First British slaves in America were Irish - Page 6 - 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.
#15176850
The Resister wrote: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.


Yes, the author also provides no sources for any of this.

This is probably why the author got the number of prisoners wrong by a whole order of magnitude.

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).


Then we agree that this first paragraph is irrelevant since it does not deal with slavery of Irish people in the USA or the British colonies that later formed the USA.

This next paragraph is also mostly irrelevant:

    In 1625, an offical Proclaimination ordered for Irish prisoners to get rounded up and sold as slaves to English Planters. Between 1629 and 1632 a large numbers of Irish, men and women, were sent to Guiana, Antiqua and Montserrat. By 1637 approx 69% of the population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.Negro slaves had to be purchased, 20 to 50 pound sterling, Irish slaves were captured and sold for 900 pounds of cotton. The Irish became the largest source of slaves for English slave traders

What was the name of the proclamation?

The throne issued 3 proclamations about the colonies in the Americas that year:

1. A PROCLAMATION FOR THE UTTER PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION AND USE OF ALL TOBACCO, WHICH IS NOT OF THE PROPER GROWTH OF THE COLONIES OF VIRGINIA AND THE SUMMER ISLANDS, OR ONE OF THEM.
2. A PROCLAMATION TOUCHING TOBACCO.
3. A PROCLAMATION FOR SETLING THE PLANTATION OF VIRGINIA.

(Sorry for the all caps but that is how it is written in the historical source:
https://archive.org/details/royalprocla ... ew=theater )

Having read them quickly, I see nothing about Irish slaves. But if you tell me which one it is, I promise to reread it carefully. Thanks!
#15176856
Potemkin wrote: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?


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


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.


What a damnable LIE! Have you no integrity whatsoever? Have you read this thread? I've dealt with both slavery AND indentured servitude.
#15176859
The Resister wrote:What a damnable LIE! Have you no integrity whatsoever? Have you read this thread? I've dealt with both slavery AND indentured servitude.

Indeed you have, and you have asserted that they are the same thing. In fact, you went further, and asserted that income tax and slavery are essentially the same thing too. Is there anything else you like to equate to slavery, while you're at it? Hmm? :)
#15176860
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the author also provides no sources for any of this.

This is probably why the author got the number of prisoners wrong by a whole order of magnitude.



Then we agree that this first paragraph is irrelevant since it does not deal with slavery of Irish people in the USA or the British colonies that later formed the USA.

This next paragraph is also mostly irrelevant:

    In 1625, an offical Proclaimination ordered for Irish prisoners to get rounded up and sold as slaves to English Planters. Between 1629 and 1632 a large numbers of Irish, men and women, were sent to Guiana, Antiqua and Montserrat. By 1637 approx 69% of the population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.Negro slaves had to be purchased, 20 to 50 pound sterling, Irish slaves were captured and sold for 900 pounds of cotton. The Irish became the largest source of slaves for English slave traders

What was the name of the proclamation?

The throne issued 3 proclamations about the colonies in the Americas that year:

1. A PROCLAMATION FOR THE UTTER PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION AND USE OF ALL TOBACCO, WHICH IS NOT OF THE PROPER GROWTH OF THE COLONIES OF VIRGINIA AND THE SUMMER ISLANDS, OR ONE OF THEM.
2. A PROCLAMATION TOUCHING TOBACCO.
3. A PROCLAMATION FOR SETLING THE PLANTATION OF VIRGINIA.

(Sorry for the all caps but that is how it is written in the historical source:
https://archive.org/details/royalprocla ... ew=theater )

Having read them quickly, I see nothing about Irish slaves. But if you tell me which one it is, I promise to reread it carefully. Thanks!


I thought you had something. Where is your argument? You find a source that disputes what my source says and you are 100 percent right? What if it is YOUR source that is wrong?

This should help you:



Check out the description of the book.
#15176861
Potemkin wrote:Indeed you have, and you have asserted that they are the same thing. In fact, you went further, and asserted that income tax and slavery are essentially the same thing too. Is there anything else you like to equate to slavery, while you're at it? Hmm? :)


Intellectual dishonesty is not a way to have an intelligent discussion. Please try to present something that is worthy of a response.
#15176863
The Resister wrote:I thought you had something. Where is your argument? You find a source that disputes what my source says and you are 100 percent right? What if it is YOUR source that is wrong?

This should help you:



Check out the description of the book.


The book description mentions that it was done by James I. James I died on March 27, 1625.

Therefore, it would have to be before that date. This means it would have to be the first one; the one about only buying Virginia tobacco.

So I reread that one.

There is absolutely no mention of Irish people or slavery in that proclamation.
#15176866
Pants-of-dog wrote:The book description mentions that it was done by James I. James I died on March 27, 1625.

Therefore, it would have to be before that date. This means it would have to be the first one; the one about only buying Virginia tobacco.

So I reread that one.

There is absolutely no mention of Irish people or slavery in that proclamation.


What dumbassery! Look, if you want an intelligent conversation, post something intelligent. Any dumb ass here can read the description of that book's contents and realize that your objection was answered without even having to read the damn book. Gee freaking whiz. If your next post is as idiotic as that one, don't expect a reply. Your IQ must be larger than your shoe size to have a real conversation.
#15176868
@The Resister


The 'Irish slaves' myth is a pseudohistorical narrative peddled by American white supremacists.

Are you one of them?


:lol:
#15176874
Yeah, this whole thread is somewhat pointless.

The Irish got fucked over but eventually made the trek from 'papist pseudo-whites' to 'generic white Americans'. The Chinese got even worse fucked over when the great railroads were built by largely these two groups. And the Black Americans got it worse than anyone except maybe the Native Americans.

History is grim reminder of who we are. We should embrace it all. The good, the bad and the very ugly.

If the Irish were slaves, does this make slavery ok? I guess it is about not making it into a big deal? A few things happened after slavery was abolished that kind of continued fucking Black Americans over... :eh:
#15176875
@The Resister

Pants-of-dog wrote:The only proclamation made by James I in 1625 was about...

The other two would be Charles I, and still, no Irish slaves mentioned.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 15 Jun 2021 15:20, edited 1 time in total.
#15176886
In other words, it's the usual neo-Confederacy bullshit. When will these bastards finally get over losing the Civil War? :roll:
#15176891
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."

I'm reading through this thread, and I think @The Resister has made good points (which isn't to say I necessarily agree with all of them, but he supports his arguments), and his writing is fine.

You know, there are 'rules' in a sense to writing mainstream economics. And I do all in my power not to follow any of these 'rules' when I write about economics.

I have a minor in history, too. I have read plenty of history.

The prose style is not what makes a good analysis.

Step off your high horse, @late. This post is very poor form.
#15176893
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 read in a required reading book in, perhaps it was a critical thinking class when I first started college, a line to the effect "one can master any subject through reading."

There are many self-taught historians.

And being dismissive of someone for not following the essay writing guidelines for the sophomores at a particular university where you spent time, in whatever capacity it was, is really, really poor attempt at deflection (and transparently so).
#15176894
@Crantag

What are the good points in his arguments, and, by the bye, why do you think spurious sources support an argument?


:eh:
#15176898
Crantag wrote:I read in a required reading book in, perhaps it was a critical thinking class when I first started college, a line to the effect "one can master any subject through reading."

There are many self-taught historians.

And being dismissive of someone for not following the essay writing guidelines for the sophomores at a particular university where you spent time, in whatever capacity it was, is really, really poor attempt at deflection (and transparently so).

This isn't just a matter of writing style or presentation, @Crantag. @The Resister is peddling fake history; and when he is challenged on it, he becomes abusive.
#15176900
Potemkin wrote:This isn't just a matter of writing style or presentation, @Crantag. @The Resister is peddling fake history; and when he is challenged on it, he becomes abusive.


I agree with you on what he's doing, but I also think @Crantag has a point regarding style.

I think though it would be better for @The Resister to either step his game up on actual sources or concede the one he provided is just inaccurate. Where are the primary sources showing the Irish were sent as chattel slaves to America by the British? And I mean good, accurate ones.
#15176906
ingliz wrote:@The Resister


The 'Irish slaves' myth is a pseudohistorical narrative peddled by American white supremacists.

Are you one of them?


:lol:


I saw that on Google too. Anything the left doesn't like is a myth and anybody that denies historical fact on this issue thinks they cornered the market on the truth.
#15176908
wat0n wrote:I agree with you on what he's doing, but I also think @Crantag has a point regarding style.

I think though it would be better for @The Resister to either step his game up on actual sources or concede the one he provided is just inaccurate. Where are the primary sources showing the Irish were sent as chattel slaves to America by the British? And I mean good, accurate ones.


NONE of you have read my first primary source which goes in depth to quote from original sources be it statutes, ordinances, Charters, and historical books that delve deep into the subject. You cannot judge the book by the cover. IF anyone is truly interested they can read the books and see if you are blowing smoke or you have something. If you aren't going to read the book, the only things you are after is that which supports your erroneous theory.

For me it is more about human misery and suffering - something that you think is irrelevant if you get to make some minor chickenshit point about which James issued a piece of paper. OMG at the nitpicking in order to justify hatred of White people!
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 26

Hong Kong (CNN)In January 2013, months after taki[…]

July 27, Monday Minor affairs take place near […]

Problem with the quarantine is that it damages the[…]

@late What's the point of staying here if we […]