Interesting wee read on Ireland's Slave history.

Hagar7

God bless them all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But are we talking about African slavery? King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbour.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.

Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.

Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped, branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more, in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is also little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.#

In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded this chapter of Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

But, why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims not merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be the one that their English masters intended: To completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

retalivity

Aintnobodygottimeforthat.jpeg

Hagar7

retalivity wrote: »

Aintnobodygottimeforthat.jpeg

Thatsnotmyfaultifyoucantbebotheredaboutit.jpeg

jimgoose

Yes yes, we knew all that - didn't you get the telegram from Whitehall apologising for all that slavery malarkey, and informing you that you were wu'th eight hund'd dollahs down'n Awlans?

Hagar7

jimgoose wrote: »

Yes yes, we knew all that - didn't you get the telegram from Whitehall apologising for all that slavery malarkey, and informing you that you were wu'th eight hund'd dollahs down'n Awlans?

Er,no.

The Backwards Man

And the first country to abolish slavery was?

There's no story like a whole story. The world was a whole other place in the 1600s than it is now.

emigrate2012

Jess that's fcukin shocking, never heard that before.

circadian

Why so bold?

Nichard Dixon

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And the first country to abolish slavery was?

Denmark?

There's no story like a whole story. The world was a whole other place in the 1600s than it is now.

Some people are still trying to keep 17th century projects going, projects from that period such as the plantation of Ulster or suppression of the Irish language.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Any chance we might get a few quid in reparations?

Eugene Norman

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And the first country to abolish slavery was?

There's no story like a whole story. The world was a whole other place in the 1600s than it is now.

Ireland under st Patrick?

Funny enough the Normans abolished slavery in Britain but it was introduced back by Elizabeth et al. to populate the colonies.

The Backwards Man

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Ireland under st Patrick?

Funny enough the Normans abolished slavery in Britain but it was introduced back by Elizabeth et al. to populate the colonies.

Aye there was a lot of abolishing and reintroducing over the centuries alright, and I think it might have been some of the Nordic countries that first abolished it for good, but my point is that for all the anti English tirades masquerading as a thread, the OP picked the wrong one as regards slavery, most world powers were much much more savage.

masti123

For those interested, Damien Dempsey wrote a great song on this topic called "To Hell or Barbados". 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLLH1i5_LlQ

.

masti123

Also, "The Black Irish of Montserrat"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QHYFXDGf4Y

.

RobertKK

I knew of this, and the English said Catholics could be slaves as they were not Christian.

St Patrick's day is a public holiday on Montserrat.

R P McMurphy

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Aye there was a lot of abolishing and reintroducing over the centuries alright, and I think it might have been some of the Nordic countries that first abolished it for good, but my point is that for all the anti English tirades masquerading as a thread, the OP picked the wrong one as regards slavery, most world powers were much much more savage.

What exactly is your point. The post is a link to a book on the white slavery trade. Are you disputing what is presented in the extract?

Yodeling Snake

Hagar7 wrote: »

God bless them all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

........

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

That's a really interesting share Hagar. Ta

The Backwards Man

R P McMurphy wrote: »

What exactly is your point. The post is a link to a book on the white slavery trade. Are you disputing what is presented in the extract?

Nope, I'm disputing the intentions of the OP.

All slavery is bad. End of.

You don't be long getting into glass houses and stones territory when you start the slavery blame game.

the dark phantom

The Bank Of England funded Cromwell's antics in Ireland.

Nichard Dixon

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Aye there was a lot of abolishing and reintroducing over the centuries alright, and I think it might have been some of the Nordic countries that first abolished it for good, but my point is that for all the anti English tirades masquerading as a thread, the OP picked the wrong one as regards slavery, most world powers were much much more savage.

Well the Scandinavians were also known for carrying off Irish women as sex slaves to found Iceland. Many things happened in the past, which isn't relevant to the present unless those concerned approve of the past and are trying to keep it going in the present.

The Backwards Man

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Well the Scandinavians were also known for carrying off Irish women as sex slaves to found Iceland. Many things happened in the past, which isn't relevant to the present unless those concerned approve of the past and are trying to keep it going in the present.

Indeed.

Yodeling Snake

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Aye there was a lot of abolishing and reintroducing over the centuries alright, and I think it might have been some of the Nordic countries that first abolished it for good, but my point is that for all the anti English tirades masquerading as a thread, the OP picked the wrong one as regards slavery, most world powers were much much more savage.

Yourself and Cromwell would have been great mates I'd say. Sure when you think of it there was no harm in it all really. They probably deserved to be enslaved stupid bloody Catholic Irish. John Pilger on Australia: never have so many suffered under the moon to bring about this great nation. White slavery. That's not an exact quote but words to that affect.

Azalea

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Nope, I'm disputing the intentions of the OP.

All slavery is bad. End of.

You don't be long getting into glass houses and stones territory when you start the slavery blame game.

Where's the blame game or indication that this slavery is worse than any other slavery? It's just telling us about a specific slavery - that of Irish people, which makes sense on an Irish discussion board.

I don't understand why you're inferring stuff that's not apparent.

There'd be no throwing stones from glasshouses - unless any of the critics of slavery on this thread are secretly slave-traders!

The Backwards Man

Yodeling Snake wrote: »

Yourself and Cromwell would have been great mates I'd say. Sure when you think of it there was no harm in it all really. They probably deserved to be enslaved stupid bloody Catholic Irish. John Pilger on Australia: never have so many suffered under the moon to bring about this great nation. White slavery. That's not an exact quote but words to that affect.

Yep that's exactly what I said. Well done

Azalea wrote: »

Where's the blame game or indication that this slavery is worse than any other slavery? It's just telling us about a specific slavery - that of Irish people, which makes sense on an Irish discussion board.

I don't understand why you're inferring stuff that's not apparent.

There'd be no throwing stones from glasshouses - unless any of the critics of slavery on this thread are secretly slave-traders!

It's a 'Fuk Da Brits' thread, and any discussion about slavery and the hundreds of thousands of Irish that suffered it's horrible end, not to mention the thousands that profited from it, is purely incidental.

Junkyard Tom

The Backwards Man wrote: »

the slavery blame game.

There is no game. If you engaged in wholesale slavery you're to blame and the slaves aren't - it's that simple.

The Backwards Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There is no game. If you engaged in wholesale slavery you're to blame and the slaves aren't - it's that simple.

Exactly me oul mucker.;)

MakeEmLaugh

Hagar7 wrote: »

Interesting wee read on Ireland's Slave history

Interesting, but not universally accepted as fact.

Liam Hogan, a historian from Limerick, has said that the distinction must be made between black African slaves and white Irish indentured servants.

You can read more about it here, but I'll give you a few quotes.

It was with a heavy heart and no small amount of anger that I decided it was necessary to write a public refutation of the insidious myth that the Irish were once chattel slaves in the British colonies.

We know that Europeans who were forcibly deported from England, Scotland and Ireland to the Caribbean in the mid-17th century cannot be accurately described as “slaves.” They were indentured servants.

• Colonial servitude was temporary.
• Colonial slavery was perpetual and hereditary: the children of slaves were the property of their owner.

The ‘Irish slaves’ myth is also a convenient focal point for nationalist histories as it obscures the critically underwritten story of how so many Irish people, whether Gaelic, Hiberno-Norman or Anglo-Irish, benefited from the Atlantic slave trade and other colonial exploits in multiple continents for hundreds of years.

The Backwards Man

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Interesting, but not universally accepted as fact.

Liam Hogan, a historian from Limerick, has said that the distinction must be made between black African slaves and white Irish indentured servants.

You can read more about it here, but I'll give you a few quotes.

Indentured is a fancy word for enslavement in fairness, it's all servitude.

Even the hiring fairs, which my own granny was a victim of in the 1930s when the Free State was well established, were a form of servitude. That's not even a hundred years ago and she always spoke highly of her 'employer' as he didn't beat or rape her. As I said earlier, the world is a different place now.

Martial9

masti123 wrote: »

Also, "The Black Irish of Montserrat"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QHYFXDGf4Y

.

He sounds more Irish than a lot of Irish people. That is amazing. How is it possible that the accent survived so long there? He sounds so Irish you could imagine the chap holding court and spinning a yarn in a West Cork local on a Sunday!

The Golden Miller

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Yep that's exactly what I said. Well done


It's a 'Fuk Da Brits' thread, and any discussion about slavery and the hundreds of thousands of Irish that suffered it's horrible end, not to mention the thousands that profited from it, is purely incidental.

It's a "fuk da brits" thread? Really? Ok, go and find the OP's last post even mentioning "da brits" and come back to me. So effectively what your saying is Irish history can never ever be discussed if the Irish are the victims of British oppression because it's just an ulterior motive to say "fuk da brits".

LordSutch

So this is a history thread about the slave trade & pirates from the 1600s ...

Maybe then it would be more appropriate to have this discussion in the History Forum, whare you can discuss this topic with people who know their onions 'sort to speak' re the 1600s.

You base this thread on a book by John Martin, and here is an excerpt from his book ...

The book starts off > "From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English... and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well".

Interestingly I seem to remember this very book by John Martin popping up in another thread a week or two ago, and it transpired that those numbers above, were (not surprisingly) totally skewed :cool:

Whats the real purpose of this thread?

The Backwards Man

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's a "fuk da brits" thread? Really? Ok, go and find the OP's last post even mentioning "da brits" and come back to me. So effectively what your saying is Irish history can never ever be discussed if the Irish are the victims of British oppression because it's just an ulterior motive to say "fuk da brits".

Yep, it's a news dump about English slave traders, no word about the Barbary pirates or the Norsemen or anyone else that even a half arsed attempt at a genuine thread on Irish slaves would include.

BTW
I'm not arguing against the British oppression of Irish serfs at the time here, so you can stick the sanctimony back in your pocket. But if you're going to have a serious discussion on an issue like this, you have to look at the bigger picture.

The Golden Miller

LordSutch wrote: »

So this is a history thread about the slave trade & pirates from the 1600s ...

Maybe then it would be more appropriate to have this discussion in the History Forum, whare you can discuss this topic with people who know their onions 'sort to speak' re the 1600s.

You base this thread on a book by John Martin, and here is an excerpt from his book ...

The book starts off > "From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English... and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well".

Interestingly I seem to remember this very book by John Martin popping up in another thread a week or two ago, and it transpired that those numbers above, were (not surprisingly) totally skewed :cool:

Whats the real purpose of this thread?

OK, give us the real figures then. And your only qualm is the figures, the rest is accurate then?

LordSutch

The Golden Miller wrote: »

OK, give us the real figures then. And your only qualm is the figures, the rest is accurate then?

If 500.000 Irish people were killed by "The English" within such a short space of time, don't you think we would we would have heard about it before now? < these figures are of an unrealistic holocaust figure scale!

Ther other thread I mention suggests that the casualties from the American Civil War have been added into the figures + otheh glaring anomolies.

Hence my suggestion to put this thread (about the 1600s) into the History Forum, where it can properly be debated by "history heads" who know their history from the 1600s. Then you will get facts & figures.

The Golden Miller

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Yep, it's a news dump about English slave traders, no word about the Barbary pirates or the Norsemen or anyone else that even a half arsed attempt at a genuine thread on Irish slaves would include.

BTW
I'm not arguing against the British oppression of Irish serfs at the time here, so you can stick the sanctimony back in your pocket. But if you're going to have a serious discussion on an issue like this, you have to look at the bigger picture.

Well going by the posters posting history, this ulterior motive is a major assumption. Also, due the fact that not a whole lot of people know about this period, it's not surprising that the poster gave an overview of the issue. When discussing the 1916 rising for example, is the topic a mockery with an ulterior motive when English men who fought on the side of the rebels aren't mentioned i.e the smaller lesser known issues? Surely the main players and instigators like England should be the one's mentioned as little is known of the issue and the discussion can evolve? But I suppose that's always going to be stifled when people like you come on here sneering and talking about ulterior motives because the Irish were the victims, and we can't talk about our own victims unless we're armchair republicans who shout "**** da brits" at every opportunity, right?

The Golden Miller

LordSutch wrote: »

If 500.000 Irish people were killed by "The English" within such a short space of time, don't you think we would we would have heard about it before now? < these figures are of an unrealistic holocaust figure scale!

Ther other thread I mention suggests that the casualties from the American Civil War have been added into the figures + otheh glaring anomolies.

Hence my suggestion to put this thread (about the 1600s) into the History Forum, where it can properly be debated by "history heads" who know their history from the 1600s. Then you will get facts & figures.

So you can't provide figures and you agree that the over-lying issue still stands regardless if the figures are a bit off?

LordSutch

History Forum please . . .

This can only turn into an excuse for a Brit bashing exercise, based on dubious "facts" by a sensationalist author, obviously with an agenda based axe to grind left over (from the 1600s)?

This thread (claims) really should be scrutinised in The History Forum.

Sonderkommando

Martial9 wrote: »

He sounds more Irish than a lot of Irish people. That is amazing. How is it possible that the accent survived so long there? He sounds so Irish you could imagine the chap holding court and spinning a yarn in a West Cork local on a Sunday!

There was a fascinating documentary on tg4 called the red legs some years back that told the story of their history and interviewed many of the descendent's still living today.

It really was fascinating listening to their accents and seeing how they live today, sadly I have not seen the documentary repeated or show up online.

Also Sean O'Callahan's book To hell or Barbados is a must read for anybody interested in almost forgotten Irish history.

brocbrocach

LordSutch wrote: »

History Forum please . . .

This can only turn into an excuse for a Brit bashing exercise, based on dubious "facts" by a sensationalist author, obviously with an agenda based axe to grind left over (from the 1600s)?

This thread (claims) really should be scrutinised in The History Forum.

Historical stuff doesnt need to be shovelled off - its fine here as a general point of information about the past.

Sunnyisland

Thanks for that OP, never knew that, I had heard of the Irish islands in the Caribbean but never had any knowledge of the rest, Interesting.

MakeEmLaugh

Hagar7 wrote: »

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Indentured is a fancy word for enslavement in fairness, it's all servitude.

Even the hiring fairs, which my own granny was a victim of in the 1930s when the Free State was well established, were a form of servitude. That's not even a hundred years ago and she always spoke highly of her 'employer' as he didn't beat or rape her. As I said earlier, the world is a different place now.

Would you disagree with Liam Hogan that black Africans had it worse in the Caribbean than the white Irish did?

After all, as Hogan argues, the children of the white Irish in servitude weren't taken off them and sold as slaves.

Also, the white Irish would work for what he calls "a set period of time (between two and seven years)", whereas black Africans worked until they were dead, whether that was of natural causes or not.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

So this is a history thread about the slave trade & pirates from the 1600s ...

Maybe then it would be more appropriate to have this discussion in the History Forum,.............

You'll never move on unless you face the truth sutch. Coming on and indulging in embarrassing apologia will avail thee naught.

ezra_pound

LordSutch wrote: »

If 500.000 Irish people were killed by "The English" within such a short space of time, don't you think we would we would have heard about it before now? < these figures are of an unrealistic holocaust figure scale!

Ther other thread I mention suggests that the casualties from the American Civil War have been added into the figures + otheh glaring anomolies.

Hence my suggestion to put this thread (about the 1600s) into the History Forum, where it can properly be debated by "history heads" who know their history from the 1600s. Then you will get facts & figures.

The Cromwellian war in Ireland IS typically considered on a holocaust scale.

I believe that there is a huge disparity between indentured servants and slaves, and I agree that the op is just an anti English rant... but the 500,000 killed figure seems plausible. However most modern historians suggest a figure of around 20%, which is more like 300k.

Interestingly, though, the Wikipedia figure of deportations from that decade is only 50k as opposed to the 300k in the op!

"Cromwellian conquest of Ireland" on @Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland?wprov=sfia1

The impact of the war on the Irish population was unquestionably severe, although there is no consensus as to the magnitude of the loss of life. The war resulted in famine, which was worsened by an outbreak of bubonic plague. Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range between 15–25[7]-50[8][9]-83%.[10] The Parliamentarians also deported about 50,000 people as indentured labourers.

Fratton Fred

Interesting story in the OP. It's on the internet, so it must be true

RobertKK wrote: »

St Patrick's day is a public holiday on Montserrat.

That's right.

http://blog.visitmontserrat.com/st-patricks-day/

Local historian Sir Howard Fergus explains that the first large-scale rebellion on Montserrat was planned in 1768 for March 17th, the day that slaves knew their Irish masters would be celebrating St. Patrick’s Day and otherwise distracted with drink and dance (History of Alliouagana: A Short History of Montserrat, 1975). As the story goes, the rebellion failed when someone revealed the plan, but Montserratians have commemorated St. Patrick’s Day since 1984 as the first attempted slave insurrection on the island. The event was a major step in the movement towards emancipation, which was finally achieved in 1834,

ezra_pound

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting story in the OP. It's on the internet, so it must be true



That's right.

http://blog.visitmontserrat.com/st-patricks-day/

Local historian Sir Howard Fergus explains that the first large-scale rebellion on Montserrat was planned in 1768 for March 17th, the day that slaves knew their Irish masters would be celebrating St. Patrick’s Day and otherwise distracted with drink and dance (History of Alliouagana: A Short History of Montserrat, 1975). As the story goes, the rebellion failed when someone revealed the plan, but Montserratians have commemorated St. Patrick’s Day since 1984 as the first attempted slave insurrection on the island. The event was a major step in the movement towards emancipation, which was finally achieved in 1834,

k

"...knew their Irish masters would be celebrating St. Patrick’s Day"

laugh

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting story in the OP. It's on the internet, so it must be true



That's right.

http://blog.visitmontserrat.com/st-patricks-day/

Local historian Sir Howard Fergus explains that the first large-scale rebellion on Montserrat was planned in 1768 for March 17th, the day that slaves knew their Irish masters would be celebrating St. Patrick’s Day and otherwise distracted with drink and dance (History of Alliouagana: A Short History of Montserrat, 1975). As the story goes, the rebellion failed when someone revealed the plan, but Montserratians have commemorated St. Patrick’s Day since 1984 as the first attempted slave insurrection on the island. The event was a major step in the movement towards emancipation, which was finally achieved in 1834,

That's a randomers blog?

Fratton Fred

laugh wrote: »

That's a randomers blog?

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/montserrat.htm

And as you obviously object to randomers blogs (which is exactly what the OP has linked to) here is an alternative, far less dramatic, appraisal of the book mentioned in the original article.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Lau-t.html?referer=

Azalea

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Yep that's exactly what I said. Well done


It's a 'Fuk Da Brits' thread, and any discussion about slavery and the hundreds of thousands of Irish that suffered it's horrible end, not to mention the thousands that profited from it, is purely incidental.

It's a "fuk da Brits" thread? Based on what? You just seem to be thread-spoiling for the craic.
The whataboutery drum you keep beating is "There was a bigger picture". Fine. So what? Why does that mean the topic in and of itself can't be discussed? Why are you so hellbent on shutting down discussion?

LordSutch wrote: »

History Forum please . . .

This can only turn into an excuse for a Brit bashing exercise, based on dubious "facts" by a sensationalist author, obviously with an agenda based axe to grind left over (from the 1600s)?

This thread (claims) really should be scrutinised in The History Forum.

Who made you a mod? What's dubious about the facts and where's the obvious axe to grind?

Azalea

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/montserrat.htm

And as you obviously object to randomers blogs (which is exactly what the OP has linked to) here is an alternative, far less dramatic, appraisal of the book mentioned in the original article.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Lau-t.html?referer=

What's random blog about what the OP links to?

It's a topic that does get used to have a go at the British or simply to state black people weren't the only slaves, but I see evidence of neither in the OP.

Shrap

What's most frightening about this meme of the "Irish were slaves too" is that it is being used by white supremacists and Neo-Nazis world-wide to diminish the fact of black slavery around the world. We should be very, very careful with our facts under the circumstances and remember that paper never refused ink.

For example (and you'll find many, many more if you look at the gun-toting hard right websites throughout the US):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQTGRlyWoAAd5AQ.jpg:large

https://dy1m18dp41gup.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/u_VS6-xyopaWeP8U3sHtt8JFJaIDK7qL_6MFJwVWnA8/mtime:1431935938/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/555228/Hogan_Irish_power.png

Yodeling Snake

LordSutch wrote: »

< these figures are of an unrealistic holocaust figure scale!

Your not one of these mugs who swallowed that holohoax palaver are you?