First British slaves in America were Irish - 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.
#15175629
https://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads ... st_550.jpg

There is a historical evidence of a large number of crimes and retaliation against the Irish by the Anglo-Saxon invaders.
The British did not use Africans only as slaves, the first British slaves in America were actually Irish.

„27. In August 2019, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris marked the 400th anniversary of the first recorded import of enslaved Africans to Virginia by calling for a showdown with the "history of slavery and institutional racism" in her country.

Two days later, frequent Fox News contributor and right-wing author Janie Johnson (who has about 210,000 followers on Twitter) tweeted a rhetorical response to Harris, saying "What about the Irish as America's FIRST slaves?" He suggests that the Irish were slaves. in British colonial America before the African people "

When we think of slavery in America, we think of black slaves brought over from Africa. They were not alone. For a time the Irish were also enslaved. Some historian try to sugar-coat the practice by referring to them as “indentured servants,” but this is a distortion of reality. These people were slaves in every sense of the word.

The Irish slaves were sent to America on English ships. They included men, women and very young children. Like black slaves they were harshly treated, especially when they disobeyed. They were commonly suspended by their hands by their owners who then set their hands and feet on fire. Some were burned to death, decapitated and had their heads set on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to others.

The practice began long before America gained its independence from England. It started during the reigns James II and Charles II and was encouraged by Oliver Cromwell. The first shipment of slaves, which arrived in the Americas in 1619, was composed of 100 white children. James II sold some 30,000 Irish prisoners to be used as slaves in the New World. In 1625 he issued a proclamation which required that Irish political prisoners be sent to the West Indies. By the middle of the 17th century Irish slaves were being sold to Antigua and Montserrat. So many Irish slaves were sent to Montserrat that they made up 70% of the population.

Between 1641 and 1652 more than 500,000 Irish were killed outright by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Because of the slave trade the population of Ireland dropped from 1,500,000 to 600,000 in that one decade. Men were not allowed to take their wives and children with them resulting in a massive number of homeless women and children. England “solved” the problem by selling them off as well. In the 1650s more than 100,000 children between the ages of 10 and 14 were sold to slaveholders in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. Some 30,000 men and women were also sold. In 1656 Cromwell ordered that 2,000 children be sent to Jamaica as slaves for the English settlers.

After the Irish Rebellion of 1798, thousands of Irish were sold to America and Australia. Abuses were rampant. One British ship dumped 1,302 slaves into the ocean so that the crew would have more food to eat.

During this time slaves from Africa were just starting to be brought to the New World. As badly as they were treated, the Irish were actually treated worse. This was in part due to British anti-Catholicism but also because the black slaves cost more by a factor of ten. (Blacks were sold for 50 sterling while the Irish seldom went for more than 5 sterling. Mistreatment of the slaves, even if it resulted in death, was not considered criminal.

The practice continued until the British decided to put an end to it in 1839 but that did not put an end to the mistreatment of Irish children.

Many Irish orphans were rounded up and sent by train to agricultural areas to live with farmers. Few records were kept regarding the trains, but estimate run between 400,000 and 600,000 were relocated between 1854 and 1929.

Young girls were often forced into prostitution which, although illegal, was usually ignored. In some cities it is estimated that as many as 75% of the men suffered from some form of sexually transmitted disease. In 1832, a group of women formed the American Female Guardian Society to take care of the girl prostitutes. The group soon started taking in both boys and girls and later established 12 industrial schools where children were taught a trade and skills to support themselves.
#15175645
This is a myth, promoted mainly by racists to minimise the historical impact of the slave trade on black Americans.

Irish people were never subject to chattel slavery. It's true that the British government used to practice penal transportation, but this wasn't limited to Irish people and, while certainly not humane or pleasant, was not the same as chattel slavery. Neither was the common practice of "indentured servitude", which was time-bound (typically seven years) and not hereditary, after which masters were legally required to grant "freedom dues" of either land or capital.

The giveaway that your source is nonsense is that James II couldn't have "issued a proclamation which required that Irish political prisoners be sent to the West Indies", because James II wasn't born until 1633 and didn't ascend to the throne until 1685.
Last edited by Heisenberg on 04 Jun 2021 12:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15175648
Heisenberg wrote:This is a myth, promoted mainly by racists to minimise the historical impact of the slave trade on black Americans.

Irish people were never subject to chattel slavery. It's true that the British government used to practice penal transportation, but this wasn't limited to Irish people and, while certainly not humane or pleasant, was not the same as chattel slavery. Neither was the common practice of "indentured servitude", which was time-bound (typically seven years) and not hereditary, after which masters were legally required to grant "freedom dues" of either land or capital.

Indeed. Were the English convicts who were transported to Australia in the 19th century also "slaves"? Are convicts in American federal prisons right now "slaves"?

The giveaway that your source is nonsense is that James II couldn't have "issued a proclamation which required that Irish political prisoners be sent to the West Indies", because James II wasn't born until 1633 and didn't ascend to the throne until 1685.

He clearly means James I and Charles I. I suspect that his rather dodgy 'source' got it wrong, and he didn't know enough English history to quietly correct it. Lol.
#15175653
Russianbear wrote:

Some historians try to sugar-coat the practice by referring to them as “indentured servants,” but this is a distortion of reality.



The indenture was an agreed upon term of service.

That's not slavery, although it's not far from slavery.

You prob won't understand this, but you have stumbled into an intellectual civil war. For historians, the details are the most important thing. For people doing political science, they don't care about the details, they want to draw broad generalisations. Poli Sci guys and historians are always giving each other a hard time, mostly light heartedly, but not always.

That's not at all relevant, but I found it interesting.

In any case, the devil is in the details...
#15175739
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. Were the English convicts who were transported to Australia in the 19th century also "slaves"? Are convicts in American federal prisons right now "slaves"?


He clearly means James I and Charles I. I suspect that his rather dodgy 'source' got it wrong, and he didn't know enough English history to quietly correct it. Lol.


A huge difference should be noticed between early British and Irish colonists who were forcibly brought to the largest British Gulag in the history of the world called Australia.
The British were detained as convicted criminals, while the Irish were prisoners of war or dissidents fighting to liberate their country from British occupation (Robert Hughes "The fatal Shore")

Regardless such an urge to destroy and enslave other human beings cannot be explained by anything other than the possession of the so-called "British Evil gene", which means that the Anglo-Saxons are programmed to destroy others in terms of their nature and upbringing.
#15175740
Russianbear wrote:A huge difference should be noticed between early British and Irish colonists who were forcibly brought to the largest British Gulag in the history of the world called Australia.
The British were detained as convicted criminals, while the Irish were prisoners of war or dissidents fighting to liberate their country from British occupation (Robert Hughes "The fatal Shore")

Granted. But even prisoners of war and dissidents are not chattel slaves. It may be a rather subtle distinction, especially if you happened to be one of those Irish prisoners, but it's a real distinction nonetheless. And they were not enslaved or imprisoned because of the colour of their skin, but because they had fought against the British Crown. Whether they were justified in doing so or not is a separate issue.

Regardless such an urge to destroy and enslave other human beings cannot be explained by anything other than the possession of the so-called "British Evil gene", which means that the Anglo-Saxons are programmed to destroy others in terms of their nature and upbringing.

I can't deny that. Lol. :)
#15175874
Russianbear wrote:
Regardless such an urge to destroy and enslave other human beings cannot be explained by anything other than the possession of the so-called "British Evil gene", which means that the Anglo-Saxons are programmed to destroy others in terms of their nature and upbringing.



Potemkin wrote:
I can't deny that. Lol. :)



...And the aliens genetically engineered it into them.


x D
#15175905
Potemkin wrote:...not chattel slaves...

Yes, and not plantation slaves either.

But slaves nonetheless.

Though I am only familiar with the Irish slaves who were brought to the Americas in the early 1800s, just when British Canada and the USA needed disposable lives to die while digging the canals of the Northeast (Erie, Welland, Lachine, etc.).

Now, they were starving to death, and most died in transport - so they might not have experienced slavery. But for the child survivors, separated from their dead families and orphaned in a British cesspool of industrial racketeering, forced to dig canals for 16 hours per day-6 days per week, housed in such polluted dumps that they lost 20 years of lifespan from their (lucky?) Irish stay-homers....

Most Moderns would consider the lack of agency and horrible life conditions of these canal-digging refugees a variant of slavery.
#15175933
Tainari88 wrote:So this system is kind of nasty as well:

What do you think @Potemkin :


The effects of Bacon's Rebellion were, it seems to me, almost entirely negative. It led to a more aggressive and ruthless approach to the Native Americans, and it deepened the racial divide in the plantation society of Virginia. The same can said, of course, for the American Revolution itself.
#15176069
The American Revolution was a decisive moment that enabled America to free itself from British colonial rule and to build national and cultural identities becoming the number one power in the world.
On the other hand unlike America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand de facto remain British colonies in a new empire called the Commonwealth with the British monarch as a head of these puppet "states", without the ability to develop either a cultural or national identity.
One of the greatest intellectuals of the 20th century, Robert Hughes, wrote in his book "The Fatal Shore" about his country of birth: "Australia is spatially huge, culturally tiny and politically insignificant", which definitely applies to Canada and New Zealand.
Last edited by Russianbear on 07 Jun 2021 07:19, edited 1 time in total.
#15176071
Potemkin wrote:Granted. But even prisoners of war and dissidents are not chattel slaves. It may be a rather subtle distinction, especially if you happened to be one of those Irish prisoners, but it's a real distinction nonetheless. And they were not enslaved or imprisoned because of the colour of their skin, but because they had fought against the British Crown. Whether they were justified in doing so or not is a separate issue. I can't deny that. Lol. :)



The Irish government has a historical and moral right to seek compensation
from the British for genocide and heinous crimes committed against the Irish people.
Last edited by Russianbear on 07 Jun 2021 03:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15176073

Chapter 5: A KIND OF REVOLUTION

The American victory over the British army was made possible by the existence of an already- armed people. Just about every white male had a gun, and could shoot. The Revolutionary leadership distrusted the mobs of poor. But they knew the Revolution had no appeal to slaves and Indians. They would have to woo the armed white population.

This was not easy. Yes, mechanics and sailors, some others, were incensed against the British. But general enthusiasm for the war was not strong. While much of the white male population went into military service at one time or another during the war, only a small fraction stayed. John Shy, in his study of the Revolutionary army (A People Numerous and Armed), says they "grew weary of being bullied by local committees of safety, by corrupt deputy assistant commissaries of supply, and by bands of ragged strangers with guns in their hands calling themselves soldiers of the Revolution." Shy estimates that perhaps a fifth of the population was actively treasonous. John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral.

Alexander Hamilton, an aide of George Washington and an up-and-coming member of the new elite, wrote from his headquarters: ". . . our countrymen have all the folly of the ass and all the passiveness of the sheep... . They are determined not to be free.. . . If we are saved, France and Spain must save us."

Slavery got in the way in the South. South Carolina, insecure since the slave uprising in Stono in 1739, could hardly fight against the British; her militia had to be used to keep slaves under control.

The men who first joined the colonial militia were generally "hallmarks of respectability or at least of full citizenship" in their communities, Shy says. Excluded from the militia were friendly Indians, free Negroes, white servants, and free white men who had no stable home. But desperation led to the recruiting of the less respectable whites. Massachusetts and Virginia provided for drafting "strollers" (vagrants) into the militia. In fact, the military became a place of promise for the poor, who might rise in rank, acquire some money, change their social status.



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html
#15176078
late wrote:The indenture was an agreed upon term of service.

That's not slavery, although it's not far from slavery.

You prob won't understand this, but you have stumbled into an intellectual civil war. For historians, the details are the most important thing. For people doing political science, they don't care about the details, they want to draw broad generalisations. Poli Sci guys and historians are always giving each other a hard time, mostly light heartedly, but not always.

That's not at all relevant, but I found it interesting.

In any case, the devil is in the details...


The real devil in the details is that indentured servants were treated like crap because they were the equivalent of leasing a piece of equipment. You don't take care of leased equipment as good as your own. Indentured servants were treated worse and the majority were treated badly enough that they didn't live long enough to pay off their contract. They began as poor people living a shitty life and died in debt without ever having tasted Freedom.

In the United States, fewer than 25 percent of black slaves ever picked cotton. On average, they were fed better, lived in better housing, had better clothes, and lived longer than their blue collar, white skin contemporaries. The dishonest political propaganda prostitutes will be here shortly to claim that the truth is some kind of defense of slavery. It's and effective deflection to keep from putting history into its proper perspective.
#15176089
The Resister wrote:The real devil in the details is that indentured servants were treated like crap because they were the equivalent of leasing a piece of equipment. You don't take care of leased equipment as good as your own. Indentured servants were treated worse and the majority were treated badly enough that they didn't live long enough to pay off their contract. They began as poor people living a shitty life and died in debt without ever having tasted Freedom.

In the United States, fewer than 25 percent of black slaves ever picked cotton. On average, they were fed better, lived in better housing, had better clothes, and lived longer than their blue collar, white skin contemporaries. The dishonest political propaganda prostitutes will be here shortly to claim that the truth is some kind of defense of slavery. It's and effective deflection to keep from putting history into its proper perspective.

Yeah, those black slaves had it easy back in the day. They probably spent all their time chewing on watermelons and dancing to fiddle music. I dunno what their descendants are whining about. Not like white people - now they had it bad. Even now, middle-class white men are the most abused and oppressed minority in the world. We get put upon and blamed for everything! And don't get me started on 'positive discrimination'.... The sufferings of the white race is the worst tragedy in all of history! What about me? Won't anyone feel sorry for me? For me??!! :*( :*(
#15176091
The genocide against the Australian Aborigines was systematically committed by the Anglo-Saxon (English) population, and we cannot blame the French, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc. for this terrible crime.
Despite all the undeniable historical facts, there is the latest trend of revisionist historical generalization in the Australian and New Zealand media, and even in their academic circles, where "Europeans" and "whites" are responsible for this crime, not to mention the British colonial empire.
The Australian government* also relatively recently introduced the term Australian "Anglo-Celtic" population, which is nothing more than a very cunning attempt by the genocidal British elite to shift the blame for their crimes even to its Irish victims.
The term Australian "Anglo-Celtic" population is morally and factually unacceptable.
There is evidence of a large number of crimes and retaliation against the Irish by the Anglo-Saxons in Australia, where the Irish have long been considered second-class citizens.
Marriages between Irish and English were relatively rare compared to marriages between Irish, Italians, French and other Catholics.
It should also be noted that unlike the Anglo-Saxons (British), the Irish are generally not racists and did not hesitate to marry the indigenous Australian people.

Note:
* Unfortunately, unlike America, Australia de facto to this day remains a British colony with a British flag and a British monarch as Australian head of state, who is (in accordance with Australian constitution) de jure "Above the Law" , which, among other things, prevents Australia from developing its own cultural and national identity.
Last edited by Russianbear on 07 Jun 2021 08:52, edited 2 times in total.
#15176092
Russianbear wrote:The genocide against the Australian Aborigines was systematically committed by the Anglo-Saxon (English) population, and we cannot blame the French, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc. for this terrible crime.
Despite all the undeniable historical facts, there is the latest trend of revisionist historical generalization in the Australian and New Zealand media, and even in their academic circles, where "Europeans" and "whites" are responsible for this crime, not to mention the British colonial empire.
The Australian "government" also relatively recently introduced the term Australian "Anglo-Celtic population", which is nothing more than a very cunning attempt by the genocidal British elite to shift the blame for their crimes even to its Irish victims.
The term "Australian-Celtic population" is morally and factually unacceptable.
There is evidence of a large number of crimes and retaliation against the Irish by the Anglo-Saxons in Australia, where the Irish have long been considered second-class citizens.
Marriages between Irish and English were relatively rare compared to marriages between Irish, Italians, French and other Catholics.
It should also be noted that unlike the Anglo-Saxons (British), the Irish are generally not racists and did not hesitate to marry the indigenous Australian people.

Note:
Unfortunately, unlike America, Australia de facto to this day remains a British colony with a British flag and a British monarch, who is de jure "Above the Law" as Australian head of state, which, among other things, prevents Australia from developing its own cultural and national identity.

If you want to hate on the British Empire, then fine. Like most empires throughout human history, it was a brutal genocidal assault on humanity. But why cloud the issue by using it as cover to downplay and excuse the sufferings of black slaves in the USA? You've seen what kind of people have piled into this thread to "agree" with you. Doesn't that make you pause for thought...? :eh:
#15176093
Potemkin wrote:If you want to hate on the British Empire, then fine. Like most empires throughout human history, it was a brutal genocidal assault on humanity. But why cloud the issue by using it as cover to downplay and excuse the sufferings of black slaves in the USA? You've seen what kind of people have piled into this thread to "agree" with you. Doesn't that make you pause for thought...? :eh:


It has nothing to do with hatred, but with historical and other facts.
It is morally unacceptable to build political correctness on cowardly concealment of the truth.
#15176099
Russianbear wrote:It has nothing to do with hatred, but with historical and other facts.
It is morally unacceptable to build political correctness on cowardly concealment of the truth.

The indentured servitude of some of the Irish and other whites is often used by American racists to downplay or even to justify the enslavement of blacks. This thread is proof of that. You are playing into the hands of these racists.

I repeat: you are correct to attack the British Empire - it was one of the most brutal and destructive empires in human history. But there are better ways of doing that.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 26

Demand? Or else...what? What is it you will do […]

A Few Tools for Your Computer

Bitdefender traditional signature based anti-malwa[…]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

You miss the point. The question is, does he dese[…]

I don't know what the "foreign affairs es[…]