First British slaves in America were Irish - Page 9 - 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.
#15177091
Not content with diluting the meaning of the word 'slavery' so that it ceases to mean anything significant, he feels the need to dilute the word 'genocide' so that it, too, ceases to mean anything significant. Because how else could he manage to portray the White race as the eternal victims of History? Lol.
#15177093
The Resister wrote:There aren't any professional historians here,


I think there are some people here on this forum with graduate degrees in history.

Whether or not that qualifies as “professional historian” to you will depend on your criteria.
#15177096
Potemkin wrote:Not content with diluting the meaning of the word 'slavery' so that it ceases to mean anything significant, he feels the need to dilute the word 'genocide' so that it, too, ceases to mean anything significant. Because how else could he manage to portray the White race as the eternal victims of History? Lol.


Indeed, the irony though is that the concept "White" itself has had its meaning diluted over time. Italians or the Irish weren't considered to be White (or fully White, at least) back in the day, after all.
#15177097
@The Resister

I know you like your sources cited. So if you are wondering how I arrived at the 12,000 toiling away clearing land in the 1630s and 40s, before the Irish involuntary indentured labourers arrived, the number can be found in Joanna Traynor's The Slave Codes and Devon Men: a significant contribution.

"Colleton emigrated to Barbados in 1650/1. He had made his first unseen purchase in the north of the island in 1647, off-plan so to speak. He quickly realised he needed at least 500 acres of land worked by slaves as a minimum required for the kinds of returns he was looking for. At this time, there were still around 12,000 white bound labourers at work on the island."


:)
#15177160
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think there are some people here on this forum with graduate degrees in history.

Whether or not that qualifies as “professional historian” to you will depend on your criteria.


Most of the people on discussion boards live on them, but they have degrees from Yale, Harvard , UCLA, most of them from the Sugar Hill Institute of Technology. S.H.I.T. is well known for its accredited degrees like the B.S. in Cow Manure and the M.S. (More of the Same) along with the world renowned PhD - Piled Higher and Deeper.

Give it a rest, dude. Give it a rest. I simply don't give a damn. You sound like a holocaust denier - and plenty of historians with credentials that would astound you contribute to that field. Do you believe them?
#15177161
Potemkin wrote:Not content with diluting the meaning of the word 'slavery' so that it ceases to mean anything significant, he feels the need to dilute the word 'genocide' so that it, too, ceases to mean anything significant. Because how else could he manage to portray the White race as the eternal victims of History? Lol.


History is cyclical and if pointing out historical parallels makes White people victims, then you should reread the post I did about the man who wasn't on this thread. White people are victims, but victims of their own making. Blacks in America have played the race card, Whites play it and so does anybody else that thinks they will get political brownie points.

You like denying people of Irish descent were ever slaves? That's on you. Stealing a candy bar and stealing a car are worlds apart, but they are still stealing. I don't think you can comprehend that. The kid who steals the candy bar is a thief and may go on to steal cars. Likewise, a free people who allow tyrants to tax them into oblivion will accept harsher forms of slavery gradually in incremental stages - the same way petty thieves become felons.
#15177164
The Resister wrote:Most of the people on discussion boards live on them, but they have degrees from Yale, Harvard , UCLA, most of them from the Sugar Hill Institute of Technology. S.H.I.T. is well known for its accredited degrees like the B.S. in Cow Manure and the M.S. (More of the Same) along with the world renowned PhD - Piled Higher and Deeper.

Give it a rest, dude. Give it a rest. I simply don't give a damn. You sound like a holocaust denier - and plenty of historians with credentials that would astound you contribute to that field. Do you believe them?


Please note that the source you presented does not have an author, as well as being factually incorrect.

So, it is doubtful that http://www.irisheyesofva.com/wp-content ... lavery.pdf was written by a historian.
#15177169
Pants-of-dog wrote: factually incorrect

You only have to look at the first paragraph to see what a shoddy piece of work it is.

Example: 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.

Of the 3,400 prisoners captured after the Siege of Kinsale, not one was transported to the West Indies.

After coming to terms, approximately 3,300 Spanish soldiers surrendered and were given passage back to Spain.

Very few Irish prisoners were taken, less than 100, by all accounts. And, by all accounts, all were summarily executed.

See John J. Silke, Spain and the Invasion of Ireland, 1601-2. Irish Historical Studies. Vol. 14, no. 56 (1965): 295-312.


Example: James II

Elizabeth I (1588-1603) methinks if such a policy was instituted after the Battle of Kinsale (1601).

O'Neill's Scots mercenaries had been expelled from the province in 1601, but not to the New World, and they were not Irish.

See Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Vol CCVII, pt 2, p91

In 1616, under James 1, six thousand Gaelic former soldiers were sent abroad into the Swedish service, but not to the Americas, and they eventually defected to Catholic Spain. To be followed by thousands of others, whose clan leaders were allowed to return to recruit them – so anxious were the English to get them out of Ireland.

See Padraig Lenihan, Consolidating Conquest, Ireland 1603-1727, p48


Example: "The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement on the Amazon River, in 1612."

From the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

...when at last the French ship reached the principal island of Sapanopoko, they found the shallop waiting for them, and the islanders prepared for their arrival. These islanders are described as "les Anglois et les Hirlandois".... both nations had settled on the island, and were exploiting its fertility for a common purpose... Here the diary notes briefly: habitation des Hirlandois... [On] a contemporary Dutch map, by Dutch writer Jan de Laet... the settlement is clearly marked, some miles up the river from the juncture with the Amazon.

— Aubrey Gwynn. An Irish Settlement on the Amazon. (1612-1629). Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. 41, 1932, pp. 1–54

There are no Irish slaves on the Amazon River in 1612, just free men growing tobacco and making their fortune.


Reasons for edits: To put a 'but' here and a ',' there and tidy formatting.
Last edited by ingliz on 17 Jun 2021 19:11, edited 2 times in total.
#15177245
ingliz wrote:You only have to look at the first paragraph to see what a shoddy piece of work it is.

Example: 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.

Of the 3,400 prisoners captured after the Siege of Kinsale, not one was transported to the West Indies.

After coming to terms, approximately 3,300 Spanish soldiers surrendered and were given passage back to Spain.

Very few Irish prisoners were taken, less than 100, by all accounts. And all were summarily executed.

See John J. Silke, Spain and the Invasion of Ireland, 1601-2. Irish Historical Studies. Vol. 14, no. 56 (1965): 295-312.


Example: James II

Elizabeth I (1588-1603) methinks if such a policy was instituted after the Battle of Kinsale (1601).

O'Neill's Scots mercenaries had been expelled from the province in 1601, but not to the New World, and they were not Irish.

See Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, Vol CCVII, pt 2, p91j

In 1616, under James 1, six thousand Gaelic former soldiers were sent abroad into the Swedish service, not to the Americas, and they eventually defected to Catholic Spain. To be followed by thousands of others, whose clan leaders were allowed to return to recruit them – so anxious were the English to get them out of Ireland.

See Padraig Lenihan, Consolidating Conquest, Ireland 1603-1727, p48


Example: "The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement on the Amazon River, in 1612."

From the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

...when at last the French ship reached the principal island of Sapanopoko, they found the shallop waiting for them, and the islanders prepared for their arrival. These islanders are described as "les Anglois et les Hirlandois".... both nations had settled on the island, and were exploiting its fertility for a common purpose... Here the diary notes briefly: habitation des Hirlandois... [On] a contemporary Dutch map, by Dutch writer Jan de Laet... the settlement is clearly marked, some miles up the river from the juncture with the Amazon.

— Aubrey Gwynn. An Irish Settlement on the Amazon. (1612-1629). Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. 41, 1932, pp. 1–54

There are no Irish slaves on the Amazon River in 1612, just free men growing tobacco and making their fortune.


If someone writes a book or an article and you agree with it, it is manna from Heaven, but if you disagree with it, it is shoddy work and not worthy of discussion. That is why this is not anything that approaches a civil discourse. You are all about attacking authors and personalities, but never focusing on the OP. The real question becomes, Who are you trying to convince - the posters or yourself? The difference between you and I is that I do not pretend to be able to evaluate the material for other posters. I encourage them to read ALL the various points of view and come to their own conclusions. You, on the other hand, don't think that posters are smart enough to come to their own conclusions so you join in mob rule to force your views down the rest of the posters throats.

At the end of the day, for you it's not about slavery, human suffering, or tyranny in general. It's about you forcing your views on others. It's easy to see you aren't too comfortable in your own position. You can't let it go. So, you continue to embarrass yourself. You and I are done here.
#15177246
"They came in the holds of overcrowded ships, packed in among cargo and animals. They were sold to others to work as hard and under as dismal conditions as their owners chose. They were taken to the West Indies, to Barbados, to the American colonies, and beyond. A familiar story, is it not? But these immigrants, derived of all personal freedom, were Irish, and their servitude started long before black slavery was common." The Irish Slaves: Slavery, indenture and Contract labor Among Irish Immigrants Paperback – October 28, 2010 by Rhetta Akamatsu



The basic argument comes down to semantics and understanding. Nothing more can be said about this subject.
#15177247
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think there are some people here on this forum with graduate degrees in history.

Wow. So these specialists can understand History, but they can't write about it.
That would require a degree in writing.

And they can't debate about History either.
That would require a degree in debating.

And even if they have a degree in Debating, they won't win unless they have another degree in making sensical arguments that are logical.

And even with all the degrees mentionned in this post, they will never have enough credentials to honestly express what they think. Transparency and HonestyTM often requires NO CONTACT WITH EDUCATION WHATSOEVER.

So your credentials-worshipping is actually self-defeating - like it's supposed to be.
#15177249
The Resister wrote:
If someone writes a book or an article and you agree with it, it is manna from Heaven, but if you disagree with it, it is shoddy work and not worthy of discussion. That is why this is not anything that approaches a civil discourse. You are all about attacking authors and personalities, but never focusing on the OP. The real question becomes, Who are you trying to convince - the posters or yourself? The difference between you and I is that I do not pretend to be able to evaluate the material for other posters. I encourage them to read ALL the various points of view and come to their own conclusions. You, on the other hand, don't think that posters are smart enough to come to their own conclusions so you join in mob rule to force your views down the rest of the posters throats.

At the end of the day, for you it's not about slavery, human suffering, or tyranny in general. It's about you forcing your views on others. It's easy to see you aren't too comfortable in your own position. You can't let it go. So, you continue to embarrass yourself. You and I are done here.



Earlier I said I would have to go to Boston (at least) to do a search for available documents and analysis.

It's a lot of work, and likely to lead a real historian to go to a number of libraries where such documents are available.

Which means you are both stuck.

A short cut is to dig up the SI (standard interpretation) for whatever is being discussed.

Someone pointed out that the Brits treated everyone, even their own, horribly back then. The full extent of this is not common knowledge.
#15177252
The Resister wrote:I encourage them to read ALL the various points of view and come to their own conclusions.

Then you won't mind them reading my posts and concluding you know fuck all about the role indentured labour played in the development of plantation slavery in British America.

I suggest you read White Servitude and Black Slavery in Barbados, 1627-1715 by Hilary McD. Beckles.

In a study of labour in early Barbados, Beckles adopts a Marxist perspective when describing the commodification of labour in “a market system of brutal servitude” for white bound labourers.

you continue to embarrass yourself

The only person embarrassing himself here is you.


:lol:
#15177292
ingliz wrote:Then you won't mind them reading my posts and concluding you know fuck all about the role indentured labour played in the development of plantation slavery in British America.

I suggest you read White Servitude and Black Slavery in Barbados, 1627-1715 by Hilary McD. Beckles.

In a study of labour in early Barbados, Beckles adopts a Marxist perspective when describing the commodification of labour in “a market system of brutal servitude” for white bound labourers.


The only person embarrassing himself here is you.


:lol:


I have he book in my library. I also have the others I've alluded to. I've weighed the evidence and you don't have anything except a forced view of history that has to silence people through intimidation. That pretty much sums up your argument. If you have to force people to buy into your B.S., it can't stand on is own merits. Another poster already killed your argument so we have nothing left to discuss except for me say screw you and your condescending attitude.
#15177305
The Resister wrote:Another poster already killed your argument, so we have nothing left to discuss

Which poster?

And what argument would that be? The legal distinctions between servants and slaves? Voluntary indenture and involuntary servitude? Chattel term bondage and chattel slavery? Contractual guarantees? Conditions for whites pre and post-1661? Numbers? Dates? Kings or Queens? Spanish prisoners and dead Irishmen? The Amazon?... The non-existence of Irish slaves in the Americas?

slavery

Conditions for white servants circa 1647.

[A]s discreeter and better natur’d men have come to rule there [Barbados], the servants lives have been much bettered; for now, [...] most of the servants lie in hamocks [sic] and in warm rooms, and when they come in wet, have shift of shirts and drawers … and are fed with bone meat twice or thrice a week.

— An Englishman who lived in Barbados from 1647 to 1650. Richard Ligon, A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados (pub. 1657).

Also, whites had some contractual rights, not many, but some, unlike the blacks who were subject to mutilation (nose-slitting), branding, and castration if they got too uppity. And, while it is true Cromwell petitioned for the Irish to be treated as black, Parliament forbade it.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 18 Jun 2021 18:59, edited 2 times in total.
#15177319
ingliz wrote:Which poster?

And what argument would that be? The legal distinctions between servants and slaves? Voluntary indenture and involuntary servitude? Chattel term bondage and chattel slavery? Contractual guarantees? Conditions for whites pre and post-1661? Numbers? Dates? Kings or Queens? Spanish prisoners and dead Irishmen? The Amazon?... The non-existence of Irish slaves in the Americas?


Conditions for white servants circa 1647.

[A]s discreeter and better natur’d men have come to rule there [Barbados], the servants lives have been much bettered; for now, [...] most of the servants lie in hamocks [sic] and in warm rooms, and when they come in wet, have shift of shirts and drawers … and are fed with bone meat twice or thrice a week.

— An Englishman who lived in Barbados from 1647 to 1650. Richard Ligon, A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados (pub. 1657).

Whites had some rights, not many, but some, unlike the blacks who were subject to mutilation (nose-slitting), branding, and castration if they got too uppity. And while it is true, Cromwell petitioned for the Irish to be treated as 'black', Parliament forbade it.


:)


The more important thing for you, being the nitpicker you are, is that much earlier in this thread I covered the fact that the majority of indentured servants didn't live long enough to fulfill their contracts due to the treatment they received. You like to cherry pick certain points in order to avoid the facts. Whites did not invent slavery according to the Black people themselves. So, if we're going to have ANYTHING resembling a conversation, your next post should be about something relevant or we're done. I learned a long time ago to never argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
#15177323
The Resister wrote:the majority of indentured servants didn't live long enough to fulfill their contracts due to the treatment they received.

Why do you think that relevant?

Life for the poor was nasty, brutish, and short at this time. A workingman was blessed if he lived past 30 in Europe.

Also, you are forgetting that the involuntary indentured Irish were rebels, guilty of capital crimes, and would have died a damn sight quicker if they had stayed in Ireland and not taken the pardon.


:)
#15177366
ingliz wrote:Why do you think that relevant?

Life for the poor was nasty, brutish, and short at this time. A workingman was blessed if he lived past 30 in Europe.

Also, you are forgetting that the involuntary indentured Irish were rebels, guilty of capital crimes, and would have died a damn sight quicker if they had stayed in Ireland and not taken the pardon.


:)


Were you aware that Black slaves were Blacks that were captured by their own race and sold to slavers? Do you realize that if the slavers had not bought those people, they would have become the main ingredient in a soup de jour by their own countrymen? I've never researched to find out what motivated some Blacks to sell their own countrymen into slavery and if you ask that question in Sierra Leone, you only get greeted with skepticism and silence.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 26

@SpecialOlympian It's funny how when the shoe[…]

@ThirdTerm I agree with you ThridTerm. If you […]

@SpecialOlympian You know what gets me SO. If […]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

Profit is determined by the demand for investme[…]