Talk:Slavery in Ireland

Previous

So, the sole sources for this supposed historical event are a book that was published in 2007 and an article that only references the book?

Seems legit. AlexMc (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll hit the books and serch the internet later, but I found this article when I serch on "white slavery usa" on google: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/15/white_slaves/. It seems to be many historians who have evidence that many white people were slaves, and I belive most of them were Irish. Others might have been victims of raids from the people living in the north of Africa, Berber pirates. Around 1 million Europeans were captured through the centuries and sold. Olehal09 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhetta Akamatsu is a "a certified paranormal investigator" and "Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl" is a novel. Not improving the case by including these as sources. AlexMc (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The entry is a perfect example of one side of an awful two sided trend on this subject. The article itself is full of specious, false, and miscontextualized sources, that are themselves, questionable at best. But the reaction on the AfD page is just as wrong int he other direction. Servants didn't have kids. Not with permission. They weren't allowed. It was standard in servant contracts. If they did, the kids also become indentured servants. And since Irish servants are embedded in the servitude phenomenon, their kids, if they had them, would inherit their condition to pay for their upkeep until they were adults. Additionally, that article that is cited from Academia.edu is just as bad as Rhetta Akamatsu's work. Half Baked Pseudo academic garbage. I feel dirty even copying it here Both are capable of half citing a few sources to reinforce their own confirmation bias, neither one of them is actually a stand alone peer reviewed work on the subject. Servants had access to the courts in theory, and they didn't use it often, because it wasn't court, it was a magistrate appointed by and from the Plantocracy who would decide their case. Who thinks that the majority of servants believed they would get a fair shake? And just to name a third trend in protectionist fallacies there is no historical consensus among historians about servants and slavery. Akenson, Beckles, Goveia, Solow, Williams, Dunn and Bridenbaugh all have different takes on servant's positions and status that conflict with each other. So the article sucks, but the reaction is pricelessly wrong as well. It needs a major reworking. On the one hand getting rid of it, removes a source of disinformation about a contentious subject. On the other hand, since I need snapshots of the page and the reaction for my Dissertation, I'm glad it's not gone yet. The best thing that could happen here is a merge, and a reworking to keep the subject heading from being reposted with more revisionist garbage. Robbie.johnson (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, Robbie.johnson. I'm honestly not contesting that indentured servitude could be an unjust and heinous practice, but it becomes really problematic trying to compare it and conflate it with African chattel slavery. I don't disagree that the article I cited has its limitations in actually exploring indentured servitude, but it's a million times better than any of the sources cited in this article as is. The academia article's main purpose was to point out that conflating indentured servitude with chattel slavery is naïve at best and revisionist at worst. I honestly am surprised there isn't an "Irish indentured servitude in the Americas" article already, but if all the sources from this article were removed, that nonsense about breeding Irish women and black male slaves removed, the whole article were reworked, and then transplanted into an article on indentured servitude... then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But indentured servitude, even at its worst, was not slavery. EricSpokane (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

HI EricSpokane. Conflation of dissimilar phenomena is obviously not a good thing, and this entry really is terrible. It must be fixed. If it's purged, it will just come back again. If we rope it in and domesticate it and keep the weeds from growing in, everyone will be better off. Pointing out Academic comparisons of two types of unfree labour would be ok (except when the results are not what someone is looking for) and those discussions, do certainly exist in the discourse. When we look at the Historiography of this issue as an embedded phenomenon, what we find is the the British Victorians, who had their problems as imperial mouthpieces but nonetheless had good archival standards, saw servitude in the early colonies as awful and sometimes worse than or sometimes conflated with slavery. The Americans who come into their own, historiographically after their civil war, resist this, but not because of the primacy of the black narrative, but because the American southern Historian school and leftover lost cause flotsam, will not allow white Americans to have been descended from people who were so reduced as to have been so equally wretched as a slave. So there is a 4 decades long back and forth between American White Supremacy based lost cause revisionism, versus the Imperial Historians. The 70's school capitalizes on the American movement and takes the American position, with influences from decoloniztion and the emergence of social history and this contextualizes into the primacy or ethnocentrism of the American Black Narrative, which is the dominant internet position this week. But America isn't the only player in this sordid tale. In the discourse, it is neither clear, nor unanimous, as to what the Servants were vis a vis Africans, because it changes based on time and place. The Caribbean Colonies have a different chronological flow than the mainland. The status of the discourse can only be called contested. The article from Academia.edu is really bad. I'm going to destroy it in my dissertation. And then I'm going to put critique of it on the same site. Because if you are going to make a case and put it out there, it should be a better case than the garbage you are fighting. It is not. There are good scholars, of note, Like Peter Wood from Duke, whose speciality is the Angolan rice Farming slaves of South Carolina, transported from Barbados, who will tell you in a heartbeat that in early colonization that very often servants were treated worse than slaves. The primary sources we have, Ligon, Exquemelin, Biet, followed by Williams, Beckles, and Patterson, all say the same thing. And there is no reason to disount those sources or arguments. Servants of all stripes are like leased automobiles. It's so awful as to defy description. This "But indentured servitude, even at its worst, was not slavery." is a bit reactionary, when we dig up the ghosts of all these poor people, what we will find, is that suffering and dead is suffering and dead. The attrition rates for the servants and slaves during the overlap from a servant labour force to a slave labour force with servants, to just a slave labour force, is high for everyone. Almost 50% percent in the Islands and worse in Virgina for the first 50 years. For the ones in the beginning of colonization who suffer together and die, there is no difference to them. They are simply ground up in the machine. There was certainly a difference later on, as white over black is invented with the invention of whiteness. But to say that servants always had it better in a blanket statement is actually not historically supported in the discourse. Sometimes, as individuals, and groups, they certainly had it worse. What's important is that that doesn't really change how awful the position of black slaves was on the whole. It doesn't need to. It's not zero sum. Am I missing something? Robbie.johnson (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed one of the most inflamotory parts, because it does seem kind of dubious. But just to clarify, slavery is not always chattel slavery, meaning children of the slaves, will be slaves too. The sources I have used now are two very good ones, published by honest academic institutions, and one which explain the one titled "the forgotten white slaves". I hope this is good enough. Olehal09 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read this review of the Jordan and Walsh book by an actual historian, Dominic Sandbrook (Jordan and Walsh are actually filmakers). Choice quote: "The book is subtitled and marketed as the "forgotten history of Britain's white slaves in America". Yet as the authors admit, indentured servants were not slaves [...] Calling them slaves might be a marketing ploy, but it stretches the meaning of slavery beyond breaking point." Also I've removed the globalresearch.ca link, it's actually a conspiracy theory website. The article is just a review of Jordan and Walsh's book anyway, not a source in itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Jordan and Walsh's book is published by New York University press, with other words a scentific insititution of higher learning. I can not see to find any sources on the idea that they are filmmakers. The Person you have refered to just say he don't agree with the term slave, but acording to most defentions, it can be called slavery. Atleast those who were forcfully shipped over. While not chattel slavery, it were slavery in all other ways. Many were actually acording to the book, effectivly enslaved. Read it in the introduction: https://books.google.no/books?id=KjOIEDCpxsQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=no#v=onepage&q&f=false. I can also se you were wrong about the website you removed. globalresearch.ca is a non-profit research organization and publisher. 84.48.84.86 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@84.48.84.86: NYU's own site for the book specifically states that Jordan is a "television director and writer," and that Walsh is a reporter, producer, and writer. The review in the telegraph that I already linked also states directly that they are "a pair of television documentary producers." As for globalresearch being a conspiracy site, this is well established: see here for example. Or you could just check out the kind of stuff they post and it should be pretty obvious. I'll be removing the link again, if you want to put it back please take it up at RSN, where the site has been repeatedly discussed and dismissed as an unreliable, WP:FRINGE source. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of different if they are: "Don Jordan is an award-winning television director and writer who has worked on dozens of documentaries and dramas. He lives in London." and "Michael Walsh spent twelve years as a reporter and presenter on World in Action and has won several awards for his work. He is now a producer and writer living in London, specializing in political and historical documentaries.". With other words, they are professionals, not as you tried to put it. It's not important to me that globalresearch is used as a source, but I thought it was credible. I guess I was wrong. Olehal09 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Move to "White slave trade to America"

I was to quick when I found those sources (and did a very bad job when I first made this article in general I can see!). This does not mean that the other ones are invalid, and I think you should read about the subject before you make a decision. If we delite the sources and call it "White slave trade to America" it would be better. Because we have two credible sources on this subject. In "White cargo" the author have written about many different people being forcefully shipped off to the new world and being treated horrificly. While not chattel slavery, it were by defention slavery. Many others sold their labour (indentured servitude) for many years, to sail over to the new world, they were treaten very badly by their "owners". Often black slaves and white "slaves", not chattel, rebelled against their owners together. Read more, preview of the book: https://books.google.no/books?id=KjOIEDCpxsQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=no#v=onepage&q&f=false Olehal09 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Explaining why this is an issue that will not die

Copied from the Deletion Debate Page Hey Fyddlestix ANY of the contemporary sources worth their salt take the idea of Irish Slavery seriously. Nini Rodgers or Akensen's or Beckles' or Dunn's Sugar and Slaves, or the work from the New Americans like Jenny Shaw. The issue is not to conflate Irish experience and the Black Experience for American Political Points. Or to dignify the conflation , but the Issue is to compare and contrast and find out why the Meme or trope of the irish as slaves exists, and has existed for hundreds of years, and why it's there, why it keeps going, and why it started. And most importantly what about it is accurate and what is not. Just being iconoclastic about this doesn't match protocol here or in historigraphy at all. Rodgers notes in her book that conquered and colonized peoples use the word slavery, or enslaved often and the Irish are no different. Akenson, notes that the Irish were just as prone to be abusers as abused, and after going after Beckles at first, saying that on Monserrat there's a "Universe of difference between servant and slave" admits pages later that the lived experience of Irish and Black unfree labour on Barbados was strikingly similar, except that the Irish eventually had an out. Beckles calls all servants with no recourse to bettering their positions proto-slaves and takes the idea of the Irish as mistreated very seriously enough to answer and show exactly what is accurate in their cultural history of oppression and what isn't. Jenny Shaw and Kirsten Block have redefined the terms in their work, Subjects without an Empire, talking about the period before the slave codes were written as Unfree and Free labour. So any scholar of note, and there are more I could quote, takes the trope very seriously, and rather than simply dismissing it, and throwing more tropes and misinformation (i.e. Servants' Children being born free, they certainly weren't supposed to have kids at all, and the kids who were born and immediately indentured until adulthood. ) at it, they deal with the root causes of the idea, and explain the reasoning behind it. So, I have done so. Hopefully to your satisfaction And as the debate is over and the page has been merged, if you need more sources or explanations so you can accurately answer questions about the topic, hit me up. Cheers. Robbie.johnson (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Not comparable

Hello Fyddlestix, why do you say your choice is better than mine? I redirected to an article concerning a time when there was an actual Irish slave trade, not just one imagined by racists. I'm concerned that your redirect panders to the view that indentured servitude is comparable to chattel slavery. It's not. Alfie Gandon (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion resulted in a consensus that the page should redirect to Indentured servitude. Also the page you redirected to does not mention either slavery or indentured servitude at all, so it does not seem relevant to me at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not even remotely... EvergreenFir (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Snopes almost certainly has a piece about how Irish indentured servants were not slaves, and if they've done their research they'll describe to you how the 17th century 'Irish slave trade' is a racist fabrication designed to undermine black civil rights movements. The last time there was an actual Irish slave trade was in the Kingdom of Dublin. This racist trope is a serious problem, and you haven't even remotely helped in resisting a flat-out attack on the historical record. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As I thought, Snopes is bang on the money. Yet you're using the existence of that article to argue the opposite of its argument. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm saying that "Irish slave trade" is a rhetoric twisting of history used primarily by slavery apologists and white supremacists. There was indentured servitude of Irish, not slavery (which is what Snopes says/confirms). What I'm trying to say is that the WP:COMMONNAME association with this term is its reference to the indentured servants, and not slavery in the Kingdom of Dublin a millennia ago. I don't think the article should redirect to Kingdom of Dublin as most people who search this term will be referring to what was actually indentured servitude. (Not sure if that's much clearer... disagree with change in redirect per COMMONNAME). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Then we're agreed on a lot. I don't agree that this page ought to redirect to [Indentured servitude], as this would be a victory for the racists who are (often successfully) conflating that servitude with actual chattel slavery. If necessary, we can include a note at the top of the article for those who've been conned, directing them to [Indentured servitude]. There's also an argument for not having a redirect at all, and using this article to describe the actual Irish slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's a better idea after all. No redirect but an article about the actual Irish slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You've no objections, I take it? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made a start. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if "Slavery in Ireland" would be a better title for this article. It would fall in line with the fifty or so like-named articles [1]. The trafficking of slaves for profit is just a part of the picture.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I've been away a bit but I must raise my objection to the rewrite of this article. I agree with Fyddlestix that this particular title needs to redirect to Indentured servitude per WP:COMMONNAME. People searching this phrase are most likely to be looking for the info about the myth of Irish slaves in the American colonies. An article about slavery in Ireland belongs under Slavery in Ireland. I wholly welcome such an article. I only object to the change in scope of this one. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with a situation where [Irish slave trade] directed people away from the [Slavery in Ireland] article. For anyone who's been conned by the racist 17th century 'Irish slaves' trope, there's a signpost at the top for [Indentured servitude]. Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like we have consensus to move the current page (the one Alfie has created) to Slavery in Ireland, yes? If there's no objection I'm going to go ahead and do that later today. As for what Irish slave trade should redirect to, I'm firmly in EvergreenFir's camp here - it's pretty clear to me that people who go looking/searching for those terms are looking for information about the - supposed - "slavery" of Irish indentured servants in the Americas. The redirect needs to reflect that, not point people to an article that has very little to do with the topic that they're actually searching for. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix. Perhaps we need more opinions? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm vehemently opposed. First of all, you're pandering to dangerous racist nonsense. Secondly, you're proposing to redirect readers away from an article about the actual Irish slave trade to a fictitious one. Thirdly, the racist trope mostly refers to the transportation (not trade) of Irish prisoners of war after the Cromwellian wars, which means even if this page isn't to redirect to [Slavery in Ireland] (which it should), penal transportation would be a far more suitable destination than indentured servitude. Lastly, for those who have been conned by the racists, both of those articles are already signposted at the top of this one. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Alfie Gandon: Please don't accuse us of "pandering to dangerous racist nonsense" - both EvergreenFir and I are well aware of how this topic is appropriated by racists, and we are both opposed to that. Speaking personally, I think the fact that there's so much disinformation about the topic makes it more important that the redirect points to a page where people can get an accurate account of how Irish laborers in the early Americas were treated - guiding people who have searched for an incorrect term to a page where they can get the "real story" of what they're curious about is not the same thing as validating the inaccuracy. Everyone is arguing in good faith here, we just differ on the appropriate solution. I will post to a couple of relevant wikiprojects, see if we can get more input. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my choice of language in my first point was inappropriate and I apologise. Perhaps we could expand the signpost in explanation of the trope, but your plan doesn't address my third point; even were this page to redirect away from [Slavery in Ireland] (which I oppose), a more logical destination than indentured servitude would be penal transportation. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've also started Irish slaves myth. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

When did it end?

When was slavery formally abolished on the island of Ireland? The article only mentions England banning it in the early 1100's in their own kingdom, but the article makes no mention of when it was made illegal in Ireland. By the time it was outlawed in the British Empire had it already been abolished or was it still going on that late? NeoStalinist (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't; presumably the Normans just extended their ban where they could after they conquered, as they did with their other laws. The slave trade in Ireland had been dying anyways, under pressure from both the Church and economic considerations like the loss of the English market and the dwindling of contacts between the Norse-Gael towns and Scandinavia. There may have been isolated incidences immediately after the Conquest, but it's difficult to imagine this period being longer than a few decades. By the time of the 19th century empire-wide ban, there hadn't been slavery in Ireland for around 600 years. The only exception to this was the odd African slave brought from the Caribbean by some rich Irish family with business interests there, but even these weren't traded in Ireland. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

lol

@Alfie Gandon:So apparently Alfie Gandon objects to removing an article that doesn't exist. Care to explain why Alfie? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please make the case for your proposed change. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol the page doesn't exist Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Loyal Orange Lodge to you too. Fret not, that situation won't last. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And what situation is that? Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

ATL, I reverted your removal of the following sourced content: "Gaelic raiders kidnapped and enslaved people from across the Irish Sea for two centuries after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire destabilised Roman Britain". Unless you make a case for what on the surface appears to be your embarrassment at Irish involvement in slavery, I will continue to revert you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern Irish Slavery

There was a trial involving several families from the Irish Traveller community keeping people as slaves. As this is a current issue what page would this be on, Slavery in Britain or Slavery in Ireland, Irish Traveller page? As these are two Irish national families who were keeping slaves abroad should it be added. I think so considering the article talks about Irish people taking slaves from other nations. Uthican (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-41241049 https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-traveller-family-farm-slavery https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-traveller-family-sentenced-to-18-years-for-slavery-by-uk-court-184252811-237554311

They appear to be British citizens. The BBC article does not mention an Irish background as far as I can see. The "irishcentral" article does, but only says that they regularly went back there. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention Oliver Cromwell, who sold more than 50,000 Irish into slavery in the Carribean islands

Very important subject. Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and more all have large numbers of Irish surname descendents whose Irish slave ancesters intermarried with African slaves. The majority of Jamaican towns are Irish placenames. The famous Jamaican English has a lot of Irish influence too. Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Cromwell didn't do that. Irish indentured servants is the article you're looking for. You may want to read the Irish slaves myth article too, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia always gets it right? Oh no-- not true. British academia has a centuries long, well-documented history of anti-Irish denialism. Irish famine denialism and minimization in the history of British academia is another example. Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, right - so why does Irish academia agree with them? And American for that matter - it's just American nutjob websites that don't. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on what the sources say. Irish historians and academia have extensively documented Cromwell's evils, including the widespread use of indentured servitude. Irish historians and academia have also debunked the slavery myth. What any of that has to do with the Great Famine, I don't know. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Which Irish historians?

1) There is extensive record that the primary reason for British leadership failing to address the famine was due to "blaming the Irish" due to their supposed "laziness and other moral and religious failings". Bigotry was the primary reason for British leaders failing to respond sufficiently to the famine.

2) But there is little mention of this in the Wikipedia article about the famine.

3) The top link in the "See also" section in the article is "anti-British sentiment".

Why is that the top link listed in an article about one million Irish dying, in large part due to bigoted British leadership at the time?

Never just pay attention to what is in an article about Irish history. Always consider what may have been left out.

There should be no anti-British sentiment. But making that a primary issue in such an article-- is giving that issue precedence over the main topic of the article. A common occurence in the history of British academia. Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to put your signature on a line by itself, you're not writing a letter. If you want to discuss improvements to the Great Famine (Ireland) article, please do so on that article's talk page, not here. But please be aware, many (if not most) of the contributors to that article were/are Irish, not British. Nor American. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There were no Irish historians during the time of the Irish famine. Most primary sources for the time were British or British controlled. So that still today' significantly controls the narrative.

It was completely legitimate for me to show an example of how historical bias affects interpretations of Irish history.

You should not be editing anyone elses comments (including someones signature). If you don't like it, you may say so. But please don't edit my Talk Page comments any more.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether or not there were or are Irish historians knowledgeable about the Famine is irrelevant, especially on this page. Again, discuss improvements to the Famine article at the Famine article. Please also see WP:NOTFORUM. And if you follow WP:SIGHOW, nobody would need to edit your sig. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I just gave you an example about how such sources are suspect. That is legitimate here because this article also depends on original British sources.

I just therefore made a clear case for how historical British sources are very suspect for this article too. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And...? Are you going to outline which sources, specifically, are problematic, and explain why they are so? Or just cast aspersions on "the British sources" in general? There are currently 27 references, most of them Irish, some American, one Jamaican, so it shouldn't take too long to list what the problems are. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

All of the sources here are based on original British sources, regardless of the nationality of the current academic interpreting them.

Pervasive bias against the Irish amongst British historians of the 1800's is a historical fact not an "aspersion".

It's not an "aspersion" to say that the majority of White historians in America in 1860 were racist, it's a fact. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're challenging all of the sources in this article? Including the ones from History Ireland, a Routledge encyclopedia written by an Irishman, Danish academics writing about the Viking slave trade, such acknowledged experts as Nini Rodgers?! Might the University of the West Indies not be somewhat reliable when it publishes something about Irish slave owners in Jamaica? The Irish Times isn't a reliable source?! Really?! At this stage I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. But no. This isn't how Wikipedia works. List specific problems with each source you're disputing - e.g., "they say X but they're contradicted by these other sources, Y and Z"; and not "they must be biased because Britain!" Or we're done here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned the Irish Times, here (from the Irish Times)--

"Why did the Irish go to Barbados?

They were innocent Irish people who were rounded up from across the country by teams of Oliver Cromwell's “man-catchers”, bound in chains and shipped to Barbados to work on sugar plantations. Their descendants are still there today – some of them in absolute poverty – isolated, unassimilated and uneducated." Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

An article in the lifestyle section under "MAGAN'S WORLD:Manchán Magan's tales of a travel addict" does not see WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It took you a week to come up with "The Irish Times is still not a reliable source because I say so but actually this one bit in its Lifestyle section by a travel writer is clearly reliable"? Seriously, Chesapeake, give it a rest. O'Callaghan's book, mentioned in that article, has been thoroughly debunked - once again, I urge you to read the Irish slaves myth article. WP:FLOG and WP:RGW may also be of relevance! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"It took you a week to come up with..."

No, 99% of my editing right now has do with the articles-- "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"-- and-- the article about-- the human rights catastrophe going on (right now)-- during the "Siege of Mariupol" (also a part of that war).

Those situations are keeping me very busy.

The "travel writer" herself in the I.T. piece is not the point, it's the sources she refers to (when I have time).

You say "Debunked", do you have any specific sources on this so-called "Debunkment"? I'd like to take a look at them.

• • I actually know even more about the "Red Leg" people of Barbados (I have for years)-- but I don't have much time at the moment to get into it.

They are a real subculture there, with passed-down memories of Irish chattel slavery. They were called "red-legs" because the fair-skinned Irish slaves got horrible sun-burns while working unprotected in the fields, in the near-equatorial Carribean sun. Their owners then intentionally "married" them with enslaved African people (their "logic") to reduce the sun burn problem. Hence they are of mixed Irish / African heritage today.

OK, I have to go. My slow responses on this will be due to more pressing matters-- not for any other reason. Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are, unfortunately, now just repeating common parts of the Irish slaves myth. The indentured servants sent to the Caribbean weren't slaves, and so did not have "owners". They were not "married with" enslaved African people - although it's part of the myth that they were forcibly "bred". Once again, the Irish slaves myth covers some of the origins of the myth, including O'Callaghan's To Hell or Barbados - the sole source used by the travel writer in the Irish Times. Please read it. It does well in debunking the book. Here are some others (some may already be in that article, some may not be): Critique of Sean O’Callaghan's "To Hell or Barbados"; How the Myth of the "Irish slaves" Became a Favorite Meme of Racists Online; Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too; ‘Irish Slaves’: Debunking the Myth; The unfree Irish in the Caribbean were indentured servants, not slaves. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Vandalized

The Atlantic slave trade section has been vandalized.

"Sections of the Irish population were slaves within the Atlantic slave trade along with Black African slaves between 1660 and 1815."

I am unable to correct this at the moment. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Tampering with terminology

Someone seems to have been playing around with the ethnic terminology in the you-know-what section. The beginning claims that Liam Hogan claims that "Anglo-Irish" merchants were involved in the slave trade, but Hogan said no such thing. His work states clearly that all sections of Irish society produced people who were involved in the slave trade to varying degrees and in different capacities.

Then, when speaking of Mitch McConnell's and Jesse Jackson's genealogies, someone inserted "Scots-Irish" into the description. Is this what the sources say or has this editor taken it upon him/herself to clarify this? Because if the source uses the term 'Irish' then the article must adhere to that wording. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)