Chicago-Torture/Race Conversation

[classicrawker]

21 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

All I said was different. You're the one inserting the word superior. Do you have a complex?

Not at all I am only asking what you meant by different..........not a complicated question I think.............so what is your answer? Do you believe these environmental differences result in some races being superior is some way?

Edited January 6, 2017 by classicrawker

[downzy]

33 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

You seem to take an approach that people who were separated for so many thousands of years only developed any differentiation due to natural selection from the neck down. That seems very unscientific and close minded. 

First, human migration over the last one hundred years has ensured that the separation you speak of (with some exceptions) is a myth.  

Second, the issue isn't that there are differences, but the context in which we discuss those differences.  If we say, find that one race scores a few extra points on an IQ test compared to another (despite the concerns over whether IQ tests really test intelligence and aren't biased to favour one group over another), within the context of discussing politics there exists the implication that one race is superior and/or one race is deserving of their general outcome as a whole.  Again, if this was strictly a biological/genetic discussion in which the debate pivoted upon genetic versus hereditary arguments, that would be one thing.  But within the context of four black kids torturing a white kid, what other objective is there in discussing this matter than to disparage one race.  The intention here is pretty easy to spot here and quite frankly, is deeply offensive.  When another white kid takes out a bunch of students (since 90 percent of school shootings are committed by white individuals), do we accept and participate in conversations about what those actions say of the white race?  I've never seen that and I've been coming to this site for ten years now.  But four asshat, evil, and highly disturbed black young adults terrorize a poor and disabled white kid and you see this as an opportunity to discuss and promote racial biological differences to support what I can only assume your own racist belief system.  Nice.  

[PappyTron]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

First, the myth of the Irish slave trade is just that, a myth.  Second, even if true or as accurate you claim, the fact that it supposedly ended in 1838.  There were a myriad of immigrants that were at one time victimized and discriminated against when they first arrived (Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Slavic, etc.), but these ethno-nationalist groups were later incorporated in "white" America.  All the while, "black" America have been at the receiving end of systems of control that have transformed and regenerated and called by different names (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration).  Those same systems of control were never directed at other races or ethnicities (at least, to the same extent and for the same duration as experienced by African Americans).

It's not a conspiracy - laws were written and policy enacted that favoured one group of Americans over another.  Again, look up the policy of redlining that is largely the cause of modern-day slums and inner city ghettos.  The discriminatory effects were not unknown nor was this a tragic accident.  Other structural systems of discrimination, such as mass incarceration, were perhaps launched with good intentions but given how discriminatory the effects have been and how long such policies remain in place, it's absurd to suggest that there isn't some form of implicit consent for said system.  

Structural racism isn't overt, it isn't one person with nefarious or malicious intent imposing their racist attitudes on an unsuspecting society (though that does happen).  It manifests and represents much subtler forms of bias, from ignoring the effects certain policies to the failure to stop actions that are proven to be highly discriminatory.  The treatment of black American youth compared to their white counter-parts by the judicial system is a good example of how this works.  How black kids are treated by and consideration given by officers of the law in West Baltimore as a whole is completely foreign to the experience by their white counterparts living in upscale, well-off neighbourhoods.  

(BTW, in both Canada and Britain the word levelled is spelled with two Ls; so enough with the (sic) notation).  

Firstly, Liam Hogan's position is factually incorrect; hundreds of thousands of people from Ireland were forcibly removed from their homes and shipped to the New World as lifelong indentured servants/slaves, against their will, by Cromwell. That is historic fact. Secondly, what makes Liam Hogan's position credible? What is his academic background that makes him an authority that you wish to hang your hat on? The only credentials that he has is that he works in a library. Here, from my alma mater:

http://glc.yale.edu/master-samuel-symonds-against-irish-slaves

As you can see, people were forcibly taken from their homes in Ireland and dumped off in the New World where they were forced to work against their will, or starve to death. They were not free to come and go. We call that slavery.

Secondly, what came after is irrelevant to the point at hand. Sure, blacks have had a shitty time of things due to various laws, but that has nothing to do with your claim that there is a "state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community". You are mixing up two different issues to try and support your initial claim. Provide evidence that there is a "state-sponsored" effort to commit violent acts against black people. Not that violent acts happen to black people, but that they are "state-sponsored" and are a part of a city, county, state and nation wide campaign by those in power to disproportionately target and maltreat those of African-American heritage, based purely on the colour of their skin. Those are your claims, so I'm asking you to show me what evidence you have for taking that position, and I'm not talking about historic acts such as Jim Crow, but the conscious and daily decisions of those in power to specifically target those who are black purely based on the colour of their skin, and that these conscious decisions are made at the precinct, city, county, state and federal level.

 

Quote

How black kids are treated by and consideration given by officers of the law in West Baltimore as a whole is completely foreign to the experience by their white counterparts living in upscale, well-off neighbourhoods.

 

Yes, and Uncle Phil is treated better than Cletus from the holler down in ol' Alabamy, so what's your point? You'd have to be ignorant in the extreme to think that any law enforcement officer would treat a gangbanger from Baltimore the same as they would treat a suburbanite. Here's a little test, so answer honestly:

Which of these two people would you be more wary of if they approached you late at night?

SET A:

1 -

2 -

SET B:

1 -

2 -

You'd be more wary of person 2, in both cases. The issue then is what percentage of each group, 1 or 2, does an average police officer find themselves dealing with on a given day, and which group is more likely to fall into the 1-2 group. The answer to that, based on your own statements, is that black people would find themselves more likely to be in situations whereby they have to deal with the police, as they are more likely to find themselves in disadvantaged positions due to lack of education, income, employment etc due to the systemic racism.

[downzy]

58 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Firstly, Liam Hogan's position is factually incorrect; hundreds of thousands of people from Ireland were forcibly removed from their homes and shipped to the New World as lifelong indentured servants/slaves, against their will, by Cromwell. That is historic fact. Secondly, what makes Liam Hogan's position credible? What is his academic background that makes him an authority that you wish to hang your hat on? The only credentials that he has is that he works in a library. Here, from my alma mater:

http://glc.yale.edu/master-samuel-symonds-against-irish-slaves

As you can see, people were forcibly taken from their homes in Ireland and dumped off in the New World where they were forced to work against their will, or starve to death. They were not free to come and go. We call that slavery.

Secondly, what came after is irrelevant to the point at hand. Sure, blacks have had a shitty time of things due to various laws, but that has nothing to do with your claim that there is a "state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community". You are mixing up two different issues to try and support your initial claim. Provide evidence that there is a "state-sponsored" effort to commit violent acts against black people. Not that violent acts happen to black people, but that they are "state-sponsored" and are a part of a city, county, state and nation wide campaign by those in power to disproportionately target and maltreat those of African-American heritage, based purely on the colour of their skin. Those are your claims, so I'm asking you to show me what evidence you have for taking that position, and I'm not talking about historic acts such as Jim Crow, but the conscious and daily decisions of those in power to specifically target those who are black purely based on the colour of their skin, and that these conscious decisions are made at the precinct, city, county, state and federal level.

 

Wait a second, you're using one instance of "slavery" (they weren't, they were indentured servants and the case was over how long their work period rested) as proof that there was an Irish slave trade?   Again, there is no evidence of Irish chattel slavery in the North American colonies.  There were indentured servants in the US, and Cromwell did send tens of thousands of Irish prisoners to the West Indies, but as Matthew Reilly, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Brown (good enough for you?) states, "“The Irish slave myth is not supported by the historical evidence. Thousands of Irish were sent to colonies like Barbados against their will, never to return. Upon their arrival, however, they were socially and legally distinct from the enslaved Africans with whom they often labored. While not denying the vast hardships endured by indentured servants, it is necessary to recognize the differences between forms of labor in order to understand the depths of the inhumane system of chattel slavery that endured in the region for several centuries, as well as the legacies of race-based slavery in our own times.”  More on the myth and exaggerations made surrounding the "Irish Slave Trade:" 

https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/a-review-of-the-numbers-in-the-irish-slaves-meme-1857988fd93c#.qwfo2wouq

Again, the Irish were never part of institutionalized chattel slavery experienced by Africans and African-Americans that lasted for centuries.   There's a qualitative and quantitative difference and to liken one to the other is absurd.

What came after isn't irrelevant.  In some ways black people suffered even worse under the Jim Crow laws than during slavery.  

As for "state-sponsored," it's used in a loose sense both as a means to address both direct and indirect forms of social control.  Red-lining was state sponsored, in that government officials drew red boundaries around black neighbourhoods that marked them as ineligible for state-insured mortgages.  Mass-incarceration, after proven to be largely discriminatory against African Americans, is a form of state-sponsored discrimination.  Stop and frisk, which is largely only used in black neighbourhoods, is state sponsored.  Disproportionate and unequal sentencing that target black citizens more so than their white counterparts is state-sponsored.  

 

[PappyTron]

19 minutes ago, downzy said:

Wait a second, you're using one instance of "slavery" as proof that there was an Irish slave trade?   Again, there is no evidence of Irish chattel slavery in the North American colonies.  There were indentured servants in the US, and Cromwell did send tens of thousands of Irish prisoners to the West Indies, but as Matthew Reilly, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Brown (good enough for you?) states, "“The Irish slave myth is not supported by the historical evidence. Thousands of Irish were sent to colonies like Barbados against their will, never to return. Upon their arrival, however, they were socially and legally distinct from the enslaved Africans with whom they often labored. While not denying the vast hardships endured by indentured servants, it is necessary to recognize the differences between forms of labor in order to understand the depths of the inhumane system of chattel slavery that endured in the region for several centuries, as well as the legacies of race-based slavery in our own times.”

Again, the Irish were never part of institutionalized chattel slavery experienced by Africans and African-Americans that lasted for centuries.   There's a qualitative and quantitative difference and to liken one to the other is absurd.

What came after isn't irrelevant.  In some ways black people suffered even worse under the Jim Crow laws than during slavery.  

As for "state-sponsored," it's used in a loose sense both as a means to address both direct and indirect forms of social control.  Red-lining was state sponsored, in that government officials drew red boundaries around black neighbourhoods that marked them as ineligible for state-insured mortgages.  Mass-incarceration, after proven to be largely discriminatory against African Americans, is a form of state-sponsored discrimination.  Stop and frisk, which is largely only used in black neighbourhoods, is state sponsored.  Disproportionate and unequal sentencing that target black citizens more so than their white counterparts is state-sponsored.  

 

I like how you put into brackets the word "slavery" to describe a person who was taken from his home at bayonet point and sent to the other side of the world where he was forced to work against his will. An indentured servant is someone who willingly trades their freedom for a set period of time in exchange for something else. A person who is stolen away in the dead of night is not an indentured servant. Moreover, like I always have to say, read what I have said before commenting. I did not say that there was an Irish slave trade. I did say that the Irish were put into slavery, and that is historic fact. Please, point out where I stated that there was an "Irish slave trade". I'll wait. What I did state is that multiple tens of thousands of people were taken from their homes, put onto ships against their will and sailed off to the New World where they were forced to provide their labour and were not free to leave. That is called slavery, and the fact that you wish to try and dress it up as "indentured servitude" is typical of your sensibilities. 

Your article calls Liam Hogan an "Irish Historian" which is factually untrue. He is a librarian and a dilettante, but that doesn't make him an expert. Matthew Reilly goes on to discuss slavery vs indentured servitude in the context of historic time-frame, because his position is that chattel slavery had a longer lasting effect on the West Indies than did indentured servitude. What he does not say is that a slave "had it worse" than an indentured servant. Indeed, his Doctoral thesis was on how local Caribbean residents define their relations to processes of capitalism and their racial identities which falls in line with his position that the long term effects of slavery can be felt more keenly in Barbados today as opposed to the effects of indentured servitude. That is not the same as claiming that one group were treated better or worse during their "ownership" (I'll put that in brackets to stop your complaints).

Again, the Irish were never part of institutionalized chattel slavery experienced by Africans and African-Americans that lasted for centuries

Again, I did not state that the Irish were part of slavery that lasted for centuries. What I did state, if you care to peruse the words that I typed, is that the Irish were forcibly taken from their homes and forced to work against their will and that they had no legal right to leave. That is historic fact and nobody denies it, not even your chum Liam Hogan. When a person is taken against their will and forced to work with no legal recourse to leave, that is called slavery.

As for "state-sponsored," it's used in a loose sense both as a means to address both direct and indirect forms of social control.

You didn't say "state-sponsored mass incarceration" or "state-sponsored redlining" though. You said "state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community". What is your evidence that people, at the state legislative level, are deliberately and systematically targeting people of African-American heritage to be the recipients of disproportionate and illegal acts of violence? What is your evidence that this also applies to the local and federal level, as you have so stated?

[downzy]

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

I like how you put into brackets the word "slavery" to describe a person who was taken from his home at bayonet point and sent to the other side of the world where he was forced to work against his will. An indentured servant is someone who willingly trades their freedom for a set period of time in exchange for something else. A person who is stolen away in the dead of night is not an indentured servant. Moreover, like I always have to say, read what I have said before commenting. I did not say that there was an Irish slave trade. I did say that the Irish were put into slavery, and that is historic fact. Please, point out where I stated that there was an "Irish slave trade". I'll wait. What I did state is that multiple tens of thousands of people were taken from their homes, put onto ships against their will and sailed off to the New World where they were forced to provide their labour and were not free to leave. That is called slavery, and the fact that you wish to try and dress it up as "indentured servitude" is typical of your sensibilities. 

Your article calls Liam Hogan an "Irish Historian" which is factually untrue. He is a librarian and a dilettante, but that doesn't make him an expert. Matthew Reilly goes on to discuss slavery vs indentured servitude in the context of historic time-frame, because his position is that chattel slavery had a longer lasting effect on the West Indies than did indentured servitude. What he does not say is that a slave "had it worse" than an indentured servant. Indeed, his Doctoral thesis was on how local Caribbean residents define their relations to processes of capitalism and their racial identities which falls in line with his position that the long term effects of slavery can be felt more keenly in Barbados today as opposed to the effects of indentured servitude. That is not the same as claiming that one group were treated better or worse during their "ownership" (I'll put that in brackets to stop your complaints).

Again, I did not state that the Irish were part of slavery that lasted for centuries. What I did state, if you care to peruse the words that I typed, is that the Irish were forcibly taken from their homes and forced to work against their will and that they had no legal right to leave. That is historic fact and nobody denies it, not even your chum Liam Hogan. When a person is taken against their will and forced to work with no legal recourse to leave, that is called slavery.

 

You didn't say "state-sponsored mass incarceration" or "state-sponsored redlining" though. You said "state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community". What is your evidence that people, at the state legislative level, are deliberately and systematically targeting people of African-American heritage to be the recipients of disproportionate and illegal acts of violence? What is your evidence that this also applies to the local and federal level, as you have so stated?

Here's your stance a few posts ago: "The Irish were brought over in their hundreds of thousands, as slaves, and their individual value was less than that of a comparable African slave. They absolutely were treated just as badly, and worse, than their African fellow slaves."

Again, hundreds of thousands would denote or insinuate some form of large-scale slave trade, no?  Again, there is no proof of such (nor have you provided any; just one sole legal summary over one case involving two indentured servants).  This does not verify your claim, whether it's hundreds of thousands or your claim now that it was in the tens of thousands, that the Irish were taken from their homes (again, no proof of such, most were prisoners) and forced to work with no legal recourse to free themselves.  The Symonds case was predicated on how long the defendants (Downing & Welch) were required to work before being released (seven versus nine years).  Look, you made the claim that the Irish were victimized in dramatic numbers and more severe conditions than African Americans.  If you're going to continually badger others to provide unequivocal proof, shouldn't the same burden be applied to yourself?

You don't consider incarceration as a form of violence?  Or being economically or socially confined to crumbling inner cities as a form of violence?  Perhaps my definition of what constitutes a violent act is broader than yours.  

[PappyTron]

20 minutes ago, downzy said:

Here's your stance a few posts ago: "The Irish were brought over in their hundreds of thousands, as slaves, and their individual value was less than that of a comparable African slave. They absolutely were treated just as badly, and worse, than their African fellow slaves."

Again, hundreds of thousands would denote or insinuate some form of large-scale slave trade, no?  Again, there is no proof of such (nor have you provided any; just one sole legal summary over one case involving two indentured servants).  This does not verify your claim, whether it's hundreds of thousands or your now claim that it was in the tens of thousands, that the Irish were taken from their homes (again, no proof of such, most were prisoners) and forced to work with no legal recourse to free themselves.  The Symonds case was predicated on how long the defendants (Downing & Welch) were required to work before being released (seven versus nine years).  Look, you made the claim that the Irish were victimized in dramatic numbers and more severe conditions than African Americans.  If you're going to continually badger others to provide unequivocal proof, shouldn't the same burden be applied to yourself?

You don't consider incarceration as a form of violence?  Or being economically or socially confined to crumbling inner cities as a form of violence?  Perhaps my definition of what constitutes a violent act is broader than yours.  

Continually badger? Look, if you don't want to, or are unable to, provide anything then just say so, but don't pass my request for you to clarify your point as "badgering". I simply pointed out that your claims that Hogan is an historian is incorrect. He is not an historian, he is a librarian, and the sum total of your link has been to a blog website called Jezebel.

I'll quote the pertinent part of the Symonds link for you because the reading of such, and why I provided it, has clearly passed you by:

"John King deposed that he with divers others were stollen in Ireland, by some of ye English soldiers, in ye night out of theyr beds & brought to Mr Dills ship, where the boate lay ready to receaue them, & in the way as they went, some others they tooke with them against their Consents, & brought them aboard ye said ship, where there were divers others of their Country men, weeping and Crying, because they were stollen from theyr frends"

Now, in your wonderful mind does that say to you that the people involved were being taken as indentured servants by their own desires, or that they were being stolen away in the night, under fear of death, to be taken as slaves?

Taken from the records of the time: http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/history/Histories/slavery/irishslaves.htm

As you can see, contemporary sources confirm that tens or hundreds of thousands of Irish were rounded up and shipped off to the New World. As posted above, in the Symonds link, "others they took against their consent". From the link I just posted:

 

All writers on the 17th century American colonies are in agreement that the treatment of white servants or white slaves in English colonies was cruel to the extreme, worse than that of black slaves; that inhuman treatment was the norm, that torture (and branding FT, fugitive traitor, on the forehead) was the punishment for attempted escape. Dunn stated: "Servants were punished by whipping, strung up by the hands and matches lighted between their fingers, beaten over the head until blood ran," --all this on the slightest provocation.(30) Ligon, an eyewitness in Barbados from 1647-1650 said, "Truly, I have seen cruelty there done to servants as I did not think one Christian could have done to another."(31)

most were prisoners

By that rationale then, most of the Africans taken from west Africa were prisoners as they were captured during inter-tribal conflict and sold on as spoils of war. What a disgraceful thing for you to say.

You don't consider incarceration as a form of violence?

No, I only consider violence to be a form of violence, but maybe I'm not so fast and loose with the meaning of words or facts. Now, do you have any supporting evidence for your wild claims that there is state-sponsored violence against blacks and that cities, counties, states and the federal government are engaging in systemic actions to disproportionately maim and kill African-Americans or not?

 

[DieselDaisy]

Not just the Irish but the rest of the British Isles also, with the indentured thing. To the Carribbean also. It was thought indentured labour drawn from the unemployed and criminal class of Britain would sustain The America's 'plantation economies'. They wilted under the diseases, heat and labour so the planter class switched to the African slave trade for their labour. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

2 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Continually badger? Look, if you don't want to, or are unable to, provide anything then just say so, but don't pass my request for you to clarify your point as "badgering". I simply pointed out that your claims that Hogan is an historian is incorrect. He is not an historian, he is a librarian, and the sum total of your link has been to a blog website called Jezebel.

I'll quote the pertinent part of the Symonds link for you because the reading of such, and why I provided it, has clearly passed you by:

"John King deposed that he with divers others were stollen in Ireland, by some of ye English soldiers, in ye night out of theyr beds & brought to Mr Dills ship, where the boate lay ready to receaue them, & in the way as they went, some others they tooke with them against their Consents, & brought them aboard ye said ship, where there were divers others of their Country men, weeping and Crying, because they were stollen from theyr frends"

Now, in your wonderful mind does that say to you that the people involved were being taken as indentured servants by their own desires, or that they were being stolen away in the night, under fear of death, to be taken as slaves?

Taken from the records of the time: http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/history/Histories/slavery/irishslaves.htm

As you can see, contemporary sources confirm that tens or hundreds of thousands of Irish were rounded up and shipped off to the New World. As posted above, in the Symonds link, "others they took against their consent". From the link I just posted:

By that rationale then, most of the Africans taken from west Africa were prisoners as they were captured during inter-tribal conflict and sold on as spoils of war. What a disgraceful thing for you to say.

No, I only consider violence to be a form of violence, but maybe I'm not so fast and loose with the meaning of words or facts. Now, do you have any supporting evidence for your wild claims that there is state-sponsored violence against blacks and that cities, counties, states and the federal government are engaging in systemic actions to disproportionately maim and kill African-Americans or not?

 

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were the authority on who is considered a historian and who is not.  Apparently doing vast amounts of research on a specific matter doesn't qualify by your standards.  I suppose you take issue when news networks refer to Doris Kearns Goodwin a historian, despite having no formal education in the field of history.

As for the points you raised, again, the case you referenced concerns indentured servants and not slaves.  Yes, they reported to have been kidnapped, and they weren't alone in this fait.  But they weren't chatted slaves; they were free when the case was brought to trial.  Chatted slaves do not have that legal recourse; they have no legal recourse.  An Irish person brought (even against their will) were still allowed to go free upon the contracted duration was met.  I'm not saying that's a sweet deal or that these poor people weren't victims.  But again, it's different than black slaves who were afforded no opportunity to gain their freedom.

Sorry, but your quote doesn't make a lot of sense.  "All writers on the 17th century American colonies are in agreement that the treatment of white servants or white slaves in English colonies was cruel to the extreme, worse than that of black slaves."  What does he mean by "all the writers?"  Who is West referring to here?  His qualifying quotes make no discernment on who was treated worse.  If that were true, how is this not validated by other sources?  Moreover, many of the figures quoted in the article are poorly sourced or do not add up to migration records.  The total number of Irish coming to the North American colonies and West Indies is estimated to be around 165,000k.  But according to West, it's estimated that 80k-130k Irish were brought to North American alone to be slaves between 1651 and 1660.  Does that add up?  I looked through West's notation and could not find anything that backs up these numbers.  As Hogan writes, "the total number forcibly deported during the Cromwellian era is roughly estimated by scholars (Corish, Watson, Akenson, et al) to have been around 10-12,000 people. The paucity of records ensures that we will never know the exact number. Kerby Miller (Emigrants and Exiles, 143), Robin Blackburn (The Making of New World Slavery, 247) and Matthew C. Reilly (“Poor Whites” of Barbados, 6) estimate that “several thousand” were banished. These estimates are educated guesses based on contemporary population figures for the islands, allowing for a high mortality rate, pre-existing Irish populations and concurrent voluntary emigration."

It doesn't make it better that most were prisoners, but the point was in response to your argument that they were taken from their homes.  

As for black people suffering under the heavy-hands of the law, one only needs to examine how race plays a significant factor in the death penalty and treatment of suspects.  Here are 18 studies that highlight the disparities.

 

[PappyTron]

50 minutes ago, downzy said:

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were the authority on who is considered a historian and who is not.  Apparently doing vast amounts of research on a specific matter doesn't qualify by your standards.  I suppose you take issue when news networks refer to Doris Kearns Goodwin a historian, despite having no formal education in the field of history.

As for the points you raised, again, the case you referenced concerns indentured servants and not slaves.  Yes, they reported to have been kidnapped, and they weren't alone in this fait.  But they weren't chatted slaves; they were free when the case was brought to trial.  Chatted slaves do not have that legal recourse; they have no legal recourse.  An Irish person brought (even against their will) were still allowed to go free upon the contracted duration was met.  I'm not saying that's a sweet deal or that these poor people weren't victims.  But again, it's different than black slaves who were afforded no opportunity to gain their freedom.

Sorry, but your quote doesn't make a lot of sense.  "All writers on the 17th century American colonies are in agreement that the treatment of white servants or white slaves in English colonies was cruel to the extreme, worse than that of black slaves."  What does he mean by "all the writers?"  Who is West referring to here?  If that were true, how is this not validated by other sources?  Moreover, many of the figures quoted in the article are poorly sourced or do not add up to migration records.  The total number of Irish coming to the North American colonies and West Indies is estimated to be around 165,000k.  But according to West, it's estimated that 80k-130k Irish were brought to North American alone to be slaves.  Does that add up?  I looked through West's notation and could not find anything that backs up these numbers.  As Hogan writes, "the total number forcibly deported during the Cromwellian era is roughly estimated by scholars (Corish, Watson, Akenson, et al) to have been around 10-12,000 people. The paucity of records ensures that we will never know the exact number. Kerby Miller (Emigrants and Exiles, 143), Robin Blackburn (The Making of New World Slavery, 247) and Matthew C. Reilly (“Poor Whites” of Barbados, 6) estimate that “several thousand” were banished. These estimates are educated guesses based on contemporary population figures for the islands, allowing for a high mortality rate, pre-existing Irish populations and concurrent voluntary emigration."

It doesn't make it better that most were prisoners, but the point was in response to your argument that they were taken from their homes.  

As for black people suffering under the heavy-hands of the law, one only needs to examine how race plays a significant factor in the death penalty and treatment of suspects.  Here are 18 studies that highlight the disparities.

 

Obviously more of an authority on the subject than your good self, whose only supporter for your claims in an Irish librarian with no ties to serious academia. In reply I have given you a link to an article housed in a building that I have walked past a hundred times or more, and whose guardians are actual academics with actual PhDs, actual years of study, and actual publications in the subject. Moreover, I've provided you with firsthand accounts of people from the 1600s who clearly stated that the Irish were taken as slaves and treated appallingly, in many cases much worse than the blacks with whom they found themselves. Obviously though your good friend Hogan's opinions trump those of people who saw the events with their own eyes, wrote about them at the time, and even trumps the opinions of people who went through the events that we are discussing.

 What does he mean by "all the writers?"

I would assume that he means that those writers who have done actual research into the subject are in agreement with what he then says (that the white slaves were treated extremely cruelly). If there is a writer who is in disagreement with that fact then you are free to find one and report back.

Moreover, many of the figures quoted in the article are poorly sourced or do not add up to migration records.

That is covered in the link. I shall post it here for convenience:

Emmet asserts that during this time, more that "100,000 young children who were orphans or had been taken from their Catholic parents, were sent abroad into slavery in the West Indies, Virginia and New England, that they might lose their faith and all knowledge of their nationality, for in most instances even their names were changed... Moreover, the contemporary writers assert between 20,000 and 30,000 men and women who were taken prisoner were sold in the American colonies as slaves, with no respect to their former station in life."(12) Dunn claims in Barbados the Irish Catholics constituted the largest block of servants on the island.(13) Higham estimated that in 1652 Barbados had absorbed no less than 12,000 of these political prisoners.(14) E. Williams reports: "In 1656 Cromwell's Council of State voted that 1,000 Irish girls and 1,000 Irish young men be sent to Jamaica."(15) Smith declares: "it is impossible to say how many shiploads of unhappy Irish were dispatched to America by the English government," and "no mention of such shipments would be very likely to appear in the State Papers... They must have been very considerable in number."(16)

     Estimates vary between 80,000 and 130,000 regarding the amount of Irish sent into slavery in America and the West Indies during the years of 1651 - 1660: Prendergast says 80,000(17);
Boudin 100,000(18); Emmet 120,000 to 130,000(19); Lingard 60,000 up until 1656(20); and Condon estimates "the number of Irish transported to the British colonies in America from 1651 - 1660 exceeded the total number of their inhabitants at that period, a fact which ought not to be lost sight of by those who undertake to estimate the strength of the Celtic element in this
nation..."(21)

      It is impossible to ascertain the exact number of those unfortunate victims of English injustice during this period, but we do know the amount was massive. Even though the figures given
above are but estimates, they are estimates from eminent historians.

It doesn't make it better that most were prisoners, but the point was in response to your argument that they were taken from their homes.

Political prisoners who have done nothing wrong other than be born or be the wrong religion, should not be afforded different status; they were slaves. They were shipped off by Cromwell in order to get rid of and punish them.

As for black people suffering under the heavy-hands of the law, one only needs to examine how race plays a significant factor in the death penalty and treatment of suspects.

I don't disagree, but that is not what you were discussing. You stated that there is state-sponsored violence against blacks and that cities, counties, states and the federal government are engaging in systemic actions to disproportionately maim and kill African-Americans. On what are you basing that claim, because to me that reads as though you believe that said agents are actively engaging in illegal and direct violent acts against blacks through specific order, which is not the same as blacks receiving harsher prison sentences, for example.

 

[downzy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

Obviously more of an authority on the subject than your good self, whose only supporter for your claims in an Irish librarian with no ties to serious academia. In reply I have given you a link to an article housed in a building that I have walked past a hundred times or more, and whose guardians are actual academics with actual PhDs, actual years of study, and actual publications in the subject. Moreover, I've provided you with firsthand accounts of people from the 1600s who clearly stated that the Irish were taken as slaves and treated appallingly, in many cases much worse than the blacks with whom they found themselves. Obviously though your good friend Hogan's opinions trump those of people who saw the events with their own eyes, wrote about them at the time, and even trumps the opinions of people who went through the events that we are discussing

I would assume that he means that those writers who have done actual research into the subject are in agreement with what he then says (that the white slaves were treated extremely cruelly). If there is a writer who is in disagreement with that fact then you are free to find one and report back.

Political prisoners who have done nothing wrong other than be born or be the wrong religion, should not be afforded different status; they were slaves. They were shipped off by Cromwell in order to get rid of and punish them.

I don't disagree, but that is not what you were discussing. You stated that there is state-sponsored violence against blacks and that cities, counties, states and the federal government are engaging in systemic actions to disproportionately maim and kill African-Americans. On what are you basing that claim, because to me that reads as though you believe that said agents are actively engaging in illegal and direct violent acts against blacks through specific order, which is not the same as blacks receiving harsher prison sentences, for example.

 

The document you provided, regardless of where it's housed (as if that matters), is nothing more than a legal summation.  Nothing within contains anything that supports the claim that hundreds of thousands of Irish were brought over as slaves.  It was a dispute in which two indentured servants were sentenced to work two more years before being allowed to go through.  Again, not a life I would ever wish on anyone, but still a far cry from being a chattel slave.  

Your accounts from the 1600s again do not provide unequivocal proof.  As Hogan demonstrates, a lot of the information within West's article are not backed up by direct sources (As Hogan points out, Emmett provides no source for many of his numerical claims "Emmet’s claim (on p. 101) is unreferenced, claims that 100,000 only applies to “young children” who were abducted. I can only conclude that this figure came from the imagination of the author, or, possibly, another martyrology that I have yet to read." ).  Nothing within the article supports the notion that Irish were treated similar or worse than black slaves; just a summary statement by West that again, is not supported by any direct quote (nor is sourced).  As Matthew Reilly, the postdoctoral fellow at Brown, states, Irish indentured servants were legally distinct from chattel black slaves.  

I'm not arguing what Cromwell did to political prisoners were correct or somehow justified.  It's just that to paint them as regular individuals who were stripped from their homes isn't exactly true.

With respect to the treatment of African Americans within the American legal system and whether that constitutes as systemic and state-sponsored resulting in injury, violence and death, I do think the aggregate injury reaches the illegal threshold, especially in light of the 14th amendment of due process.  It's not just the arbitrary enforcement of the law whereby death penalties are left to the whims of all white juries or judges with proven histories of biased sentencing, but also within the application and processing of the law pertaining to instances of police brutality, forfeiture and seizure policies, and limited access to proper legal council.  While you won't find a policy maker or legislator that outright condones the racial biases and discrimination inherent within the system that produces such harm and injury, nor are there any explicit laws that make clear that a racial bias is the intent, the very fact that we have gone through decades with nothing done to correct the problems (in fact, one could argue that the problems have only gotten worse) denotes implicit approval and consent by the state.  Basically, how innocent is a system if years and decades go by where the problem is identified and solutions proposed but little to nothing gets done?  Sponsorship here is derived through implicit approval.   

[PappyTron]

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

The document you provided, regardless of where it's housed (as if that matters), is nothing more than a legal summation.  Nothing within contains anything that supports the claim that hundreds of thousands of Irish were brought over as slaves.  It was a dispute in which two indentured servants were sentenced to work two more years before being allowed to go through.  Again, not a life I would ever wish on anyone, but still a far cry from being a chattel slave.  

Your accounts from the 1600s again do not provide unequivocal proof.  As Hogan demonstrates, a lot of the information within West's article are not backed up by direct sources (As Hogan points out, Emmett provides no source for many of his numerical claims "Emmet’s claim (on p. 101) is unreferenced, claims that 100,000 only applies to “young children” who were abducted. I can only conclude that this figure came from the imagination of the author, or, possibly, another martyrology that I have yet to read." ).  Nothing within the article supports the notion that Irish were treated similar or worse than black slaves; just a summary statement by West that again, is not supported by any direct quote (nor is sourced).  As Matthew Reilly, the postdoctoral fellow at Brown, states, Irish indentured servants were legally distinct from chattel black slaves.  

I'm not arguing what Cromwell did to political prisoners were correct or somehow justified.  It's just that to paint them as regular individuals who were stripped from their homes isn't exactly true.

With respect to the treatment of African Americans within the American legal system and whether that constitutes as systemic and state-sponsored resulting in injury, violence and death, I do think the aggregate injury reaches the illegal threshold, especially in light of the 14th amendment of due process.  It's not just the arbitrary enforcement of the law whereby death penalties are left to the whims of all white juries or judges with proven histories of biased sentencing, but also within the application and processing of the law pertaining to instances of police brutality, forfeiture and seizure policies, and limited access to proper legal council.  While you won't find a policy maker or legislator that outright condones the racial biases and discrimination inherent within the system that produces such harm and injury, nor are there any explicit laws that make clear that a racial bias is the intent, the very fact that we have gone through decades with nothing done to correct the problems (in fact, one could argue that the problems have only gotten worse) denotes implicit approval and consent by the state.  Basically, how innocent is a system if years and decades go by where the problem is identified and solutions proposed but little to nothing gets done?  Sponsorship here is derived through implicit approval.   

Of course where the document is housed matters. A document that is housed in a research building in one of the world's most respected universities, and whose sole raison d'etre is the study of slavery, the subject which we are discussing, has far more credibility than your chum Hogan, who is not an accredited historian and is, in fact, a librarian. That you keep then mentioning that the discussion held within said document is about the length of time for servitude when I have already pointed out that it was the extract from the document itself that was important; that the man in question was driven from his home at bayonet point, against his will, and was forced to work, again, against his will. That is slavery, not indentured servitude. Indeed, can you tell me what the definition of "indentured" means, because I think that you will find it is 100% incompatible with being used as a descriptor for someone who was taken against their will, foreknowledge and agreement.

You insist on using the word of Hogan, a librarian, over someone who witnessed the events with his own eyes. Quote "Truly, I have seen cruelty there done to servants as I did not think one Christian could have done to another". That was by Richard Ligon, an eyewitness, so we can take it that the Irish slaves were treated cruelly. Indentured servants were not free to come and go as they pleased; they were considered the personal property of their master and their servitude was inheritable. Again, that is slavery, or are you of the opinion that people today, who are taken from their homes to go and work 15 hour days for no money, whilst being whipped and beaten, are simply indentured servants and not slaves? If I loaded you onto a ship, this very night, at gun point and forced you to work in a field for the next decade for no money, whilst beating you if the whim takes me, and whereby you are not free to leave, are you simply a servant?

I'm not arguing what Cromwell did to political prisoners were correct or somehow justified.  It's just that to paint them as regular individuals who were stripped from their homes isn't exactly true.

If you wish to go down that path then who is to say that those people taken from west Africa were "regular individuals who were stripped from their homes" and were not instead "political prisoners" as you like to claim the Irish to have been?

denotes implicit approval and consent by the state

Does it?

[ZoSoRose]

Holy fuck guys, come on

[downzy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

Of course where the document is housed matters. A document that is housed in a research building in one of the world's most respected universities, and whose sole raison d'etre is the study of slavery, the subject which we are discussing, has far more credibility than your chum Hogan, who is not an accredited historian and is, in fact, a librarian. That you keep then mentioning that the discussion held within said document is about the length of time for servitude when I have already pointed out that it was the extract from the document itself that was important; that the man in question was driven from his home at bayonet point, against his will, and was forced to work, again, against his will. That is slavery, not indentured servitude. Indeed, can you tell me what the definition of "indentured" means, because I think that you will find it is 100% incompatible with being used as a descriptor for someone who was taken against their will, foreknowledge and agreement.

You insist on using the word of Hogan, a librarian, over someone who witnessed the events with his own eyes. Quote "Truly, I have seen cruelty there done to servants as I did not think one Christian could have done to another". That was by Richard Ligon, an eyewitness, so we can take it that the Irish slaves were treated cruelly. Indentured servants were not free to come and go as they pleased; they were considered the personal property of their master and their servitude was inheritable. Again, that is slavery, or are you of the opinion that people today, who are taken from their homes to go and work 15 hour days for no money, whilst being whipped and beaten, are simply indentured servants and not slaves? If I loaded you onto a ship, this very night, at gun point and forced you to work in a field for the next decade for no money, whilst beating you if the whim takes me, and whereby you are not free to leave, are you simply a servant?

This whole discussion started by me asking this: "The Irish in America are suffering economic and social injustices between 1800 and now to the same extent and scope as African Americans?"

Your response was an incident in which two individuals were forcibly kidnapped and put to work for nine years in the 1600s.  First, that doesn't answer my original question, I asked for an example between 1800 and now.  Second, the fact that some Irish were kidnapped four hundred years ago and forced into indentured servitude (and yes, there is a difference between indentured servitude and the black experience of chattel slavery, more on that later) long before America was even a country.  How does that even come close to the black experience in America?  Did this force kidnapping of Irish people continue into the 19th century?  Did it last longer than the 17th century?  Absolutely not.  It's estimated that there were 165k Irish immigrants to the U.S. colonies and the West Indies.  And yet you state there were hundreds of thousands of Irish forced in to slavery.  Sorry, but the math doesn't add up, even if you accept the unsourced numbers put forward by Emmet.  

You keep wanting to dismiss Hogan, someone how has investigated and researched the topic more than anyone I can find.  Why spend so much time attacking the source rather than the arguments and evidence he presents?  You should know that's not a very good strategy for proving your point.  If what Hogan writes and demonstrates is so questionable, how is that you have been unable or unwilling to counter his remarks?  

The words of Richard Ligon do not speak to the question of whether the Irish were treated similarly or worse than their black counterparts.  His remarks speak solely to his shock at seeing one Christian man treat another Christian man so poorly.  No where in his words does he make any level form of comparison between the Irish person and their black slave counterpart.  The very fact that Irish indentured servants were allowed to go free after a certain period of time and the fact that their children did not become the property of their master is a pretty big fucking difference between the Irish experience and black experience.  Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, but it's not the same as the more severe form chattel slavery for the reasons already given and also for the fact that many indentured servants volunteered for the work.  Moreover, for most Irish, it last a few decades in the mid to late 17th century.  I see no evidence of Irish forced into indentured servitude into the 18th and 19th century, when black chattel slavery was the dominant economic engine of the American South.  

The other issue with West's sources is that there's conflation of language.  The term "white slaves" emerged in the 17th and 18th century to first as a derogatory term for Irish labourers, —equating their social position to that of slaves—later as political rhetoric in Ireland itself, and later still as Southern pro-slavery propaganda against an industrialized North."   It is a mistake to use the use of the term slave with respect to the Irish during this period since its meaning is something vastly different than the black slave experience.  As noted by Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion at Slate: 

"Indentured servitude was difficult, deadly work, and many indentured servants died before their terms were over. But indentured servitude was temporary, with a beginning and an end. Those who survived their terms received their freedom. Servants could even petition for early release due to mistreatment, and colonial lawmakers established different, often lesser, punishments for disobedient servants compared to disobedient slaves. Above all, indentured servitude wasn’t hereditary. The children of servants were free; the children of slaves were property. To elide this is to diminish the realities of chattel slavery, which—perhaps—is one reason the most vocal purveyors of the myth are neo-Confederate and white supremacist groups.

Bottom line: Even if many Irish immigrants faced discrimination and hard lives on these shores, it doesn’t change the fact that American slavery—hereditary and race-based—was a massive institution that shaped and defined the political economy of colonial America, and later, the United States. Nor does it change the fact that this institution left a profound legacy for the descendants of enslaved Africans, who even after emancipation were subject to almost a century of violence, disenfranchisement, and pervasive oppression, with social, economic, and cultural effects that persist to the present."
 

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

This whole discussion started by me asking this: "The Irish in America are suffering economic and social injustices between 1800 and now to the same extent and scope as African Americans?"

Your response was an incident in which two individuals were forcibly kidnapped and put to work for nine years in the 1600s.  First, that doesn't answer my original question, I asked for an example between 1800 and now.  Second, the fact that some Irish were kidnapped four hundred years ago and forced into indentured servitude (and yes, there is a difference between indentured servitude and the black experience of chattel slavery, more on that later) long before America was even a country.  How does that even come close to the black experience in America?  Did this force kidnapping of Irish people continue into the 19th century?  Did it last longer than the 17th century?  Absolutely not.  It's estimated that there were 165k Irish immigrants to the U.S. colonies and the West Indies.  And yet you state there were hundreds of thousands of Irish forced in to slavery.  Sorry, but the math doesn't add up, even if you accept the unsourced numbers put forward by Emmet.  

You keep wanting to dismiss Hogan, someone how has investigated and researched the topic more than anyone I can find.  Why spend so much time attacking the source rather than the arguments and evidence he presents?  You should know that's not a very good strategy for proving your point.  If what Hogan writes and demonstrates is so questionable, how is that you have been unable or unwilling to counter his remarks?  

The words of Richard Ligon do not speak to the question of whether the Irish were treated similarly or worse than their black counterparts.  His remarks speak solely to his shock at seeing one Christian man treat another Christian man so poorly.  No where in his words does he make any level form of comparison between the Irish person and their black slave counterpart.  The very fact that Irish indentured servants were allowed to go free after a certain period of time and the fact that their children did not become the property of their master is a pretty big fucking difference between the Irish experience and black experience.  Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, but it's not the same as the more severe form chattel slavery for the reasons already given and also for the fact that many indentured servants volunteered for the work.  Moreover, for most Irish, it last a few decades in the mid to late 17th century.  I see no evidence of Irish forced into indentured servitude into the 18th and 19th century, when black chattel slavery was the dominant economic engine of the American South.  

The other issue with West's sources is that there's conflation of language.  The term "white slaves" emerged in the 17th and 18th century to first as a derogatory term for Irish labourers, —equating their social position to that of slaves—later as political rhetoric in Ireland itself, and later still as Southern pro-slavery propaganda against an industrialized North."   It is a mistake to use the use of the term slave with respect to the Irish during this period since its meaning is something vastly different than the black slave experience.  As noted by Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion at Slate: 

"Indentured servitude was difficult, deadly work, and many indentured servants died before their terms were over. But indentured servitude was temporary, with a beginning and an end. Those who survived their terms received their freedom. Servants could even petition for early release due to mistreatment, and colonial lawmakers established different, often lesser, punishments for disobedient servants compared to disobedient slaves. Above all, indentured servitude wasn’t hereditary. The children of servants were free; the children of slaves were property. To elide this is to diminish the realities of chattel slavery, which—perhaps—is one reason the most vocal purveyors of the myth are neo-Confederate and white supremacist groups.

Bottom line: Even if many Irish immigrants faced discrimination and hard lives on these shores, it doesn’t change the fact that American slavery—hereditary and race-based—was a massive institution that shaped and defined the political economy of colonial America, and later, the United States. Nor does it change the fact that this institution left a profound legacy for the descendants of enslaved Africans, who even after emancipation were subject to almost a century of violence, disenfranchisement, and pervasive oppression, with social, economic, and cultural effects that persist to the present."
 

Actually, the discussion started when you stated "There was never any period in American history whereby whites were systemically disadvantaged" which is factually untrue.

If what Hogan writes and demonstrates is so questionable, how is that you have been unable or unwilling to counter his remarks?

He is the only person making them, that's why. Find me an actual historian who has written peer reviewed work stating that the Irish were not forcibly removed from their home nation and shipped off to the New World to be used as slaves. In fact, show me an academic journal, and not some nonsense blog like Jezebel, that takes Hogan seriously. Your hangup is the word "slaves" as opposed to "indentured servants" but the issue is very simple: if a person was taken against their will then they cannot, by definition, be indentured. Anyone that was removed from their home nation and forced to work against their will, in order to pay off their passage (that they didn't want), food, lodgings and everything else, and who is not free to leave, is a slave. Now, the children of these Irish may have been free, whereas the children of those taken from Africa were not, and that is a key distinction (and one that I have not and do not contest in any way), but what may or may happen to one's children has no direct bearing on what happens to the primary individual, and it diminishes what happened to the Irish to state "Well, at least their children were born free" as if that is some kind of pearl or boon.

The WHO (no, not Roger Daltrey's lot) defines modern slavery as "situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception". They don't call that indentured servitude, but slavery. An Irish man who was taken, against his will, and forced to work for seven years was a slave. You can try and dress it up whatever way you want, and you can try and put a bow on it, but that person was a slave, and they were the legal property of another person until the debt was paid.

American slavery—hereditary and race-based—was a massive institution that shaped and defined the political economy of colonial America, and later, the United States. Nor does it change the fact that this institution left a profound legacy for the descendants of enslaved Africans

Nobody has stated, or come close to stating, that anything else is the case. What I have done is ask you to justify and/or support, your claim that there is state-sponsored violence against blacks and that cities, counties, states and the federal government are engaging in systemic actions to disproportionately maim and kill African-Americans.

Now, given that you claimed that large swathes of the Irish who were deported by Cromwell were not "regular people" but were instead "political prisoners", do you have any evidence that those taken from west Africa were simply regular people and not political prisoners? Surely those people who lost inter-tribal conflicts were as much political prisoners as those wind tossed Irish who were on the wrong end of a shellacking by Cromwell?

[downzy]

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

Actually, the discussion started when you stated "There was never any period in American history whereby whites were systemically disadvantaged" which is factually untrue.

He is the only person making them, that's why. Find me an actual historian who has written peer reviewed work stating that the Irish were not forcibly removed from their home nation and shipped off to the New World to be used as slaves. In fact, show me an academic journal, and not some nonsense blog like Jezebel, that takes Hogan seriously. Your hangup is the word "slaves" as opposed to "indentured servants" but the issue is very simple: if a person was taken against their will then they cannot, by definition, be indentured. Anyone that was removed from their home nation and forced to work against their will, in order to pay off their passage (that they didn't want), food, lodgings and everything else, and who is not free to leave, is a slave. Now, the children of these Irish may have been free, whereas the children of those taken from Africa were not, and that is a key distinction (and one that I have not and do not contest in any way), but what may or may happen to one's children has no direct bearing on what happens to the primary individual, and it diminishes what happened to the Irish to state "Well, at least their children were born free" as if that is some kind of pearl or boon.

The WHO (no, not Roger Daltrey's lot) defines modern slavery as "situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception". They don't call that indentured servitude, but slavery. An Irish man who was taken, against his will, and forced to work for seven years was a slave. You can try and dress it up whatever way you want, and you can try and put a bow on it, but that person was a slave, and they were the legal property of another person until the debt was paid.

 

Nobody has stated, or come close to stating, that anything else is the case. What I have done is ask you to justify and/or support, your claim that there is state-sponsored violence against blacks and that cities, counties, states and the federal government are engaging in systemic actions to disproportionately maim and kill African-Americans.

Now, given that you claimed that large swathes of the Irish who were deported by Cromwell were not "regular people" but were instead "political prisoners", do you have any evidence that those taken from west Africa were simply regular people and not political prisoners? Surely those people who lost inter-tribal conflicts were as much political prisoners as those wind tossed Irish who were on the wrong end of a shellacking by Cromwell?

A few thousand Irish forced into indentured servitude does not, in my books, constitute as an example of systemic disadvantage.  Surely they were disadvantaged, but this examples does not speak to a systemic problem, err, at the very least, to the same depth and scope as experienced by the African American population between the 17th and 20th century.  Unless you can demonstrate that 100 percent of the Irish who immigrated to the new world did so largely on the basis of their ethnic or national identity.  

Hogan doesn't dispute that some Irish weren't forcibly removed from their homeland and forced into indentured servitude.  That's not his point.  His argument is that the Irish experience is not equivalent to the black experience, that were the victims of chattel slavery.  Yes, both were forms of forced labour, but there are some pretty distinct differences.  

Actually, the definition of indentured servant does include force: "a person who came to America and was placed under contract to workfor another over a period of time, usually seven years, especiallyduring the 17th to 19th centuries. Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution,persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers."  There is a qualitative difference between chattel and indentured beyond just hereditary.  Those forced into indentured servitude were not bound to their masters for the remainder of their lives (though, in fairness, many did die during their years of servitude).  As David Emery writes, "Is it mere quibbling? Generically speaking, any form of forced labor can be called slavery. But what do we gain by doing so, besides blurring historical distinctions? Consider impressment, the 18th-century British naval practice of kidnapping young men and forcing them to serve on sailing vessels. That's slavery, in a sense. So is being sentenced to hard labor in prison. But while these share features in common with the institution of chattel slavery in America, they are on a whole separate plane."

The onus is on you to prove that those taken from African were political prisoners.  While some might have been, it's hard to assume that all slaves brought to America between the 17th and 19th centuries were political prisoners.  What's more, few were forced into indentured servitude but the much harsher form of chattel slavery.  Again, it's a qualitative difference that matters.  

[PappyTron]

 

Quote

Unless you can demonstrate that 100 percent of the Irish who immigrated to the new world did so largely on the basis of their ethnic or national identity.

 

Why, can you demonstrate that 100% of the Africans who immigrated to the New World did so largely on the basis of their ethnic or national identity?

 

Quote

Actually, the definition of indentured servant does include force"

No it does not, not even in the example that you gave.

Quote:

Indenture

(noun)

: A contract by which a person is bound to work

 

Quote

His argument is that the Irish experience is not equivalent to the black experience

 

The difference is that the offspring of chattel slaves were born into slavery themselves, but other than that there was effectively no difference. Both were the legal property of their masters, were not free to come and go and could be, and were, beaten at the master's whim.

 

Quote

As David Emery writes,

 

Snopes? Well, I asked you for links to academic journals and serious historians and you come back with a journalist and a website that made its name discussing whether Bigfoot was real and whether man really went to the moon.

 

Quote

The onus is on you to prove that those taken from African were political prisoners

 

No, I asked you a question; the onus is on you to either answer it or not answer it. You claim that large swathes of Irish were simply political prisoners and not regular people. I put it to you that that is simply babble. If an Irishman is captured because his side lost the war and his being sold into slavery is put down to him being a political prisoner and not a "regular person" as you so put it, then define why you believe that an African who finds himself in the exact same situation is just a "regular person" and not a political prisoner. If slavers from the kingdom of Dahomey captured people from another tribe in war and then shipped them off to the New World then those people are in exactly the same boat (you really must forgive that wordplay) as an Irishman who is defeated by Cromwellian forces and shipped to the West Indies.

Edited January 7, 2017 by PappyTron

[Axl owns dexter]

10 hours ago, classicrawker said:

Not at all I am only asking what you meant by different..........not a complicated question I think.............so what is your answer? Do you believe these environmental differences result in some races being superior is some way?

Why do you keep using the word superior? Different is not superior or inferior, it just is. Let me ask you a question. There are undoubtedly people with a higher IQ score and make more money than you. Do you consider them superior to yourself?

[downzy]

29 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Actually, the definition of indentured servant does include force"

No it does not, not even in the example that you gave.

Quote:

Indenture

(noun)

: A contract by which a person is bound to work

 

Again, the vast majority of indentured servants voluntarily entered into that situation.  There is no verifiable documentations that proves that tens or hundreds of thousands of Irish were forced into the arrangement.  

 

29 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

The difference is that the offspring of chattel slaves were born into slavery themselves, but other than that there was effectively no difference. Both were the legal property of their masters, were not free to come and go and could be, and were, beaten at the master's whim.

 

The other major difference is that indentured servants was not servitude for the servants entire life.  Most worked seven to nine years and were released from their obligations (forced or volunteered).  To repeat Brouie and Onion again, "But indentured servitude was temporary, with a beginning and an end. Those who survived their terms received their freedom. Servants could even petition for early release due to mistreatment, and colonial lawmakers established different, often lesser, punishments for disobedient servants compared to disobedient slaves. Above all, indentured servitude wasn’t hereditary. The children of servants were free; the children of slaves were property. To elide this is to diminish the realities of chattel slavery, which—perhaps—is one reason the most vocal purveyors of the myth are neo-Confederate and white supremacist groups."

You can gloss over these differences all you want, but there are qualitative differences between the two experiences, never mind the fact that a small percentage of Irish indentured servants were forced into, unlike the vast majority of African slaves who were given no choice.  

29 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Snopes? Well, I asked you for links to academic journals and serious historians and you come back with a journalist and a website that made its name discussing whether Bigfoot was real and whether man really went to the moon. 

 

Other than your legal summary, which again, does little to help your cause, you have provided nothing of the kind.  Moreover, I referenced Emery not to plagiarize the logic he put forward.  There are many different forms of forced labour, from chattel slavery to indentured slavery to prison labour.  There are factual reasons why historians and non-scholarly individuals, use different terms to describe forced labour.  They are not one in the same.  I thought Emery laid it out clearly, hence why I quoted him.  But again, feel free to disparage and dismiss something simply because you don't like the source rather than speak to its substance.

 

29 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

No, I asked you a question; the onus is on you to either answer it or not answer it. You claim that large swathes of Irish were simply political prisoners and not regular people. I put it to you that that is simply babble. If an Irishman is captured because his side lost the war and his being sold into slavery is put down to him being a political prisoner and not a "regular person" as you so put it, then define why you believe that an African who finds himself in the exact same situation is just a "regular person" and not a political prisoner. If slavers from the kingdom of Dahomey captured people from another tribe in war and then shipped them off to the New World then those people are in exactly the same boat (you really must forgive that wordplay) as an Irishman who is defeated by Cromwellian forces and shipped to the West Indies.

 

The onus isn't on the person to prove a negative.  If your arguing that majority of African slaves were political slaves, that's something you need to prove.  Irish people weren't sold into slavery.  They were sold into indentured servitude whereby they were allowed to leave seven to nine years later.  To me, this has more in common with forced labour in prisons than chattel slavery.  Africans were not given such a light sentence for losing this supposed war you assume they lost.  Not only did they forfeit their own personal liberty for the remainder of their lives, but also the liberty of their kin.  Again, big qualitative difference.

[Ace Spade]

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

[PappyTron]

55 minutes ago, downzy said:

Again, the vast majority of indentured servants voluntarily entered into that situation.  There is no verifiable documentations that proves that tens or hundreds of thousands of Irish were forced into the arrangement.  

 

The other major difference is that indentured servants was not servitude for the servants entire life.  Most worked seven to nine years and were released from their obligations (forced or volunteered).  To repeat Brouie and Onion again, "But indentured servitude was temporary, with a beginning and an end. Those who survived their terms received their freedom. Servants could even petition for early release due to mistreatment, and colonial lawmakers established different, often lesser, punishments for disobedient servants compared to disobedient slaves. Above all, indentured servitude wasn’t hereditary. The children of servants were free; the children of slaves were property. To elide this is to diminish the realities of chattel slavery, which—perhaps—is one reason the most vocal purveyors of the myth are neo-Confederate and white supremacist groups."

You can gloss over these differences all you want, but there are qualitative differences between the two experiences, never mind the fact that a small percentage of Irish indentured servants were forced into, unlike the vast majority of African slaves who were given no choice.  

Other than your legal summary, which again, does little to help your cause, you have provided nothing of the kind.  Moreover, I referenced Emery not to plagiarize the logic he put forward.  There are many different forms of forced labour, from chattel slavery to indentured slavery to prison labour.  There are factual reasons why historians and non-scholarly individuals, use different terms to describe forced labour.  They are not one in the same.  I thought Emery laid it out clearly, hence why I quoted him.  But again, feel free to disparage and dismiss something simply because you don't like the source rather than speak to its substance.

 

The onus isn't on the person to prove a negative.  If your arguing that majority of African slaves were political slaves, that's something you need to prove.  Irish people weren't sold into slavery.  They were sold into indentured servitude whereby they were allowed to leave seven to nine years later.  To me, this has more in common with forced labour in prisons than chattel slavery.  Africans were not given such a light sentence for losing this supposed war you assume they lost.  Not only did they forfeit their own personal liberty for the remainder of their lives, but also the liberty of their kin.  Again, big qualitative difference.

 

I wrote a reply to this but the connection crapped out. To be honest, given that the level of research that you can provide is a librarian and Snopes, I am not of a mind to retype it as it is clear that you have nothing of substance to offer. I'll leave this here just in case you do want to bother finding something: provide me with an actual academic, through a reputable journal, who provides evidence for the position put forward by Hogan.

[downzy]

38 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

 

I wrote a reply to this but the connection crapped out. To be honest, given that the level of research that you can provide is a librarian and Snopes, I am not of a mind to retype it as it is clear that you have nothing of substance to offer. I'll leave this here just in case you do want to bother finding something: provide me with an actual academic, through a reputable journal, who provides evidence for the position put forward by Hogan.

Unfortunately my access to my university's records has lapsed due to length of time I've been out of school, so I'm reliant on what I can find on Google. 

All I can say is that there is no scholarly evidence that supports the notion that Irish slavery resembled anything like that of African experience in both depth and scope.  The research provided by Hogan is well sourced, both with respect to the question of how many were forced into indentured servitude (Kerby Miller (Emigrants and Exiles, 143), Robin Blackburn (The Making of New World Slavery, 247) and Matthew C. Reilly (“Poor Whites” of Barbados, 6).  As it stands, neither the legal summary housed at Yale nor the West article makes it clear that the Irish suffered from chattel slavery versus the the generally accepted concept of indentured slavery.  The Irish experience is not anything close to what Africans brought from their homeland, nor were Africans given the same opportunity to assimilate into American society if they somehow gained their freedom. 

Moreover, it's important to understand the context as to why this argument has been made more frequently in recent years.  It's largely emerged in the service to minimize the black slavery machine and undermine African American grievances in modern-day America.  As Aidan McQuade, the director of Anti-Slavery International, says, "While indentured servitude would be regarded by contemporary standards as slavery, it was less violent than the transatlantic slave trade out of Africa. The Irish, because of the colour of their skin, had preferential treatment and pathways out unavailable to black slaves.  Unfortunately, the Irish slave idea seems to be coming from a point of division and not from one of empathy. These memes actually diminish the Irish experience of indentured servitude in the Americas by turning a sad history into a token of race oppression." 

 

[classicrawker]

6 hours ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Why do you keep using the word superior? Different is not superior or inferior, it just is. Let me ask you a question. There are undoubtedly people with a higher IQ score and make more money than you. Do you consider them superior to yourself?

You are deflecting mate we are talking race here not individuals.......You are still not answering my question.  It is a simple yes or no answer.....do you consider some race or races  superior to others?.......you are the one who started a thread with racial overtones so why are you so afraid to answer the question?....

Edited January 7, 2017 by classicrawker

[DieselDaisy]

Black people

- superior dance abilities

- big cock

- shitty bobble hair

White people

- good business acumen

- decent hair

- average willy

- dreadful dance skills

Pakistani

- good ball tampering skills

- shitty fielding

Chinese

- good cooking

- Kung Fu masters

- maggot in the briefs.

[Len Cnut]

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Black people

- superior dance abilities

- big cock

- shitty bobble hair

White people

- good business acumen

- decent hair

- average willy

- dreadful dance skills

Pakistani

- good ball tampering skills

- shitty fielding

Chinese

- good cooking

- Kung Fu masters

- maggot in the briefs.

Its alright when fuckin' Athers does it tho eh, ball tampering, flamin' cheek   We get it for tampering, we get it for chucking, when in doubt blame Pakistan

(i have got no idea what I'm talkin about here, got all this from my brother sitting beside me  )