[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n
@QatzelOk

The negative claim has been supported.

The claim is that there is no records of Irish slaves arriving. These records would exist in the Virginia archives from the time. A seacrh was done in said archives. No evidence was found. Therefore, the claim is true.

[wat0n]

@wat0n
@QatzelOk

The negative claim has been supported.

The claim is that there is no records of Irish slaves arriving. These records would exist in the Virginia archives from the time. A seacrh was done in said archives. No evidence was found. Therefore, the claim is true.

So let me see if I get this right. You claim that there are no records of Irish slaves arriving, however, you admit it's possible their supposed arrival was not recorded?

What do you have to say about the central idea of Irish being the first British slaves in American colonies? "Slaves" as in being subjected to chattel slavery, not indentured servitude.

[Pants-of-dog]

So let me see if I get this right. You claim that there are no records of Irish slaves arriving, however, you admit it's possible their supposed arrival was not recorded?

Yes, exactly.

What do you have to say about the central idea of Irish being the first British slaves in American colonies? "Slaves" as in being subjected to chattel slavery, not indentured servitude.

Again, I have already presented the evidence.

The evidence suggests that some Angolan slaves that were stolen from a Portuguese boat and taken off the boat in Virginia in 1619 were the first chattel slaves in the British colonies that later became the USA.

[wat0n]

Again, I have already presented the evidence.

The evidence suggests that some Angolan slaves that were stolen from a Portuguese boat and taken off the boat in Virginia in 1619 were the first chattel slaves in the British colonies that later became the USA.

Makes sense, but that claim is dependent on assuming that no Irish slaves were interned without registration. Am I correct here?

I think it's a reasonable assumption, since slaves were not cheap so it makes sense for slaveowners to defend what was effectively their property. So why not just say there is no evidence Irish slaves were the British slaves to be brought into America and have those who disagree provide evidence of the contrary?

[Pants-of-dog]

Makes sense, but that claim is dependent on assuming that no Irish slaves were interned without registration. Am I correct here?

I think it's a reasonable assumption, since slaves were not cheap so it makes sense for slaveowners to defend what was effectively their property. So why not just say there is no evidence Irish slaves were the British slaves to be brought into America and have those who disagree provide evidence of the contrary?

I presented the evidence here:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=180533&start=40#p15176378

I made the claim that you just mentioned in slightly different words here:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=180533&start=60#p15176452

So far, no one has presented any evidence to the contrary.

[QatzelOk]

@wat0n
@QatzelOk

The negative claim has been supported.

The claim is that there is no records of Irish slaves arriving. These records would exist in the Virginia archives from the time. A seacrh was done in said archives. No evidence was found. Therefore, the claim is true.

There is a very narrow definition of "slavery" and there is also a great shame in having ever been a "slave" or other euphemism for "being the human pet of another human."

That you are unable to see just how vague the word "slave" is, and that you are unable to see that there was a great pressure to NOT record Irish slavery, means that this whole thread is a boring exercise in competitive word definitions and "looking only at official records."

I'm not surprised that Pants prefers this thread to something more interesting like "How can we get rid of nepotism and capitalism?"

A thread like that one - which asks that the reader use his imagination and creativity - can't be simply "settled" over tea and crumpets with officious windbags.

*takes a chug of absinthe and stares at an "official" portrait of the Queen*

[late]

There is a very narrow definition of "slavery" and there is also a great shame in having ever been a "slave" or other euphemism for "being the human pet of another human."

That you are unable to see just how vague the word "slave" is, and that you are unable to see that there was a great pressure to NOT record Irish slavery, means that this whole thread is a boring exercise in competitive word definitions and "looking only at official records."

I'm not surprised that Pants prefers this thread to something more interesting like "How can we get rid of nepotism and capitalism?"

A thread like that one - which asks that the reader use his imagination and creativity - can't be simply "settled" over tea and crumpets with officious windbags.

*takes a chug of absinthe and stares at an "official" portrait of the Queen*

In the usual course of events, I leave you and your excesses alone.

But...since you are trying to define the definition, so to speak, what exactly is slavery to you?

Capitalism changed slavery, and not for the better. Which brings me back to something I said much earlier in this goofball thread, history is all about the details.

If you want to make broad generalisations, you are doing poli sci, or some such thing. But the thing about poli sci, is they don't get to rewrite history. Let's just say historians and social scientists have an awkward relationship...

[QatzelOk]

what exactly is slavery to you?

It is the lot of the "inferior" classes in a society based on specialization and exploitation of all sorts.

...history is all about the details.

If you want to make broad generalisations, you are doing poli sci, or some such thing. But the thing about poli sci, is they don't get to rewrite history...

The most important *detail* in this thread is the definition of "slavery."

Rather than attempting to define the negative components of all human slavery (which requires free thought and creativity), the active posters are using *official documents* to try to establish *a taxonomy of human suffering* in which *African-slavery in the USA* gets top honors. This allows them to return to whatever trend is currently ON TV.

1. They are doing this as a way of following the social and commercial media trends of the current times.

2. Which is a way of letting commerce structure your ideas.

3. This could be called "self-castrating interiorized repression."

4. Which is another form of (mental) slavery.

[late]

Blah, blah, blah...

Good grief.

[Potemkin]

Good grief.

That's just @QatzelOk being @QatzelOk. Don't worry, you'll get used to it.

[ckaihatsu]

Qatzel found a way to combine the Frankfurt School with Third Worldism, and added a splash of The Matrix.

[wat0n]

And also a deconstruction of the term "slave". Y'all got Qatz'd.

[ckaihatsu]

* Unplug, people!! *


= D

[The Resister]

@The Resister

I am finding a fair amount of errors in that PDF you cited. Would you like to discuss them?

Only if you admit when YOUR sources are laden with errors.

[Unthinking Majority]

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.

I find it interesting that the more politically controversial a subject, the harder it is to find good information on it. It all becomes spin. And speaking out against the established PC narrative becomes heresy. You look at climate science, and it's all politicized, even the peer journals are politicized, which is sad. (btw I do believe that AGW is happening)

That's why i'm not offended by ie: holocaust deniers. They might be totally wrong, and have bad intentions, but i think people have a right to look like a fool in front of their peers.

[Unthinking Majority]

Let's say there were even Irish chattel slaves and they came to the US before black slaves. Ok so what? Most Irishman who came to America before 1965 weren't slaves, Irish people didn't live under the Black Codes and Jim Crow, and extremely few Irish people in the US are descendants of Irish-American slaves. There's no comparison of the scale of the suffering or discrimination. This is a really dumb thread.

[Pants-of-dog]

Only if you admit when YOUR sources are laden with errors.

Let me know if you find any.

Your source starts with the following paragraph:

After the Battle of Kinsale 1601, the English had captured some 30,000 military prisoners, and thus created an official policy of banishment, or transportation. James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement on the Amazon River, in 1612.

James II crowned king in 1685. He was not born until 1633, which is 21 years after the first Irish slaves were sold. It is logical to assume that the author intended to write James I, who became king in 1603, shortly after the siege of Kinsale.

James I (or more correctly VI&I) did not seem to harbour any ill will to Irish people in general, nor could I find any historical sources that corroborate this claim of 30,000 prisoners. It seems highly unlikely that they were military prisoners, since there were only 6,000 Irish soldiers in that battle. Other sources claim about 3,400 Irish soldiers were captured.

As far as I can tell, there was no policy of banishment or transportation. It seems a bunch of Irish earls used this period to escape to Spain, and their lands got confiscated. It is very possible that the peasants who worked this land were then sold by the English lords who took these lands over, but it seems they could have also just worked then in Ireland.

Finally, slavery had existed in Ireland for centuries prior to this, so the. first recorded sale of Irish slaves probably happened whenever the Gaelic people achieved numeracy, whenever that was. The latest it would have conceivably happened was during the Roman invasions, since the Romans would have brought numeracy with them.

Should we look at the second paragraph?

[The Resister]

Let me know if you find any.

Your source starts with the following paragraph:

After the Battle of Kinsale 1601, the English had captured some 30,000 military prisoners, and thus created an official policy of banishment, or transportation. James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement on the Amazon River, in 1612.

James II crowned king in 1685. He was not born until 1633, which is 21 years after the first Irish slaves were sold. It is logical to assume that the author intended to write James I, who became king in 1603, shortly after the siege of Kinsale.

James I (or more correctly VI&I) did not seem to harbour any ill will to Irish people in general, nor could I find any historical sources that corroborate this claim of 30,000 prisoners. It seems highly unlikely that they were military prisoners, since there were only 6,000 Irish soldiers in that battle. Other sources claim about 3,400 Irish soldiers were captured.

As far as I can tell, there was no policy of banishment or transportation. It seems a bunch of Irish earls used this period to escape to Spain, and their lands got confiscated. It is very possible that the peasants who worked this land were then sold by the English lords who took these lands over, but it seems they could have also just worked then in Ireland.

Finally, slavery had existed in Ireland for centuries prior to this, so the. first recorded sale of Irish slaves probably happened whenever the Gaelic people achieved numeracy, whenever that was. The latest it would have conceivably happened was during the Roman invasions, since the Romans would have brought numeracy with them.

Should we look at the second paragraph?

So far, you've not written anything that would change the facts concerning slavery. An author says James I instead of James II? How does that change the balance of what the law were? Then your "As far as I can tell" is predicated upon what you THINK personally, but provide NO primary sources to back your argument.

Next, I have stated over and over and over again that slavery existed long before this argument about Irish slaves - especially slavery in America (which is what this topic is about and where you are losing your bearings).

[late]

This is a really dumb thread.

Goofy, even.

[Potemkin]

So far, you've not written anything that would change the facts concerning slavery. An author says James I instead of James II? How does that change the balance of what the law were?

History is about the details. It has been demonstrated that the details in your source are wildly wrong. Why, therefore, should we take it seriously as a work of historiography?

Then your "As far as I can tell" is predicated upon what you THINK personally, but provide NO primary sources to back your argument.

Sources, whether primary or secondary, should at least get basic facts right.

Next, I have stated over and over and over again that slavery existed long before this argument about Irish slaves - especially slavery in America (which is what this topic is about and where you are losing your bearings).

Slavery existed long before even England existed, let alone America. But most of that history is completely irrelevant to the nature of chattel slavery in North America. And I would submit that indentured servitude was not the same as chattel slavery, which was imposed only on African-Americans, was for life, and was inherited from the status of the child's mother. In fact, the John Punch law of 1640 was passed specifically to differentiate the two conditions - a differentiation which you are now trying to obfuscate.