Talk:Irish indentured servants/Archive 1

Archive 1

Going too far against the myth?

Its very obvious that white supremacists are basically trying to downplay the black experience in America by conflating indentured servitude with slavery. Its clearly a deflection and the attempt to mitigate black slavery is full of falsehoods. However, upon searching this I feel like the debunkers are going a bit too far. My question is if there is a some truth to this Irish slave myth? From what I understand slavery existed in Ireland as it has existed most places. They issue here shouldn't be confused with English mistreatment of the Irish in Ireland which many proponents of the Irish sale myth try to do. These atrocities are very well known(famines, repression, racism). Similarly we need to be vigilante and point out attempts to conflate mistreatment of free people with slavery. Plenty of miners and industrial workers died on job sites in work accidents, they weren't slaves because they had very hard lives. Even when indentured servants who toiled in fields were beaten they still weren't slaves.

But, how much truth, if any, can be found in the idea hat the Irish are being brought to the Americas as slaves the way Africans were? Most myths have some nugget of truth at their core. From my limited research it seems like Cromwell sent some 10's of thousands of political prisoners to the Caribbean as slaves after his invasion. But thats it. The rest seem to have gone to the Caribbean or North America voluntarily, either as very poorly treated servants, indentured servants, or as free people. There was definitely discrimination against them, people seemed to view the Irish beneath other Europeans, especially ones who were Protestant. I'm assuming its possible because slavery did exist in Ireland that Irish slaves may have been brought to the new world with their masters, who themselves may have been Irish or English. To sum up, I'm looking for a reliable number on how many people of Irish descent were brought to North America as actual LEGAL slaves.

My other issue is that only this Liam Hogan fellow is really being cited. Even articles not written by him seem to be using him a their main source. We need more work from other authors.

NeoStalinist (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

See Irish slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So basically there wasn't one in America. Aside from the initial political prisoners(~50,000) Cromwell sent over that was it for the "Irish-Atalnitc Salve Trade". I'd like to thank you for your answer and your work on these two articles. They're both really good so far. NeoStalinist (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that, ta. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-English and anti-Jewish.

@Alfie Gandon: The article says that this issue is targeted solely against the Blacks. And only much further into the article someone might stumble upon the fact that it's also targeted against the English and the Jews, whom then accuse. However, it's quite obvious that Ireland and anti-globalists target the English much more than the Blacks. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yomal. You're contradicting yourself when you say "solely against the Blacks" and then acknowledge that one of its secondary purposes is to highlight British oppression of Irish people. I don't know what you mean by anti-globalists. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Title is misleading(sort of)

There is no myth of Irish slavery. Irish slaves existed. The article would imply that slavery did not impact the emerald isle, which is inaccurate. The name needs to be changed to something like "Irish Atlantic Slave Trade Myth" or "Myth or North American Irish Slave Trade". The myth is that Irish slavery was a huge part of the early slave culture in the New World, it wasn't. Its a historical fact Ireland was an important source of slaves for the European continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

O'Callaghan's work

There are two conflating political issues here causing bias in the article and I agree with Neo-Stalinist that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

(1) an American political issue: an ideological contest between American so-called right-wing and so-called left-wing organisations over American racial identity. OpenDemocracy and the Southern Poverty Law Center have a specific ideological agenda in the fight in that they want to discredit any sort of suggestion that European people were ever suppressed under imperialism. So they are not neutral and that is their motivation for hostility to the Irish slaves narrative and yes (ironically) non-Irish descended white right-wing Americans may be trying to use it for their pet ideological ends.

(2) a British-Irish issue: the issue surrounding British Imperialism in Ireland, in particular the brutalities meted out by the Cromwellian regime. The idea that the British Empire in Ireland was all cuddles and kisses and that it is just an Irish nationalist fantasy that the Irish forcibly sent to Barbados as indentured serfs (which is the context of O'Callaghan's completely legitimate book, which I have yet to see a reliable debunking of) is pure historical revisionism and IMO propagandistic itself.

The best policy would be to reveal all the cards... namely, what OpenDemocracy/SPLC's ideological starting point is to criticise the narrative (based on their conflict with the American right) and where the British Empire apologist/revisionist critique is coming from Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we do that without it being WP:OR? I agree that the article is quite POV right now, but I'm not sure that we can really fix it as long as it stays under the current title. Having an article on the "Irish slaves myth" would seem to suggest that the myth is something that is widely discussed in numerous RS. But really, it seems to hang almost entirely on SPLC and Liam Hogan's writings (which don't carry much weight). I think we'd be much better off redirecting this to a different title or existing article (maybe Irish labor in the Americas, Irish indentured servants, Indentured Servitude, or Irish Diaspora?) where we can gave a more balanced account of the different views, and explain that Irish indenture wasn't "slavery," in the sense that the "myth" argues, but definitely wasn't - as you put it - "cuddles and kisses" either.

To be clear: I'm not saying that we should treat "Irish slavery" uncritically (Alfie has accused me of that before) - I'm just saying that what's really needed here is an article that can discuss Irish indentured servitude in the Americas more generally, and give due weight to the different interpretations/perspectives on that subject that are covered in all the RS, rather than an article about the "myth" itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the best idea might be to rename this article as Irish indentured servants (which nobody disputes existed) and discuss all aspects pertaining to that, including the ideological controversy over it. It would probably be best to leave the Irish slave trade article to it's focus on the Viking period. The main reason it is being presented as a myth is because of the essentially tautological distraction over the use of the word "slave" over indentured servant. Outside of the Caribbean experience, it may be worth mentioning Irish forced labour in British-ruled Australian penal colonies. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you write an article about Irish indentured servants instead? Now you have an article about the myth that's called 'Irish indentured servants' and doesn't describe their experience at all. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"OpenDemocracy and the Southern Poverty Law Center have a specific ideological agenda in the fight in that they want to discredit any sort of suggestion that European people were ever suppressed under imperialism." - what? "The idea that the British Empire in Ireland was all cuddles and kisses and that it is just an Irish nationalist fantasy that the Irish forcibly sent to Barbados as indentured serfs" - what? No-one ever said this. "O'Callaghan's completely legitimate book" - you can't be serious. Among (many) other things, O'Callaghan's horror at the idea of African men having sex with Irishwomen is manifest in his lurid prose. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Because we have no evidence that there is such a thing as a "myth of Irish slavery", what we have is a couple of articles from partisan American/British political lobbies (openDemocracy is a British publication funded by American robber barons) who have decided that they dislike the use of "slavery" to cover both indentured servitude and chattel slavery. The idea that there is a "myth" is a marginal footnote of the actual subject of Irish indentured servitude. Trying to obscure the monumental crimes of the Anglo-Saxon supremacist British Empire by ironically claiming "racism" doesn't really cut the mustard. Can you find any academic sources which claim against O'Callaghan's work? Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You have plenty of rigorously researched evidence. You're correct that there's probably a lot more to write about Irish indentured servants than there is about the slaves myth, so why didn't you start an article on it instead of butchering this one with jingoist half-truths? Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, lets lower the temperature a bit hmm? It's clear to me that you're both editing in good faith, and both of your perspectives have merit and can be included in the article. Stop politicizing it and focus on content please. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanitising a Holocaust denier as a "revisionist historian" has merit? Wise up. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for "sanitizing" anything. And I have no problem using sources like this to incorporate the point of view you're advocating here. I just think we're better off having that incorporated into a broader article that includes an accurate, well-sourced historical account (ie, the "real" story of Irish indenture). There is a great article here if we can just focus on the sources and work together. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right; Irish indentured servants has the potential to be a great article. But this article is about the racist myth based on those people. If you want to make an argument that Irish slaves myth shouldn't exist and ought to be a part of Irish indentured servants, I'll hear you out. But I'm not going to tolerate being bulldozed in contravention of BRD. Alfie Gandon (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk

This is where you're supposed to discuss these matters, ATL. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were going to use caps. You need to discuss your change in order for it to be accepted. You haven't done that. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The irony of that is hilarious, a consensus has already been reached on the talk page of the page it redirects to. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Irish slaves myth talk page Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. Alfie, Claíomh Solais, Apollo The Logician, and myself all appear to agree that the Irish slaves myth page should be redirected to Irish indentured servants (but with the content preserved/improved as a subsection there). You appear to be the only one who opposes this course of action, so I'm not sure you're in a position to claim that anyone's actions were against consensus. I was really hoping you would see the potential for incorporating the "myth" part into a broader history of the subject (your opposition is puzzling to me, because the RS I am finding mostly support the idea that it's incorrect to think of Irish servants as "slaves.") Do we really need a formal move/merge discussion? The result is going to be the same... seems like a waste of time/energy for all concerned. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes we fucking do. You could have avoided all this bullshit if you'd had the courtesy to get in contact with the article's creator, it's not like you didn't know who that was. Why didn't you just create Irish indentured servants and then make the argument to have Irish slaves myth redirect there? It was a really dick move to first move the article, and then completely obliterate its content. Your coddling of CS' conspiracy theories and ATL's jingoism only sinks you lower in my view. You've acted in very bad faith. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do everyone a favour and read this WP:CONSENSUS. Also what jingoism? Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok a) no one "obliterated" the article's content, it's still right there. b) please don't accuse me (or anyone) of "coddling conspiracy theories" or acting in bad faith. That is obviously not the case, and you're exhibiting ownership behavior here. Relax, we can talk about it and come to a resolution I'm sure - but the edit warring is disruptive, and might very well end up getting you blocked. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not obliterating your content; I've left it alone. I've no problem with anyone editing Irish slaves myth in good faith, but what's happening here is way beyond that. Please relax, and stop: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Then we can talk about it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:OWN there is no requirement to consult an article creator, or give that creator any special status ----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on the relevant talk page; I've never edited this article and until I do I don't see the logic of using this talk page. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkpage

Please keep discussion in one place, and please keep the bickering down. Since there appears to be disagreement about the move, broader consensus can be solicited at WP:RM. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What's so special about Irish people?

I don't see much here to separate the experiences of Irish and British indentured servants. In fact, a compelling argument could be made to redirect to indentured servitude, naturally retaining any relevant content in relevant articles e.g. penal transportation etc. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is notable enough to warrant its own article Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It does, at indentured servitude. My point is that the majority of this article also applies to British indentured servants, so I don't see understand why there's an article on specifically Irish ones. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are tons of sources that single out Irish servants as a distinct & separate subject. Article is still very much a work in progress but I intend on adding a lot more within the next few days. I can assure you that the subject is notable though. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

While arguably there may be enough material to justify a separate article, one thing is clear - the "Irish slavery myth" (sorry - "American identity politics"!) section needs to be de-merged back to it's own distinct article with more NPOV eyes on it. What sort of process happened to justify it's merger here?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the old article should be recreated, and will either AFD it or propose a re-merge if it is. I am pretty confident that the result will be the same: I have been doing lots of research and will be making lots of improvements to this article in the coming days which should leave little doubt that the subject can be better and more properly addressed here, using academic sources that go into the issue in tons of detail but don't frame it as a discussion of the "Irish slaves myth." Note that that's not an endorsement of the "American Identity politics" section of this article as it stands, though - I agree it needs work (including importing some of the stuff that was in Alfie's article but got lost/cut in the merge). Happy to have that discussion and make that case though - the original merge was done in good faith I think: at the time, 3-4 people all agreed it was a good idea and no one had objected. Obviously more time should have been allowed for discussion though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not much of a process at all I'm afraid, Bastún. I agree with your proposal. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Ireland was a separate entity (although ultimately controlled by English Imperialists) and the most contentious aspect of indentured servitude in the Irish experience was the forced exiling of Irish political prisoners in the aftermath of the Cromwellian conquest and the confiscation of their lands. This simply didn't happen to English royalist opponents of the Parliamentarians, as far as I am aware. That is the main factor which differentiates the British case from the Irish case and there is enough of a body of independent source material which treats the Irish case in isolation from the British to warrant a specific article. I suppose it is like saying, why have an article on polar bears when we already have one on bears. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you name any transported prisoners who also had their land confiscated? Because that's not my understanding of how that process worked. One could also ask, why have an article about Holocaust denial when we already have one on historical revisionism? Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect disscussion underway

Alfie Gandon has (again) taken it upon herself to ignore the consensus and discuss a redirect on the talk page of Irish slaves myth. See talk page for discussion. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael J Monahan as a source

Is a philisopher really a reliable source for history? Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not - he's a full professor at a respected university, and the book is published by a major academic press (ie, peer reviewed). I picked that source because it succinctly sums up what I'm finding that a whole lot of other scholars say, so I'm not sure there's an issue of weight either. But maybe I'm missing something. What's the specific objection (ie, what do you think is inaccurate or undue about that passage?) Fyddlestix (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure his book was just meant as a political book expressing his opinions. That would be like using a book about the history of libraries that references the American Revolutionary War in one chapter as a source for the American Revolutionary War because it was published by a major academic publisher.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that - a large portion of the book is actually an overview of the history of the Irish in Barbados, and I found several academic book reviews that were very favorable, including one that praised it for it's "meticulous" history. Absent sources that directly challenge the book or the author's authority I don't see how the fact that the author is a philosopher should rule it out as a source. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

One further note: the solution to "over reliance" on a specific source - whether real or perceived - is more sources: I'm doing my best to hunt up every major source on this topic that I can, and intend to read/consult all of them to make the article as balanced and accurate as possible. That will be a long process, and I still have a lot of reading to do, but it would be helpful to suggest what other sources might be better used in place of Monahan if you think I'm using him too much. Probably it's just a factor of his book is one of the ones I read first, and it will balance out as we add better sources and more perspectives. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Plantations: Slave Life and Labor in Jamaica and Virginia

Unless, I a missing something, this book and the quote relating to it is just about the trans-Atlantic slave trade, not indentured servitude or indentured servants and would seem to be irrelevant to the scope of the article (it is comparing Black slaves in Virginia to Black slaves in Jamaica). As far as I can tell, the only Irish connection to it, is the fact a review of the book was published in the Irish Times. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right - a book review isn't a great source anyway if we could just cite the book. I'm removing it as off topic for now. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote

"For the myth that some of these slaves were slaves" - really? Why not simply refer to them as indentured servants, as is done in the preceding sentence? It's confusing at the moment, seemingly just to make a point. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Referring to this edit by Fyddlestix. I agree... that makes no sense. "For the myth that some of these indentured servants were slaves..." is better. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Urg. Thats a typo, what Evergreen suggests is what I meant to write. Thanks for catching it. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool beans! Thanks for fixing it! EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Overeliance on Donald Akenson

I think we are starting to overely on Donald Akenson in the article, who is essentially a British (Canadian) Crown court-historian, as a member of the Royal Society of Canada and Royal Historical Society and has a vested interest in underplaying the situation.

Various works refer to him as a "revisionist historian", for example;

In the Historical Essays on Upper Canada it states "Professor Donald Akenson has been a central figure in the creation of a revisionist approach to the Irish" and indeed his writings are mentioned in The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy.

Akenson's main claim to fame, presented in the nuanced language of academia is essentially to favour sympathy with Unionists (and Protestants) over Nationalists (and Catholics) in his works, while also having a mutual bromance with the infamous West Brit contrarian Conor Cruise O'Brien. His writings should be mentioned, since they are indeed notable to the historiography of the subject area, but not presented as disinterested or gospel. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't be your first "revisionist historian". What does he think about Jews? Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I can only assume, given your track record in this area, that the above comment is trolling. Do you know what the term revisionist history means? Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's try not to get sidetracked please. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about his other works, but Akenson's book on Montserrat seems to be pretty widely used/cited by other scholars in the area without a lot of criticism or comment, which suggests that it's considered reliable. Natalie Zacek's book re-states Akenson's main thesis as fact directly:

While Beckles' observations may ring true in relation to the situation that developed in Barbados in the early and middle decades of the seventeenth century, at which time planters and magistrates had yet to draw definite boundaries between the statuses of slaves and servants, and when Cromwellian efforts to subdue Ireland encouraged English colonists to conceive of the Irish as dangerous rebels, they are not as useful for understanding the experience of Irish settlers in the Leewards. In Montserrat, the majority of these Irish servants were not vagrants or convicts that metropolitan authorities had inflicted on a resistant colony, but were instead individuals who had been recruited to emigrate....

She goes on to describe a labor regime very unlike the one in Barbados, basically reporting Akenson's findings as fact - and that's just one example, I've found lots of other schoalrs doing the same. So I'd say his WP:USEBYOTHERS makes Akenson a very reliable source (along with the fact that he's a professional scholar and his book is peer reviewed, of course) make it a pretty good source. If you think he's wrong or it's being misused, I'd suggest hunting up some sources that take a different perspective so that we can balance his account when there's an appropriate and equally weight-y source that disagrees with him. But we can't not use a source that figures so large in the historiography just because some people dislike his politics, or one of his other books has been "revisionist" (as historians use the word, that's actually not always a bad word/slur anyway - every historical orthodoxy we have started as a "revisionist" interpretation). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Claíomh, you misunderstand the nature of historical research and what a historian is. Calling him a "Crown court-historian" does not help. While Akenson is Canadian, he is an Irish historian. An Irish historian is someone who researches Irish topics (and/or is Irish themselves) and he is one of the best. Truely good historians write without fear or favour of politics, going only by the evidence; you, on the other hand, are trying to discredit his work by making political comments. Either you don't like what you read in his work, or have never read it. Fergananim (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"thousands of Irishmen and women"

This ambiguous sentence has been restored as "what the source says". Is Block's book talking about men who are Irish and women of various nationalities, or about men and women who are Irish? Or does the original source use the same ambiguous phrasing? (If so, we should try to clarify that, rather than being just as ambiguous ourselves.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, found it, the opening sentence of the quoted paper uses the phrase thousands of Irish men and women, which (with the space) reads much more as if it means "men and women who are Irish". (I can't access the full paper, but we shouldn't write a sentence badly just because the source did.) At its most perverse reading, Block could mean "thousands of Irish men and some women", so I've restored the "Irish people" wording as unambiguous and not inaccurate.

(Removing the second comma from sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will also seems incorrect - to be "Barbadosed" is, I assume, another name for being sent to the Caribbean, rather than a second unrelated option.) --McGeddon (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a case where clarity is added and nothing is lost by changing "Irish and women" to "Irish people"; it's still supported by the source. Certain editors need to lose their battleground mentality. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)