[skwaddar]

Blacks and their slavery shoulder chip, GET OVER IT

Newsflash : "more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas"

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT

http://www.scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm

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

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-...

[emmett]

First - great collection of links. The history of slavery deserves a more thorough understanding than what's normally taught in high school.

And yet, it was not the Irish who couldn't vote as late as the 60s, nor were the Irish the ones in segregated schools through the 70s, nor were there Irish divisions of the armed forces in World War II sent on the most dangerous missions. There were not masses of Irishmen enslaved in the south (de jure, and then defacto) through the 1800s and 1900s.

Are black people the only people to be oppressed and discriminated against in history? Clearly not. But as late as 4 decades ago, well within the lifetime of people still alive, black people have suffered a far greater weight of discrimination than any other ethnic group in America.

The after-effects of recent black slavery and segregation continue to be felt today. Saying "get over it" suggests a lack of understanding of the ways that those effects still persist.

[DanielBMarkham]

The problem is that using the criteria of "well within the lifetime of people alive" is arbitrary. Nazis killed six million Jews -- an evil much worse than slavery -- well within the lifetime of people alive. All sorts of people having been doing all sorts of mean things to other people well within the lifetime of people alive.

I'm in my 40s, which means that I never knew a society that wouldn't allow blacks to vote. I certainly had nothing to do with slavery. I used to find this identity politics justified, then amusing (as I thought through it some more), and now it's just feeble.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those that start each day looking for opportunities and those that start each day looking to the past. I'd rather be the second kind of person. So I don't discriminate based on color, won't put up with others who do, and am finished with considering race an interesting or important issue.

As an aside, there's a serious issue with segregating population based on skin color (as opposed to any other random collection of genes)for purposes of commentary -- it actually reinforces the idea that somehow people of one color are different than another. Of course we all know that patterns appear in the genetic pool, but using skin color as a predominant discriminating factor is, as best, misguided. At worst, it can cause the exact types of behavior we all agree is so bad.

[plinkplonk]

" those that start each day looking for opportunities and those that start each day looking to the past. I'd rather be the second kind of person."

Did you mean "I'd rather be the first kind of person." ? The sentence seems to shift in meaning when you change that word, to one that fits the paragraph more.

[DanielBMarkham]

Brain fart. Doh!

Yes. You're right.

[sokoloff]

If you agree (as I do) that the sooner a population "gets over it" and starts looking forward rather than back to improve their situation, the better it is for them, then suggesting that they "get over it" is good prescriptive advice.

The longer that a community keeps bringing up the past as a "reminder of what you did to us", the longer those after-effects persist. Nevermind that in almost every cse, the "you" isn't the one that did those things, and that the "us" wasn't the one to whom those things were done. (Where it is, by all means avail yourself of the remedies available in the legal system.)

Do you feel that scientists have made an adequate recovery from the persecution (and in instances, executions) of the past? Do you think that Christians have made an adequate recovery to a position of at least equality with the Romans?

I acknowledge that terrible, unconscionable things have been done to different groups of people by other different groups of people over time. We can concentrate our efforts on forcing atonement and punishment for the past acts of others who look like us, or we can shrug all that shit off and say "today and tomorrow are new days; let's make them the best days we can." Some people will choose the former and some the latter strategy. On balance, those who choose the latter strategy will be more successful and happier, whether they are members of the previously "superior" or "persecuted" population.

[rdouble]

First - great collection of links.

Eternal World Television Network, Rasta Livewire and the Gerry Tobin Irish Language School is a great collection of links?

[emmett]

Hmm...good point. I take it back. Bad collection of links!

[arien]

That's like, totally irrelevant to what the article is about. The author points out the fact that it's strange that the marriage rate was higher during slavery than in present times. It's just an observation, not a whine.

The article overall is very interesting (from a woman's point of view, at least) and IMO applies to most modern women nowadays, not just black women. But the title smells of linkbait.

[fatdog789]

Actually, the Irish were sold not as slaves but as life-term indentured servants. It's a crucial difference, legally (if not practically) -- indentured servants were treated as people, not property.

[billswift]

I remember reading something (it was decades ago and I can't remember the source) that said indentured servants, especially short-term indentured, were treated worse than slaves. The slaves were an investment, as were their offspring, where indentured servants' children were free and short-term indentured (the more common kind) had to be freed at the end of their term, so their masters tended to use them up since they would shortly become valueless to the masters. That was also why Irish immigrants (free men) were used to build the railroads, the work was too dangerous for slaves, since they were a substantial investment of their owners. (The last part about the railroads is common in many libertarian books and I think, but am not sure, that it was in Fogel and Engerman's "Time on the Cross", an economic history of slavery.

[fatdog789]

People generally are treated worse than property....that's still true today.