that rape isn't about sexual desire, but about exercising power.
I don't know what rapists think exactly, but slavery necessitates an element of dehumanization, and rape might too. Muslims raping young white women is a way of exerting dominance over a foreign culture in the process of being conquered ("we rape your women, and you can do nothing about it, faggots"), and also an act of considering the female sub-human, and therefore subject of being defiled (children and women are the very groups every society should seek to protect the most).
So is it imaginable that slaves, which were considered cattle, were raped by some relatively rich men? [Btw, 40% of all slave owners were Jews, who were a tiny minority, and only 5% of all house holds owned any slaves in the US, they were quite expensive.] Yes, it's possible. But the same could be said that dehumanized people are not subject of being of rape either, given that it would be considered similar to sodomy. Also you'd create bastard offspring, which could lead to more trouble - it would still be your children, who'd live in slavery, and that might be an inacceptable idea to most people, especially to those who have considerations for maintaining some reputation - and slave owners were those who were rather wealthy.
Also consider that not all intercourse with slaves was automatically rape, even if the concept of consent would have to be stretched a lot.
I think it's plausible to assume that the biggest factor was indeed intentional white-black slave interbreeding. It would also explain the vast difference in average IQ between blacks in Africa and blacks in the US.
But why the hell do I read about this the first time? Wow...
right, I did a search and it's all snopes and others claiming they were "indentured servants" or trying to dismiss it. This has convinced me even more this is true.
Lol, they are covering up two hidden facts with that BS.
It was 'indentured servitude' to start with, and they are somewhat correct that indentured servitude was not the same thing as the slavery we so often refer to.
Indentured servitude could be entered willingly, and often was, as it was the only form of welfare around. Guaranteed job security with benefits.
It was also used as incarceration, putting a criminal in the charge of the person they had wronged. The very concept of "Paying your debt to society" was born from this practice.
It had a limit, a maximum of seven years before you were required to be freed. Modern statutes of limitations are born from these same laws.
They had rights, the same rights as any other person minus the right to quit their job.
The person who owned the contract (note the distinction) was required to feed and house the servant for the full seven years, AND their family. The reason people voluntarily entered into servitude.
Most depictions you are familiar with of "Servants" are of this exact system in practice. Some servants renegotiated their contract every seven years and willingly served for life.
The first major disruption of this system was the Slave Trade. Demand had outstripped willing servants, particularly in America where the pioneer spirit meant anyone could head west and make a life for themselves. This left the rich in need of a supply of healthy workers, which the British were all to happy to provide.
But then a BLACK democrat successfully sued to keep one of his slaves past the 7 year contract he was supposed to have freed him by. The end result of that had a DEMOCRAT judge declare that slaves (indentured servants at the time) were actually property, and that black slaves were subhuman and didn't have the same rights as other slaves. This changed virtually everything about indentured servitude and, technically, "Slavery" as we define it now was born at that moment.
This led to things getting much, MUCH worse, for a very short time period that led to the push for abolition becoming wide spread. A cornerstone of human civilization had been twisted into something much worse than it was supposed to be and people were more supportive of abolishing it than trying to fix it.
I would really love to know more about this lynching and how it’s linked to Columbus Day. I have never heard about this ever.
Edit:
I checked the Wikipedia, which does mention it as the first time it was celebrated as a national holiday but that it was a one time thing until post 1900. That a group had celebrated it in New York City 100 years earlier and that New York City, as a whole, had celebrated it for nearly 30 years prior to the event. The state would make it a holiday until ~1907. It wouldn’t be made into a federal holiday until [nearly 100 years after its first national celebration] 1968.
I don’t think we can call it the origin for the holiday.
yeah i also saw the snopes article "setting the record straight" article. I am very skeptical I understand this is debatable but honestly the fact that you are here debating semantics when i wasnt even aware of this "indentured servitude" just makes me rethink a lot of things they didn't consider "good enough" to teach
The only reason that I know about indentured servitude is because I am a Christian and the Bible has a whole series of rules and laws about the treatment of indentured servants. Including exactly when they must be freed. The term in the Bible is Bond Servant, and in searching that term you will likely find primarily theological discussion.
Very few people are aware of indentured servitude as it existed, and many who are think it's just a fancy term for the same thing. It's understandable because in many of the worst points in history the lines were blurred between the two. So from a critical eye looking back they were both the same thing.
The Romans for example didn't have a word necessarily, but there were slaves who were Roman Citizens, and slaves who were not. There were two sets of laws on how those slaves were to be treated. Non Romans were treated like slaves, Romans were treated like indentured servants.
The key difference is that a slave had no rights, while an indentured servant kept most of their normal rights. In many cases at the most civilized periods of history, it was an employment contract you could not back out of.
My original point was less about being semantic, and more that Snopes was trying to bury the lead about Irish slavery by covering it up with even more widely misunderstood facts about slavery.
I... Uh... would like one of the links to these bits of history. When did the lawsuit happen? It seems like Irish slavery existed before black slavery, so I was curious as two when these things happened in relation to each other.
It has been significantly edited down over the years, particularly the lawsuit itself and information about the judge, but it the main facts are still there.
So, the article mentions that there were cases of slavery before this court case but that this one in particular was significant because it was the first official* case of lifelong slavery.
*Official being that a court ruled on it being just, not to be confused with proof of slavery predating such.
So, I did some research and it seems like there is some weirdness here.
It would seem that there is a difference between indentured servitude and African chattel slavery. The difference appears to be more technical than practical. That being slavery for a minimum of 7 years without permission to sire off spring or marry in that time period unless granted by the master. Doing such without permission would result in the child being born “endentured” and time being added to the father’s sentence. How long th Echols would remain endentured is unknown to me. Some said 12 years or until 30, such would vary based on customs, while another source said that was for native Americans, so take it with a grain of salt.
Irish slavery was particularly bad in the Caribbean apparently. I’m not an expert or historian, just some guy on the Internet researching such. It would seem that, with the exception of the Caribbean, Irish slavery had a light at the end of the tunnel.
Three quarters of my ancestors came to America fleeing that.
And I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't recognize its Irish-language name. I only knew it in English; they even took the Irishmen's language from them.
Thomas Sowell has an interesting book about this called "black rednecks white liberals". It discusses the transfer of ghetto culture from irish to the US south to blacks.
in large part, Irish descendants in the US have assimilated into US culture and with it, adopted classical western values. However there are still pockets of ghetto culture where hedonism remain. This is evident by those communities where alcoholism, drug abuse, lack of education, and single parent households are the norm.
The point of the study was, that these characteristics are not inborn - they are learned. And they can be unlearned. It took the Irish 150 years to assimilate into American culture, but once we took hold of it, we flourished. Anybody can do this. It requires a massive overhaul of whatever primitive, tribal culture they started with, however. If they aren't willing to vigorously reject their tribal prejudices and weaknesses and fully embrace Americanism (rugged individualism, Protestant work ethic, thrift, and Christian values), then they don't flourish. You can see a stark difference between those immigrant groups who made that choice, and those among their descendants who have not.
I’m not offended by it (nor Irish in origin) but why is it acceptable to refer to a police van as a “Paddy wagon?” Imagine calling them Tyrone mobiles or Hymie trucks.
Don't be so sensitive. Why shouldn't we call them that? Tyrone mobile sounds exactly like the kind of community policing that's being asked for right now. Tyrone responds to the scene. Dayquan drives the Tyrone Mobile. Shanesha answers the 911 operator line. You have to accept the new normal and recover from your bigoted assumptions.
Over 3000 free black families owned slaves. How many of the BLM commies burning shit because "muh slavery and shit" are actually descendent from slave owners, not slaves?
As a part Irish person myself, I'm in the same boat.
Not only that, but as a disabled person, people like me used to get sterilized or euthanized.
That being said, none of that shit happens today. Nobody today has done that, nor do they support that. These are innocent people who didn't do anything wrong, and the Left wants to punish them. It's funny to me how the Left assumes people are privileged, such as myself, just by looking at me and making assumptions about my life.
The Irish and Italians are, perhaps, the greatest silver bullet against "white privilege" theory.
White wasn't only skin color. It was country of origin and religion.
Did the Irish have white skin? Yes. Did they have "white privilege?" No. Why? They were the wrong religion.
Did the Italians have white skin? A little on the darker side - but yes. Did they have "white privilege?" No. Why? They were a shade darker and had the wrong religion.
And yet, SJWs will point to Irish/Italians (along with Jews) of today and say "Look at their white privilege!" That analysis is skin deep - and ignorant of history. The Irish were slaves. The Italians were hanged in mass lynchings. The Jews were reviled and subject to hate crimes.
A SJW cannot comprehend how people who were actual victims managed to succeed and thrive in America on their own. In their world, victims cannot succeed until the whole of society pacifies and placates the victim group. That is why a SJW sees successful Irish/Italian/Jews and says "white privilege." For them, the only way to succeed in America is to be white.
Anytime you hear the privilege argument, hammer them with these points about the Irish, Italians and Jews. Why? Because these groups realized that assimilation and perseverance were the keys to success in America. The proof is in the pudding: they are successful. The groups that wallowed in their victim hood attained nothing other than government handouts (which kept them in a perpetual state of victim hood.)
Best response to the whole conversation was from a black guy who said, "Why do these SJW's and guilty liberals infantilize us? They treat us like children with no agency to make our own life choices. I'm sick of it."
Try that on a SJW. This is all virtue signaling for them to feel better about themselves, they don't give a rat's patootie about Black people!
we trace our ancestry back to 1642. My ancestors arrived to the colonies as indentured servants - nice words for slaves.
their descendants fought in the american revolution for a free country. later on they died in the civil war on the side of the north. one even survived Andersonville Prison - I'm a direct descendant from him.
reparations? you can fuck off with that shit. its a commie thing, not a race thing.
My grandmother raised in Belfast not allowed to go to school or church. Never learned to read and write. She came in around 1917 and her brother took her in Boston. My Fate? Her sister bailed out at the last minute and grandma went to America instead. Hard worker, helped people, loved the church and loved America. I lived with here when I went to college. Never forget the brogue, her kindness, the map of Ireland on her face and the bluest eyes....
90% of trans-Atlantic slaves trafficked to the Americas, went to South America. Most of them to Brazil. They usually died within six months of being sold in Brazil.
Unfortunately you will unless you leave this country. They’ll just take it out of your pay like every other BS tax. I estimate reparations will happen in about 20 - 30 years once white Americans are no longer the majority.
I recommend Cromwell, starring Richard Harris and Alec Guinness. Good history and good battle scenes for that vintage It was very pro-Cromwell, like three cheers for representative government.. Harris, I guess was an Irish republican, and took a lot of crap for playing Cromwell. And I heard there were scenes about his brutal policies in Ireland, but they were cut.
It is virtually guaranteed that somewhere in the ancestry of every man, woman, and child in the world there were slave owners and slaves, or their essential equivalents. So we are all slavery beneficiaries and victims, and we should each pay ourselves 350 billion imaginary dollars from one hand to the other effective today and be done with it.
You'll notice the people screaming for reparations never actually know how it will be implemented. I don't either, because it makes no fucking sense. Is it a one time payment and then "ok reparations paid, we are even now" or is it the only one I've seen suggested (by one person) which is give every black person regardless of ancestry a "$12,760 check that increases every year to keep up with the rate of inflation" which would be a trillion dollars set aside every year soley for black people.
Also are new black people not born yet counted? If not, why not? How long does this go on until we are even? Does this go on for a hundred years and then we will decide whether to revisit the issue?
My Irish ancestors also never owned a slave. They traveled across the Great Plains after fighting in the Civil War and started a ranch out in the middle nowhere. My grandpa raised his two younger brothers after his parents died. Then went off to Europe to fight Nazis. Meanwhile my grandma was an orphan whose mom drank herself to death and her father abandoned her... on my mom’s side of the family they were immigrants from Ireland to San Francisco. They were crab fisherman and violent drunks. My grandpa got away from his family during WW2 in the merchant marine. Came back and studied maritime law. He did well. Both of my parents met at a catholic university. Poor and my mom pregnant.... my dad graduated college and worked nights on the ferries in Seattle. He swabbed the deck and cleaned the bathrooms. But his work ethic was insane and he was motivated and smart. He worked his way up to captain. A story of family progression.
Most white Americans are descended from people who either never owned slaves because they were too poor, or were slaves themselves, or emigrated to America after slavery was abolished. We owe the Africans nothing. If they don't enjoy the privilege of being Americans, then there's the door. Go back to Africa and see how well the slave trading tribes there receive you. You are no longer one of them. You are, however, American.
I've always said that any black person asking for reparations can travel to Africa, locate the descendants of those Africans that enslaved their ancestors, and ask THEM for reparations. As Thomas Sowell says, "Don't start the story in the middle." Go to the root of the issue and blame the Africans that enslaved and sold other Africans instead of blaming the whites.
My family immigrated from former Yugoslavia in the 1960s and 1970s, so we had nothing to do with slavery in the US. In fact, due tot he conquest of Serbia by the Ottoman empire, many Serbs were sold into slavery and shipped off to other lands in the empire, including North Africa. So my ancestors were slaves, and black people owe ME reparations.
In the end, every racial and ethnic group has had a role in persecuting another. If we all dwelt in the past, we would never move on and build a better future.
But of course, the people in power WANT to see us divided and fighting among ourselves. It means we aren't fighting to take them down.
Italian-American here. Great post. Italian's didn't have it so great either. I worked since I was 15. Held 4 jobs simultaneously while attending law school. I was the first one in my family to go to college. Do I speak Italian? No, my parents wanted me to be American so we weren't taught Italian. My ancestors weren't even in the country during the time of slavery. When they came here, they were discriminated against and treated badly. Possibly, way back, they were Christian slaves thrown into the Coliseum. Who knows. Point is, you can either cry victim or you can pull yourself up.
My first and biggest red pill was finding out I was 'not allowed' to discuss the heritage and history of my people because Irish history conflicts with the leftist narrative.
Great meme! Thanks! I needed this. That "1619 Project" will get upended with this. LOVE IT.
If you don't know what I'm referencing - here's the wackypedia link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project... Notice there's nothing about all the Democrat-led laws that made slavery and post slavery more miserable for Black people. Starting with their hatred of Lincoln that was as virulent as their hatred of Donald Trump.
This is also important -- here are the articles included by the creator of the 1619 project (which is getting pushed into our schools as we speak. You guys sure we want school to EVER start again?)
The first edition, which appeared in The New York Times Magazine on August 14, 2019, published in 100 pages with ten essays, a photo essay, and a collection of poems and fiction by an additional 16 writers,[18] included the following works:[19][20]
"America Wasn't a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones
"American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond
"A New Literary Timeline of African-American History", a collection of original poems and stories from 16 different writers, including Clint Smith, Yusef Komunyakaa, Eve L. Ewing, Reginald Dwayne Betts, ZZ Packer, Barry Jenkins and Jesmyn Ward, among others[20]
"How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Difference Still Live in Medicine Today", essay by Linda Villarosa
"What the Reactionary Politics of 2019 Owe to the Politics of Slavery", essay by Jamelle Bouie
"Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?", essay by Wesley Morris
"How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam", essay by Kevin Kruse
"Why Doesn't America Have Universal Healthcare? One word: Race", essay by Jeneen Interlandi
"Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery", essay by Bryan Stevenson
"The Barbaric History of Sugar in America", essay by Khalil Gibran Muhammad
"How America's Vast Racial Wealth Gap Grew: By Plunder", essay by Trymaine Lee
"Their Ancestors Were Enslaved by Law. Now They're Lawyers", photo essay by Djeneba Aduayom, with text from Nikole Hannah-Jones and Wadzanai Mhute
Yikes. When you look up Irish slave trade the first results were "fact" checks by Reuters and USAtoday stating they were not slaves and a Wikipedia page "Irish slaves myth".
I brought this up in History class in high school and also pointed out that black slaves were treated like property so their owners had motivation to take care of them as opposed to the Irish slaves who weren't even considered property so the owners had less motivation to take care of them and got sent to the principal's office for it. For all the arguments that my principal had with me throughout jr high and high school it was the one time he was actually cool to me since even he realized nothing I said was incorrect or offensive and because I was able to back up my argument in class.
I did my presentation in college about this because some of my ancestors might have been slaves down in the Caribbean islands of Montserrat or Antigua according my grandpa. One triggered black woman told me she studied slavery extensively and had never heard about this... I wonder why that was?
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. Irelands 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. Britains 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. Theyll 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 masters 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 its own to end its participation in Satans 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 theyve 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.
Wonderful post. Thanks for yr input.
This is from a forum post. Not sure if it’s the same person but I’ve seen this elsewhere. Still it’s very important to disseminate.
Being Irish, I knew this story.
I'm also Finnish, and the Russians and Swedes did not treat my people all that much differently. Karelia is still part of Russia - a good place to dump toxic waste.
I'm also Bohemian - the Slavs were not so nice to the ethic Germans amongst them that my great-grandparents stuck around. This cruelty to ethnic Germans was part of Hitler's justification for the annexation of The Sudetenland.
And it's funny - I don't really hold any animus toward English, Russian, Swede, or Slav persons today.
Redpill for most people. History is full of people enslaving and cleansing other ethnicities...
Yeeeeeuuuup, Humans are assholes 5o each other...
I often hear that Black Americans have lighter skin than Africans because some of their ancestors are white, and those ancestors were white slave-owning men who raped their female slaves.
Could it actually be the case that some -- or most -- of this white ancestry is due to the above paragraph?
I've read that ~3/4 of black people actually have white lineage. It's believable when you look at the skin of a black american vs. one from Africa.
Lock up the liquor before they kill us all!
It’s too late, one of every corner! Run I say! Run!
You can still see red haired, freckled black people in Jamaica and Barbados today.
I believe you are right Rex. Sounds like the white slave owning men raping the africans is a cover story to gin up all the anger and resentment we keep seeing. The real story is just as heinous, but certainly places a different light on it.
Yes, and quite a bit of what you have been told as truth is outright fabrication.
Just ask yourself one question:
We are told that slaveowners viewed slaves as less than animals, that they prized their livestock higher than their slaves, that their dogs were treated and fed better.
If that were the case, and you were a distinguished gentleman landowner, would you ever have the desire to bring one to your bed?
It can't be both.
Both are possible obviously. You act as though one person owned them all. Different owners might treat their slaves differently...
?m ml
I made that exact argument to a professor (female, but not a radical feminist) when in college, and the response was (as you might predict) that rape isn't about sexual desire, but about exercising power.
Didn't make sense to me then or now.
I don't know what rapists think exactly, but slavery necessitates an element of dehumanization, and rape might too. Muslims raping young white women is a way of exerting dominance over a foreign culture in the process of being conquered ("we rape your women, and you can do nothing about it, faggots"), and also an act of considering the female sub-human, and therefore subject of being defiled (children and women are the very groups every society should seek to protect the most).
So is it imaginable that slaves, which were considered cattle, were raped by some relatively rich men? [Btw, 40% of all slave owners were Jews, who were a tiny minority, and only 5% of all house holds owned any slaves in the US, they were quite expensive.] Yes, it's possible. But the same could be said that dehumanized people are not subject of being of rape either, given that it would be considered similar to sodomy. Also you'd create bastard offspring, which could lead to more trouble - it would still be your children, who'd live in slavery, and that might be an inacceptable idea to most people, especially to those who have considerations for maintaining some reputation - and slave owners were those who were rather wealthy.
Also consider that not all intercourse with slaves was automatically rape, even if the concept of consent would have to be stretched a lot.
I think it's plausible to assume that the biggest factor was indeed intentional white-black slave interbreeding. It would also explain the vast difference in average IQ between blacks in Africa and blacks in the US.
But why the hell do I read about this the first time? Wow...
Rape is an exercise of power over humans. People don't fuck their cattle, they whip them and prod them.
That's the point.
Jesus I'm turning 32 next month and never heard about this atrocity. My blood is boiling right now
I'm turning 57 next month and never heard of this. Damn! What the hell else do we not know?
right, I did a search and it's all snopes and others claiming they were "indentured servants" or trying to dismiss it. This has convinced me even more this is true.
Lol, they are covering up two hidden facts with that BS.
It was 'indentured servitude' to start with, and they are somewhat correct that indentured servitude was not the same thing as the slavery we so often refer to.
The first major disruption of this system was the Slave Trade. Demand had outstripped willing servants, particularly in America where the pioneer spirit meant anyone could head west and make a life for themselves. This left the rich in need of a supply of healthy workers, which the British were all to happy to provide.
But then a BLACK democrat successfully sued to keep one of his slaves past the 7 year contract he was supposed to have freed him by. The end result of that had a DEMOCRAT judge declare that slaves (indentured servants at the time) were actually property, and that black slaves were subhuman and didn't have the same rights as other slaves. This changed virtually everything about indentured servitude and, technically, "Slavery" as we define it now was born at that moment.
This led to things getting much, MUCH worse, for a very short time period that led to the push for abolition becoming wide spread. A cornerstone of human civilization had been twisted into something much worse than it was supposed to be and people were more supportive of abolishing it than trying to fix it.
I would really love to know more about this lynching and how it’s linked to Columbus Day. I have never heard about this ever.
Edit: I checked the Wikipedia, which does mention it as the first time it was celebrated as a national holiday but that it was a one time thing until post 1900. That a group had celebrated it in New York City 100 years earlier and that New York City, as a whole, had celebrated it for nearly 30 years prior to the event. The state would make it a holiday until ~1907. It wouldn’t be made into a federal holiday until [nearly 100 years after its first national celebration] 1968.
I don’t think we can call it the origin for the holiday.
yeah i also saw the snopes article "setting the record straight" article. I am very skeptical I understand this is debatable but honestly the fact that you are here debating semantics when i wasnt even aware of this "indentured servitude" just makes me rethink a lot of things they didn't consider "good enough" to teach
The only reason that I know about indentured servitude is because I am a Christian and the Bible has a whole series of rules and laws about the treatment of indentured servants. Including exactly when they must be freed. The term in the Bible is Bond Servant, and in searching that term you will likely find primarily theological discussion.
Very few people are aware of indentured servitude as it existed, and many who are think it's just a fancy term for the same thing. It's understandable because in many of the worst points in history the lines were blurred between the two. So from a critical eye looking back they were both the same thing.
The Romans for example didn't have a word necessarily, but there were slaves who were Roman Citizens, and slaves who were not. There were two sets of laws on how those slaves were to be treated. Non Romans were treated like slaves, Romans were treated like indentured servants.
The key difference is that a slave had no rights, while an indentured servant kept most of their normal rights. In many cases at the most civilized periods of history, it was an employment contract you could not back out of.
My original point was less about being semantic, and more that Snopes was trying to bury the lead about Irish slavery by covering it up with even more widely misunderstood facts about slavery.
We all come from indentured servants, if you can;t trace your genealogy to a king that's where you are.
I... Uh... would like one of the links to these bits of history. When did the lawsuit happen? It seems like Irish slavery existed before black slavery, so I was curious as two when these things happened in relation to each other.
Surprisingly still available on wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
It has been significantly edited down over the years, particularly the lawsuit itself and information about the judge, but it the main facts are still there.
Thanks for that.
So, the article mentions that there were cases of slavery before this court case but that this one in particular was significant because it was the first official* case of lifelong slavery.
*Official being that a court ruled on it being just, not to be confused with proof of slavery predating such.
Yeah, especially with an emphasis on Democrats causing this when the Democrat party didn't exist for another 200 years
So, I did some research and it seems like there is some weirdness here.
It would seem that there is a difference between indentured servitude and African chattel slavery. The difference appears to be more technical than practical. That being slavery for a minimum of 7 years without permission to sire off spring or marry in that time period unless granted by the master. Doing such without permission would result in the child being born “endentured” and time being added to the father’s sentence. How long th Echols would remain endentured is unknown to me. Some said 12 years or until 30, such would vary based on customs, while another source said that was for native Americans, so take it with a grain of salt.
Irish slavery was particularly bad in the Caribbean apparently. I’m not an expert or historian, just some guy on the Internet researching such. It would seem that, with the exception of the Caribbean, Irish slavery had a light at the end of the tunnel.
Oh, wait til you read the history of the gorta mor.
Three quarters of my ancestors came to America fleeing that.
And I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't recognize its Irish-language name. I only knew it in English; they even took the Irishmen's language from them.
And incredibly, the Irish haven't developed a culture of failure as consequence.
Thomas Sowell has an interesting book about this called "black rednecks white liberals". It discusses the transfer of ghetto culture from irish to the US south to blacks.
Yep. They learned all their bad habits from the poor Southern Irish.
yes
Northern Ireland does have some of the characteristics of a failure culture
So have the friggin Scots, somehow
But what about Irish in the US?
in large part, Irish descendants in the US have assimilated into US culture and with it, adopted classical western values. However there are still pockets of ghetto culture where hedonism remain. This is evident by those communities where alcoholism, drug abuse, lack of education, and single parent households are the norm.
The point of the study was, that these characteristics are not inborn - they are learned. And they can be unlearned. It took the Irish 150 years to assimilate into American culture, but once we took hold of it, we flourished. Anybody can do this. It requires a massive overhaul of whatever primitive, tribal culture they started with, however. If they aren't willing to vigorously reject their tribal prejudices and weaknesses and fully embrace Americanism (rugged individualism, Protestant work ethic, thrift, and Christian values), then they don't flourish. You can see a stark difference between those immigrant groups who made that choice, and those among their descendants who have not.
I’m not offended by it (nor Irish in origin) but why is it acceptable to refer to a police van as a “Paddy wagon?” Imagine calling them Tyrone mobiles or Hymie trucks.
I never saw it that way, holy fuck.
Im fond of Uber Black personally
Don't be so sensitive. Why shouldn't we call them that? Tyrone mobile sounds exactly like the kind of community policing that's being asked for right now. Tyrone responds to the scene. Dayquan drives the Tyrone Mobile. Shanesha answers the 911 operator line. You have to accept the new normal and recover from your bigoted assumptions.
I’m all for calling them Tyrone mobiles
Tyrone Transporter. lol
Call 867-5309 ask for Jenny
But obviously, make sure you have some Viagra first.
80s pop music pede, but yes a girl should have a cage.
Over 3000 free black families owned slaves. How many of the BLM commies burning shit because "muh slavery and shit" are actually descendent from slave owners, not slaves?
And the first legal owner of a black was Anthony Johnson, a black tobacco farmer.
As a part Irish person myself, I'm in the same boat.
Not only that, but as a disabled person, people like me used to get sterilized or euthanized.
That being said, none of that shit happens today. Nobody today has done that, nor do they support that. These are innocent people who didn't do anything wrong, and the Left wants to punish them. It's funny to me how the Left assumes people are privileged, such as myself, just by looking at me and making assumptions about my life.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
A Modest Proposal
For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.
by Dr. Jonathan Swift
Read it. It is meant as a parody on these very events.
You will have to quit working then, or work under the table. If reparations ever happen it would be paid with our tax dollars.
Dude, he's an Irish transplant. We all work under the able every chance we get.
I’ve thought about that and that’s exactly what I’d do. I’ve worked under the table before and I’ll do it again
Oi, eel fookin do it again, lads
If reparations ever happen, every politician responsible would likely be hunted down and shot dead in the street.
The Irish and Italians are, perhaps, the greatest silver bullet against "white privilege" theory.
White wasn't only skin color. It was country of origin and religion.
Did the Irish have white skin? Yes. Did they have "white privilege?" No. Why? They were the wrong religion.
Did the Italians have white skin? A little on the darker side - but yes. Did they have "white privilege?" No. Why? They were a shade darker and had the wrong religion.
And yet, SJWs will point to Irish/Italians (along with Jews) of today and say "Look at their white privilege!" That analysis is skin deep - and ignorant of history. The Irish were slaves. The Italians were hanged in mass lynchings. The Jews were reviled and subject to hate crimes.
A SJW cannot comprehend how people who were actual victims managed to succeed and thrive in America on their own. In their world, victims cannot succeed until the whole of society pacifies and placates the victim group. That is why a SJW sees successful Irish/Italian/Jews and says "white privilege." For them, the only way to succeed in America is to be white.
Anytime you hear the privilege argument, hammer them with these points about the Irish, Italians and Jews. Why? Because these groups realized that assimilation and perseverance were the keys to success in America. The proof is in the pudding: they are successful. The groups that wallowed in their victim hood attained nothing other than government handouts (which kept them in a perpetual state of victim hood.)
Best response to the whole conversation was from a black guy who said, "Why do these SJW's and guilty liberals infantilize us? They treat us like children with no agency to make our own life choices. I'm sick of it."
Try that on a SJW. This is all virtue signaling for them to feel better about themselves, they don't give a rat's patootie about Black people!
If the Demoncrats somehow manage to get reparations passed, I will go off-grid and stop paying taxes.
Nah, we will just secede and make a white ethnostate. That should make everyone happy, right?
we trace our ancestry back to 1642. My ancestors arrived to the colonies as indentured servants - nice words for slaves.
their descendants fought in the american revolution for a free country. later on they died in the civil war on the side of the north. one even survived Andersonville Prison - I'm a direct descendant from him.
reparations? you can fuck off with that shit. its a commie thing, not a race thing.
My grandmother raised in Belfast not allowed to go to school or church. Never learned to read and write. She came in around 1917 and her brother took her in Boston. My Fate? Her sister bailed out at the last minute and grandma went to America instead. Hard worker, helped people, loved the church and loved America. I lived with here when I went to college. Never forget the brogue, her kindness, the map of Ireland on her face and the bluest eyes....
90% of trans-Atlantic slaves trafficked to the Americas, went to South America. Most of them to Brazil. They usually died within six months of being sold in Brazil.
Or - they went to the Caribbean and were OWNED BY KAMALA HARRIS'S GRANDPA.
sorry - just had to throw that in here
👎 reparations. We've moved on.
I think generations of welfare on the public dime counts, so let's move on.
THEY WERE PAID ALREADY: just look up "40 Acres and a Mule..."
Now that was given only to the freed black slaves.
So as an Irish person - I demand reparations! I demand that all of Hollywood and all the wealthy black athletes bowing down pay me -- damnit!
Unfortunately you will unless you leave this country. They’ll just take it out of your pay like every other BS tax. I estimate reparations will happen in about 20 - 30 years once white Americans are no longer the majority.
If Biden is elected, we will be the minority by this time next year.
I recommend Cromwell, starring Richard Harris and Alec Guinness. Good history and good battle scenes for that vintage It was very pro-Cromwell, like three cheers for representative government.. Harris, I guess was an Irish republican, and took a lot of crap for playing Cromwell. And I heard there were scenes about his brutal policies in Ireland, but they were cut.
It is virtually guaranteed that somewhere in the ancestry of every man, woman, and child in the world there were slave owners and slaves, or their essential equivalents. So we are all slavery beneficiaries and victims, and we should each pay ourselves 350 billion imaginary dollars from one hand to the other effective today and be done with it.
i like how you think -- kek
You'll notice the people screaming for reparations never actually know how it will be implemented. I don't either, because it makes no fucking sense. Is it a one time payment and then "ok reparations paid, we are even now" or is it the only one I've seen suggested (by one person) which is give every black person regardless of ancestry a "$12,760 check that increases every year to keep up with the rate of inflation" which would be a trillion dollars set aside every year soley for black people.
Also are new black people not born yet counted? If not, why not? How long does this go on until we are even? Does this go on for a hundred years and then we will decide whether to revisit the issue?
My Irish ancestors also never owned a slave. They traveled across the Great Plains after fighting in the Civil War and started a ranch out in the middle nowhere. My grandpa raised his two younger brothers after his parents died. Then went off to Europe to fight Nazis. Meanwhile my grandma was an orphan whose mom drank herself to death and her father abandoned her... on my mom’s side of the family they were immigrants from Ireland to San Francisco. They were crab fisherman and violent drunks. My grandpa got away from his family during WW2 in the merchant marine. Came back and studied maritime law. He did well. Both of my parents met at a catholic university. Poor and my mom pregnant.... my dad graduated college and worked nights on the ferries in Seattle. He swabbed the deck and cleaned the bathrooms. But his work ethic was insane and he was motivated and smart. He worked his way up to captain. A story of family progression.
"I'll never pay a cent in reparations"
Hate to break it to you, friend... but you already do.
Cause french fries and potatoes are the same thing. They just have different names and taste.
"No one said the world is fair. Only that it's round."
My Irish grandmother (read that in an Irish lilt)
Most white Americans are descended from people who either never owned slaves because they were too poor, or were slaves themselves, or emigrated to America after slavery was abolished. We owe the Africans nothing. If they don't enjoy the privilege of being Americans, then there's the door. Go back to Africa and see how well the slave trading tribes there receive you. You are no longer one of them. You are, however, American.
I've always said that any black person asking for reparations can travel to Africa, locate the descendants of those Africans that enslaved their ancestors, and ask THEM for reparations. As Thomas Sowell says, "Don't start the story in the middle." Go to the root of the issue and blame the Africans that enslaved and sold other Africans instead of blaming the whites.
I demand the Celtics change their team name.
"dAaAaAaAaH, i cHeCkEdEd sNoPeS An dEy sAiD DiS IdNt tRoOoOo..."
My family immigrated from former Yugoslavia in the 1960s and 1970s, so we had nothing to do with slavery in the US. In fact, due tot he conquest of Serbia by the Ottoman empire, many Serbs were sold into slavery and shipped off to other lands in the empire, including North Africa. So my ancestors were slaves, and black people owe ME reparations.
In the end, every racial and ethnic group has had a role in persecuting another. If we all dwelt in the past, we would never move on and build a better future. But of course, the people in power WANT to see us divided and fighting among ourselves. It means we aren't fighting to take them down.
Italian-American here. Great post. Italian's didn't have it so great either. I worked since I was 15. Held 4 jobs simultaneously while attending law school. I was the first one in my family to go to college. Do I speak Italian? No, my parents wanted me to be American so we weren't taught Italian. My ancestors weren't even in the country during the time of slavery. When they came here, they were discriminated against and treated badly. Possibly, way back, they were Christian slaves thrown into the Coliseum. Who knows. Point is, you can either cry victim or you can pull yourself up.
Yep, my ancestors were brought over to Virginia in the 1700s.
Is this true? I hate to share shit that eventually gets debunked.
https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=Jfip96k1cE0&feature=youtu.be
and
the source of the above long post is here http://www.aohflorida.org/the-irish-slave-trade/
How I do it is I share the source and say, "so what do you think about this?"
Wonder if the slave "Irish" ancestry dna shows up in certain Africans, Australians or black people in the USA who were descendants of slaves.
Yeah, but you white.
Pale actually lol
My first and biggest red pill was finding out I was 'not allowed' to discuss the heritage and history of my people because Irish history conflicts with the leftist narrative.
Great meme! Thanks! I needed this. That "1619 Project" will get upended with this. LOVE IT.
If you don't know what I'm referencing - here's the wackypedia link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project... Notice there's nothing about all the Democrat-led laws that made slavery and post slavery more miserable for Black people. Starting with their hatred of Lincoln that was as virulent as their hatred of Donald Trump.
This is also important -- here are the articles included by the creator of the 1619 project (which is getting pushed into our schools as we speak. You guys sure we want school to EVER start again?)
Saved for educational purposes. Thanks pede!
"My ginga'."
Ginga please! Lol
Same. But we’re white, reeee
If melanin in one's skin is a measure of privilege, what about black albinos? I mean, they're not really "black," are they.
Yikes. When you look up Irish slave trade the first results were "fact" checks by Reuters and USAtoday stating they were not slaves and a Wikipedia page "Irish slaves myth".
http://www.aohflorida.org/the-irish-slave-trade/
I brought this up in History class in high school and also pointed out that black slaves were treated like property so their owners had motivation to take care of them as opposed to the Irish slaves who weren't even considered property so the owners had less motivation to take care of them and got sent to the principal's office for it. For all the arguments that my principal had with me throughout jr high and high school it was the one time he was actually cool to me since even he realized nothing I said was incorrect or offensive and because I was able to back up my argument in class.
Hey, mine too!
Spoiler alert: Via government handouts, you've already paid them many times over every time you pay taxes.
bingo. my family earned our keep in this nation. my ancestor who first came to this nation promptly joined the Union army to kick some slavery ass.
I did my presentation in college about this because some of my ancestors might have been slaves down in the Caribbean islands of Montserrat or Antigua according my grandpa. One triggered black woman told me she studied slavery extensively and had never heard about this... I wonder why that was?