(Redpill me on…) The Irish Slave Trade | Poal: Say what you want.

[–] • 2 pts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baltimore

Wikipedia is getting worse and worse. If that is possible. It’s important to be aware of white slavery but we don’t want to play the victim. I think it is important to emphasize that every culture and people that have ever inhabited this earth have practiced slavery in one form or another or been enslaved themselves.Humans have an unfortunate predilection toward slavery. The amount of slaves currently on this earth is staggering. They harvest your cocoa beans. They dig your lithium out of mines and if you eat fish anywhere in Asia, it likely came from a fishing boat with slaves on it.

Anyone talking about slavery in the past tense is a retard that is wasting your time.

link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Oh it wouldn't do any good to keep playing victim indeed. That's the magic spell that emboldens psychopaths after all. If anything, the hard but fair measure to take would be "deindustrialization", unless humanity can somehow develop robot slaves. At high school I started thinking that the industrial revolution is what spoiled politics and society. Evil would have much less power without these powerlines to travel through…

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Much as I would like to go Mad Max on the elites, history has shown that they have a strong tendency to win.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

why should we not lay the victim? it sees to work for them, why not for us? when pushing back, I think there would be o harm in pushing with all your might. no need for pulling punches here.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

The linked Wiki article is a cancerous mass of lies, obfuscations, and omissions.

The existence of the Irish slave trade is an inconvenient fact for the Critical Race Theorists narrative of unique racial victimhood at the hands of unique racial evil, so they have set themselves to erase it from history, and to smear preemptively anyone who mentions it as 'white supremacists.'

It is true that the Irish transported across the Atlantic to the Americas were not chattel slaves, or absolute property, but the Wiki article falsely claims' that Africans, by contrast, were legally chattel. In the British colonies under Common Law, the legal status of chattel slavery did not originally exist either for black or for white, and it was a century before it was established through a series of disastrous court cases, notably Casor vs. Johnson, 1655. Note that John Casor's master, Anthony Johnson, was also a black man who had served his period of indenture and become a wealthy plantation owner. So the first chattel slave owner in the territory that was to become the United States was a black man.

https://foreignpolicyi.org/john-casor-the-case-of-the-first-slave/

As the article above reveals, the 1619 project is a flat out lie, and so also is the Wiki claim that blacks were originally chattel slaves while whites were not.

Those transported unwillingly were not indentures.

False. Even captured Africans were originally held as indentured laborers, not chattel, as was Anthony Johnson, a native Angolan bought from Portuguese slavers, and the plaintif in Casor vs. Johnson above.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

While many of The transported Irish and British convicts were as much slaves as it was possible under existing law. They were captured, held against their wills, sold to masters as if they were property, bound under severe penalty to absolute obedience to those masters, forbidden to escape under penalty of death, and held under long periods of indenture. The article mentions 4 to 9 years, but I believe it was more like two decades. Given the low age of mortality in that period, and under such conditions, this period of indenture covered the natural lives of many so held.

Should I read the resources linked on the article?

It is worth digging, especially as some of the sources contradict the article's claims. Some of the article's citations are duplicitous. For instance it claims that Irish patriot, John Mitchell, supported the Atlantic slave trade, but instead of a citation proving that he did, the link is to a definition of the Atlantic slave trade.

Edit: clarity, punctuation.

TIL Human traffickers who kidnapped people to sell them as indentured servants were known as 'spirits,' and this is the origin of the expression 'spirited away.'

The linked Wiki article is a cancerous mass of lies, obfuscations, and omissions. The existence of the Irish slave trade is an inconvenient fact for the Critical Race Theorists narrative of unique racial victimhood at the hands of unique racial evil, so they have set themselves to erase it from history, and to smear preemptively anyone who mentions it as 'white supremacists.' It is true that the Irish transported across the Atlantic to the Americas were not chattel slaves, or absolute property, but the Wiki article falsely claims' that Africans, by contrast, were legally chattel. In the British colonies under Common Law, the legal status of chattel slavery did not originally exist either for black or for white, and it was a century before it was established through a series of disastrous court cases, notably Casor vs. Johnson, 1655. Note that John Casor's master, Anthony Johnson, was also a black man who had served his period of indenture and become a wealthy plantation owner. So the first chattel slave owner in the territory that was to become the United States was a black man. https://foreignpolicyi.org/john-casor-the-case-of-the-first-slave/ As the article above reveals, the 1619 project is a flat out lie, and so also is the Wiki claim that blacks were originally chattel slaves while whites were not. >Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. False. Even captured Africans were originally held as indentured laborers, not chattel, as was Anthony Johnson, a native Angolan bought from Portuguese slavers, and the plaintif in Casor vs. Johnson above. https://infogalactic.com/info/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) While many of The transported Irish and British convicts were as much slaves as it was possible under existing law. They were captured, held against their wills, sold to masters as if they were property, bound under severe penalty to absolute obedience to those masters, forbidden to escape under penalty of death, and held under long periods of indenture. The article mentions 4 to 9 years, but I believe it was more like two decades. Given the low age of mortality in that period, and under such conditions, this period of indenture covered the natural lives of many so held. >Should I read the resources linked on the article? It is worth digging, especially as some of the sources contradict the article's claims. Some of the article's citations are duplicitous. For instance it claims that Irish patriot, John Mitchell, supported the Atlantic slave trade, but instead of a citation proving that he did, the link is to a definition of the Atlantic slave trade. Edit: clarity, punctuation. TIL Human traffickers who kidnapped people to sell them as indentured servants were known as 'spirits,' and this is the origin of the expression 'spirited away.'

link

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Yes, I see the Irish Slave Trade as one of the most important angles to to cut their web of lies at.

I also found a comment I saved from voat:

>the Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I 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 fathers 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 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 "English 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 or 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 then 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 kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases just young girls) to increase their market share - they began to breed Irish women or younger girl slaves with male African slaves to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new "mulatto" slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the English slave owners in the New World to make money rather than spending money to purchase new African slaves. This was particularly common in the Caribbean area of the new world. The 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 large slave transport companies from Africa.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those light-brown 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 its own to end its participation in the slave trade and concluded THIS chapter of human slave history.

This does not account for the untold numbers of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic slaves held by the Romans as well as the slavery practiced for centuries by Greek, Trojan, Persian, Egyptian, African and Arab slave traders and slave holders. OR the African and Arab slavery that still exists today.

Anyone who believes that slavery was only an African experience has it completely wrong

The indentured laborer thing seems like pure semantics, pillpul if you want to take it that way. Human rights were violated, families ruined. Double standards considered, if this were some other "minority", which may actually be far from that on a global scale; it would be blown up disproportionally. Makes me think how gypsies rate on the anti-white scale, as a side note.

Yes, I see the Irish Slave Trade as one of the most important angles to to cut their web of lies at. I also found a comment I saved from voat: >>the Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I 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 fathers 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 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 "English 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 or 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 then 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 kids and would remain in servitude. In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases just young girls) to increase their market share - they began to breed Irish women or younger girl slaves with male African slaves to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new "mulatto" slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the English slave owners in the New World to make money rather than spending money to purchase new African slaves. This was particularly common in the Caribbean area of the new world. The 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 large slave transport companies from Africa. England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those light-brown 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 its own to end its participation in the slave trade and concluded THIS chapter of human slave history. This does not account for the untold numbers of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic slaves held by the Romans as well as the slavery practiced for centuries by Greek, Trojan, Persian, Egyptian, African and Arab slave traders and slave holders. OR the African and Arab slavery that still exists today. Anyone who believes that slavery was only an African experience has it completely wrong The indentured laborer thing seems like pure semantics, pillpul if you want to take it that way. Human rights were violated, families ruined. Double standards considered, if this were some other "minority", which may actually be far from that on a global scale; it would be blown up disproportionally. Makes me think how gypsies rate on the anti-white scale, as a side note.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Thank you for that trove of infomation!

The indentured laborer thing seems like pure semantics

It is more insidious than that. There were degrees of indenture. The race-baiters are deliberately obscuring the crucial distinction between a voluntary contract to pay off debt through labor where the law protected both parties, and involuntary indenture which bound the indentured party under much more severe terms. In fact, given the degree of abuse cited in your comment above, it looks like slaves in the Americas were only nominally under the Common Law institution of indenture, and the owners treated their slaves as de facto chattel. Conditions may have been better in the 13 colonies due to close contact with Britain.