First British slaves in America were Irish - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15176423
late wrote:Project much? For me, a book about all the ways your writing is screwed up would write itself. There is no political philosophy called Libertarianism. It's a fantasy, and the first two chapters would be about why. The first would be how the Modern World only works when you have a strong central government holding things together. That wasn't a choice, they had to..

You are treating your sources like they were written in stone. They weren't, and your inability to respond substantively to comments is quite revealing. There are rules to history writing, I am not seeing you play by the rules..

Yes, slavery is ancient.


But if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, they were quite aware of the contradiction inherent in a country founded on Enlightenment ideas about freedom and rights, while they allowed slavery.

Lastly, you have bought into the crazy idea that taxes are slavery. A Supreme Court justice was known to whistle every year when he went to put his tax returns in the mail. A clerk asked him why. "Today is the day I buy civilization."


Have you ever once read a single sentence wherein I make any claim to being a Libertarian? Even once?

The books I used as a primary source fairly answered your criticisms. Of course they are not written in stone. They do provide a logical, rational, and factually informed starting point. Rather than to stick to the facts, you wanted to attack the character of the authors, not the facts contained in those books that I alluded to in my posts. You are the one who cannot respond to any substantive part of factual replies. You struggle for ways to make this personal, but you cannot rise to the occasion.

There are no "rules" to history writing. Depending upon who you ask there are many methods of interpretation. That is why, with the book Time on the Cross, they wrote an entire second book to document their sources and their methods of analysis. You just can't handle the truth. Taxes on labor IS statutory slavery. The idea that tax on labor is a form of slavery is not some grandiose idea I dreamed up. It has well educated scholars that subscribe to that train of thought:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_ ... %20slavery).

My problem is, I'm not on anybody's bandwagon save of the effort to promote the ideology in The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. I think that honest patriots that believe in the fundamentals of republicanism and those who are Libertarians, or people just plain fed up with the government violating the Rights that they agreed to protect will find something useful therein.

So, deflect, project, deny, attack, or whatever it is that makes you happy. It has no bearing on the subject at hand. Americans have NO monopoly nor did they ever corner the market on slavery. The fact that men gave their lives to begin a fundamental transformation when they began with very little support cannot be denied. Neither can you refute the historical fact that Whites were victims of slavery and, due to the economic nature of indentured servitude, Whites were treated far worse than the average Black slave. But, going back to the original point... what is relevant to this thread, Whites were slaves too.

It is also true that, when put to a vote, people vote slavery into law because the slave masters promise so much to the masses. They never deliver so no matter what you do, you will not be able to stop the cycles of history.
#15176425
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-irish-slaves-idUSKBN23O2BS

    Shared thousands of times on Facebook, a meme showing a black-and-white photograph of three white children in ragged clothing claims that “the first slaves imported into the American colonies were 100 White children in 1619, four months before the arrival of the first shipment of Black slaves.” This claim is false.

    ....

    The claim that the first slaves to arrive in the American colonies were white children is false. The Africans who were taken to the colony of Virginia in 1619 had been captured in Angola ( here ). In the summer of 1619, two English ships attacked a Portuguese ship carrying 350 African captives, taking 50-60 Africans with them to Virginia. The first British ship arrived with 20 enslaved Africans, making them the first to arrive in the American colonies and inspiring the New York Times’ 1619 Project ( here , here ).

    A timeline of Virginia records provided by the Library of Congress does not mention the arrival of a shipment of “100 White children” from Ireland at any point between 1600 and 1743 (here).

    ....

The article has links to the evidence.


I'm not seeing the evidence.

" Cromwell's conquest of Ireland in the middle of the seventeenth century made slaves as well as subjects of the Irish people. Over a hundred thousand men, women, and children were seized by the English troops and shipped to the West Indies, where they were sold into slavery..." (Slavery in Colonial America - America's Revolutionary Heritage." P. 142 by George Novack

"The English traffic in slaves in the first half of the seventeenth century was solely in White slaves. The English had no slave base in West Africa, as did the Dutch Jews. Moreover, Dutch Jews were not only bankers and shipping magnates but slavemasters and plantation owners themselves. Jews were forbidden by English law to own White Protestant slaves, although in practice this was not uniformly enforced. Irish slaves were allowed to the Jewish slavers but were regarded by them as intractable. Hence the Jews became prime movers behind the African slave trade and the importation of Negro slaves into the New World."(Dalby Thomas, An Historical Account of the Rise and Growth of the British West Indies, pp. 36-37, and G. Merrill, ‘The Role of the Sephardic Jews in the British Caribbean Area in the Seventeenth Century,’ Caribbean Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 1964-65, pp. 32-49.)
#15176434
The Resister wrote:


There are no "rules" to history writing.



"Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches. Scholars discuss historiography by topic—such as the historiography of the United Kingdom, that of WWII, the British Empire, early Islam, and China—and different approaches and genres, such as political history and social history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

Sophomores usually take the class that goes over the basics.

Your inability to respond on point has me so excited I may fall into a coma.
#15176439
The Resister wrote:I'm not seeing the evidence.


Which evidence are you unable to find?

" Cromwell's conquest of Ireland in the middle of the seventeenth century made slaves as well as subjects of the Irish people. Over a hundred thousand men, women, and children were seized by the English troops and shipped to the West Indies, where they were sold into slavery..." (Slavery in Colonial America - America's Revolutionary Heritage." P. 142 by George Novack


The fact that there were Irish slaves in the Caribbean does not contradict the claim that the first slaves in the USA were black.

"The English traffic in slaves in the first half of the seventeenth century was solely in White slaves. The English had no slave base in West Africa, as did the Dutch Jews. Moreover, Dutch Jews were not only bankers and shipping magnates but slavemasters and plantation owners themselves. Jews were forbidden by English law to own White Protestant slaves, although in practice this was not uniformly enforced. Irish slaves were allowed to the Jewish slavers but were regarded by them as intractable. Hence the Jews became prime movers behind the African slave trade and the importation of Negro slaves into the New World."(Dalby Thomas, An Historical Account of the Rise and Growth of the British West Indies, pp. 36-37, and G. Merrill, ‘The Role of the Sephardic Jews in the British Caribbean Area in the Seventeenth Century,’ Caribbean Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 1964-65, pp. 32-49.)


This also does not contradict my claim, since the slaves were taken from a Portuguese boat by English privateers.
#15176446
late wrote:"Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches. Scholars discuss historiography by topic—such as the historiography of the United Kingdom, that of WWII, the British Empire, early Islam, and China—and different approaches and genres, such as political history and social history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

Sophomores usually take the class that goes over the basics.

Your inability to respond on point has me so excited I may fall into a coma.


I cannot be responsible for your delusional ignorance. You are not an historical scholar nor is this an academic discussion among professionals. It is me presenting you with facts you can't refute so you're having to blow smoke up your fellow posters arse, hoping you don't get busted for an inability to focus on the topic at hand.
#15176447
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which evidence are you unable to find?



The fact that there were Irish slaves in the Caribbean does not contradict the claim that the first slaves in the USA were black.



This also does not contradict my claim, since the slaves were taken from a Portuguese boat by English privateers.


Your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasonable exchange. What I get from some people on this board sounds much like the same argument holocaust deniers make. How does that make you any better than them?
#15176448
The Resister wrote:Your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasonable exchange.


As long as we agree that the first slaves in the USA were black.

What I get from some people on this board sounds much like the same argument holocaust deniers make. How does that make you any better than them?


I have facts to back me up.
#15176450
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that the first slaves in the USA were black.



I have facts to back me up.


You're not presenting them, your highness. Let me give you an example of facts:

http://www.irisheyesofva.com/wp-content ... lavery.pdf

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner. A Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the results." Generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin
#15176452
The Resister wrote:You're not presenting them, your highness.


It is a fact that English privateers delivered some Angolan slaves to Virginia in 1619.

It is a fact that the historical records from this time do not show any Irish slaves arriving at that time.

Let me give you an example of facts:

http://www.irisheyesofva.com/wp-content ... lavery.pdf


Please quote the relevant text. Thanks.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner. A Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the results." Generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin


You got the quote wrong.

Franklin probably understood that democracies and republics are not mutually exclusive.
#15176458
Unthinking Majority wrote:does it matter who the first slaves were?


In reality, no.

In the US culture war, yes. The argument is “Irish got over slavery, why can’t black people?” with the implication that the ongoing problems of black people are due to racial inferiority and not the actual differences in how slavery and other anti-black policies happened.
#15176461
Pants-of-dog wrote:
In reality, no.

In the US culture war, yes. The argument is “Irish got over slavery, why can’t black people?” with the implication that the ongoing problems of black people are due to racial inferiority and not the actual differences in how slavery and other anti-black policies happened.



Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority


Asian Americans - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

#15176480
Unthinking Majority wrote:does it matter who the first slaves were?


Actually, it doesn't. At the same time the critics are implying that the Irish did not suffer as a result of their slavery. If you want to know who the "first" slaves were, you would go way back in history. Who were the slave owners then?
#15176481
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a fact that the historical records from this time do not show any Irish slaves arriving at that time.

That you are unable to find "records" of Irish slaves in the sources you have seen, might be a result of the limited number of sources you (or anyone) has access to.

Irish slavery is such a touchy topic, as is slavery in general, that there is likely to be a lot of missing information. You pretending that "absence of proof = proof of absence" is arrogant crap from a Company Man.
#15176526
QatzelOk wrote:That you are unable to find "records" of Irish slaves in the sources you have seen, might be a result of the limited number of sources you (or anyone) has access to.

Irish slavery is such a touchy topic, as is slavery in general, that there is likely to be a lot of missing information. You pretending that "absence of proof = proof of absence" is arrogant crap from a Company Man.


Thank you for putting it into perspective. Whites have suffered from slavery just as much as anyone else. The difference is that the left likes to keep harping on the subject to stir the emotions of Black people so that we have continual chaos and divisiveness over the issue. My point is to say to Blacks, they do not hold any monopoly on human suffering. Everybody else rises above it. The left has many Black people thinking they need the validation of the White man in order to realize their destiny. Others think they will succeed in wiping out the entire White race predicated upon a misunderstanding of history. There is an unfortunate implication in this thread. The implication is that the Irish did not suffer in this country due to slavery. In my mind, the left is no different than the holocaust deniers. The methodology and strategies are the same.

When it comes to human suffering, I'm wondering if it really matters who was first, how many, or whether there is an excuse for genocide. America, specifically those left of center, are conducting a subtle form of genocide and to deny that the Irish (among others) suffered just as much as anyone else. At different times and in different periods different people have suffered in America at the hands of their fellow man. The Germans, Indians / Native Americans, Italians, and Polish people have been subjected to inhumanity - some more than others, but it is simply a reality of the history of mankind. The genocide being practiced in America today is subtle, but real. I don't know what the OP had in mind by starting this thread, so I don't have anything else to offer. Thank you for putting it into perspective.
#15176527
The genocide being practiced in America today is subtle, but real.

What, in your view, would qualify as a "subtle genocide", @The Resister? Would black people demanding reparations for slavery be "subtle genocide"? Would asserting that chattel slavery for life was worse than indentured servitude for a few years qualify as "subtle genocide"? Asking for a friend.... :)
#15176534
The Resister wrote:
I cannot be responsible for your delusional ignorance. You are not an historical scholar nor is this an academic discussion among professionals. It is me presenting you with facts you can't refute so you're having to blow smoke up your fellow posters arse, hoping you don't get busted for an inability to focus on the topic at hand.



You didn't substantively respond to my points, nor to the economic historians I linked.

You don't know how.

You are trying to hide, and it's getting funny. It won't work, you know. Your sources don't support your primary argument, that things like taxes are slavery.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Lewis Carrol, of course.

Image
#15176549
late wrote:You didn't substantively respond to my points, nor to the economic historians I linked.

You don't know how.

You are trying to hide, and it's getting funny. It won't work, you know. Your sources don't support your primary argument, that things like taxes are slavery.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Lewis Carrol, of course.

Image


You obviously have me confused with someone else. I've never backed down, backward, nor ran away from a swinging soul in my life. You are not a historian nor are you capable of honest discourse. You have been fairly responded to. You didn't like the response? Sounds like a personal problem. Do you have something you need to iron out with me in PM? I can make myself available. But, I'm not part of a circus show.

I was challenged to provide a source for my information. I did. That information was marginalized and an attempt was made to attack the authors, not the material. Now, I'm supposed to give credence to the irrelevant and erroneous B.S. you post? Like I said, you have me confused with someone else. I gave you the same consideration you gave me and I owe you no more than that.
#15176556
QatzelOk wrote:That you are unable to find "records" of Irish slaves in the sources you have seen, might be a result of the limited number of sources you (or anyone) has access to.

Irish slavery is such a touchy topic, as is slavery in general, that there is likely to be a lot of missing information. You pretending that "absence of proof = proof of absence" is arrogant crap from a Company Man.


The burden of proof falls on the person affirming the existence of Irish slaves at the time, not on proving a negative as it should be way easier to do so. @Pants-of-dog may be a hypocrite when it comes to epistemic issues, but I think it's worth pointing out regardless.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

This isn't just a matter of writing style or pres[…]

The G7 Picks Up The Gauntlet.

https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/uplo[…]

I've offered no definition of the word slavery. […]

CRT

Then show that this is actually happening. OH, P[…]