Another lie debunked-Africans did nothing before the white man

[Asclepias]

Does this guy look "black" to you?

Kaaper - Wikipedia

How about this one?

The Seated Scribe - Wikipedia

What about this woman?

Nefertiti - Wikipedia

Yes they all look Black. Why do you ask?

 

[westwall]

The white racist dumb ***** here are ignorant and have no factual knowledge of these issues.

Look, there is no similarity between indentured servitude and slavery. Let's just stop telling that lie. Indentured servitude was a contractual agreement . Irish historians say this.

Anatomy of a modern lie

• Nationalism is on the march, partly fuelled by partial or dishonest histories
• A particularly prevalent example is an invented ‘Irish slaves’ myth, which is very visible on social media
• One discredited book has been turned into racist propaganda by white nationalists on social media

By Liam Hogan

The debate over reparations for slavery is gathering pace in the United States, part of its great reckoning with its difficult problems with race. But one bad faith and ahistorical counterargument is once again coming to the fore on social media, usually appearing in the form: “the Irish were slaves, too: where are my reparations?”

This is the “Irish slaves” meme, a popular derailment tactic used increasingly by reactionaries since the Ferguson protests of 2014. This meme falsely equates the Irish American experience with racialised perpetual hereditary chattel slavery. It vandalises history to make the claim: “We were slaves, too, but we got over it, we’re not looking for handouts”.

It can be found in replies and in the comment sections beneath many of the news stories published on the Georgetown reparations, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it was two Irish Americans, Rev Thomas Mulledy and Rev William McSherry, who authorised and organised the original slave sales of the 1830s.

This is one of the great modern lies. It is popular and prevalent – and it is worth understanding how the perversion of the story of 17th-century transportation has gravitated to the centre of the racist culture wars of the early 21st century.

The place to start with grotesque dishonesty is the truth. And it is certainly the case that poor Irish people suffered horrific, gruesome treatment – including transportation to the British colonies. The application of this policy in Ireland was essentially a radical and colonial extension of the English Poor Law of 1601, which provided relief for those unable to work but also sought to impose social control by criminalising adult “idleness” and vagabondage.

In 1619 the spirit of this law was invoked to ship 100 destitute children from the streets of London to Virginia. In theory those that survived the journey were required to be apprentices for seven years. The mortality rate in Virginia was exceptionally high for colonists at this time due to disease and hard labour and it is unknown how many of these transported children survived into adulthood. In November 1619 the Virginia Company requested that another hundred children be sent from London but this time the minimum age was set at 12 years.

In 1620, the Virginia Company was granted authority by the Privy Council to coerce the “obstinate” into going. Similar orders for poor children to be sent to Virginia as “apprentices” were fulfilled throughout the 1620s and the illegal “spiriting” of children from the metropole continued into the 18th century.

The most significant forced movement of Irish people into the colonies, however, occurred under Oliver Cromwell’s “protectorate”. After his scouring of Ireland during the Civil War, which raged across the whole of the archipelago, the Lord Protector gave a personal assurance to the Irish people in 1650 that only those “ready to run to arms by the instigation of their Clergy or otherwise” would be at risk of being sent to the “Tobacco islands”.

But the focus and scope of transportation changed dramatically in 1653. It expanded to include the poor, their destination was the American colonies, their fate was indentured servitude, and coercion was now the policy’s defining characteristic. The first order to transport the destitute from Ireland to the colonies was issued in July when the “overseers of precincts” were

“Authorised to treat with merchants for transporting vagrants into some English plantation in America, where the said persons may find livelihood and maintenance by their labour, and to deliver over the said persons to the said merchants accordingly…”

From 1653 to 1657 vagrants were specifically ordered to be transported to the West Indies from Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny, Carlow, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Dublin. The order to ship “disorderly persons” from Ireland to the American colonies was rescinded by the Council of State in March 1657 because of its abuse by merchants. This was of little comfort to those already shipped across the Atlantic and sold into years of oppressive servitude and unpaid labour.

But the core legal and customary distinctions between servitude (as reserved for Europeans) and slavery (as reserved for “Negroes”) were fundamentally different. Colonial servitude was temporary, usually voluntary, and, although the courts were often tilted against them, the servant’s legal personhood was recognised. Colonial slavery was permanent, always involuntary, racialised and heritable. The uterine law ensured that the children of slaves inherited the status of their mother. Their children were perpetual slaves. Their children’s children were perpetual slaves. Slavery was social death with no way out.

Slaves were placed outside of common law and so they had no rights – not even the right to life. While there are accounts of servants being freed from their contracts early, after proving that they had been ill-treated by their master, we find the opposite provision for the enslaved. A slave, suffering perpetual bondage, could instead be subjected to an array of grotesque physical punishments such as castration, being burned alive, the mashing of their limbs leading to dismemberment, broken bones, beheadings, the beating out of eyes, slitting of ears and various other mutilations.

The Irish slaves meme, in truth, started as something else. It has been long established in Irish nationalist and Catholic historiography and was invoked by prominent Irish patriots such as Daniel O’Connell in 1843 and James Connolly in 1915. These narratives generally used a broad definition of slavery and, given the rhetorical import, obviously never took the time to mention that this “slavery” was indentured servitude, and that the customs and laws pertaining to slavery in the colonies did not apply to them.

The first prominent Irish historian to add wind to the sails of this narrative was JP Prendergast. In his classic 1865 work The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland he (credibly) claimed that 6,400 Irish people had been forcibly transported to the West Indies during the 1650s. In this influential work he drew an explicit analogy with the transatlantic slave trade: “Ireland must have exhibited scenes in every part like the slave hunts in Africa,” while describing Irish people being forced onto “slave ships” by “English slave dealers”.

Historians estimate that several thousand Irish people suffered forced transportation to the American colonies during the 1650s. In contrast, the transatlantic slave trade lasted centuries, was the largest forced migration in world history, involving tens of millions of African people, and its poisonous legacy remains in the form of anti-black racism. It is, indeed, this very racism which has powered efforts to make the admittedly awful treatment meted out to Irish servants into something even worse than slavery.

But the modern manifestation of this phenomenon is something else. This is not from people steeped in Irish nationalism or overwritten 19th-century histories. At the root of the Irish slaves lie is, for the most part, a single article: “The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten ‘White’ Slaves – The Slaves That Time Forgot” which was put together by the unknown – and possibly non-existent author – John Martin.

Martin invented an “Irish slave trade” that operated from 1625 to 1839 and claimed that “the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th century) as the Africans did”.

He told readers that “Irish slaves” were treated “worse” and were “cheaper” than enslaved Africans. He also included a racist anti-miscegenation fantasy that English planters had forced Irish women to breed with enslaved African men and that this “forced breeding” practice “was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company”.

The extremism of this article’s propaganda cannot be overstated. It makes blatantly false claims: “If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime.” One particularly callous lie is the implication that “Irish slaves” were the victims of the Zong Massacre – an actual massacre of 132 Africans who were killed in cold blood by the crew so that their value could be claimed back from the ship’s insurers.

“Irish slaves” were, Martin claims, “burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.” He surmised that Ireland was “the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants”, that “the majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white”, and that the term “indentured servitude” was part of a liberal conspiracy to cover up the history of “white slavery”.

Disturbingly, it was not just partisan social media accounts that were responsible for the rise in popularity of this racist ahistorical propaganda. For a number of years some mainstream outlets and celebrities promoted it as a “forgotten” history. For instance Irish Central, a popular Irish-American news website, pushed it forward.

Far from being an “expert”, however, ‘John Martin’ had almost entirely plagiarised the “facts” of his article from an ahistorical blog published by an Irish-American blogger named “Jungle” Jim Cavanaugh in 2003, and much of his work was based on a single book, Sean O’Callaghan’s To Hell or Barbados: The ethnic cleansing of Ireland.

In this text, O’Callaghan deliberately conflates racial slavery and indentured servitude over 100 times. He embellished his “Irish slaves” narrative by directly co-opting well known descriptions of the torture of enslaved Africans. He also fabricated lurid and pornographic tales of the rape of Irish female servants by enslaved Africans and the abuse of children by paedophile English planters.

Anatomy of a modern lie

All races and groups have been enslaved. What makes you so special? Quit whining about shit that never happened to you. You don't get to hijack the plights of historical people.

STFU. Jim Crow happened to me ***** and that was the white backlash for having to free us from slavery.

Nothing happened to you. Here you are, shouting your foul opinions to the world. Not a single white man is stopping you. Ain't freedom great?

I think I can speak better to what I have faced than you can boy. Turn black then tell me what hasn't happened.

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

 

[Asclepias]

The white racist dumb ***** here are ignorant and have no factual knowledge of these issues.

Look, there is no similarity between indentured servitude and slavery. Let's just stop telling that lie. Indentured servitude was a contractual agreement . Irish historians say this.

Anatomy of a modern lie

• Nationalism is on the march, partly fuelled by partial or dishonest histories
• A particularly prevalent example is an invented ‘Irish slaves’ myth, which is very visible on social media
• One discredited book has been turned into racist propaganda by white nationalists on social media

By Liam Hogan

The debate over reparations for slavery is gathering pace in the United States, part of its great reckoning with its difficult problems with race. But one bad faith and ahistorical counterargument is once again coming to the fore on social media, usually appearing in the form: “the Irish were slaves, too: where are my reparations?”

This is the “Irish slaves” meme, a popular derailment tactic used increasingly by reactionaries since the Ferguson protests of 2014. This meme falsely equates the Irish American experience with racialised perpetual hereditary chattel slavery. It vandalises history to make the claim: “We were slaves, too, but we got over it, we’re not looking for handouts”.

It can be found in replies and in the comment sections beneath many of the news stories published on the Georgetown reparations, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it was two Irish Americans, Rev Thomas Mulledy and Rev William McSherry, who authorised and organised the original slave sales of the 1830s.

This is one of the great modern lies. It is popular and prevalent – and it is worth understanding how the perversion of the story of 17th-century transportation has gravitated to the centre of the racist culture wars of the early 21st century.

The place to start with grotesque dishonesty is the truth. And it is certainly the case that poor Irish people suffered horrific, gruesome treatment – including transportation to the British colonies. The application of this policy in Ireland was essentially a radical and colonial extension of the English Poor Law of 1601, which provided relief for those unable to work but also sought to impose social control by criminalising adult “idleness” and vagabondage.

In 1619 the spirit of this law was invoked to ship 100 destitute children from the streets of London to Virginia. In theory those that survived the journey were required to be apprentices for seven years. The mortality rate in Virginia was exceptionally high for colonists at this time due to disease and hard labour and it is unknown how many of these transported children survived into adulthood. In November 1619 the Virginia Company requested that another hundred children be sent from London but this time the minimum age was set at 12 years.

In 1620, the Virginia Company was granted authority by the Privy Council to coerce the “obstinate” into going. Similar orders for poor children to be sent to Virginia as “apprentices” were fulfilled throughout the 1620s and the illegal “spiriting” of children from the metropole continued into the 18th century.

The most significant forced movement of Irish people into the colonies, however, occurred under Oliver Cromwell’s “protectorate”. After his scouring of Ireland during the Civil War, which raged across the whole of the archipelago, the Lord Protector gave a personal assurance to the Irish people in 1650 that only those “ready to run to arms by the instigation of their Clergy or otherwise” would be at risk of being sent to the “Tobacco islands”.

But the focus and scope of transportation changed dramatically in 1653. It expanded to include the poor, their destination was the American colonies, their fate was indentured servitude, and coercion was now the policy’s defining characteristic. The first order to transport the destitute from Ireland to the colonies was issued in July when the “overseers of precincts” were

“Authorised to treat with merchants for transporting vagrants into some English plantation in America, where the said persons may find livelihood and maintenance by their labour, and to deliver over the said persons to the said merchants accordingly…”

From 1653 to 1657 vagrants were specifically ordered to be transported to the West Indies from Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny, Carlow, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Dublin. The order to ship “disorderly persons” from Ireland to the American colonies was rescinded by the Council of State in March 1657 because of its abuse by merchants. This was of little comfort to those already shipped across the Atlantic and sold into years of oppressive servitude and unpaid labour.

But the core legal and customary distinctions between servitude (as reserved for Europeans) and slavery (as reserved for “Negroes”) were fundamentally different. Colonial servitude was temporary, usually voluntary, and, although the courts were often tilted against them, the servant’s legal personhood was recognised. Colonial slavery was permanent, always involuntary, racialised and heritable. The uterine law ensured that the children of slaves inherited the status of their mother. Their children were perpetual slaves. Their children’s children were perpetual slaves. Slavery was social death with no way out.

Slaves were placed outside of common law and so they had no rights – not even the right to life. While there are accounts of servants being freed from their contracts early, after proving that they had been ill-treated by their master, we find the opposite provision for the enslaved. A slave, suffering perpetual bondage, could instead be subjected to an array of grotesque physical punishments such as castration, being burned alive, the mashing of their limbs leading to dismemberment, broken bones, beheadings, the beating out of eyes, slitting of ears and various other mutilations.

The Irish slaves meme, in truth, started as something else. It has been long established in Irish nationalist and Catholic historiography and was invoked by prominent Irish patriots such as Daniel O’Connell in 1843 and James Connolly in 1915. These narratives generally used a broad definition of slavery and, given the rhetorical import, obviously never took the time to mention that this “slavery” was indentured servitude, and that the customs and laws pertaining to slavery in the colonies did not apply to them.

The first prominent Irish historian to add wind to the sails of this narrative was JP Prendergast. In his classic 1865 work The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland he (credibly) claimed that 6,400 Irish people had been forcibly transported to the West Indies during the 1650s. In this influential work he drew an explicit analogy with the transatlantic slave trade: “Ireland must have exhibited scenes in every part like the slave hunts in Africa,” while describing Irish people being forced onto “slave ships” by “English slave dealers”.

Historians estimate that several thousand Irish people suffered forced transportation to the American colonies during the 1650s. In contrast, the transatlantic slave trade lasted centuries, was the largest forced migration in world history, involving tens of millions of African people, and its poisonous legacy remains in the form of anti-black racism. It is, indeed, this very racism which has powered efforts to make the admittedly awful treatment meted out to Irish servants into something even worse than slavery.

But the modern manifestation of this phenomenon is something else. This is not from people steeped in Irish nationalism or overwritten 19th-century histories. At the root of the Irish slaves lie is, for the most part, a single article: “The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten ‘White’ Slaves – The Slaves That Time Forgot” which was put together by the unknown – and possibly non-existent author – John Martin.

Martin invented an “Irish slave trade” that operated from 1625 to 1839 and claimed that “the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th century) as the Africans did”.

He told readers that “Irish slaves” were treated “worse” and were “cheaper” than enslaved Africans. He also included a racist anti-miscegenation fantasy that English planters had forced Irish women to breed with enslaved African men and that this “forced breeding” practice “was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company”.

The extremism of this article’s propaganda cannot be overstated. It makes blatantly false claims: “If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime.” One particularly callous lie is the implication that “Irish slaves” were the victims of the Zong Massacre – an actual massacre of 132 Africans who were killed in cold blood by the crew so that their value could be claimed back from the ship’s insurers.

“Irish slaves” were, Martin claims, “burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.” He surmised that Ireland was “the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants”, that “the majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white”, and that the term “indentured servitude” was part of a liberal conspiracy to cover up the history of “white slavery”.

Disturbingly, it was not just partisan social media accounts that were responsible for the rise in popularity of this racist ahistorical propaganda. For a number of years some mainstream outlets and celebrities promoted it as a “forgotten” history. For instance Irish Central, a popular Irish-American news website, pushed it forward.

Far from being an “expert”, however, ‘John Martin’ had almost entirely plagiarised the “facts” of his article from an ahistorical blog published by an Irish-American blogger named “Jungle” Jim Cavanaugh in 2003, and much of his work was based on a single book, Sean O’Callaghan’s To Hell or Barbados: The ethnic cleansing of Ireland.

In this text, O’Callaghan deliberately conflates racial slavery and indentured servitude over 100 times. He embellished his “Irish slaves” narrative by directly co-opting well known descriptions of the torture of enslaved Africans. He also fabricated lurid and pornographic tales of the rape of Irish female servants by enslaved Africans and the abuse of children by paedophile English planters.

Anatomy of a modern lie

All races and groups have been enslaved. What makes you so special? Quit whining about shit that never happened to you. You don't get to hijack the plights of historical people.

STFU. Jim Crow happened to me ***** and that was the white backlash for having to free us from slavery.

Nothing happened to you. Here you are, shouting your foul opinions to the world. Not a single white man is stopping you. Ain't freedom great?

I think I can speak better to what I have faced than you can boy. Turn black then tell me what hasn't happened.

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

Like most retarded white people you fail to factor in several gigantic variables. The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

 

[longly]

The designation sub Saharan is racist

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Because South Africa was not considered sub Saharan and countries above the Sahara was. Africans do not like the term and Africans consider it racist. That's the only opinion on this matter that has merit.

Just because you don’t like don’t like something doesn’t make it untrue. You can’t wish your way into a better world.

 

[westwall]

All races and groups have been enslaved. What makes you so special? Quit whining about shit that never happened to you. You don't get to hijack the plights of historical people.

STFU. Jim Crow happened to me ***** and that was the white backlash for having to free us from slavery.

Nothing happened to you. Here you are, shouting your foul opinions to the world. Not a single white man is stopping you. Ain't freedom great?

I think I can speak better to what I have faced than you can boy. Turn black then tell me what hasn't happened.

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

Like most retarded white people you fail to factor in several gigantic variables. The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

Yeah, but they were murdered at a prodigious rate. Kind of hard to benefit from your language and culture when you're dead, dumbass.

 

[Asclepias]

STFU. Jim Crow happened to me ***** and that was the white backlash for having to free us from slavery.

Nothing happened to you. Here you are, shouting your foul opinions to the world. Not a single white man is stopping you. Ain't freedom great?

I think I can speak better to what I have faced than you can boy. Turn black then tell me what hasn't happened.

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

Like most retarded white people you fail to factor in several gigantic variables. The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

Yeah, but they were murdered at a prodigious rate. Kind of hard to benefit from your language and culture when you're dead, dumbass.

You sound like most white idiots. You just got through claiming that the Chinese were industrious business owners. Make up your mind. Were they all dead or were they alive? Its pretty apparent the ones that were not killed benefited from being able to keep their language and culture.

 

[Meathead]

The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

Ah, but the Chinese had a civilization, a written language and were no stupid or disorganized enough to allow themselves to be enslaved en masse. No did they seek to sell their fellow Chinese to foreigners as slaves to any great degree.

The Chinese will be Africa's next master now that they shown that they are unable to govern themselves.

 

[westwall]

Nothing happened to you. Here you are, shouting your foul opinions to the world. Not a single white man is stopping you. Ain't freedom great?

I think I can speak better to what I have faced than you can boy. Turn black then tell me what hasn't happened.

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

Like most retarded white people you fail to factor in several gigantic variables. The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

Yeah, but they were murdered at a prodigious rate. Kind of hard to benefit from your language and culture when you're dead, dumbass.

You sound like most white idiots. You just got through claiming that the Chinese were industrious business owners. Make up your mind. Were they all dead or were they alive? Its pretty apparent the ones that were not killed benefited from being able to keep their language and culture.

You sound like very few religious nutjobs. Pick and choose things to help your warped viewpoint, and twist things that others say.

Typical of those who have few facts on their side, but lots of belief in their cause. No matter how twisted that cause is.

 

[Godboy]

STFU. Jim Crow happened to me ***** and that was the white backlash for having to free us from slavery.

Can you post War and Peace? This one wasn’t long or boring enough. Don’t they still have indentured servitude in Africa? Maybe you could go there and help them Rerun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slavery today is bigger than any other time in history. Africa is an awful place.

West African slavery lives on, 400 years after transatlantic trade began

Really?

‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report

Do you want to compare numbers? I imagine you do not.

The fact is that slavery goes on in Europe and it's not a small number.

Now would you like to compare the number of white countries colonized by African nations to the countries colonized by European ones?

Africans have always been too culturally and technologically weak to even embark on such an endeavor.

 

[Markle]

The white racist dumb ***** here are ignorant and have no factual knowledge of these issues.

Look, there is no similarity between indentured servitude and slavery. Let's just stop telling that lie. Indentured servitude was a contractual agreement . Irish historians say this.

Anatomy of a modern lie

• Nationalism is on the march, partly fuelled by partial or dishonest histories
• A particularly prevalent example is an invented ‘Irish slaves’ myth, which is very visible on social media
• One discredited book has been turned into racist propaganda by white nationalists on social media

By Liam Hogan

The debate over reparations for slavery is gathering pace in the United States, part of its great reckoning with its difficult problems with race. But one bad faith and ahistorical counterargument is once again coming to the fore on social media, usually appearing in the form: “the Irish were slaves, too: where are my reparations?”

This is the “Irish slaves” meme, a popular derailment tactic used increasingly by reactionaries since the Ferguson protests of 2014. This meme falsely equates the Irish American experience with racialised perpetual hereditary chattel slavery. It vandalises history to make the claim: “We were slaves, too, but we got over it, we’re not looking for handouts”.

It can be found in replies and in the comment sections beneath many of the news stories published on the Georgetown reparations, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it was two Irish Americans, Rev Thomas Mulledy and Rev William McSherry, who authorised and organised the original slave sales of the 1830s.

This is one of the great modern lies. It is popular and prevalent – and it is worth understanding how the perversion of the story of 17th-century transportation has gravitated to the centre of the racist culture wars of the early 21st century.

The place to start with grotesque dishonesty is the truth. And it is certainly the case that poor Irish people suffered horrific, gruesome treatment – including transportation to the British colonies. The application of this policy in Ireland was essentially a radical and colonial extension of the English Poor Law of 1601, which provided relief for those unable to work but also sought to impose social control by criminalising adult “idleness” and vagabondage.

In 1619 the spirit of this law was invoked to ship 100 destitute children from the streets of London to Virginia. In theory those that survived the journey were required to be apprentices for seven years. The mortality rate in Virginia was exceptionally high for colonists at this time due to disease and hard labour and it is unknown how many of these transported children survived into adulthood. In November 1619 the Virginia Company requested that another hundred children be sent from London but this time the minimum age was set at 12 years.

In 1620, the Virginia Company was granted authority by the Privy Council to coerce the “obstinate” into going. Similar orders for poor children to be sent to Virginia as “apprentices” were fulfilled throughout the 1620s and the illegal “spiriting” of children from the metropole continued into the 18th century.

The most significant forced movement of Irish people into the colonies, however, occurred under Oliver Cromwell’s “protectorate”. After his scouring of Ireland during the Civil War, which raged across the whole of the archipelago, the Lord Protector gave a personal assurance to the Irish people in 1650 that only those “ready to run to arms by the instigation of their Clergy or otherwise” would be at risk of being sent to the “Tobacco islands”.

But the focus and scope of transportation changed dramatically in 1653. It expanded to include the poor, their destination was the American colonies, their fate was indentured servitude, and coercion was now the policy’s defining characteristic. The first order to transport the destitute from Ireland to the colonies was issued in July when the “overseers of precincts” were

“Authorised to treat with merchants for transporting vagrants into some English plantation in America, where the said persons may find livelihood and maintenance by their labour, and to deliver over the said persons to the said merchants accordingly…”

From 1653 to 1657 vagrants were specifically ordered to be transported to the West Indies from Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny, Carlow, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Dublin. The order to ship “disorderly persons” from Ireland to the American colonies was rescinded by the Council of State in March 1657 because of its abuse by merchants. This was of little comfort to those already shipped across the Atlantic and sold into years of oppressive servitude and unpaid labour.

But the core legal and customary distinctions between servitude (as reserved for Europeans) and slavery (as reserved for “Negroes”) were fundamentally different. Colonial servitude was temporary, usually voluntary, and, although the courts were often tilted against them, the servant’s legal personhood was recognised. Colonial slavery was permanent, always involuntary, racialised and heritable. The uterine law ensured that the children of slaves inherited the status of their mother. Their children were perpetual slaves. Their children’s children were perpetual slaves. Slavery was social death with no way out.

Slaves were placed outside of common law and so they had no rights – not even the right to life. While there are accounts of servants being freed from their contracts early, after proving that they had been ill-treated by their master, we find the opposite provision for the enslaved. A slave, suffering perpetual bondage, could instead be subjected to an array of grotesque physical punishments such as castration, being burned alive, the mashing of their limbs leading to dismemberment, broken bones, beheadings, the beating out of eyes, slitting of ears and various other mutilations.

The Irish slaves meme, in truth, started as something else. It has been long established in Irish nationalist and Catholic historiography and was invoked by prominent Irish patriots such as Daniel O’Connell in 1843 and James Connolly in 1915. These narratives generally used a broad definition of slavery and, given the rhetorical import, obviously never took the time to mention that this “slavery” was indentured servitude, and that the customs and laws pertaining to slavery in the colonies did not apply to them.

The first prominent Irish historian to add wind to the sails of this narrative was JP Prendergast. In his classic 1865 work The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland he (credibly) claimed that 6,400 Irish people had been forcibly transported to the West Indies during the 1650s. In this influential work he drew an explicit analogy with the transatlantic slave trade: “Ireland must have exhibited scenes in every part like the slave hunts in Africa,” while describing Irish people being forced onto “slave ships” by “English slave dealers”.

Historians estimate that several thousand Irish people suffered forced transportation to the American colonies during the 1650s. In contrast, the transatlantic slave trade lasted centuries, was the largest forced migration in world history, involving tens of millions of African people, and its poisonous legacy remains in the form of anti-black racism. It is, indeed, this very racism which has powered efforts to make the admittedly awful treatment meted out to Irish servants into something even worse than slavery.

But the modern manifestation of this phenomenon is something else. This is not from people steeped in Irish nationalism or overwritten 19th-century histories. At the root of the Irish slaves lie is, for the most part, a single article: “The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten ‘White’ Slaves – The Slaves That Time Forgot” which was put together by the unknown – and possibly non-existent author – John Martin.

Martin invented an “Irish slave trade” that operated from 1625 to 1839 and claimed that “the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th century) as the Africans did”.

He told readers that “Irish slaves” were treated “worse” and were “cheaper” than enslaved Africans. He also included a racist anti-miscegenation fantasy that English planters had forced Irish women to breed with enslaved African men and that this “forced breeding” practice “was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company”.

The extremism of this article’s propaganda cannot be overstated. It makes blatantly false claims: “If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime.” One particularly callous lie is the implication that “Irish slaves” were the victims of the Zong Massacre – an actual massacre of 132 Africans who were killed in cold blood by the crew so that their value could be claimed back from the ship’s insurers.

“Irish slaves” were, Martin claims, “burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.” He surmised that Ireland was “the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants”, that “the majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white”, and that the term “indentured servitude” was part of a liberal conspiracy to cover up the history of “white slavery”.

Disturbingly, it was not just partisan social media accounts that were responsible for the rise in popularity of this racist ahistorical propaganda. For a number of years some mainstream outlets and celebrities promoted it as a “forgotten” history. For instance Irish Central, a popular Irish-American news website, pushed it forward.

Far from being an “expert”, however, ‘John Martin’ had almost entirely plagiarised the “facts” of his article from an ahistorical blog published by an Irish-American blogger named “Jungle” Jim Cavanaugh in 2003, and much of his work was based on a single book, Sean O’Callaghan’s To Hell or Barbados: The ethnic cleansing of Ireland.

In this text, O’Callaghan deliberately conflates racial slavery and indentured servitude over 100 times. He embellished his “Irish slaves” narrative by directly co-opting well known descriptions of the torture of enslaved Africans. He also fabricated lurid and pornographic tales of the rape of Irish female servants by enslaved Africans and the abuse of children by paedophile English planters.

Anatomy of a modern lie

We should not be surprised that someone whose entire existence on USMessageboard depends on lying that you should know so much about them.

You're one sick puppy, seek help. I have no use for someone so filled with self-hate and loathing.

 

[IM2]

Liam Hogan (@Limerick1914), a Limerick based historian, has dedicated a portion of his academic output to refuting the ahistorical and fabricated notion of Irish chattel slavery. Hogan notes that prior to studying history he took the idea that Irish colonial subjects were once deported and made chattel slaves by Cromwell during the 17th century at face value. In his article ‘The Myth of “Irish Slaves” in the Colonies’ Hogan concisely refutes the notion by interrogating the historiographical source of the claim and exposing the social context that fuels it. ‘It’s a myth that’s been around for decades’ notes Hogan, who first decided to counteract the claim when respected public figures began to share a Global Research article outlining the spurious history online.(, n.d.)

Misrepresentations of the past interview with Liam Hogan

I am using Irish history as documented by a citizen of Ireland. This is checkmate. So talk crazy all you want to, but I am now about the business of shutting mouths.

 

[Markle]

Liam Hogan (@Limerick1914), a Limerick based historian, has dedicated a portion of his academic output to refuting the ahistorical and fabricated notion of Irish chattel slavery. Hogan notes that prior to studying history he took the idea that Irish colonial subjects were once deported and made chattel slaves by Cromwell during the 17th century at face value. In his article ‘The Myth of “Irish Slaves” in the Colonies’ Hogan concisely refutes the notion by interrogating the historiographical source of the claim and exposing the social context that fuels it. ‘It’s a myth that’s been around for decades’ notes Hogan, who first decided to counteract the claim when respected public figures began to share a Global Research article outlining the spurious history online.(, n.d.)

Misrepresentations of the past interview with Liam Hogan

I am using Irish history as documented by a citizen of Ireland. This is checkmate. So talk crazy all you want to, but I am now about the business of shutting mouths.

 

[Pogo]

Liam Hogan (@Limerick1914), a Limerick based historian, has dedicated a portion of his academic output to refuting the ahistorical and fabricated notion of Irish chattel slavery. Hogan notes that prior to studying history he took the idea that Irish colonial subjects were once deported and made chattel slaves by Cromwell during the 17th century at face value. In his article ‘The Myth of “Irish Slaves” in the Colonies’ Hogan concisely refutes the notion by interrogating the historiographical source of the claim and exposing the social context that fuels it. ‘It’s a myth that’s been around for decades’ notes Hogan, who first decided to counteract the claim when respected public figures began to share a Global Research article outlining the spurious history online.(, n.d.)

Misrepresentations of the past interview with Liam Hogan

I am using Irish history as documented by a citizen of Ireland. This is checkmate. So talk crazy all you want to, but I am now about the business of shutting mouths.

Maybe you should have taken the time to actually read your own link.

Because here's what it says (first link):

>> 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.

But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot. <<​

--- Not only does it affirm what I posted yesterday, it goes into great and deeper detail than I did. And frankly, more detail than I knew about.

Moreover your own post from yesterday (1224) quotes from it source:

>> The most significant forced movement of Irish people into the colonies, however, occurred under Oliver Cromwell’s “protectorate”. After his scouring of Ireland during the Civil War, which raged across the whole of the archipelago, the Lord Protector gave a personal assurance to the Irish people in 1650 that only those “ready to run to arms by the instigation of their Clergy or otherwise” would be at risk of being sent to the “Tobacco islands”.

But the focus and scope of transportation changed dramatically in 1653. It expanded to include the poor, their destination was the American colonies, their fate was indentured servitude, and coercion was now the policy’s defining characteristic. The first order to transport the destitute from Ireland to the colonies was issued in July when the “overseers of precincts” were

“Authorised to treat with merchants for transporting vagrants into some English plantation in America, where the said persons may find livelihood and maintenance by their labour, and to deliver over the said persons to the said merchants accordingly…” <<​

-- which is, again, confirming what I reported yesterday.

MORE moreover, your subsequent post 1227 purports to cite this Liam Hogan as debunking the whole event, but clicking on your own link reveals that what Hogan debunks is a series of internet memes and Googly Images misrepresenting history such as "The Redlegs of Barbados", "Survivors of a Japanese POW Camp", "The East India Company Logo", "The Putumayo Atrocities", "Timucua Men Cultivating a Field", "Black Man Whipped in Delaware" and so on. While these are aptly debunked as to the false memes and fake captions affixed to them, and rightly so, nowhere does Hogan suggest Irish indentured servitude at the hands of Cromwell and the British Crown didn't happen.

 

[Pogo]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

I have read that indentured servants were treated horribly.

Not as horribly as the enslaved. There is a big difference in knowing you can...

A. Buy your way out of servitude or work off the debt.
B. rest easy realizing your children wont have to deal with this. Knowing this was not going to affect your children.
C. Knowing that if you decide to escape youre just another white person.

Exactly. As I keep telling this board the bizarre practice of transporting Africans across an ocean is what sets it apart from the general category of "Slavery". Traditionally (before that) slavery had involved neighboring tribes at war. Tribe A conquers Tribe B, the latter's land, possessions and people become the "property" of Tribe A. Later Tribe B conquers A and everything reverses. In both cases the tribes share a common land, culture and language.

In the case of the transAtlantic escapade, captives were shipped to a foreign land that may as well have been another planet, with different land, different flora and fauna, different culture and language all around, and different religious practices, forced to give up their own of all of those. None of that was true of white indentured servants except the religion, which for incomprehensible reasons the Protestant British found reasons to split hairs over what was essentially the same religion anyway. They spoke a common language and shared a common culture, with their captors, and could "blend" in the event of escape or time 'served', which were advantages Africans by definition could not enjoy.

 

[Asclepias]

I think I can speak better to what I have faced than you can boy. Turn black then tell me what hasn't happened.

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

Like most retarded white people you fail to factor in several gigantic variables. The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

Yeah, but they were murdered at a prodigious rate. Kind of hard to benefit from your language and culture when you're dead, dumbass.

You sound like most white idiots. You just got through claiming that the Chinese were industrious business owners. Make up your mind. Were they all dead or were they alive? Its pretty apparent the ones that were not killed benefited from being able to keep their language and culture.

You sound like very few religious nutjobs. Pick and choose things to help your warped viewpoint, and twist things that others say.

Typical of those who have few facts on their side, but lots of belief in their cause. No matter how twisted that cause is.

I gave you some facts but you couldnt deal with them for emotional reasons. I would be disappointed if I didnt know for a fact you simply cant deal with it. I gave you the words of not 1 but multiple Greeks that actually laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. They didnt have to measure their melanin content. They didnt have take blood samples. They used the term Black, not brown, not tan to describe them in written works and your claim is that they didnt mean Black. Its hilarious the lengths whites like yourself go through to keep from dealing with facts so please dont claim I twisted something multiple people claimed. Not only are the facts showing that the Greeks grouped the Egyptians with the Nubians racially, there are absolutely no ancient historians claiming they were white. Hows that for a fact?

"And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptian are, they hold, Ethiopian, the colonist still preserving their ancient manners. For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials,. And the larger and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopians; for of the two kinds of writing which the Egyptians have, that which is known as "popular" (demotic) is learned by everyone, while that which is called "sacred" is understood only by the priests of the Egyptians, who learn it from their fathers as one of the things which are not divulged, but among the Ethiopians everyone uses these forms of letters."

(Richard Pankhurst, The Ethiopian Borderlands:1997 Diodorus Siclus, The Library of History, Books ;;.35-IV.58, Translated by C.H. Oldfather, Harvard Unveristy Press,2000)

 

[Markle]

 

[Asclepias]

You must be stressed like West.

Big Question: Why Do I Yawn When I'm Nervous or Stressed?

 

[westwall]

The one thing that comes across loud and clear is you are a whiny *****. Here's the deal clown boi...a Chinaman could be killed in the street like a dog, and no one would bat an eye. A slave being murdered though, that was at least a property crime. The owner had to be recompense for their loss.

Now, 125 years on, the Chinese are industrious business owners. Well educated and enduring their kids are to.

How come you are not? What defect in YOU compels you to snivel like a baby?

Like most retarded white people you fail to factor in several gigantic variables. The Chinese were never deprived of their language, religion, and knowledge of their past in addition to never having to deal with the effects of multi generational slavery. When your history, knowledge of self, and culture are intact nothing can hold you back once the ankle weights are removed.

Yeah, but they were murdered at a prodigious rate. Kind of hard to benefit from your language and culture when you're dead, dumbass.

You sound like most white idiots. You just got through claiming that the Chinese were industrious business owners. Make up your mind. Were they all dead or were they alive? Its pretty apparent the ones that were not killed benefited from being able to keep their language and culture.

You sound like very few religious nutjobs. Pick and choose things to help your warped viewpoint, and twist things that others say.

Typical of those who have few facts on their side, but lots of belief in their cause. No matter how twisted that cause is.

I gave you some facts but you couldnt deal with them for emotional reasons. I would be disappointed if I didnt know for a fact you simply cant deal with it. I gave you the words of not 1 but multiple Greeks that actually laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. They didnt have to measure their melanin content. They didnt have take blood samples. They used the term Black, not brown, not tan to describe them in written works and your claim is that they didnt mean Black. Its hilarious the lengths whites like yourself go through to keep from dealing with facts so please dont claim I twisted something multiple people claimed. Not only are the facts showing that the Greeks grouped the Egyptians with the Nubians racially, there are absolutely no ancient historians claiming they were white. Hows that for a fact?

"And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptian are, they hold, Ethiopian, the colonist still preserving their ancient manners. For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials,. And the larger and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopians; for of the two kinds of writing which the Egyptians have, that which is known as "popular" (demotic) is learned by everyone, while that which is called "sacred" is understood only by the priests of the Egyptians, who learn it from their fathers as one of the things which are not divulged, but among the Ethiopians everyone uses these forms of letters."

(Richard Pankhurst, The Ethiopian Borderlands:1997 Diodorus Siclus, The Library of History, Books ;;.35-IV.58, Translated by C.H. Oldfather, Harvard Unveristy Press,2000)

Near death experiences are stressful. Silliness that you post is not stressful. Amusing sometimes, but never stressful.

 

[IM2]

You must be stressed like West.

Big Question: Why Do I Yawn When I'm Nervous or Stressed?

The extent of white fragility in people like westvall is hilarious. They act like it's going to kill them if long dead ancient Egyptians were black or that Africa actually had an equivalent civilization as Europe.

It's pathetic.

 

[westwall]

You must be stressed like West.

Big Question: Why Do I Yawn When I'm Nervous or Stressed?

The extent of white fragility in people like westvall is hilarious. They act like it's going to kill them if long dead ancient Egyptians were black or that Africa actually had an equivalent civilization as Europe.

It's pathetic.

I hope you were looking in the mirror when you vomited up that crap. The people who can't take the slightest bit of pushback is you. I am relying on well known documented fact for my opinions. You are relying on religious nutjobs for yours.

The fact that you get so angry about it just tells me you are just as much of a nutjob as them.

You claim the Greeks were black. That's ridiculous. You claim the Egyptians were black, I have already stipulated that Egypt was ruled at various times by the three regions, one of which was indeed black.

I acknowledge fact, and you insist on lying about what I said.

Thanks for showing to everyone that you are crazy, dishonest, and potentially violent.