Posted on Jun 24, 2023
WHY WASN'T I TAUGHT THIS?! TRUTH about the Irish - First slaves brought to the Americas
7.79K
101
44
8
8
0
Just think if we had the 1625 project made up of white people of Irish descent who wanted money from brokeback Joe Biden and the US government. I'm sure he would pay himself and Hunter millions of dollars from the US Treasury for reparations even though he wasn't born a Slave.
This youtube video is done by a History Professor. He goes back in History to the 8th Century when Vikings invaded Ireland and took slaves. This happened for centuries prior to the English coming in and taking indentured servants and slaves.
I was reading comments in the column that Irish Americans were talking to other people and being called racist for bringing up the topic that Irish were sometimes sold as slaves.
This youtube video is done by a History Professor. He goes back in History to the 8th Century when Vikings invaded Ireland and took slaves. This happened for centuries prior to the English coming in and taking indentured servants and slaves.
I was reading comments in the column that Irish Americans were talking to other people and being called racist for bringing up the topic that Irish were sometimes sold as slaves.
Dublin
Slavery
Ancient History
World History
England
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
I don't get the point of the whole video. Anyone who thinks slavery of all races and ethnicities hasn't played a role in civilization since the dawn of time slept through history classes........or attends a charter school.
(4)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
SFC Bernard Walko Charter schools are private operations that ONLY teach their agendas. Obviously reading, writing, and arithmetic are on their agendas, but many aspects of history aren't. Public schools are pretty much required to teach all history, quality can be debated, but exposure to history is what matters in education.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen that s the only other reference I heard of. Heard it in church not school
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen SFC John Davis Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth SGT Gerald “Jerry” Harrell SFC Bernard Walko - There seems to be a bit of confusion about charter schools. I dug into them when I was looking for an alternative to the traditional "district" public school for my special needs child before (ended up home schooling, but still found out a few nuggets of info).
• Charter schools are not private schools, they are public schools. They are usually run independently of a local school board and function off of a 'charter' granted by the state for a number of years. They are funded with the same public tax dollars that traditional "district" public schools are (an generally a bit less as they can't tap into certain 'school district only' type of funds such as construction bonds).
• Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen is correct that they (usually) can teach their own curriculum, however (at least in Virginia .. can't say this unequivocally for all states) the charter school must meet the same standards of accreditation, quality and learning that all public schools have to meet*. Again, it might differ in other states, but in Virginia those Charter schools will have a requisite level of history that has to be taught just as in traditional public schools. However, they are not tied to a specific curriculum or teaching method - as long as they meet the same SOLs.
• If a charter school doesn't meet the standards (accreditation, quality and/or learning), then they can (and have) lost their charter to operate and can be closed down.
Bottom line (again, for VA schools .. PROBABLY is like this in other states, but I just don't know without looking at the charter for each and every state) is that charter schools have to meet the same goals as established for other public schools, but can pretty much make their own path in reaching those goals. Since they don't have a school district they have to 'answer to', they are much more agile in changing how they go about traveling that path or if they want to create a new path ... as long as they meet the same SOL goal.
------------------------------------------
* https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title22.1/chapter13/article1.2/
* VA - Standards of Accreditation - https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter131/
* VA Standards of Learning - https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/student-assessment/virginia-sol-assessment-program
* VA Standards of Quality - https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/virginia-board-of-education/virginia-standards-of-quality
• Charter schools are not private schools, they are public schools. They are usually run independently of a local school board and function off of a 'charter' granted by the state for a number of years. They are funded with the same public tax dollars that traditional "district" public schools are (an generally a bit less as they can't tap into certain 'school district only' type of funds such as construction bonds).
• Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen is correct that they (usually) can teach their own curriculum, however (at least in Virginia .. can't say this unequivocally for all states) the charter school must meet the same standards of accreditation, quality and learning that all public schools have to meet*. Again, it might differ in other states, but in Virginia those Charter schools will have a requisite level of history that has to be taught just as in traditional public schools. However, they are not tied to a specific curriculum or teaching method - as long as they meet the same SOLs.
• If a charter school doesn't meet the standards (accreditation, quality and/or learning), then they can (and have) lost their charter to operate and can be closed down.
Bottom line (again, for VA schools .. PROBABLY is like this in other states, but I just don't know without looking at the charter for each and every state) is that charter schools have to meet the same goals as established for other public schools, but can pretty much make their own path in reaching those goals. Since they don't have a school district they have to 'answer to', they are much more agile in changing how they go about traveling that path or if they want to create a new path ... as long as they meet the same SOL goal.
------------------------------------------
* https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title22.1/chapter13/article1.2/
* VA - Standards of Accreditation - https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter131/
* VA Standards of Learning - https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/student-assessment/virginia-sol-assessment-program
* VA Standards of Quality - https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/virginia-board-of-education/virginia-standards-of-quality
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen I never went to a Catholic or Charter school. I was born near East LA and good thing my parents took me to Orange County where I grew up in La Palma and I went to Cypress College and later Cal State Fullerton. Basic high school, basic Community College and just the average California University. Nothing special and I didn't owe 60 Grand in college loans.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I seer PV2 Scott Mollette is spouting stereotype nonsense again:
"No wonder the Irish are given to drunkenness and revery"
"No wonder the Irish are given to drunkenness and revery"
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally I am Irish American and my police officer cousins in San Francisco all drink a lot. I don't know if they're the point of Alcoholics but alcohol is pretty prevalent in the Conway family. My sister was an alcoholic so I don't take any offense at all. I don't have a sore Papa over it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to sobriety. I'm sure there are plenty of AA chapters in ireland. I know in Latin America they have AA chapters and people are not shameful saying that they have a drinking problem. Up here in canada, the term drunk Indian is very disparaging but it's true. When my wife was in the hospital after she had her aneurysm surgery, all the family was there thinking she was going to die back in February of 2015, there was an Aunt Tina who was my age and who was staggering and trying to stay straight while looking at my wife recovering in the ICU. She was drunk and she was there and this was probably 8 or 10 hours after she stopped drinking. She ended up dying of diabetes a couple years ago and chronic drinking was major comorbidity Factor. So why don't take offense and if other people do, then they are denying the truth that we have ramp and substance abuse problems and Society especially with alcohol which is considered okay.
LTC Eugene Chu Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth COL Randall C. Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen COL Randall C. SFC Bernard Walko Capt Jeff S. SGT Gerald “Jerry” Harrell
LTC Eugene Chu Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth COL Randall C. Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen COL Randall C. SFC Bernard Walko Capt Jeff S. SGT Gerald “Jerry” Harrell
(4)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTC (Join to see) I'm Irish, too. I have been falling down drunk exactly one time in my life. I have been slurring words drunk about 5 times. Every single one of those was a special occasion (21st birthday, bachelor party, divorce party, bachelor party, retirement celebration). I have been legally drunk, but still fully functional, if slowed, a couple dozen times in 25 years of being over the legal drinking age (and I didn't drink before then). That includes 4 Years of Infantry time in my early- to mid- 20s. I have been over the legal limit approximately 1 out of every 300 days since I started drinking. Which I would think disproves the stereotype.
But that isn't the point. It doesn't matter if 98% of Irish are "given to drunkenness" or only 2% are. Stereotypes are bad. Period.
Even stereotypes based in fact without proper caveats - women are weaker than men - are bad. Yes, at every level, a direct comparison shows that ON THE AGGREGATE, women are weaker than men. Elite female bodybuilders are weaker than elite male bodybuilders. The average female beginning bodybuilder is weaker than the average beginning male bodybuilder and the average female couch potato is weaker than the average male couch potato. But the stereotype denies individuals their right to be an individual. And it denies exceptionalism. Because elite female body builders are stronger than 98% of males. And the 2% of men who are stronger are themselves exceptional. Stereotypes deny that reality - and they discourage people in the stereotyped group from striving. It gives them an excuse for failure, too.
If the Irish are given to drunkenness, then my alcoholism isn't my fault, and there is no point trying to fix myself. After all, I'm Irish.
Stereotypes do NO ONE any good. And SOME people harm. Saying things that are only partially true or not at all true and designed only to harm and and provide no benefit is shameful. It's not illegal. But distasteful, showing of low character, and generally repulsive. IMHO.
But that isn't the point. It doesn't matter if 98% of Irish are "given to drunkenness" or only 2% are. Stereotypes are bad. Period.
Even stereotypes based in fact without proper caveats - women are weaker than men - are bad. Yes, at every level, a direct comparison shows that ON THE AGGREGATE, women are weaker than men. Elite female bodybuilders are weaker than elite male bodybuilders. The average female beginning bodybuilder is weaker than the average beginning male bodybuilder and the average female couch potato is weaker than the average male couch potato. But the stereotype denies individuals their right to be an individual. And it denies exceptionalism. Because elite female body builders are stronger than 98% of males. And the 2% of men who are stronger are themselves exceptional. Stereotypes deny that reality - and they discourage people in the stereotyped group from striving. It gives them an excuse for failure, too.
If the Irish are given to drunkenness, then my alcoholism isn't my fault, and there is no point trying to fix myself. After all, I'm Irish.
Stereotypes do NO ONE any good. And SOME people harm. Saying things that are only partially true or not at all true and designed only to harm and and provide no benefit is shameful. It's not illegal. But distasteful, showing of low character, and generally repulsive. IMHO.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
It's not taught because it's not true. Irish did face persecution and discrimination but were not slaves. Indentured servitude is exploitive employment. Slavery is where a human is considered property instead of as a free person along with children also being born into the status.
https://drb.ie/articles/slaves-to-a-myth/
https://drb.ie/articles/slaves-to-a-myth/
The notion that large numbers of Irish immigrants were once slaves has been mobilised by the American alt-right to deflect from historical and contemporary racism while simultaneously promoting a white nationalist agenda based on claims of white victimhood.
(3)
(0)
LTC David Brown
The first Africans brought to America were treated as indentured servants. It wasn’t until a former African who had been an indentured servant and became a slave trader, Anthony Johnson, was allowed to keep John Caster as property. That started chattel slavery in the American British colonies.
(3)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
A person who is pressed into indenture against their will is a slave. Just because you call it indenture does not change what it is.
Indentured servitude was a way of selling yourself. When someone signed an indenture contract, they got something back in return. And there was also an end date.
The Irish who were captured and pressed into indenture and remained indentured were, in fact, slaves. Slaves with a less nefarious name, but slaves nonetheless.
Children not being born into slavery doss not make the parent any less a slave. Wherever you got that definition from has a highly biased and flawed definition.
Www.dictionary.com has two definitions for the word slave when used as a noun:
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another and forced to provide unpaid labor.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person
Definition 1 - a person (check) who is the property of (check) and wholly subject to another (check) and forced to provide unpaid labor (check).
Now, if they signed a willing indenture contract in exchange for something of value, that is not slavery. If they are pressed into indenture and recieve nothing in return, that meets the primary definition of slave.
Let's look at #2...
A person (check) entirely under the domination of some influence or person (check).
Meets the definition of 2, as well. Even though #2 is more metaphorical, as in "a slave to his desires," it is still accurate.
Many of the Irish WERE, indeed slaves, by definition.
Dictionary.com lists 4 definitions for slavery as a noun:
1. The condition of being enslaved, held, or owned as human chattel or property; bondage.
2. a practice or institution that treats or recognizes some human beings as the legal property of others.
3. state of subjection like that of a slave.
4. severe toil; drudgery.
Not one of those definitions mentions progeny.
You are playing one of the let's favorite games - redefining terms to fit your agenda and your narrative.
But your definitions are WRONG.
And so are you.
Indentured servitude was a way of selling yourself. When someone signed an indenture contract, they got something back in return. And there was also an end date.
The Irish who were captured and pressed into indenture and remained indentured were, in fact, slaves. Slaves with a less nefarious name, but slaves nonetheless.
Children not being born into slavery doss not make the parent any less a slave. Wherever you got that definition from has a highly biased and flawed definition.
Www.dictionary.com has two definitions for the word slave when used as a noun:
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another and forced to provide unpaid labor.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person
Definition 1 - a person (check) who is the property of (check) and wholly subject to another (check) and forced to provide unpaid labor (check).
Now, if they signed a willing indenture contract in exchange for something of value, that is not slavery. If they are pressed into indenture and recieve nothing in return, that meets the primary definition of slave.
Let's look at #2...
A person (check) entirely under the domination of some influence or person (check).
Meets the definition of 2, as well. Even though #2 is more metaphorical, as in "a slave to his desires," it is still accurate.
Many of the Irish WERE, indeed slaves, by definition.
Dictionary.com lists 4 definitions for slavery as a noun:
1. The condition of being enslaved, held, or owned as human chattel or property; bondage.
2. a practice or institution that treats or recognizes some human beings as the legal property of others.
3. state of subjection like that of a slave.
4. severe toil; drudgery.
Not one of those definitions mentions progeny.
You are playing one of the let's favorite games - redefining terms to fit your agenda and your narrative.
But your definitions are WRONG.
And so are you.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
(0)
(0)
LTC David Brown
SFC Casey O'Mally - The nay difference was the period of servitude was of limited duration. It was brutal and conditions were terrible. The first slave rebellion in the British American colonies was integrated, it involved both white and Black indentured servants.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Justin Bowen
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - Let's take a look at that just to prove how nonsensical the comparison is:
"After nine years of abuse and mistreatment, the remaining Menorcans sent a delegation to Saint Augustine to seek asylum. After walking the 70 miles to Saint Augustine, they met with the new English governor Patrick Tonyn who granted the asylum, giving them a small portion of the town to live in."
You know what happened to slaves who escaped and fled to free states and territories as well as to free Blacks who were simply accused by a white slaver of being a runaway slave? They were captured, sent to whomever claimed that they were escaped slaves, and forced back into (or into as the case was for Blacks who weren't slaves to begin with) slavery, where they were beaten, raped, and sold, bought, and bred like cattle.
The US federal government did that. For years.
As you can read above, the English governor who the escaped Menorcans fled to didn't just not send them back to be enslaved, he freed them and gave them their own plot of land to live on.
The experiences of the two groups are nowhere near comparable.
"After nine years of abuse and mistreatment, the remaining Menorcans sent a delegation to Saint Augustine to seek asylum. After walking the 70 miles to Saint Augustine, they met with the new English governor Patrick Tonyn who granted the asylum, giving them a small portion of the town to live in."
You know what happened to slaves who escaped and fled to free states and territories as well as to free Blacks who were simply accused by a white slaver of being a runaway slave? They were captured, sent to whomever claimed that they were escaped slaves, and forced back into (or into as the case was for Blacks who weren't slaves to begin with) slavery, where they were beaten, raped, and sold, bought, and bred like cattle.
The US federal government did that. For years.
As you can read above, the English governor who the escaped Menorcans fled to didn't just not send them back to be enslaved, he freed them and gave them their own plot of land to live on.
The experiences of the two groups are nowhere near comparable.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google