The Slaves That Time Forgot
By John Martin
They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?
King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
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 it’s own to end it’s 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.
http://afgen.com/forgotten_slaves.html
I’m not referring to Rastafarianism here, but the Israelites stuff. If people identify with Hebrew culture on every level, that is beautiful, but at least understand the facts and that Jewish people are a Semitic people that has existed since ancient times (we have admixture from other groups, of course, but so much endogamy that we have to be mindful of certain genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs). By the way, we Jews (I am Jewish) are from the same genetic stock as what are now known as Palestinians. Just one more reason for peaceful solutions in the Middle East. But people of all different backgrounds will always identify with different cultures and subcultures…hence the hilarious Andy Samberg SNL digital short (parody of a white Ivy League college Rasta) “Ras Trent.” Worth a Google if you haven’t seen it. When he holds up his Sprite can “chalice” it’s so funny it’s better than antidepressants.
Since the whole artlcle is about the ethnicity of the slaves, then why are so many of the ethnic references so wrong? The ‘slaves’ are called ‘Irish’ yet the fact that prisoners from all over the British Isles were transported to the colonies as a part of their sentencing, is common knowledge here in Britain. And since this was also done under democratic governments, the policy at least had the virtue of having a fairly wide common concensus and agreement. The transportation of prisoners was a way of using criminals to reduce overpopulation resulting from the increased food supplies in the cities and the enclosure of farmland to set up new colonies in Australasia and in the New World. Orphans were still being transported from Britain to Australia into the 1960s although you’d be hard pressed to describe them as slaves.
The bias in ethinicity in the article is rather glaring. As previous posters have mentioned, James II and Charles I were both Scottish and both of them were overthrown by the English for essentially oppressing the English. Out of their overthrows, came great strides both in individual rights, and the concepts of justice and democracy which America and hundreds of other nations have copied. The American Declaration of Rights was an almost direct copy, for example, of the English Declaration of Right from 1688, after the Scottish James II was forced to flee.
So why are the slavemasters of America described as ‘English’? As many were Scottish or Welsh. But perhaps the writer has a reason to label the baddies as English? Or is it just lack of knowledge in the same way that the English steerage passengers in the film ‘Titanic’ are falsely turned into Irish?
There’s also a more important mistake. You write ‘In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell’. Humm. Actually the British Parliament banned the slave trade in 1807 and actually fought actions against American ships in order to enforce the ban. America refused to use its ships to enforce a ban until 1862 and to judge how tardy that is, Britain had already set up an entire country, Liberia, in 1822 as a home for freed slaves. The extent of that mistake should warrent a re-write of the entire article, which also neglects to include references.
You’ve also mixed up ethnicity and nationality ways that confuse greatly. For example, you write that, ‘From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English’. Yet the Irish campaign was fought against Scottish Conventers too, as well as other Irish and the upshot was that the Irish Catholic faction won. The Irish were guilty of initiating massacres of the Scots and English so your figures must include English and Scottish killed. And if ‘another 300,000 were sold as slaves’ as a result, they must have been sold by the Irish, since they controlled the country! Or perhaps the information is just mixed up. You write, of homeless women and children, that ‘Britain’s solution was to auction them off’. Yet there was no ‘Britain’ until 1702! What can you mean?
Truth is important.
Where do we go from here is the question.
i am proud to be irish we should also have history books in schools to learn more a bout our own history it is unfair that we study others and are forced to learn thire history but when it comes to the irish we have nothing only one holiday i wish some one would take a stand and have some balls to put the irish in the history books
I wrote an essay in college about Irish American slavery in this country and there are many internet cites that prove this. Needless to say I was not very well liked for it.
There is also a book called “The lies our teachers told us “
Well the Irish have St. Valentine’s heart in a church in Dublin,and somehow St. Valentine’s Day is celebrated all over the world, I’d like to know its history, maybe the Irish had a bit to do with it. Apart from St. Patrick’s Day, a big holiday across the globe, there is Hallowe’en, also Irish, and very popular in many countries. It’s likely that Brigid’s Day will become popular internationally too, as she appeals to Christians, Pre-Christians, New Age, and Neo-Pagans. The Irish have a lot to be proud of in many fields, despite the destruction of their educational system by an arrogant invader. The independent streak in the Irish character must not be alluded to in current history books, lest it jeopardize the fragile plans of Marxist European planners.
we don’t go anywhere.. Slavery and it’s abolition is history.. done over.. Thank goodnress..We need to be gratful for those who fought tooth and nail for freedom
Ras Lowe say’s we are all together on these issues of ancient greatness and a new great future. Forward…………..The Great Goddess/God lives in us all. naw mean
Well if rush limbaugh ever finds out about this he’ll scream to high heaven about it as a way to justify saying the N word and telling blacks how “entitled” they supposedly are
not saying we shouldnt talk about it but you could totally alter the narrative of race if you abuse it correctly
Shut the fuck up.
that was uncalled for everyone has their opinion and this is not the way to verbalize your opinion why don’t you grow up!
Normally I would agree with you, Kiki, but I think Shutup’s response was actually pretty restrained given what he/she was responding to.
You are an idiot. Rush limbaugh is a very educated man and he knows about the Irish slavery which he discussed on his radio show a couple of years ago. Also, Rush is not a racist. Obviously, you never listen to him, you are probably a dumb liberal. As the saying goes, “Liberalisim is a mental disorder{“.
Ann
“Rush Limbaugh is a very educated man…” I can’t go on reading. Too busy laughing my ass off
@Joe. lmao it’s funny cuz it’s true
He is educated do you have your masters degree, ignorance from you is no excuse
these records are of public record accept Obama’s how convenient
Rush is very much a racist Ann.. Your own racism blinds you this. When he sang Obama the Magic Negro and other little ditties I guess you thought that was just fun. And by the way Im not a liberal…. so what else you got
I say that everyone makes fun of themselves and of others grow up and stop beeing a boo boo baby most are tired of the race card! the civil war is over so get over it
you people know nothing about Rush, and since you don’t, why don’t you sick to the issue on this page and not write about something you know nothing about. Who need a masters degree, life is a masters degree. If you got a formal education in the last 30 years, you were taught how to get drunk and learn your progressive way. Get over yourself, you liberal, just stick to your talking points, cause we know you can’t think for yourself.
Uh, Lyds, the magic negro term did not originate with Limbaugh. Per Wikipedia: “The magical Negro is an archetype which was first applied to presidential candidate Obama by movie and culture critic David Ehrenstein, in a Los Angeles Times op ed column of March 19, 2007. According to Ehrenstein, the magical Negro is a non threatening black hero in the popular media, usually the cinema, who was invented to ease feelings of white guilt over slavery and racial injustice. He is noble and devoid of sexual motives, and appears suddenly, out of nowhere, to magically solve the problems of white people.
Ehrenstein opined that “Obama’s fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he’s written in his two books, or even what he’s actually said”. Rather, Obama was a popular contender for the presidency because whites were projecting their “fantasies of curative black benevolence” on him.[4]”
And, just for the record, Mr. Ehrenstein is black.
Rush Limbaugh has a high school education and has spent his career in radio.
OF COURSE this would turn into a black issue. Blind which is society lead by the blind. Americans cater to the whim of every liberal whiny black, including but not limited to our f’in President, yet, I see blantant racism toward the Irish everytime I turn on ESPN covering the Celtics, or idiots dressed as leprechauns on St. Paddy’s Day. Get over yourself, you racist ignorant moron.
It’s always a hidden thing in our society. People always make fun of the Irish or those of Irish ancestry. My mother always told me that our ancestors were whipped by the English until they stopped speaking Gaelic. I have many Irish ancestors and some scottish, most were celts and a few were descendants of the picts. My grandfather remembers the “No Irish Need Apply” era. Something that I have noticed recently is the word “Ginger” popping up as a nasty nickname for red heads. Rearrange the letters in “Ginger.”
That’s dumb tho, redheads have been called gingers for ages because ginger is spicy and redheads are associated with having tempers. Its just a stereotype, and while obviously not true its also pretty harmless. My partner has red hair and proudly calls himself a ginger all the time!
The English didn’t whip the Irish. The English monarchy and the governments were never English. The monarchy has always been foreign and they always mostly used foreign mercenaries, including Scots. Have you ever noticed how the British Empire did not really start until the union between England and Scotland, and all the main players were Scottish. It was built with English money, Scottish planning and Irish strength.
I do agree and am Irish with a long line of Irish ancestors who fought what they believed in
I truly appreciate the education you’ve provided to our younger readers. Hopefully this will will them to discuss it in their classes, and maybe even educate their teachers in history class. I applaud you!