Chicago-Torture/Race Conversation

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

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  )

It is actually worse than what your brother says because the English took ball-tampering, renamed it 'reverse swing', and became one of its biggest exponents - case in point, Simon Jones and Jimmy Anderson.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

It is actually worse than what your brother says because the English took ball-tampering, renamed it 'reverse swing', and became one of its biggest exponents - case in point, Simon Jones and Jimmy Anderson.

I jus found out Pakistan invented swing bowling.  We'd better shut the fuck up now before the Americans get cross

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I jus found out Pakistan invented swing bowling.  We'd better shut the fuck up now before the Americans get cross

Swing bowling, ehh?

Reverse swing is your answer.

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Swing bowling, ehh?

Reverse swing is your answer.

Sarfraz Nawaz?  (Dont ask me, I'm being fed info here!)

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Sarfraz Nawaz?  (Dont ask me, I'm being fed info here!)

Yes. And he passed it on to the great Imran then you have Wasim and Waqar and the rest is history. Although it was a sort of art practiced by all the kids in Pakistan because of the wickets.

[Axl owns dexter]

4 hours ago, classicrawker said:

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?....

I already answered you. I don't consider any race inherently superior or inferior. However, there are average group differences that are real and can't be ignored when talking about public policy. Do you deny groups evolved differently in differing climates?

[classicrawker]

Just now, Axl owns dexter said:

I already answered you. I don't consider any race inherently superior or inferior. However, there are average group differences that are real and can't be ignored when talking about public policy. Do you deny groups evolved differently in differing climates?

No you danced around my question until this post but fair enough then............, so basically what you are saying is,  all things being equal, environment, nutrition, access to good helthcare and education etc., you believe there really is not difference between races and one is not superrior to another? If that is the case I agree with you as IMHO environment certainly impacts a persons developmental health. 

That is not to say I agree with your White Nationalist seperatist agenda though.............

[Axl owns dexter]

6 hours ago, classicrawker said:

No you danced around my question until this post but fair enough then............, so basically what you are saying is,  all things being equal, environment, nutrition, access to good helthcare and education etc., you believe there really is not difference between races and one is not superrior to another? If that is the case I agree with you as IMHO environment certainly impacts a persons developmental health. 

That is not to say I agree with your White Nationalist seperatist agenda though.............

No I believe that to be a false premise and you essentially believe in a blank state theory, where no natural intellectual abilities are passed down from your parents. There do appear to be average differences in raw abilities between groups. But again, that's talking about an average. But it's not up to me to decide what's better than the other. That's a subjective opinion.

[classicrawker]

1 hour ago, Axl owns dexter said:

No I believe that to be a false premise and you essentially believe in a blank state theory, where no natural intellectual abilities are passed down from your parents. There do appear to be average differences in raw abilities between groups. But again, that's talking about an average. But it's not up to me to decide what's better than the other. That's a subjective opinion.

You were the one that brought up the point of environment so what exactly was your point related to this? and no that is not what I am saying at all..I understand intelligence has something to do with inherited genetics but also  believe there is intellectual diversity in  all races and that one is not superior to another as there are are brilliant individuals in all races...but also believe that environment has an impact on individuals development.

And based on what you wrote you really seem to be implying, in a subtle way, one race has a genetic advantage over others or in other words are superior.......in an average way of course........

Edited January 8, 2017 by classicrawker

[Dan H.]

8 hours ago, Axl owns dexter said:

I already answered you. I don't consider any race inherently superior or inferior. However, there are average group differences that are real and can't be ignored when talking about public policy. Do you deny groups evolved differently in differing climates?

Yo, hook us up with some links from some peer reviewed scientific sources or really any publication that can verify some of these racial differences that apply to public policy. No Brietbart or Alex Jones plz

Edited January 8, 2017 by Dan H.

[AxlisOld]

We could find some dude that works at a library, that counts, right?

[Dan H.]

Just now, AxlisOld said:

We could find some dude that works at a library, that counts, right?

[Axl owns dexter]

15 hours ago, Dan H. said:

Yo, hook us up with some links from some peer reviewed scientific sources or really any publication that can verify some of these racial differences that apply to public policy. No Brietbart or Alex Jones plz

Here are some good book primers for anyone interested:

A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade

The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein

IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn

Also:

 

[classicrawker]

1 hour ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Here are some good book primers for anyone interested:

A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade

The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein

IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn

Also:

 

Social racism at its worst...........

[PappyTron]

On 07/01/2017 at 9:08 AM, downzy said:

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." 

 

 

Do you not find it strange that every link that you provide is based on Hogan's work in one form or another, and not on an actual historian with credited publication at an actual academic journal? I mean, I asked you to provide me something in support of Hogan's claims and the best that you could come up with was Snopes. We both know that if this was the politics thread and someone tried to support their position by giving a link to an article from Snopes or Cracked or something you'd dismiss it out of hand.

I also want to cover a point here, because you keep throwing in the word "chattel" as a qualifier. Your wording is "The Irish (never) suffered from chattel slavery versus the generally accepted concept of indentured slavery", and on that we can agree. However, at no point did I make the statement that the Irish were chattel slaves, simply that they were slaves and treated as such. In fact, as part of our discussion we talked about the generational differences and what happens to the offspring of African slaves versus what happens to the offspring of the Irish, but like I said in that section of this discussion, what happens to a person's generational offspring is a separate issue to what happens to the person themselves. If a person is taken into slavery today what happens to their potential future children makes that person's lack of freedom and suffering no better or worse.

The other aspects of your post are much the same in that they are a kind of theoretical side issue to what was being discussed. Obviously a white person would have an easier time assimilating into a white society than would a black person, that much is obvious, but that theoretical happening is obviously based on the premise that either one would find themselves in that position, and says nothing to the suffering that they endured during their time on the plantations. As Aidan McQuade states in your quote, indentured servitude, as suffered by the Irish (and others) would 100% be classed as slavery today, and it is actively attempting to minimise their suffering by saying "it wasn't chattel slavery, so it wasn't as bad" which is the gist of your position. Indentured servants were, by all definitions, save the euphemistic ones that people apply, both today and at the time, slaves; they were not free to come and go, they were worked to death, they were degraded and beaten, and they were the legal property of their master and their ownership was hereditary. The fact that their servitude was, theoretically, finite simply meant that there was no incentive to keep them alive so they were worked to death.

Lastly, I do not know whether anyone else is making claims of this nature, but I want it to be 100% clear that I am making no judgement whatsoever on genetic differences such as intelligence or criminal proclivities between races. I am not sure why that has been brought up by others, if that is their intent and I am not simply misreading them, but I have and want nothing to do with that position.

[Dan H.]

17 hours ago, Dan H. said:

Yo, hook us up with some links from some peer reviewed scientific sources or really any publication that can verify some of these racial differences that apply to public policy. No Brietbart or Alex Jones plz

 

[Axl owns dexter]

5 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

 

I gave you some books to read. Do you want me to hold your hand while you read, or should I read it aloud for you? Maybe I'll read it aloud and send you the audio like a book on tape?

1 hour ago, classicrawker said:

Social racism at its worst...........

Not an argument. 

[Dan H.]

6 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

I gave you some books to read. Do you want me to hold your hand while you read, or should I read it aloud for you? Maybe I'll read it aloud and send you the audio like a book on tape?

Herrnstein and Murray are not credible sources. They have been discredited, and their research for The Bell Curve was NOT peer reviewed as I requested.

I didn't ask for a book recomendation, I asked for links. Still waiting.

[Dan H.]

On A Troublesome Inheritance,  all the scientists on whose research Wade's was based, discredited him and openly published a letter of dissent claiming that Wade lazily misrepresented their research, and that their science does not back up his sloppy guesswork.

Quite frankly there is no evidence out there that intelligence. potential is measurably different among races on a proven genetic level.

[Dan H.]

Oh, and Richard Lynn is a straight up racist who obviously has a political agenda.

Also its pretty telling that all four of the people whose books you've named have a habit of jerking one another off in their publications. 

All four also like the dance around the idea of a mass extermination of what they call lesser humans. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Dan H.

[classicrawker]

Like I said a collection of white social racists........

[downzy]

36 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

 

Do you not find it strange that every link that you provide is based on Hogan's work in one form or another, and not on an actual historian with credited publication at an actual academic journal? I mean, I asked you to provide me something in support of Hogan's claims and the best that you could come up with was Snopes. We both know that if this was the politics thread and someone tried to support their position by giving a link to an article from Snopes or Cracked or something you'd dismiss it out of hand.

I also want to cover a point here, because you keep throwing in the word "chattel" as a qualifier. Your wording is "The Irish (never) suffered from chattel slavery versus the generally accepted concept of indentured slavery", and on that we can agree. However, at no point did I make the statement that the Irish were chattel slaves, simply that they were slaves and treated as such. In fact, as part of our discussion we talked about the generational differences and what happens to the offspring of African slaves versus what happens to the offspring of the Irish, but like I said in that section of this discussion, what happens to a person's generational offspring is a separate issue to what happens to the person themselves. If a person is taken into slavery today what happens to their potential future children makes that person's lack of freedom and suffering no better or worse.

The other aspects of your post are much the same in that they are a kind of theoretical side issue to what was being discussed. Obviously a white person would have an easier time assimilating into a white society than would a black person, that much is obvious, but that theoretical happening is obviously based on the premise that either one would find themselves in that position, and says nothing to the suffering that they endured during their time on the plantations. As Aidan McQuade states in your quote, indentured servitude, as suffered by the Irish (and others) would 100% be classed as slavery today, and it is actively attempting to minimise their suffering by saying "it wasn't chattel slavery, so it wasn't as bad" which is the gist of your position. Indentured servants were, by all definitions, save the euphemistic ones that people apply, both today and at the time, slaves; they were not free to come and go, they were worked to death, they were degraded and beaten, and they were the legal property of their master and their ownership was hereditary. The fact that their servitude was, theoretically, finite simply meant that there was no incentive to keep them alive so they were worked to death.

Lastly, I do not know whether anyone else is making claims of this nature, but I want it to be 100% clear that I am making no judgement whatsoever on genetic differences such as intelligence or criminal proclivities between races. I am not sure why that has been brought up by others, if that is their intent and I am not simply misreading them, but I have and want nothing to do with that position.

What I find strange is your unwillingness to engage in the evidence brought forward by Hogan solely because his credentials don't meet your standards.  

This debate over Irish slavery started when you said, "The Irish suffered systemic economic and social injustices between 1800 and now, for example."    So far you have not provided a single piece of evidence that relates to that timeline (1800 to now).  But let's give you some slack and change the timeline to the 17th century and examine whether there was systemic economic and social injustices to the same extent and scope as those brought from Africa.  

To that extend you have provided two documents to support your claim that "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, important to note that there exists no evidence, nor have you provided of any, that any of your claim here occurred between 1800 and now.

With respect to your supportive evidence, the first was the legal summary housed in Yale (we don't want to forget that part).  It provides no information to support the claim that the Irish experience was anything like the aggregate experience of their black counterparts.  What it does illustrate is that two individuals who were kidnapped from Ireland who were sold into indentured servitude in America in the 17th century.  Is this a form of slavery?  Yes.  But are there qualified differences between those two individuals and black slaves living in the colonies.  The first, they got a trial, something black slaves were outright denied.  Second, they were forced to only work a set period of time.  Third, had they had children, they would not become the property of the owner.  I'm not downplaying the plight of those unfortunate Irish people who were forced into indentured servitude, but this document makes it clear that there were distinct economic and social injustices experienced by the two races.  Nor does this document demonstrate your claim that the problem was systemic.  

The second document you provided is by Robert E. West (it's interesting how you so quickly dismiss Hogan because of what you perceive as a lack of credentials but so willingly accept West's document as fact, despite that there is no information on who West is and is credentials).  The issue with West's document is that many of the figures included are sourced to documents or authors that do not provide reference.  Moreover, much of the data doesn't reconcile to migration records.  If Irish migration to the West Indies and American colonies is estimated to be around 165k between 1630 and 1775, how does West propose that 100k Irish children were sent abroad into slavery in West Indies, Virginia, and New England?  Since those figures come from Emmet, who does not provide references or sources for his figures, why should we accept them?  West asserts that contemporary writers claim that 20-30k Irish prisoners were sold and forced into slavery.  But who are these contemporary writers?  The source on this Emmet, and as already noted, why would you accept information from someone who does not cite his information?  The same issue surrounds West's claim that "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."  All writers? Which writers?  If you were grading a university paper, would you accept such shoddy assertions?  Finally, West sources three authors in his attempt to pinpoint how many Irish slaves were sold off to American and West Indies masters between 1651 and 1660.  Estimates range between 60k and 130k.  Again, we're to believe that 36 to 80 percent of all Irish migration to British colonies was the result of forced migration?  If this were true, how is there no documentation on this anywhere else to be found?  If the claim that 60k to 130k Irish migrated and became indentured servants, that would be far more believable since it was common for many to agree to being an indentured servant as a means of emigrating to the new world.  As noted, the term "white slave" was often used to describe indentured servants regardless of whether they were forced into or not.  Finally, these figures runs counter to the estimates provided by scholars who have studied Irish migration during this period, who estimate that forced migration runs anywhere from a few thousand and up to 10-12k.  

Again, I'm not trying to downplay the shit sandwich that was the lives of many Irish who were forced to a new land and work in servitude to most likely assholes and evil men.  But nothing you have provided so far that holds up to scrutiny in any way support your claims that the Irish were forcibly brought over by the hundreds of thousands and were treated less well than black slaves.  While we can differ about the meaning of systemic, it's absurd to suggest that the Irish experience during the 17th century - as bad as it was - was anything like what Africans forcibly brought to America experienced. The first noted African American coming to the Americas that wasn't a slave was in the early 19th century.  Prior to, every African brought to America was brought here against his or her will.  No sub-group of whites experience the same level of mass deportation.  So when you say "The Irish suffered systemic economic and social injustices" and "there are plenty of sub-groups of whites who have been, and some who have been treated just as bad, and worse, than blacks of the same period," I have to call bullshit.  The experiences are not even close in either depth or scope.  

What I think has happened is you read some Internet meme on someone's Facebook and took it as fact.  I believe a big reason why there isn't publicly available scholarly research on this is because the promotion of an Irish slave trade is something relatively new and used by white supremacists to discount the African slave trade.  I'm not saying that this here is your attention, as you made it clear that you have no interest in defending arguments of racial superiority.  Hogan is on record saying that his research was the result of seeing these arguments made of late on the Internet and wanting to see if they're true.  All of his work so far available on the web is referenced and sourced and hopefully his complete working paper will be released soon.  But to dismiss out of hand because you find his qualifications lacking, well, isn't that a tad elitist?  That isn't to say that we should accept blindly, but at the very least you should be open enough to consider his findings and if you find fault, then make them known.  

[PappyTron]

What I find strange is your hypocrisy over what you consider acceptable sources. When Shades used to make statements on the GOP or Democrats or what have you, you would ask for his sources, and when he pointed you to a blog or website you'd dismiss it out of hand as being not up to standard, or the work of a crank. However, you yourself, are more than happy to say that Liam Hogan should be taken seriously despite him being a simple librarian by trade and not having been published in any academic journal, just online blogs and such which get reposted over and over. In turn, when asked to provide any academic research that supports Liam Hogan's position, the best that you could come up with was a post on Snopes, a website that made its name investigating urban legends. Don't sit there and hypocritically tell me that Hogan's work should be taken seriously when if the situations were reversed and someone pointed to an article at Jezebel to support their claims you'd tell them that they needed something a little more weighty.

I believe a big reason why there isn't publicly available scholarly research on this is because the promotion of an Irish slave trade is something relatively new and used by white supremacists to discount the African slave trade.

People in Ireland have been complaining for hundreds of years that their brothers, sisters, sons and daughters have been taken from them and sent to all corners of the globe to toil until they died. That isn't new, and is coming up for half a millennium old. Find any man or woman in Ireland and ask them what the English did to them under people like Elizabeth, James and Cromwell. Cromwell, to this day, is loathed in Ireland for being a butcher who destroyed entire communities by shipping them off into slavery (or, as you like to call it "servitude" which is simply a euphemism). Under the same token, ask any historian/academic at a proper university what Cromwell did to the Irish and they will tell you how many were shipped off under the guise of being "political prisoners". If Hogan has come to the conclusion that the Irish being sold into slavery ("indentured servitude") is a myth then he has blown open something that hasn't been contested for hundreds of years, but when we look we do not find any historian, paper or publication that agrees with him, but when we look up "Irish slaves" on Google (other search engines available) all we find is blog after blog after blog posting and reposting Hogan's work and invariably they all link back to each other and cite each other. Does that not strike you as a little odd? Hogan himself states that he set out to correct the myth of the Irish being slaves, yet there is no traction on that matter in academia. In the UK, at least, that would be huge news because it would alter hundreds of years of enmity between England and Ireland and yet....nothing.

The issue with knowing how many people were shipped from Ireland is that records were not meticulously kept due to how the Irish were viewed. They were, literally, viewed as sub-human. In addition to that, all shipments from Ireland had to first dock in England, where cargo was manifested. As part of that it is easily conceivable that the term "slaves", "convicts" or "servants" were used as opposed to a more specific logging of their home nation, because by that point who they were or where they came from was irrelevant. Not to compare it directly, because the numbers are very different, but nobody knows how many African slaves were bought, sold and transported because, again, no perfect records were kept. For both the Irish, Africans and people in every despicable trade and conflict in history we can only have educated guesses and these can be out, one way or the other, by huge percentages.

The key issue here is the term Indentured Servant vs Slave. Under all modern definitions they are one and the same because indentured servants were seen as the property of their master, had no freedom to come and go, and were able to be bought and sold as well as beaten and worked to death. That does not, of course, cover the issue of those being being shipped off against their will cannot, by definition, be indentured. What you really mean is slave vs chattel slave, which is a more interesting and relevant conversation. If Africans were slaves and their children were born as slaves and the white Irish were not then that is a key and clear difference, and one that I do not deny. However, like I mentioned, what may or may not become of one's potential children has zero bearing on how an individual is treated today, and in fact a person whose "contract" had a finite time would have considerably less value than a chattel slave and therefore we can assume would be treated more harshly as there is no incentive to protect the investment.

What I think has happened is you read some Internet meme on someone's Facebook and took it as fact.

I'm genuinely insulted. If the level of respect that you have for me is that you feel that I am the kind of person who needs Facebook to arrive at a point of view, then there is nothing else to discuss. Unlike you I actually have a degree in History, and as such am able to formulate my own opinion without require the spawn of Zuckerberg. As part of my ability to think for myself I can arrive at the question of why Hogan, if he has blown open a 400 year old "myth", has received zero academic recognition and why the only traction that he has gained is with websites such as Jezabel, Snopes, AfricanHolocaust and other blogs which are frequented by soccer moms, millennials and assorted crackpots.

 

[downzy]

16 hours ago, PappyTron said:

What I find strange is your hypocrisy over what you consider acceptable sources. When Shades used to make statements on the GOP or Democrats or what have you, you would ask for his sources, and when he pointed you to a blog or website you'd dismiss it out of hand as being not up to standard, or the work of a crank. However, you yourself, are more than happy to say that Liam Hogan should be taken seriously despite him being a simple librarian by trade and not having been published in any academic journal, just online blogs and such which get reposted over and over. In turn, when asked to provide any academic research that supports Liam Hogan's position, the best that you could come up with was a post on Snopes, a website that made its name investigating urban legends. Don't sit there and hypocritically tell me that Hogan's work should be taken seriously when if the situations were reversed and someone pointed to an article at Jezebel to support their claims you'd tell them that they needed something a little more weighty.

 

 

Are you kidding me?  Please provide an example of Shades providing a source period (90 percent of my responses to him involved me pleading for some form of reference for the nonsense he spewed; do you not recall him calling me Mr. Google because, in his words, I'm unable to come up with a thought not my own?).  Furthermore, assuming someone wasn't referencing a site like infowar or some bullshit conspiracy site, I've always engaged the material.  Again, if you're going to make that accusation, you're going to have to provide an example. 

I think anyone should be taken seriously until proven they shouldn't (a la Alex Jones or Sean Hannity).  Hogan's work is only a year or two old, and he's still working on his paper that will eventually be peer reviewed.  It's interesting, however, there isn't one person of note taking issue with his assertions (other than some Yale history major :P).  

But to your point that it's only Hogan who argues the myth of the Irish slave, that's wrong as well.  As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, Matthew Reilly, an an archaeologist at Brown University who has researched slavery in Barbados, also contests the notion of Irish slaves ("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 laboured. While not denying the vast hardships endured by indentured servants, it is necessary to recognise the differences between forms of labour 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").   

 

16 hours ago, PappyTron said:

People in Ireland have been complaining for hundreds of years that their brothers, sisters, sons and daughters have been taken from them and sent to all corners of the globe to toil until they died. That isn't new, and is coming up for half a millennium old. Find any man or woman in Ireland and ask them what the English did to them under people like Elizabeth, James and Cromwell. Cromwell, to this day, is loathed in Ireland for being a butcher who destroyed entire communities by shipping them off into slavery (or, as you like to call it "servitude" which is simply a euphemism). Under the same token, ask any historian/academic at a proper university what Cromwell did to the Irish and they will tell you how many were shipped off under the guise of being "political prisoners". If Hogan has come to the conclusion that the Irish being sold into slavery ("indentured servitude") is a myth then he has blown open something that hasn't been contested for hundreds of years, but when we look we do not find any historian, paper or publication that agrees with him, but when we look up "Irish slaves" on Google (other search engines available) all we find is blog after blog after blog posting and reposting Hogan's work and invariably they all link back to each other and cite each other. Does that not strike you as a little odd? Hogan himself states that he set out to correct the myth of the Irish being slaves, yet there is no traction on that matter in academia. In the UK, at least, that would be huge news because it would alter hundreds of years of enmity between England and Ireland and yet....nothing.

 

What Hogan is contesting here is the assertion put forward in the last ten or fifteen years that there was a wholesale systematic Irish slave trade that is in any way comparable to the African slave trade.  White nationalists/supremacists have promoted the notion that the Irish were just as victimized as African Americans as a means to discount and diminish the racial subjugation of African Americans.  That's what he's contesting.  In his own words:

"It broadly claims that indentured servitude and penal servitude can be equated with racialized perpetual hereditary chattel slavery. It proclaims that an “Irish Slave Trade” was initiated in 1612 and not abolished until 1839, and that this concurrent transatlantic slave trade of “white slaves” has been covered up by “liberal," “cultural Marxist” or “politically correct” historians.  

The various memes make many claims including (but not limited to) the following; that “Irish slaves” were treated far worse than black slaves; that there were more “Irish slaves” than black slaves; that “Irish slaves” were worth less than black slaves, that enslaved Irish women were forced to breed with enslaved African men, and that the Irish were slaves for much longer than black slaves.

This is then invariably followed up by overtly racist statements, e.g. “yet, when is the last time you heard an Irishman bitching and moaning about how the world owes them a living?” The “Irish slaves” meme is a subset of the “white slavery” contemporary discourse which emphasizes class over race and is fueled by a potent cocktail of bad history, false equivalence, conspiracy theories, and reductionist fallacies.

The racism then flows as these various groups of Neo-Nazis posit why whites can overcome a “worse” situation than blacks and “do not whine about it.” So the “get over it” racism that so often accompanies the meme is not about history at all. It goes much deeper than that. Their belief is that non-whites can’t move on due to racial inferiority or social pathology. So through false equivalence and erasure, they attempt to remove history as a determinant so that they can claim the current socioeconomic position and mass incarceration of black people in the U.S. is due to racial inferiority."

He's not arguing that everything was rosy under Cromwell for the Irish; that thousands weren't forcibly removed from Ireland and forced to work as indentured servants.  But you stated yourself that, as fact, "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."   If this were true, you'd think being the history major you are you'd be able to provide more than one article that's highly questionable (in fact, Hogan himself investigates many of the figures and finds many of the numbers to be unsourced).  And again, we're talking about the 17th century.  You still have yet to show how the Irish suffered systemic economic and social injustice between 1800 and now, as you claimed a few posts ago. 

16 hours ago, PappyTron said:

The issue with knowing how many people were shipped from Ireland is that records were not meticulously kept due to how the Irish were viewed. They were, literally, viewed as sub-human. In addition to that, all shipments from Ireland had to first dock in England, where cargo was manifested. As part of that it is easily conceivable that the term "slaves", "convicts" or "servants" were used as opposed to a more specific logging of their home nation, because by that point who they were or where they came from was irrelevant. Not to compare it directly, because the numbers are very different, but nobody knows how many African slaves were bought, sold and transported because, again, no perfect records were kept. For both the Irish, Africans and people in every despicable trade and conflict in history we can only have educated guesses and these can be out, one way or the other, by huge percentages.

The key issue here is the term Indentured Servant vs Slave. Under all modern definitions they are one and the same because indentured servants were seen as the property of their master, had no freedom to come and go, and were able to be bought and sold as well as beaten and worked to death. That does not, of course, cover the issue of those being being shipped off against their will cannot, by definition, be indentured. What you really mean is slave vs chattel slave, which is a more interesting and relevant conversation. If Africans were slaves and their children were born as slaves and the white Irish were not then that is a key and clear difference, and one that I do not deny. However, like I mentioned, what may or may not become of one's potential children has zero bearing on how an individual is treated today, and in fact a person whose "contract" had a finite time would have considerably less value than a chattel slave and therefore we can assume would be treated more harshly as there is no incentive to protect the investment.

 

Right, so how do you stand by your claim that hundreds of thousands of Irish were brought over as slaves?  If records weren't meticulously kept, how can you make this claim?  

I do agree that indentured servant and slave by modern definitions are one in the same, except that there's no basis to suggest that all Irish immigrants, let a lone more than 10 percent, to the colonies during the 17th century were forced into indentured servitude.  As Hogan cites several scholars, it's estimated that forced migration from Ireland to America during this period is between a few thousand to ten to twelve thousand.  And there's no indication that all those forced to migrate to America were sold into indentured servitude (though it's likely that most were).  I get your logic for why Irish servants might be treat worse than African slaves, but two issues on that front.  First, we're still talking about a very small percentage of the overall number of Irish who were migrating to the colonies during this period.  If every Irish migrant, like every African slave, were forced into indentured servitude, then I'd agree that injustice perpetuated upon them would qualify as systemic.   Second, because Irish servants were given legal recourse, abuse and mistreatment could and would result in legal action to address the injuries.   While likely not foolproof or provided that much of a bulwark against abuse, there was at least some form of legal recourse for Irish servants that wasn't provided to slaves that would provide some form of protection.     

16 hours ago, PappyTron said:

I'm genuinely insulted. If the level of respect that you have for me is that you feel that I am the kind of person who needs Facebook to arrive at a point of view, then there is nothing else to discuss. Unlike you I actually have a degree in History, and as such am able to formulate my own opinion without require the spawn of Zuckerberg. As part of my ability to think for myself I can arrive at the question of why Hogan, if he has blown open a 400 year old "myth", has received zero academic recognition and why the only traction that he has gained is with websites such as Jezabel, Snopes, AfricanHolocaust and other blogs which are frequented by soccer moms, millennials and assorted crackpots.

 

Please, genuinely insulted....  The Facebook reference was a colloquial reference to something you heard but not something you gave much thought about.  Again, the arguments that hundreds of thousands of Irish were enslaved or that an Irish slave trade existed is a product of white nationalist/supremacists that serve their agenda.  Not saying that's your motivation here, but understand why it's something that has rose to prominence the last ten to fifteen years and why and how you likely came across the notion.  There is nothing in any scholarly works that suggests that hundreds of thousands of Irish were forced into slavery, as you suggested.  So what am I to assume here with respect to how you came to that opinion?  But allow me to stand corrected: tell us where you heard this nugget of knowledge?  

[Axl owns dexter]

On 1/8/2017 at 2:46 PM, Dan H. said:

Oh, and Richard Lynn is a straight up racist who obviously has a political agenda.

Also its pretty telling that all four of the people whose books you've named have a habit of jerking one another off in their publications. 

All four also like the dance around the idea of a mass extermination of what they call lesser humans. 

So basically all you have is to call them racist? When have they ever called for mass extermination of other humans? You beg me for sources and then you throw that out unsourced, hypocrisy much?

Edited January 9, 2017 by Axl owns dexter