Irish Lives Matter too (1625)


B00Mer
+4
#1


The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish 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.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
 
Tygerbright
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post



The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish 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.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

Save it for March.
 
spilledthebeer
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post



The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish 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.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.






Oh BOOMER! the garbage you are trying to plant in peoples minds IS A LIE!


Wikipedia has THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR LIE - backed up by New York Times::::


"The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans."








A person in those old days might become an indentured servant in one of several ways:


Firstly - over an unpaid debt - with the debtor being ordered by a judge to work off the debt for a period of years!


Secondly - simple bankruptcy - in which a very poor man WOULD SELL HIS LABOUR as an indentured servant in exchange for food



and shelter for a time period in order to avoid STARVING OR FREEZING on a street corner1


The welfare state WAS NOT well established in those days!


Alternatively one might be ARRESTED for a variety of crimes such as smuggling, stealing arms and ammunition which we KNOW



was a favorite Irish habit even up to these modern times as IRA gunmen could attest; or arson for burning hay ricks or barns; being a



career criminal could also get you sold into indentured servitude for a period of time simply because English judges of that time



period DID NOT practice the hug a thug ways of modern LIE-beral judges - thus a career criminal would be "transported" to some



isolated British Colony and forced to labour for a period of time in order to PAY THE CROWN for the cost of shipping!


As long as the indentured servant did not steal from his owner; did not beat his owner; did not vandalize his owners property; did not



run away into the bush and hide and refuse to work - thus forcing the owner and his allies to mount a time consuming search for the



fleeing felon - usually on horseback and using dogs for tracking etc - the felon would EVENTUALLY BE RELEASED in exchange for


services rendered!


History - meaning WRITTEN RECORDS from the time - tells us that some indentured servants worked through their term without



TOO MUCH TROUBLE!



Others who were drunks or gamblers or habitual thieves or who simply had the BAD LUCK to be bought by a bad master



WOULD HAVE A ROUGHER TIME OF IT!


The lesson is just as valid for 16th century Irish peasants as it is for Cdn Sovereign natives - if you do not want legal troubles


THEN DO NOT DO THINGS THAT GET WILL YOU ARRESTED - like that native chief who was recently in the news simply because



the knucklehead could not be bothered getting new license stickers!



English and Irish have been fighting FOREVER and BOTH sides have committed atrocities!



I am reminded of a DISGUSTING NEWS article out of Ireland from some years back - cops in Londonderry found the body of a



woman who had been missing for over 30 years!



Long ago the woman had heard a commotion at her front door and opened it to find a dying Brit soldier laying there in a pool of blood



from gunshot wounds - and the dying man asked her for some water - which she gave him and he drank a little



before bleeding to death!


And the woman was SEEN offering aid to the Brits - so one fine night some IRA guys KIDNAPPED THE GOOD CATHOLIC



MOTHER OF SIX LITTLE KIDS and she DISAPPEARED into the night!



But the cops finally found her body 30 years later - buried in a potato field - with a LARGE CALIBRE PISTOL BULLET



IN HER SKULL! AND ALL OVER A GLASS OF WATER!


Oh yes the brave sons of EIRE have struck some GREAT BLOWS against the hated Brits!


The only REAL BEEF the Irish have is that the ENGLISH WERE SMARTER AND WON THE KEY BATTLES!


You INSULT YOUR OWN HISTORY with this "Irish Slave CRAP"!
 
gerryh
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Oh BOOMER! the garbage you are trying to plant in peoples minds IS A LIE!
Wikipedia has THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR LIE - backed up by New York Times::::
"The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans."
A person in those old days might become an indentured servant in one of several ways:
Firstly - over an unpaid debt - with the debtor being ordered by a judge to work off the debt for a period of years!
Secondly - simple bankruptcy - in which a very poor man WOULD SELL HIS LABOUR as an indentured servant in exchange for food
and shelter for a time period in order to avoid STARVING OR FREEZING on a street corner1
The welfare state WAS NOT well established in those days!
Alternatively one might be ARRESTED for a variety of crimes such as smuggling, stealing arms and ammunition which we KNOW
was a favorite Irish habit even up to these modern times as IRA gunmen could attest; or arson for burning hay ricks or barns; being a
career criminal could also get you sold into indentured servitude for a period of time simply because English judges of that time
period DID NOT practice the hug a thug ways of modern LIE-beral judges - thus a career criminal would be "transported" to some
isolated British Colony and forced to labour for a period of time in order to PAY THE CROWN for the cost of shipping!
As long as the indentured servant did not steal from his owner; did not beat his owner; did not vandalize his owners property; did not
run away into the bush and hide and refuse to work - thus forcing the owner and his allies to mount a time consuming search for the
fleeing felon - usually on horseback and using dogs for tracking etc - the felon would EVENTUALLY BE RELEASED in exchange for
services rendered!
History - meaning WRITTEN RECORDS from the time - tells us that some indentured servants worked through their term without
TOO MUCH TROUBLE!
Others who were drunks or gamblers or habitual thieves or who simply had the BAD LUCK to be bought by a bad master
WOULD HAVE A ROUGHER TIME OF IT!
The lesson is just as valid for 16th century Irish peasants as it is for Cdn Sovereign natives - if you do not want legal troubles
THEN DO NOT DO THINGS THAT GET WILL YOU ARRESTED - like that native chief who was recently in the news simply because
the knucklehead could not be bothered getting new license stickers!
English and Irish have been fighting FOREVER and BOTH sides have committed atrocities!
I am reminded of a DISGUSTING NEWS article out of Ireland from some years back - cops in Londonderry found the body of a
woman who had been missing for over 30 years!
Long ago the woman had heard a commotion at her front door and opened it to find a dying Brit soldier laying there in a pool of blood
from gunshot wounds - and the dying man asked her for some water - which she gave him and he drank a little
before bleeding to death!
And the woman was SEEN offering aid to the Brits - so one fine night some IRA guys KIDNAPPED THE GOOD CATHOLIC
MOTHER OF SIX LITTLE KIDS and she DISAPPEARED into the night!
But the cops finally found her body 30 years later - buried in a potato field - with a LARGE CALIBRE PISTOL BULLET
IN HER SKULL! AND ALL OVER A GLASS OF WATER!
Oh yes the brave sons of EIRE have struck some GREAT BLOWS against the hated Brits!
The only REAL BEEF the Irish have is that the ENGLISH WERE SMARTER AND WON THE KEY BATTLES!
You INSULT YOUR OWN HISTORY with this "Irish Slave CRAP"!

You also, are dumber than a stick. You and bright "might" be able to make a spark if you rub your sticks together.
 
pgs
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You also, are dumber than a stick. You and bright "might" be able to make a spark if you rub your sticks together.

Keep shooting the messenger, works every time .
 
taxslave
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Oh BOOMER! the garbage you are trying to plant in peoples minds IS A LIE!
Wikipedia has THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR LIE - backed up by New York Times::::
"The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans."
A person in those old days might become an indentured servant in one of several ways:
Firstly - over an unpaid debt - with the debtor being ordered by a judge to work off the debt for a period of years!
Secondly - simple bankruptcy - in which a very poor man WOULD SELL HIS LABOUR as an indentured servant in exchange for food
and shelter for a time period in order to avoid STARVING OR FREEZING on a street corner1
The welfare state WAS NOT well established in those days!
Alternatively one might be ARRESTED for a variety of crimes such as smuggling, stealing arms and ammunition which we KNOW
was a favorite Irish habit even up to these modern times as IRA gunmen could attest; or arson for burning hay ricks or barns; being a
career criminal could also get you sold into indentured servitude for a period of time simply because English judges of that time
period DID NOT practice the hug a thug ways of modern LIE-beral judges - thus a career criminal would be "transported" to some
isolated British Colony and forced to labour for a period of time in order to PAY THE CROWN for the cost of shipping!
As long as the indentured servant did not steal from his owner; did not beat his owner; did not vandalize his owners property; did not
run away into the bush and hide and refuse to work - thus forcing the owner and his allies to mount a time consuming search for the
fleeing felon - usually on horseback and using dogs for tracking etc - the felon would EVENTUALLY BE RELEASED in exchange for
services rendered!
History - meaning WRITTEN RECORDS from the time - tells us that some indentured servants worked through their term without
TOO MUCH TROUBLE!
Others who were drunks or gamblers or habitual thieves or who simply had the BAD LUCK to be bought by a bad master
WOULD HAVE A ROUGHER TIME OF IT!
The lesson is just as valid for 16th century Irish peasants as it is for Cdn Sovereign natives - if you do not want legal troubles
THEN DO NOT DO THINGS THAT GET WILL YOU ARRESTED - like that native chief who was recently in the news simply because
the knucklehead could not be bothered getting new license stickers!
English and Irish have been fighting FOREVER and BOTH sides have committed atrocities!
I am reminded of a DISGUSTING NEWS article out of Ireland from some years back - cops in Londonderry found the body of a
woman who had been missing for over 30 years!
Long ago the woman had heard a commotion at her front door and opened it to find a dying Brit soldier laying there in a pool of blood
from gunshot wounds - and the dying man asked her for some water - which she gave him and he drank a little
before bleeding to death!
And the woman was SEEN offering aid to the Brits - so one fine night some IRA guys KIDNAPPED THE GOOD CATHOLIC
MOTHER OF SIX LITTLE KIDS and she DISAPPEARED into the night!
But the cops finally found her body 30 years later - buried in a potato field - with a LARGE CALIBRE PISTOL BULLET
IN HER SKULL! AND ALL OVER A GLASS OF WATER!
Oh yes the brave sons of EIRE have struck some GREAT BLOWS against the hated Brits!
The only REAL BEEF the Irish have is that the ENGLISH WERE SMARTER AND WON THE KEY BATTLES!
You INSULT YOUR OWN HISTORY with this "Irish Slave CRAP"!

You trying for hoid's title of idiot of the year now. Read a real history book. Not the one written by slave owners.Scottish miners were treated like slaves in Canada as well. In fact it was the poor treatment of miners by Dunsmuir that brought unions to BC.
 
Jinentonix
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Oh BOOMER! the garbage you are trying to plant in peoples minds IS A LIE!


Wikipedia has THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR LIE - backed up by New York Times::::


"The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans."

Oooo Wikipedia AND the NYT? Well oh my, talk about 2 utterly reliable sources of info. The NYT also claims that baby seals are routinely killed during the Canadian seal hunt while seals in general are skinned while still alive. There may be isolated incidents of that shit but it's not the standard by a long shot.


And of course not just anyone can make a wikipedia page or edit one. This where the leftist dregs have decided to alter history re: slavery in the US. There's no question that some of the White "slaves" were indentured servants, prisoners and POWs but most were out and out slaves. That's where the term "cracker", when used as a pejorative, comes from.


I guess the NYT and your Wikipedia professor forgot that was also the period where the English were attempting a genocide on the Irish, so I have grave doubts they gave two shits about making sure they were "only indentured servants" in the New World.
Last edited by Jinentonix; Jun 24th, 2020 at 11:09 AM..
 
spilledthebeer
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You also, are dumber than a stick. You and bright "might" be able to make a spark if you rub your sticks together.




Do you DENY the incident happened? Beach body 'is mother killed by IRA 30 years ago'



By Thomas Harding in Shelling Hill From The Telegraph.uk


12:01AM BST 28 Aug 2003


The body of a woman executed by the IRA was believed to have been found yesterday more than 30 years after she disappeared.

The remains of Jean McConville, a mother of 10, were thought to have been found by a walker less than 500 yards from a stretch of beach in the Irish Republic which was searched by the Garda four years ago following a tip-off from the IRA.

Mrs McConville was abducted and murdered in 1972 after she comforted a British soldier who had been shot and wounded outside her door in Belfast.

The Provisionals denied killing her, claiming she had fled the Roman Catholic working-class area to live with a soldier, abandoning her children.

But after a long campaign by her family, the Provisionals admitted in the late 1990s that they had murdered her and gave details about the unmarked graves of a number of the so-called Disappeared - the victims of IRA terror.



The Provisionals said they had buried Mrs McConville at the Templetown beach beauty spot in Carlingford, Co Louth, but a series of digs by the Irish police covering 4,500 square feet failed to unearth anything.
Yesterday a person out walking discovered the skeletal remains in a shallow grave in an area of scrub where dunes meet the sweeping beach at Shelling Hill on the Cooley peninsula. The remote spot is just 30 minutes' drive from the Northern Ireland border through winding country lanes.
Five sons and one daughter of Mrs McConville were taken to the place where the remains were found. They laid flowers and a local priest led prayers at the scene.
The remains were then removed by two undertakers and put in a hearse with the siblings walking slowly behind as it drove off.
While the McConville family will have to wait until DNA tests confirm that the body is that of their mother, Michael McConville, 41, one of five sons to visit the spot yesterday, said there were "too many coincidences for it not to be her". He added: "It's been 30 years of hell. We hope it's our mother so we can get this over and done with and give her a Christian burial."
"For 20 years I was very bitter to the people who did this but now I just want to get on with my life. This has run on for a long time."
Mrs McConville, a Protestant who married a Roman Catholic, was abducted by four women at gunpoint days after tending a wounded British soldier near her home in the Divis Flats, off the Falls Road, Belfast.
The family had lost their father, who had served in the Army until 1964, to cancer 10 months earlier. The eldest daughter Helen, 15, tried to hold her remaining family together, but they were split up and placed in homes.
Despite denying any knowledge of the McConville murder, Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader and alleged IRA member, had some involvement according to Ed Moloney's book, The IRA: A Secret History.
Mr Adams allegedly formed a special unit within the IRA, called the "Unknowns", which was responsible for the murder and it was "inconceivable" that he was unaware of the order to kill her, the book claims.
Mr Adams has always distanced himself from the "disappearances".
In 1999 searches took place at locations in Louth, Monaghan, Meath and Wicklow that the IRA said were burial sites. The searches uncovered the remains of John McClory, 17, and Brian McKinney, 21, buried in a double grave at Colgagh bog, near Iniskeen, Co Monaghan.
The body of Eamonn Molloy was dug up by the IRA and left in a coffin placed in a cemetery near the Louth border with South Armagh.
There are still six families, including the McConvilles, who are waiting for graves to be found.
 
gerryh
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Do you DENY the incident happened? Beach body 'is mother killed by IRA 30 years ago'
By Thomas Harding in Shelling Hill From The Telegraph.uk
12:01AM BST 28 Aug 2003
The body of a woman executed by the IRA was believed to have been found yesterday more than 30 years after she disappeared.
The remains of Jean McConville, a mother of 10, were thought to have been found by a walker less than 500 yards from a stretch of beach in the Irish Republic which was searched by the Garda four years ago following a tip-off from the IRA.
Mrs McConville was abducted and murdered in 1972 after she comforted a British soldier who had been shot and wounded outside her door in Belfast.
The Provisionals denied killing her, claiming she had fled the Roman Catholic working-class area to live with a soldier, abandoning her children.
But after a long campaign by her family, the Provisionals admitted in the late 1990s that they had murdered her and gave details about the unmarked graves of a number of the so-called Disappeared - the victims of IRA terror.
The Provisionals said they had buried Mrs McConville at the Templetown beach beauty spot in Carlingford, Co Louth, but a series of digs by the Irish police covering 4,500 square feet failed to unearth anything.
Yesterday a person out walking discovered the skeletal remains in a shallow grave in an area of scrub where dunes meet the sweeping beach at Shelling Hill on the Cooley peninsula. The remote spot is just 30 minutes' drive from the Northern Ireland border through winding country lanes.
Five sons and one daughter of Mrs McConville were taken to the place where the remains were found. They laid flowers and a local priest led prayers at the scene.
The remains were then removed by two undertakers and put in a hearse with the siblings walking slowly behind as it drove off.
While the McConville family will have to wait until DNA tests confirm that the body is that of their mother, Michael McConville, 41, one of five sons to visit the spot yesterday, said there were "too many coincidences for it not to be her". He added: "It's been 30 years of hell. We hope it's our mother so we can get this over and done with and give her a Christian burial."
"For 20 years I was very bitter to the people who did this but now I just want to get on with my life. This has run on for a long time."
Mrs McConville, a Protestant who married a Roman Catholic, was abducted by four women at gunpoint days after tending a wounded British soldier near her home in the Divis Flats, off the Falls Road, Belfast.
The family had lost their father, who had served in the Army until 1964, to cancer 10 months earlier. The eldest daughter Helen, 15, tried to hold her remaining family together, but they were split up and placed in homes.
Despite denying any knowledge of the McConville murder, Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader and alleged IRA member, had some involvement according to Ed Moloney's book, The IRA: A Secret History.
Mr Adams allegedly formed a special unit within the IRA, called the "Unknowns", which was responsible for the murder and it was "inconceivable" that he was unaware of the order to kill her, the book claims.
Mr Adams has always distanced himself from the "disappearances".
In 1999 searches took place at locations in Louth, Monaghan, Meath and Wicklow that the IRA said were burial sites. The searches uncovered the remains of John McClory, 17, and Brian McKinney, 21, buried in a double grave at Colgagh bog, near Iniskeen, Co Monaghan.
The body of Eamonn Molloy was dug up by the IRA and left in a coffin placed in a cemetery near the Louth border with South Armagh.
There are still six families, including the McConvilles, who are waiting for graves to be found.


Never said anything specific, dumb ass. My comment concerning your lack of intelligence had more to do with your Irish comments. It was just another example of your lack of cognitive skills.
 
Jinentonix
+3
#10
For point of clarity, the pictures in the OP are NOT slaves. They are coal miners.
 
spilledthebeer
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Never said anything specific, dumb ass. My comment concerning your lack of intelligence had more to do with your Irish comments. It was just another example of your lack of cognitive skills.




So you are publicly admitting that you have no formal, logical or factual rebuttal to my statements!


You are merely publicly venting your BITCHY AND BIGOTED NATURE without offering any FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION?


IS that REALLY the message you are publicly posting?
 
pgs
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

So you are publicly admitting that you have no formal, logical or factual rebuttal to my statements!


You are merely publicly venting your BITCHY AND BIGOTED NATURE without offering any FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION?


IS that REALLY the message you are publicly posting?

Standard operating procedure.
 
Tygerbright
#13
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...TDhnOMh_GjFLZ8
 
gerryh
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

So you are publicly admitting that you have no formal, logical or factual rebuttal to my statements!
You are merely publicly venting your BITCHY AND BIGOTED NATURE without offering any FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION?
IS that REALLY the message you are publicly posting?

No, I'm posting your lack of intelligence. It is fact that the irish were bought and sold as slaves. Your ignorant remodeling of that historic fact shows that you obviously have fewer than 2 brain cells to rub together, hence the observation that you are dumb as a stick.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

No, I'm posting your lack of intelligence. It is fact that the irish were bought and sold as slaves. Your ignorant remodeling of that historic fact shows that you obviously have fewer than 2 brain cells to rub together, hence the observation that you are dumb as a stick.

Hey, go easy on sticks! Ain't easy being a stick.
 
gerryh
+1
#16
You 2 meatballs, realistically, what is the difference to the individuals when it comes to the so called indentured servitude that irish families were subject to and slavery.

I'm not comparing black to white, or African to irish. My position is that indentured servitude was just as much slavery as any other except in name.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You 2 meatballs, realistically, what is the difference to the individuals when it comes to the so called indentured servitude that irish families were subject to and slavery.
I'm not comparing black to white, or African to irish. My position is that indentured servitude was just as much slavery as any other except in name.

It was a form of slavery, specifically "involuntary servitude."

Three highly salient differences, though, between it and American slavery of Black people: indentured servitude was time-limited, indentured servants were persons, not chattels, and indentured servitude was not hereditary.
 
gerryh
+3
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

It was a form of slavery, specifically "involuntary servitude."
Three highly salient differences, though, between it and American slavery of Black people: indentured servitude was time-limited, indentured servants were persons, not chattels, and indentured servitude was not hereditary.


We could do this all day long.

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion...lonial-america


The other thing I take issue with is that when talking about slavery, it inevitably becomes a brit/America's only thing. The fact that arabs were buying and trading in African slaves centuries before the Europeans and americans became involved is completely ignored.

Discussing slavery as a whole does not take away from the individual instances. Discussing only one as if it is the be all and end all, does however, lead to the impression that slavery was a European/america construct.
 
petros
+2
#19
Fight a lion, win and you too could be a Citizen.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

We could do this all day long.
https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion...lonial-america
The other thing I take issue with is that when talking about slavery, it inevitably becomes a brit/America's only thing. The fact that arabs were buying and trading in African slaves centuries before the Europeans and americans became involved is completely ignored.
Discussing slavery as a whole does not take away from the individual instances. Discussing only one as if it is the be all and end all, does however, lead to the impression that slavery was a European/america construct.

And the Vikings, and the ancient Irish, and the Greeks.

One of the problems with "slavery" is that it's such a broad swath.

Personally, I would cut out "involuntary servitude" that is time-limited. That's no different than a hitch in the armed forces in most countries.
 
gerryh
+5
#21  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And the Vikings, and the ancient Irish, and the Greeks.
One of the problems with "slavery" is that it's such a broad swath.


Yup, but this discussion is never about the obvious human condition. It is always pointing fingers at one group. In the case of the latest instance in history, what is discussed is the European and american slave traders and "owners". Nothing about those that raised the different african tribes and rounded up the people to sell to the european traders to ship over seas. Not a single word is said about that here. Just recently Nigeria has stepped forward and admitted their historic part in the transatlantic slave trade.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Yup, but this discussion is never about the obvious human condition. It is always pointing fingers at one group. In the case of the latest instance in history, what is discussed is the European and american slave traders and "owners". Nothing about those that raised the different african tribes and rounded up the people to sell to the european traders to ship over seas. Not a single word is said about that here. Just recently Nigeria has stepped forward and admitted their historic part in the transatlantic slave trade.

Well, considering this is a Canadian board, with a heavy focus on the U.S., that's hardly surprising.

But I must say, if the U.S. had wanted to put the horror of slavery firmly behind it, maybe making discrimination against the only group who could be chattel slaves legally permissible and frequently mandatory for over a century after slavery was outlawed may not have been the best way to go about it.
 
gerryh
+2
#23
U.s. state department's definition of slavery.

https://www.state.gov/what-is-modern-slavery/

Present day estimates of slavery world wide puts the number at 45 million and up.

But really, why worry about the present.
 
petros
+2
#24
Its bigger than dope and about to surpass guns in $B per year.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

U.s. state department's definition of slavery.
https://www.state.gov/what-is-modern-slavery/

Well, except that the link doesn't give a definition.

Quote:

Present day estimates of slavery world wide puts the number at 45 million and up.
But really, why worry about the present.

Oh ferfoxsake! Are we back to the stupid-ass "We can only focus on one problem" argument?
 
gerryh
+2
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Well, except that the link doesn't give a definition.
Oh ferfoxsake! Are we back to the stupid-ass "We can only focus on one problem" argument?


Did you read it? First paragraph


“Trafficking in persons,” “human trafficking,” and “modern slavery” are used as umbrella terms to refer to both sex trafficking and compelled labor. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386), as amended (TVPA), and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Protocol) describe this compelled service using a number of different terms, including involuntary servitude, slavery or practices similar to slavery, debt bondage, and forced labor.
 
gerryh
+3
#27
Here it is. Slavery isnt about white and black. Racism isnt only white against black. Both of these are a human condition. Concentrating on just one small aspect of that condition will not solve the issue.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Here it is. Slavery isnt about white and black. Racism isnt only white against black. Both of these are a human condition. Concentrating on just one small aspect of that condition will not solve the issue.

I could make the same argument that working to stop police abuse in the U.S. will not stop police abuse in Russia or China or Nigeria or Venezuela, and therefore it's not worth doing.

And by the way, "slavery" is a legal status in which one is chattel property of another.

And there's a world of difference between a society in which if a "slave" escapes and goes to the authorities, the authorities will protect the slave and punish the slaver, and a society in which a slave who escapes can only expect abuse and return to the slaver from the authorities.
 
gerryh
+4
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I could make the same argument that working to stop police abuse in the U.S. will not stop police abuse in Russia or China or Nigeria or Venezuela, and therefore it's not worth doing.
And by the way, "slavery" is a legal status in which one is chattel property of another.
And there's a world of difference between a society in which if a "slave" escapes and goes to the authorities, the authorities will protect the slave and punish the slaver, and a society in which a slave who escapes can only expect abuse and return to the slaver from the authorities.

Bullshyte comparison. We aren't trying to solve a black slavery issue in the u.s. That was taken care of a long time ago. When talking about historic slavery, then one should really look at the entire picture, not just one small corner.

As for the slavery definition, I've already supplied what your own government, along with the international community says it is now. This would be inline with what I said about the Irish.


Now, ive already stated that when it comes to racism, which is really what this whole shit show is about, we must look at the whole. Just looking at white racism against black with not solve anything. Making comments, as some have, including on this forum, that if one is white then you can't be a subject of racism does more harm than good in the fight against racism.

Everyone can be the subject of racism no matter their skin colour, and anyone can be a racist, regardless of their skin colour.

I acknowledge that bringing up things like irish slaves is used by some to do a "look over there" and try to take away from the argument that there is systemic racism against blacks since slavery. On the other hand, trying to minimize what happened to the Irish by saying that it was only indentured servitude and not that bad because it had an end date (which if you read my link you would know that that wasnt always the case) takes away from the entire argument.

I've rambled long enough. This is far more than I usually give anyone or anything at CC.
 
petros
+3
#30
Look East if you want off the charts racism and human trafficking.

We are lightweights.
 

Similar Threads

349
Black Lives Matter
by Girth | 2 weeks ago
59
No Lives Matter
by Tecumsehsbones | Jul 21st, 2016