Many people, too many, deny that slavery and the history of discrimination and Jim Crow since slavery have an impact on the current challenges facing blacks.
Let me rephrase that, most white people deny that slavery and the history of discrimination and Jim Crow afterwards are an important part of the challenges facing 
blacks today. Most blacks, though, are very well aware of this.
In this blog I am not going to go into the hows and whys of this. Instead, I am going to focus on one of the “facts” used by those who deny this reality to defend their denial of reality. It is just one of several arguments used to show that slavery was not nearly as bad and as impactful as is being made out. The argument is that the Irish were slaves too, and treated horribly in the US and faced discrimination, yet look at those Irish now! These good old white boys rose above their troubles. Their slave past does not impact them today. So should the blacks rise above their troubles, and their slave past does not impact them today. Although not usually expressed so baldly, that is, in essence, the argument. Which, of course, says something about those making it.
This myth starts something like this, from “Irish: The Forgotten White Slaves” by Ronald Dwyer.
They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
……
King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His 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.
…….
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, 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 Africans.
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 mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) 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.
Wowza. That’s quite a story. And those white guys came bouncing back after all of this. So, what are you whining about blacks? it is obvious that slavery then has no effect on how things are today. Look at the Irish.
The picture on the left is actually that of breaker boys working for a Pennsylvania coal company in 1911. The picture on the right is of a black man being beaten in the 1920s.
However, while this makes a nice story, it is more story than fact. What is more, even if every word of this were true, it still overlooks a great many important differences. So, to start, let me just go over those differences first before discussing what this narrative gets wrong.
First, blacks were slaves for a much longer period of time than the Irish were indentured servants.
Second, after they became free, blacks still faced severe persecution and discrimination – from voting to where they could live, to how they lived, to their education. Irish, some, for a short period of time. But, when you look at the extent of it, and the time, not so much. Even the most blatant forms of legal discrimination against blacks continued up until the 1960s and 70s. The Irish, not even close.
Third, it is fairly easy to tell who is black, even after four or five generations. The Irish, well, not really. So, if you can’t identify the Irish from the rest of the white folks, how are you going to discriminate against them? Blacks, well, that is relatively easy.
Now, let me deal with the article itself. First, here is the historical basis from which Dwyer then uses to pervert history.
Those fleeing Ireland due to extreme poverty did come over in great numbers and did so as indentured servants. Something many poverty stricken Europeans did. In fact, half of those immigrating to the colonies from Europe were indentured servants, not just the Irish. This indentured servitude of many of the Irish in America is the truth at the base of the lies.
Now, I love the neat little verbal trick Dwyer did by mentioning indentured servitude and then implying and dismissing it as nothing more than an excuse for a horrible reality. However, he does not deny that it is true. Instead, Dwyer he just says that they were treated like human cattle. Which is both true and not true. They were treated horribly, most indentured servants were. However, they were not treated totally like cattle. The people who were, were black.
Let me go over some of the differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, which is what the blacks experienced. Chattel slavery is when a person is a slave is a slave forever, as are their children, their children’s children and so on forever and ever, amen. It is an inherited condition, inherited along with that person’s skin color. Chattel slaves have the status of property, not people. In fact, when lists of property were done up, those lists included slaves along with cattle, chairs, and so forth. Slaves have no rights, not even the right to life.
Indentured servitude occurs when a person signs a contract to provide work to a person or company for a certain set period of time. During that time they were in a condition very similar to slavery, but one that had limits and in which they still had some rights. Also, the servitude only applied to them, and not to their children. Servitude was not inherited. After their period of service was done, they were free, and were often given plots of land too. Although, during the time of their servitude, they could own no property and were not paid, afterwards they were free but impoverished.
This is a nice article about indentured servitude in the colony of Virginia to provide a bit more information about the history and use of indentured servitude in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Let me also note that at the time the indentured servants were sometimes referred to as 
slaves. However, not all forms of slavery are alike. That of the indentured servant was of limited duration, not inheritable, and did not reduce them totally to the status of property.
As for the specific differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery;
First, the great majority of indentured servants entered into their contracts voluntarily. Some were forced into their servitude as punishment for crimes, but those were very much the exception and not the rule. Blacks had no such contracts. They were all forcibly taken.
Second, the contracts the Irish signed usually lasted from two to seven years. In other words, there was a limit to their servitude. It also did not apply to their children. Blacks were slaves forever, as were their children.
Third, indentured servants had the legal status of human being. Blacks did not. They were considered to be nothing more than property, on a par with cattle. Blacks had no rights and could be killed without consequences. The Irish indentured servants had legal rights, and could even take their masters to the courts if mistreated. Not so the blacks.
Now, let me state that indentured servants were mistreated. They could not move or live anywhere without their master’s permission. They could not marry without their master’s permission. And the work they did was often long, hard and, occasionally, dangerous, and one often carried out by slaves too. Here is an interesting thought to think upon. Dwyer said that the Irish indentured servants were cheaper than blacks and so were used more often. And yet, despite this claimed fact, indentured servitude died out. Chattel slavery based on skin color did not. Hmmm.
Moving on to the factual errors in this narrative, they abound. There are more factual errors, in fact, than factual accuracies.
Dwyer states that the Irish slave trade began when King James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to America, and that his Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent overseas and sold to the English in the West Indies.
- There is no Proclamation of 1625. There is a Proclamation by James I in 1603 that problem people were to be deported beyond the seas. But, it does not specify just the Irish and applies to all people. This proclamation, though, was used during the English Civil Wars to deport thousands of Irish men, women, and children to America.
The numbers Dwyer provides do not add up. In the above, he states that King James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners. He also states that between 1641 to 1652 the English sold 300,000 Irish people as slaves.
- During the whole 100 years of the 17th century number of Irish immigrants to the West Indies is estimated to be around 50,000 people. The number of Irish immigrants to both North American and the West Indies between 1630 and 1775 is estimated at 165,000. There is no basis at all for the 300,000 number over just a ten year period. Even during Cromwell’s time, forced deportations from Ireland to the West Indies are estimated to be between 10,000 – 12,000 people. Dwyer’s numbers are a mystery, and are very much off from the reality.
Dwyer claims that there were more Irish slaves than blacks were sold than blacks during the 17th century.
- This one is, as you should be expecting by now, wildly wrong. During this time there were an estimated 10 to 12 thousand Irish indentured servants. According to the Slave Voyages Database, there were over 1.8 million – repeat, million – blacks sold as slaves by European during the same time period.
Dwyer claims that a 1637 census showed the 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
- If you look at the actual census you will find that 69% of Montserrat’s population were indeed Irish. Or rather, 69 % of the white population. And of that Irish population, the vast majority were not indentured servants. What, you thought the only Irish in American were indentured? Nope, many had the resources to immigrate to American without having to indenture themselves.
I am not going to bother going through each and every claim. That would fill several blogs, as Dwyer’s article, and the claims of those who believe in the Irish Slave myth, contains more errors and lies than truth. Suffice it to say most of these claims are either made up of whole cloth, or have ignored certain facts – such as the one about Montserrat’s population. In other words, this claim is bogus and is done to deny the real effects that slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination have on our society and government today, and to also protect the feelings of those whites who feel threatened by this reality.
Final Thoughts on the Forms of Racism
Racist is a descriptor that most do not believe applies to them, even those who are actually racist. One of the many ways in which those who are racist can honestly believe they are not is due to the many meanings racist can assume. Some racists are out and out white supremacists who believe all other races are inferior, advocate for limitations on blacks, and often will not associate with blacks. Most Americans are not that type of racist.
However, other types of racists exist; more subtle (in comparison with the KKK and the Aryan Nation) and better able to blend in and disguise themselves as being enlightened. Yet still damaging to people and society. One such variety has black friends, Jewish friends, Hispanic friends, and strongly believes all people should be treated equally regardless of race. Which sounds fine, until they go on and say that racism is not a real problem today and then deny its many real world effects.
To better be able to deny the on-going problem with racism we have in the United States, these people often try to downplay the effects of slavery, to minimize its impact on today
– they do this too because they feel that they are being personally attacked when racism and slavery are brought up. This Irish slave myth one such way such people protect their views, and avoid considering the possibility that they actually may be racist.
I once had a discussion with such a person who put the problems that blacks have that I attributed in large part to our racist past and slavery to being a problem with black culture. When I pressed this person on how did black culture become this destructive, as he saw it, to blacks? I asked what forces shaped it, what forces maintain it? I received no answer. To him, it was all about personal responsibility and had nothing to do with society, government, and history. And, I would assume, since on average whites do better than blacks, blacks just aren’t very good at assuming responsibility for their actions; whites are better about manning up and moving up.
Yeah. Right.
Bad Atheist 