The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves The Slaves That Time Forgot

a reply to: paraphi

Many of the "criminals" you mention committed such heinous acts as promoting Irish (Scottish/Welsh/Manx) nationalism and culture, stealing to feed a family in famine caused by the English and all other manner of petty nonsense.

Granted, there were a small element of real criminals among them.

The generational disadvantage this caused is still evident in Australia today. Luckily we are not restricted from access to opportunity and have a better chance of prosperity than the descendants of slaves in the US.

You are not completely wrong but I think to completely white wash (see what I did there?) the whole tragedy as revisionist history is inaccurate.

Imagine the points we Aussies descended from convicts could score politically if only our ancestors had originated elsewhere....

a reply to: gort51

I'm not sure there is the evidence out there in internet land though I have heard accounts of convicts being sent to Australia after Jamaica reached capacity. Or perhaps it was trialled in Jamaica and expanded to Australia.

African Americans were sitting in the back of bus til 1955 and drinking out of separate water fountains right up until the 60s. meanwhile other nationalities that were discriminated against were high ranking members of society, literally running the police force, fire departments and trades in some areas and one even became a president.

there was a huge difference between chattel slavery and indentured servitude which you would know had you not cherry picked the one article backing up your distorted view of reality. While indentured servants in the United states were a mix of political prisoners and people who literally signed up for it, African American slaves had zero rights and were forced to be slaves generation after generation and did not secure rights bestowed on to other disenfranchised groups until the civil Rights act of 1964. Basic knowledge for anyone not trying to push a stormfrontesque agenda. SMH.

Indentured servant noun
Definition of indentured servant
: a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance

Source: Merriam Webster dictionary.

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
Many of the "criminals" you mention committed such heinous acts as promoting Irish (Scottish/Welsh/Manx) nationalism and culture, stealing to feed a family in famine caused by the English and all other manner of petty nonsense.

You have to put it in the context of the time. A few hundred years ago people did not have much, so stealing had even greater impact. Regardless, these people were not slaves and were not sold into slavery. It is also erroneous to try to weigh this as English oppression, because the English were also treated in the same way.

The idea of Irish slavery is an invention/revisionism of people who want to build an anti-English narrative, and distract from the fact that the Irish were also complicit in the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

a reply to: paraphi

You’re right, they certainly were not slaves in the sense akin to the atrocity on humanity that was the African slave trade.

I guess with regards to the convict narrative it’s not a whole lot different than the US prison industry today using prison labor of minorities convicted for a BS crime.

The English certainly were treated the same and by more numerous oppressors throughout the course of their history, I think the difference is due to the passage of time we are removed enough from those people that their suffering has long been forgotten and the mourning ceased to the point it is just another entry in the history books.

Man I love points of disagreement with level headed intelligent people.

Do you guys realize slavery in the ottoman empire lasted well after it was abolished in the US and throughout the world up to... TODAY??

These 30 million people are living as forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages and, in all ways that matter, as pieces of property, chattel in the servitude of absolute ownership.

www.washingtonpost.com... rect=on

a reply to: Advantage

The Ottoman Empire dissolved in the early 1900’s.

Which parts of this map, with disproportionate modern slavery do you believe were part of the Ottoman Empire?

My best guess is that my ethnic background is 1/4 English, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 German and 1/4 Czech. My mother's side of the family owned slaves until the civil war. The eastern Europeans that were Slavic were commonly enslaved by the ancient Romans, and the word Slav is the origin of the word slave.

So should I pay 1/4 reparations to one half of myself along with the descendants of African Americans my mother's family had as what they referred to as "the help"? Mom's stories claim that her family and their "help" cried when slavery was abolished. The story goes that their slaves were basically part of the family and were well treated as such.

ETA: Also, I have no idea how many slaves were involved or if they were all African American slaves that my mother's family had owned up to the Civil War. How many and how badly they were treated should be figured into these reparations to be completely fair. Also, there is the fact that no one can be convicted of a legal activity in the past that is now illegal (esp. their descendants), making the idea of reparations one that is unsupported by law.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

African Americans were sitting in the back of bus til 1955 and drinking out of separate water fountains right up until the 60s.

And the Irony is the "woke" culture on the left is trying to go that direction again, imagine that.

Watch any college campus, promoting separate classes, festivals, bathrooms etc based on color, you know, in the name of being "sensitive" and making people aware of white privilege.

The stupidity is thick, but its not a surprise that its the left doing it again, after all thats kind of their legacy.

It is only bad when white people do it. If it is done to white people, it is deserved. That is the logic that will come from this.

The Irish didn't develop a victim culture, did the best with what they had and used the past as motivation going forward.

African slaves were similar till people decided they needed to be saved in recent times.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
The Irish didn't develop a victim culture, did the best with what they had and used the past as motivation going forward.

African slaves were similar till people decided they needed to be saved in recent times.

The King era damn sure didnt see themselves as victims, and they would be rolling over in their graves and crying for the future of the black community for not only what they are doing to themselves, and bastardizing the message he died for, but for the other half of the country that is enabling it.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
Many of the "criminals" you mention committed such heinous acts as promoting Irish (Scottish/Welsh/Manx) nationalism and culture, stealing to feed a family in famine caused by the English and all other manner of petty nonsense.

You have to put it in the context of the time. A few hundred years ago people did not have much, so stealing had even greater impact. Regardless, these people were not slaves and were not sold into slavery. It is also erroneous to try to weigh this as English oppression, because the English were also treated in the same way.

The idea of Irish slavery is an invention/revisionism of people who want to build an anti-English narrative, and distract from the fact that the Irish were also complicit in the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

You confusing Irish Catholics with Irish- Scots. Some of the first settlers to America were Irish- Scots, they came from Northern Ireland. They were loyal to the Union and Queen and their religious affiliation was ( Protestant and Presbyterian) Most of them settled in Southern American states. They bought slaves to work their lands.

The Irish Catholics arrived 100 years later during a famine. Irish Catholics were not slave owners, they had just enough money to travel aboard coffin ships, and make it across the ocean.

No one seems to mention or be interested in the Bombardment of Algiers (27 August 1816) which was an attempt by Britain to end the slavery practices of Omar Agha, the Dey of Algiers which had been the practice for generations. A fleet under the command of Admiral Lord Exmouth bombarded ships and the harbour defences of Algiers.

This was done in order to suppress the piracy against England and Ireland by the North African Barbary states. Many English and Irish coastal towns/villages had been raided by North Africans with all occupants captured and taken back to the slave markets in North Africa. It got so bad that English & Irish fishermen refused to take to sea.

The specific aim of this expedition, was to free Christian slaves and to stop the practice of enslaving. To this end, it was partially successful, as the Dey of Algiers freed around 3,000 slaves following the bombardment and signed a treaty against slavery. However, this practice did not end completely until the French conquest of Algeria.

a reply to: Jesushere

Oh dear! Now you've done it!!!

Making distinctions among the Irish. Next thing we'll have to talk about how ALL terrorists aren't Muslim as well...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Irish suffered as did the Scot's, the Welsh and the English at the hands of there rulers the NORMAN elite whom were still in charge of our nation and regarded all people below them as Serf's, there is even a set of laws relating to FREE MEN that are ignored - for the most part - these day's but which are actually still statute.

But it was not only the evil baron's and descendants of invading conquerors that did this as white slaves have always existed.

Today we hear about the horrors of the European trade in African slaves but forget that it was only able to prosper because the slave trade already existed in Africa and throughout much of the world especially in the Islamic country's were it actually enshrined in there religion with the Arabic words and references for black African's roughly translating as "For Slavery".





It is not just the African's every race (there is only human but people like to divide race by color and even culture these days) on this planet is guilty of this crime in it's history, some are still guilty of it today.



Among the worst abusers of slaves among the European contingent were the Portuguese, the Spanish, the French and even later the Belgians whom enslaved the peoples of the Congo but this does not exonerate the part Great Britain once played in the disgusting Atlantic slave trade era BUT what does absolve if never completely is the fact that it was Great Britain led by Christian inspired reformers that actively worked to force other powers to stop the slave trade even sinking there ship's on occasion to prevent stop the trade in human lives and then for over a century actively patrolled the world's oceans and even the coastal waters off of Arabia until the 1970's actively hunting slavers down and freeing untold numbers of African's.

Though Great Britain is no longer active in this role it is still an ongoing war against slavers - even today here in Britain there are many people living behind closed doors especially in the Islamic community but also among the Travelling Irish gypsy community (they are not actually gypsy's but everyone call's them that the Irish traveler community has no gypsy ancestry) slavery is actually happening as parasite like people prey upon the vulnerable for everything from perverted sexual gratification to forced labor and not having to pay there victim's whom are often forced to sleep in sheds and in fear of there lives any wages AND also among the migrant community from Eastern Europe.
www.bbc.co.uk...

So if it is this bad here how bad is it in the rest of the world, in country's were homeowners can shoot trespassers on there land and have gun's aplenty, how many of them have hidden dungeon's, forced workers unable to escape and worse.

How many people disappear in those nation's never to be seen or heard from again?.

originally posted by: redchad
No one seems to mention or be interested in the Bombardment of Algiers (27 August 1816) which was an attempt by Britain to end the slavery practices of Omar Agha, the Dey of Algiers which had been the practice for generations. A fleet under the command of Admiral Lord Exmouth bombarded ships and the harbour defences of Algiers.

This was done in order to suppress the piracy against England and Ireland by the North African Barbary states. Many English and Irish coastal towns/villages had been raided by North Africans with all occupants captured and taken back to the slave markets in North Africa. It got so bad that English & Irish fishermen refused to take to sea.

The specific aim of this expedition, was to free Christian slaves and to stop the practice of enslaving. To this end, it was partially successful, as the Dey of Algiers freed around 3,000 slaves following the bombardment and signed a treaty against slavery. However, this practice did not end completely until the French conquest of Algeria.

We, Britain, only wanted to free white christians being used as slaves, we were in no way trying to end slavery infact, we only exchanged christians for jews, hardly ending slavery.
The fact we put around 3000 jews into slavery after the bombardment is the reason it isn't talked about.

originally posted by: Jesushere
You confusing Irish Catholics with Irish- Scots.

No I am not. Irish Catholics were also complit in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, both in profiting from it, and of participating in it. You cannot excuse Irish involvement in the slave trade by saying it was Irish-Scots who did it!

This explains why some Irish people express shock when informed that many of our kin were say, slave owners in America or involved and benefited from the dispossession of indigenous peoples lands across multiple continents. The cognitive dissonance that follows often leads to the knee-jerk response: "Were they really Irish though?"

Source - but plenty out there if you look

a reply to: LABTECH767

When it comes to slavery and teh Irish it is all over the place and it went the other way too mate....................

Norwegian Vikings used slaves captured in Africa and settled them on return in their Ireland colonies to work the land. Hence so many modern Irish and their diaspora having north / central African DNA to tell the story

Let me see...

So what is the reality about the history of Irish unfree colonial labor?

While the majority of Irish people who became indentured servants in the colonies did so willingly (why they felt they had to so is, of course, another question), a not insignificant number were forcibly deported and sold into indentured servitude. This peaked just after the brutal Cromwellian conquest of Ireland when there were orders given in multiple counties to round up and deport those who, it was claimed, could not support themselves.

So there were both voluntary and involuntary servants. What's the difference?
The laws were the same. Both were treated as servants and had a predetermined length of time to serve before they were freed. In Barbados the customary length of time to serve in the 1650s was between five or seven years, but in 1661 a new law was introduced that reduced this to between four to two years. This "custom" was altered by colonial administrators to attract servants to migrate to their colonies and it was also used to single out the Irish when they were not wanted. In 1655 harsh laws were passed in Virginia that targeted Irish servants who arrived in the colony without indentures. These terms for adults were two years longer than those that applied to other "Christian servants," and three years longer for those under 1​6 years of age. But by 1660 (the Restoration) the law was repealed.

Meanwhile, you're telling me that some Irish people profited directly and indirectly from the Caribbean slave trade?

Yes, absolutely. In Ireland it was mainly indirect via the provisions trade. It primarily benefited the Protestant Ascendancy, the Catholic elites, and the Catholic middle class who dominated trade in the cities. Many of our merchants (whether Catholic, Protestant, Huguenot, or Quaker) made fortunes trading with all of the slavocracies in the Caribbean. Shoes for enslaved people were manufactured in Belfast; and as mainly poor Irish Catholic tenants were forced off the land to make way for livestock, butter, beef, and pork were salted and exported to the colonies in enormous quantities via Cork, Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick.

So Irish peasants lost their land to make way for cattle, which was then exported by Irish landlords to feed enslaved peoples, who didn't grow food of their own because the land was too valuable for making sugar. And then presumably Irish people bought sugar and rum?

Yes, the provisions exported from Ireland fed slaves, servants, overseers, and planters. Herring, pork, beef, and butter and so on. One cut of beef exported out of Cork was known as "Planters Beef." And in the other direction a flood of slave-produced goods were sold in Ireland (sugar, tobacco, etc.). Every newspaper in Ireland in the 18th century carries adverts for sugar from Barbados or Jamaica being sold by a local grocer. By 1770 the Irish market absorbed nearly 90 percent of Antigua's total rum exports and in 1774 Dublin imported 108,821 gallons of rum from Antigua. Many merchants in the colonies paid for their Irish provisions in slave produce.

No, the Irish Were Not Slaves Too

Historian Liam Hogan has spent the last six years debunking the Irish slave myth.

I already know that some folks won't believe it because it doesn't come from FOX or Stormfront.