400 years of Slavery?

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie's here! What am I missing???

Aw, shucks.

What you're missing is a handful of dumbasses trying desperately to pretend that only black people have ever "really" been slaves. As if the very word "slave" didn't derive from the Slavic people (who were and are white, for those of you who went to public school).

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot

Tell this to the Irish scholars who wrote the article I posted.

Lol.

Appealing to a supposed authority on the matter doesn't hide your own ignorance of the matter.

By the way, who are you?

A new race pimp that I have not encountered before this thread.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since you have no evidence that God does not exist, faith is all you have to base your belief on

Hahahaha. The world is an unfathomable mystery. My perception of this world is based solely on my experiences. I experience the world through my senses. From what I can tell the world magically popped into existence some 57 years ago, and slowly developed into the maddening circus I see today. I have no faith that it is true however, it is my experience.

Okay I take it back. I do have faith and it is a truth you can bank on. The noodles I'm preparing tonight will sustain me for the next day or so. So says the great Noodley one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot

Tell this to the Irish scholars who wrote the article I posted.

Lol.

Appealing to a supposed authority on the matter doesn't hide your own ignorance of the matter.

By the way, who are you?

Our latest addition to the "Whining Victim" peanut gallery.

 

[harmonica]

It is a reference to ideological tunnel vision & generations of being bound by a thought process that prohibits thinking outside the box.



This is the origins of that comment and while the number could be considered off if you discount the history of Africa the point remains on target.

Rather than dig into the substance of the situation the left would rather distract you with the thoughts of a simpleton.

While this could be considered a "race" thread I hope that the moderators see that it is a hot topic in political circles and deserves to be discussed and thought out rather than relegated to the race forum which very few visit.

What exactly is thinking outside of the box? Thinking the way whites want us to think? Because vey person of color who s clamed to be thinking outside if this "box" are people of color who validate the beliefs of racist conservative whites.

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

 

[francoHFW]

What exactly is thinking outside of the box? Thinking the way whites want us to think? Because vey person of color who s clamed to be thinking outside if this "box" are people of color who validate the beliefs of racist conservative whites.

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

Yep it's all their fault LOL. Has nothing to do with GOP cutting Aid 2 colleges, training programs 4 technical jobs, infrastructure, keeping minimum wage ridiculously low, and by the way two huge bubbles and busts in the last 35 years. But the mega rich GOP idiots and lobbyists are in Bliss. All the GOP has is bulshit propaganda, super duper.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a reference to ideological tunnel vision & generations of being bound by a thought process that prohibits thinking outside the box.



This is the origins of that comment and while the number could be considered off if you discount the history of Africa the point remains on target.

Rather than dig into the substance of the situation the left would rather distract you with the thoughts of a simpleton.

While this could be considered a "race" thread I hope that the moderators see that it is a hot topic in political circles and deserves to be discussed and thought out rather than relegated to the race forum which very few visit.

What exactly is thinking outside of the box? Thinking the way whites want us to think? Because vey person of color who s clamed to be thinking outside if this "box" are people of color who validate the beliefs of racist conservative whites.

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

Who said it was a coincidence? I personally blame deliberate and malicious brainwashing on the part of leftists like you.

Would you like to ask for a show of hands of everyone who agrees with that assessment?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot

Tell this to the Irish scholars who wrote the article I posted.

Lol.

Appealing to a supposed authority on the matter doesn't hide your own ignorance of the matter.

By the way, who are you?

A new race pimp that I have not encountered before this thread.

We worked our way through the "A" team a while ago, and now we have apparently cleared the bench and are now being given the leftist farm team.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What exactly is thinking outside of the box? Thinking the way whites want us to think? Because vey person of color who s clamed to be thinking outside if this "box" are people of color who validate the beliefs of racist conservative whites.

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

For the record, my second nephew is black. All three of his siblings are white. He was raised the same as they were, ie. he was taught to get an education, obey the law, be polite to law enforcement officials (and then sue them blind later on, if necessary), and marry the mother of his children BEFORE she became the mother of his children.

He's now a 35-year-old investment banker, married to an ER trauma nurse and living in a million-dollar house with a daughter who's on the short list for the Olympic gymnastic team in a few years.

Tell me again how it's not about personal decisions, and black people can't get ahead because the US is so damned "racist".

 

[Cecilie1200]

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

Yep it's all their fault LOL. Has nothing to do with GOP cutting Aid 2 colleges, training programs 4 technical jobs, infrastructure, keeping minimum wage ridiculously low, and by the way two huge bubbles and busts in the last 35 years. But the mega rich GOP idiots and lobbyists are in Bliss. All the GOP has is bulshit propaganda, super duper.

*****, *****, *****, whine, excuses.

 

[francoHFW]

What exactly is thinking outside of the box? Thinking the way whites want us to think? Because vey person of color who s clamed to be thinking outside if this "box" are people of color who validate the beliefs of racist conservative whites.

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

Who said it was a coincidence? I personally blame deliberate and malicious brainwashing on the part of leftists like you.

Would you like to ask for a show of hands of everyone who agrees with that assessment?

And they will all be misinformed dupes like you. Everyone in the world knows it but you GOP Chumps. Around the world there are journalists and then bought off GOP politicians and pundits. How are the Hillary and Obama prosecutions coming, super duper?

 

[Cecilie1200]

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

Who said it was a coincidence? I personally blame deliberate and malicious brainwashing on the part of leftists like you.

Would you like to ask for a show of hands of everyone who agrees with that assessment?

And they will all be misinformed dupes like you. Everyone in the world knows it but you GOP Chumps. Around the world there are journalists and then bought off GOP politicians and pundits. How are the Hillary and Obama prosecutions coming, super duper?

I have little interest in what "everyone knows", Chuckles. I'm well-aware of just how much "everyone knows" that's not actually true. And while you have to struggle just to aspire to normal levels of ignorance, I have actually attained an education and the ability to think independently (probably because I didn't waste my time and energy sniveling about how "oppressed" I was to have an excuse to be a loser).

How's that Trump impeachment coming? You work out a plan where Hillary STILL might become President yet?

 

[francoHFW]

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

Yep it's all their fault LOL. Has nothing to do with GOP cutting Aid 2 colleges, training programs 4 technical jobs, infrastructure, keeping minimum wage ridiculously low, and by the way two huge bubbles and busts in the last 35 years. But the mega rich GOP idiots and lobbyists are in Bliss. All the GOP has is bulshit propaganda, super duper.

*****, *****, *****, whine, excuses.

Those are called facts in the real world. Which you fools don't inhabit, superdupe.

 

[harmonica]

To the contrary, the people of color who claim to be thinking outside the box often invalidate the victimization claimed by far too many people of color. People of color who claim they are victims of white privilege are no different that the white people who claim they are victims of wealthy elites. Nothing more than excuses for a failure to thrive..

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

Yep it's all their fault LOL. Has nothing to do with GOP cutting Aid 2 colleges, training programs 4 technical jobs, infrastructure, keeping minimum wage ridiculously low, and by the way two huge bubbles and busts in the last 35 years. But the mega rich GOP idiots and lobbyists are in Bliss. All the GOP has is bulshit propaganda, super duper.

no aid for colleges is why they fail??
hey buddy--you have to graduate high school first
blacks graduate high school a lower levels
training programs?? that's what school is for
my family was POOR...

..it's a cycle---the black parents can't/don't know how/are poor at raising kids--then those kids grow up the same

...a big problem is not ADMITTING the black culture is self destructive/not conducive to learning along with blaming ****** for everything
...whites possibly have some amount of responsibility

when blacks commit crime at much higher rates PLUS graduate at lower rates---you have to admit there is a problem---and it's not all ******'s fault

my family was super poor and we never committed crime

 

[tinydancer]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot

Tell this to the Irish scholars who wrote the article I posted.

It's basically an op ed piece. There are historical documents that record the true history of Cromwell, King James and their genocide and enslavement of the Irish.

How the flying **** can anyone argue with the Proclamation by the freaking King of England that the Irish be enslaved?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

Yep it's all their fault LOL. Has nothing to do with GOP cutting Aid 2 colleges, training programs 4 technical jobs, infrastructure, keeping minimum wage ridiculously low, and by the way two huge bubbles and busts in the last 35 years. But the mega rich GOP idiots and lobbyists are in Bliss. All the GOP has is bulshit propaganda, super duper.

*****, *****, *****, whine, excuses.

Those are called facts in the real world. Which you fools don't inhabit, superdupe.

Ass kitten, you wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up the leg of your XXL sweatpants.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's stop the fake news.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

It has shown up on Irish trivia Facebook pages, in Scientific American magazine, and on white nationalist message boards: the little-known story of the Irish slaves who built America, who are sometimes said to have outnumbered and been treated worse than slaves from Africa.

But it’s not true.

Historians say the idea of Irish slaves is based on a misreading of history and that the distortion is often politically motivated. Far-right memes have taken off online and are used as racist barbs against African-Americans. “The Irish were slaves, too,” the memes often say. “We got over it, so why can’t you?”

A small group of Irish and American scholars has spent years pushing back on the false history. In 2016, 82 Irish scholars and writers signed an open letter denouncing the Irish slave myth and asking publications to stop mentioning it. Some complied, removing or revising articles that referenced the false claims, but the letter’s impact was limited.

Fact vs. Fiction
The Irish slave narrative is based on the misinterpretation of the history of indentured servitude, which is how many poor Europeans migrated to North America and the Caribbean in the early colonial period, historians said.

Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Some were political prisoners. Some were children.

“I’m not saying it was pleasant or anything — it was the opposite — but it was a completely different category from slavery,” said Liam Hogan, a research librarian in Ireland who has spearheaded the debunking effort. “It was a transitory state.”

The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants.

Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves, Mr. Hogan said. That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking. But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract,” said Leslie Harris, a professor of African-American history at Northwestern University. “It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.”
.
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too

I agree. We should stop with the fake news. You can start by not posting this biased, unhistorical bullshit.

"Not all of them entered servitude willingly." Last time I checked, that's the definition of slavery. Particularly when you're talking about children, even if you do it in a casual, dismissive tone.

"I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but it was a completely different category from slavery." Yeah, as in it undercuts your claim to victimhood.

"It was a transitory state." In the sense that eventually they "transitioned" to being dead, I guess that's true.

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound." Yeah, and they didn't apply to the people we're actually talking about, which is sort of the point.

"Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human." And you can't say that's true about someone who could be killed at will by his master, with no legal penalties attaching, which was the case with the people we're talking about.

"Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time in exchange for passage to the colonies." Which ALSO did not apply to the people we're talking about. How does one "enter into a contract" when one is chained at gunpoint, herded unwillingly onto a ship, and then sold on an auction block to the highest bidder, as was the case with the ACTUAL PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

"They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants." Indentured servants didn't, but the PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT did, particularly when they were forcibly bred against their will precisely for the purpose of creating those children.

"Contemporary accounts in Ireland sometimes referred to these people as slaves." Probably because they weren't deliberately trying to conflate two groups of people in order to serve an agenda.

"That was true in the sense that any form of coerced labor can be described as slavery, from Ancient Rome to modern-day human trafficking." Both of which ARE slavery, but I'll bet Mr. Hogan would try to brush THOSE off, too.

"But in colonial America and the Caribbean, the word “slavery” had a specific legal meaning. Europeans, by definition, were not included in it." Yeah, by HOGAN'S definition, I'm sure they weren't.

“An indenture implies two people have entered into a contract with each other but slavery is not a contract. It is often about being a prisoner of war or being bought or sold bodily as part of a trade. That is a critical distinction.” Yeah, and by coincidence, that's exactly the distinction WE are making between two different groups of Irish people.

Tell; all that to the IRISH historians who wrote the article

Gee I guess you don't know Irish history at all. There's a bloody good reason they hate the British. BTW please note that there was a Proclamation in 1625 that all Irish political prisoners were to be sold. to English farmers in the West Indies.

You can't make up a Proclamation by the King James. It exists. And the Irish suffered greatly. As if the genocide waged against them wasn't enough, the Brits made $$$$ off them.

For crying out loud, there's freaking sale records. There's a paper trail of records. If you are against slavery, then you should be against ALL slavery. Not just one type or another depending on an agenda.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot
Christian WinthropMarch 7, 2017

From the article.

"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot

Tell this to the Irish scholars who wrote the article I posted.

It's basically an op ed piece. There are historical documents that record the true history of Cromwell, King James and their genocide and enslavement of the Irish.

How the flying **** can anyone argue with the Proclamation by the freaking King of England that the Irish be enslaved?

Please! Don't be bothering him with your silly historical documents and facts. He's far too busy telling himself it's someone else's fault he's a meaningless, useless loser. Don't interrupt him.

 

[harmonica]

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

it's true....they are usually victims of bad decisions like:
having kids you can't afford
not finishing high school is a big one
committing a crime
spending $$$$ you don't have
etc

Yep it's all their fault LOL. Has nothing to do with GOP cutting Aid 2 colleges, training programs 4 technical jobs, infrastructure, keeping minimum wage ridiculously low, and by the way two huge bubbles and busts in the last 35 years. But the mega rich GOP idiots and lobbyists are in Bliss. All the GOP has is bulshit propaganda, super duper.

*****, *****, *****, whine, excuses.

Those are called facts in the real world. Which you fools don't inhabit, superdupe.

please provide those ''facts''' hahahhhahahhah

 

[francoHFW]

No they do not. They serve the purpose of whites who want to deny the truth of how the impact of continuing white racism is a problem that continues to do great harm to the black community. There has not been one time in history blacks have just laid down and played victim including now. Whites created this false narrative. So when a black person starts repeating that same false narrative after getting 37,500 in damages from a lawsuit they filed because they faced the racism they call everyone else a victim for describing, that is a person who has no credibility to even speak on this matter in the way this woman did..

The woman was threatened and sued the people who threatened her, and that has nothing to do with racial victimization. She did not allow herself to be a victim.

The only false narrative here is your bullcrap excuses for many people of color who fail to thrive in America. There are as many, or more, white people who fail to thrive, and many of them claim they are victims of the wealthy elites. In actuality, They are mostly all victims of their own bad decisions in life.

Yep it is just coincidence that everyone decided to be lazy and make bad decisions the last 35 years while the GOP cut taxes on the rich and services for the non rich LOL!

Who said it was a coincidence? I personally blame deliberate and malicious brainwashing on the part of leftists like you.

Would you like to ask for a show of hands of everyone who agrees with that assessment?

And they will all be misinformed dupes like you. Everyone in the world knows it but you GOP Chumps. Around the world there are journalists and then bought off GOP politicians and pundits. How are the Hillary and Obama prosecutions coming, super duper?

I have little interest in what "everyone knows", Chuckles. I'm well-aware of just how much "everyone knows" that's not actually true. And while you have to struggle just to aspire to normal levels of ignorance, I have actually attained an education and the ability to think independently (probably because I didn't waste my time and energy sniveling about how "oppressed" I was to have an excuse to be a loser).

How's that Trump impeachment coming? You work out a plan where Hillary STILL might become President yet?

Very few Democrats see that happening, Dupe. Lock her up was pure BS 4 25 years. Ditto all Obama scandals. All investigated no evidence, and no retractions from Fox Rush Etc. You are a brainwashed functional moron.

I am happily retired. As a Republican, you are shocked Democrats worry about other people and the country. Your party is a disaster and a disgrace.

 

[tinydancer]

We can pretty much trust than any discussion of slavery here will end up in a spirited debate about Irish slaves. This was indentured servitude and it was not slavery.

We can pretty much trust than any discussion of slavery here will end up in a spirited debate about Irish slaves. This was indentured servitude and it was not slavery.

Would you like to debate the Proclamation of the King in 1625? Too freaking funny. The proof are in the historical records that the British sold the Irish as if genocide wasn't enough.

Cripes. There was more than African slavery. That's truth. Well, unless you have an agenda. Right? You just ignore a Proclamation from the throne and actual sales records.

Pfffffffffft.



"The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas."

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots."

More at link if you actually want to learn true history.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Slaves That Time Forgot