Which Slaves Cost More?
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
78 comments displayed.
#89 to #2
-
randomwanker (01/09/2016) [-] I'm a wetback so all I have to do is talk to them in Spanish, it's quite handy
#86 to #75
-
anon (01/09/2016) [-]
I do find it a little ridiculous someone saying when "they're family" arrived. Unless it's like 1996 or something (i.e. you were the actual immigrant) it's a little more complex than that.
Even just going back to great grandparents you've got 8 separate ones. Did they all come in the same year?
Even just going back to great grandparents you've got 8 separate ones. Did they all come in the same year?
#4 to #3
-
chuchiereaper ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Oh! I want in on this posting too.
Did I do it right?
Did I do it right?
#43 to #3
-
boarderlinegreat (01/08/2016) [-] **boarderlinegreat used "*roll picture*"**
**boarderlinegreat rolled image**Bah you haven't seen my final form
**boarderlinegreat rolled image**Bah you haven't seen my final form
#22 to #3
-
bucketofhurt (01/08/2016) [-] Pah! Look how many negative thumbs I get for posting a gorilla
#7
-
woofman (01/08/2016) [-] I already knew this sh*t but you don't see me go full potato over what happened to my ancestors. I just get drunk, smash the nearest patron with my now empty whisky bottle, make up, and become friends with them sharing the new bottle.
#1
-
stankebottoms (01/08/2016) [-] They worked for potatos and if you did treat them well, they would make you delicious marshmallow breakfast cereal.
#6
-
anonmaverick (01/08/2016) [-]
wait im like half irish does this mean i can scream racism and blame all my problems on the english?
#49 to #6
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Weeeeeeeelllllllll
You wouldn't be wrong, at least from the Irush part. The Britbongs didn't have a reputation for not exploiting wherever they could. The potato famine, the straight up annexation of N.Ireland. Hell, if ww1 wasn't being a cunt Ireland could be part of the UK
You wouldn't be wrong, at least from the Irush part. The Britbongs didn't have a reputation for not exploiting wherever they could. The potato famine, the straight up annexation of N.Ireland. Hell, if ww1 wasn't being a cunt Ireland could be part of the UK
#116 to #49
-
bannon (01/09/2016) [-] You lack of history knowledge is vast. Firstly, the famine was caused by the Brits, they took our food, the nice food, and the potato blight hit. We had nothing for ourselves while the Lords had their feed.
Secondly, N.I wasn't so much annexed that it was kept out of our reach, and this was after WW1 and after the Proclamation of the Republic during the 1916 Easter Rising (this year is a big year for us).
We also had many people participate in WW1. It was seen as a job for most people. But saying that WW1 gave us our independence is just wrong. We only became a Free State in 1922 and a Republic under our own rule, independent of GB in 1937.
Secondly, N.I wasn't so much annexed that it was kept out of our reach, and this was after WW1 and after the Proclamation of the Republic during the 1916 Easter Rising (this year is a big year for us).
We also had many people participate in WW1. It was seen as a job for most people. But saying that WW1 gave us our independence is just wrong. We only became a Free State in 1922 and a Republic under our own rule, independent of GB in 1937.
#31 to #6
-
ninjaflapjack ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
The funny thing about all of this is that britain was the only world power that actively opposed slavery back then and it's only because of it's influence that slavery became uncommon.
#21 to #6
-
trollmobile ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] no, but you being half irish and not already blaming the british for everything is a miracle.
#14 to #6
-
blargchikahonkhonk ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Your part Irish and not blaming the British for everything. I didn't know that was possible.
#42 to #32
-
Lambda (01/08/2016) [-] Only partially. This is embellished quite heavily.
www.historynet.com/were-the-irish-slaves.htm
"Most often, however, they were indentured servants, under four to seven year contracts to work the sugar cane, tobacco or cotton fields until their time ran out and they would be released from indenture. In practice, the masters sometimes extended the time of indenture; others, for whom the indentured servant was not the lifelong investment that a black or native American slave was, had no compunction about working the indentured servant to death in his last year."
"the vast majority of indentured Irish, once their time was up, left the plantations (save for some 10 percent who had established their own), to try their luck anywhere else in the colonies—and often, in spite of centuries of anti-Irish prejudice, managing to establish new lives and livelihoods."
"Although, as mentioned above, indentured service could be worse than slavery, it was at least more temporary than that practiced on African slaves, although a myth has arisen equating the two..."
www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/liam-hogan/%E2%80%98irish-slaves%E2%80%99-convenient-myth
"“White indentured servitude was so very different from black slavery as to be from another galaxy of human experience,” as Donald Harman Akenson put it in If the Irish Ran the World: Montserrat, 1630-1730. How so? Chattel slavery was perpetual, a slave was only free once they they were no longer alive; it was hereditary, the children of slaves were the property of their owner; the status of chattel slave was designated by ‘race’, there was no escaping your bloodline; a chattel slave was treated like livestock, you could kill your slaves while applying “moderate correction” and the homicide law would not apply; the execution of ‘insolent’ slaves was encouraged in these slavocracies to deter insurrections and disobedience, and their owners were paid generous compensation for their ‘loss’; an indentured servant could appeal to a court of law if they were mistreated, a slave had no recourse for justice. And so on.."
"These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. [...] The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. [...] it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable.
www.historynet.com/were-the-irish-slaves.htm
"Most often, however, they were indentured servants, under four to seven year contracts to work the sugar cane, tobacco or cotton fields until their time ran out and they would be released from indenture. In practice, the masters sometimes extended the time of indenture; others, for whom the indentured servant was not the lifelong investment that a black or native American slave was, had no compunction about working the indentured servant to death in his last year."
"the vast majority of indentured Irish, once their time was up, left the plantations (save for some 10 percent who had established their own), to try their luck anywhere else in the colonies—and often, in spite of centuries of anti-Irish prejudice, managing to establish new lives and livelihoods."
"Although, as mentioned above, indentured service could be worse than slavery, it was at least more temporary than that practiced on African slaves, although a myth has arisen equating the two..."
www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/liam-hogan/%E2%80%98irish-slaves%E2%80%99-convenient-myth
"“White indentured servitude was so very different from black slavery as to be from another galaxy of human experience,” as Donald Harman Akenson put it in If the Irish Ran the World: Montserrat, 1630-1730. How so? Chattel slavery was perpetual, a slave was only free once they they were no longer alive; it was hereditary, the children of slaves were the property of their owner; the status of chattel slave was designated by ‘race’, there was no escaping your bloodline; a chattel slave was treated like livestock, you could kill your slaves while applying “moderate correction” and the homicide law would not apply; the execution of ‘insolent’ slaves was encouraged in these slavocracies to deter insurrections and disobedience, and their owners were paid generous compensation for their ‘loss’; an indentured servant could appeal to a court of law if they were mistreated, a slave had no recourse for justice. And so on.."
"These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. [...] The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. [...] it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable.
#77 to #42
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
The indentured servants thing is BS. Get your info from any black historian and they'll tell you that it's a way to downplay white slavery and make black slavery seem worse. Black historians will tell you that. White historians plagued with guilt and black "dindunuffins" will tell you otherwise because the history of slavery has to be blackwashed to make whites guilty and please black ignorance.
#39 to #13
-
shadoworchestra ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
This book seems to be the go to source - I haven't read it / know much about the subject so I don't know how accurate the book is, but you can read the synopsis here
This book seems to be the go to source - I haven't read it / know much about the subject so I don't know how accurate the book is, but you can read the synopsis here
#51
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-] "White slaves in America outnumbered Black Slaves"
Big ******* citation needed. Drop a link or get treated with the same credibility as social justice tards.
Big ******* citation needed. Drop a link or get treated with the same credibility as social justice tards.
#23
-
hongkonglongdong ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
They weren't "slaves", see. They were indentured servants. This makes everything better.
This is the same way that sweatshop workers in India are perfectly free and not at all owned by the textile factories they work for.
This is the same way that sweatshop workers in India are perfectly free and not at all owned by the textile factories they work for.
#25 to #23
-
bluerangermartin (01/08/2016) [-] I see your point but I want to add what indentured servant meant in this case was that after the ten years of service they were conscripted to do they would be given a small plot of land in some ******** in Ireland. However most of them either died or got screwed out of the deal and got nothing
#26 to #25
-
hongkonglongdong ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
My point was that you don't have to be called a slave to be one.
#27 to #26
-
bluerangermartin (01/08/2016) [-] Yeah I'm just adding some more information about indentured servants for anyone that wanted to know, not contesting what you were saying
#28 to #27
-
hongkonglongdong ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
I get it: I just wanted to make sure people didn't think I was saying that Irish people weren't really slaves.
To add: just as you don't have to be called a slave to be one, being called a slave doesn't make you one. For example, the people who ruled the Mamluk Sultanate -- the Mamluks -- were "slaves". But they were the aristocracy. Likewise (this comes up a lot with regards to white slavery) the devsirme Janissaries were the elite of Ottoman society. They ruled the country, and parents would in fact bribe officials to take their children to become them. The Turkish aristocracy also pressured the Sultans to let their children become Janissaries for centuries.
To add: just as you don't have to be called a slave to be one, being called a slave doesn't make you one. For example, the people who ruled the Mamluk Sultanate -- the Mamluks -- were "slaves". But they were the aristocracy. Likewise (this comes up a lot with regards to white slavery) the devsirme Janissaries were the elite of Ottoman society. They ruled the country, and parents would in fact bribe officials to take their children to become them. The Turkish aristocracy also pressured the Sultans to let their children become Janissaries for centuries.
#45
-
deadmanlopez (01/08/2016) [-] who cares? I came here for funny not some bitchin about "b-but we had it worse waah!"
<------ **** you OP, I expected actual funny like this
<------ **** you OP, I expected actual funny like this
#102 to #45
-
everyziggy (01/09/2016) [-] Actually most historians agree that the pyramids were most likely built by a paid work force of Egyptians. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/who-built-the-pyramids.html
The Jews wouldn't arrive in Egypt until nearly a thousand years after they were already built.
The Jews wouldn't arrive in Egypt until nearly a thousand years after they were already built.
#122 to #114
-
deadmanlopez (01/09/2016) [-] Im sorry I thought this was funnyjunk not waah my twat ancestors had it worse junk
#72
-
coldclaws (01/08/2016) [-] Cite your sources maybe? You can say whatever you want to counter people that annoy you, but unless you have some ******* sources, you're just another tumblr faggot fishing for notes/reblogs/thumbs/whatever you kids are calling it these days.
#44
-
failtolawl (01/08/2016) [-] There's criticizing people for forcing white guilt because of past actions
and then there's changing history
and then there's changing history
#63
-
ninjabadger (01/08/2016) [-] I mean we were basically the ******* of Europe for a good time.
At least some people recognize the **** the Irish have been put through by the Brits. It's not really a thing about who had it worse, it's just more or less letting people know it wasn't a practice that was solely one race versus another. It was also an indicator that people could be just as malicious to their own "race" as they could be to others.
One of the bigger points is that Irishmen were "expendable" compared to African slaves. This was very true. Treatment obviously varied from employer to employer, but they had no qualms putting Irishmen in incredibly dangerous positions for **** pay (or technically no pay, since agreements and contracts sometimes just dictated work conditions). We also weren't exotic commodities, we were just Irish. Thus we were cheap and expendable.
You don't see us complain all that much, but we do hold a huge grudge against the British for their **** . Same goes for the Scots.
At least some people recognize the **** the Irish have been put through by the Brits. It's not really a thing about who had it worse, it's just more or less letting people know it wasn't a practice that was solely one race versus another. It was also an indicator that people could be just as malicious to their own "race" as they could be to others.
One of the bigger points is that Irishmen were "expendable" compared to African slaves. This was very true. Treatment obviously varied from employer to employer, but they had no qualms putting Irishmen in incredibly dangerous positions for **** pay (or technically no pay, since agreements and contracts sometimes just dictated work conditions). We also weren't exotic commodities, we were just Irish. Thus we were cheap and expendable.
You don't see us complain all that much, but we do hold a huge grudge against the British for their **** . Same goes for the Scots.
#76 to #63
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
If we perceived time like a sidewalk you are pissed off that you were tripped two miles ago. Get over it things are way better now and there is no brit alive living a good life who committed any atrocities against people who you cant meet. This **** was so long ago that there people you cant meet that cant meet the people who were oppressed. I have irish, native american, and french during german occupation in my blood and i dont go around being prejudiced towards people who have never done **** to me or anyone i have ever known. Im not saying forget the past, but dont color it with emotions, because thats just as bad if not worse.
#88 to #76
-
ninjabadger (01/09/2016) [-] I like that argument, and again I never said we complained about it now. I just appreciate it being acknowledged that it happened.
I wonder if there's any other group that needs to hear this argument... hmm...
I wonder if there's any other group that needs to hear this argument... hmm...
#62
-
dammriver (01/08/2016) [-] Fun fact to play off of this.
The reason that bagpipes are commonly played at firefighter and police officer funerals is because of the Irish being seen as a "lesser people". Since they were considered "lesser", they had to work the hard or dangerous jobs, including policing and firefighting. This made both forces heavily Irish.
It's an Irish tradition to play the bagpipes at their funerals. When a firefighter or police officer died in the line of duty, since they were Irish, they were given a full funeral with bagpipes. Eventually, both forces became much more diverse and involved many people of many nationalities. Since it had become somewhat "tradition" to do, when non-Irish firefighters and police officers passed away, the Irish members gave a full Irish funeral to their fellow "brothers".
That continued up until today, though we now typically use the Scottish bagpipes as they are much louder.
The reason that bagpipes are commonly played at firefighter and police officer funerals is because of the Irish being seen as a "lesser people". Since they were considered "lesser", they had to work the hard or dangerous jobs, including policing and firefighting. This made both forces heavily Irish.
It's an Irish tradition to play the bagpipes at their funerals. When a firefighter or police officer died in the line of duty, since they were Irish, they were given a full funeral with bagpipes. Eventually, both forces became much more diverse and involved many people of many nationalities. Since it had become somewhat "tradition" to do, when non-Irish firefighters and police officers passed away, the Irish members gave a full Irish funeral to their fellow "brothers".
That continued up until today, though we now typically use the Scottish bagpipes as they are much louder.
#66
-
toviewsauce ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Pretty sure this is BS. indentured servants? Yes. Slaves? No.
#29
-
rishnock ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Ok so I googled it. The proper term was in fact "indentured servitude", not slavery. It was easier for an Irish "slave" to become free, because they could only be held for a pre-agreed upon time.
I don't think it was lawful to kill them, though. More research is required there, but different tertiary sources disagree with each other. There was racism against Irish, but it seems lots of people want to think it was worse than it really was in order to discredit modern blacks from hiding behind slavery.
I don't think it was lawful to kill them, though. More research is required there, but different tertiary sources disagree with each other. There was racism against Irish, but it seems lots of people want to think it was worse than it really was in order to discredit modern blacks from hiding behind slavery.
#41 to #29
-
theruinedsage (01/08/2016) [-] >Forced from their home
>Sold to merchant
>Sailed across the Atlantic
>Sold again
>Forced to work
>Treated like ****
Were I come from, that's called slavery
>Sold to merchant
>Sailed across the Atlantic
>Sold again
>Forced to work
>Treated like ****
Were I come from, that's called slavery
#54 to #41
-
rishnock ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Yeah points taken. But I read that they were prisoners or in debt or some **** , so it's not exactly as your tone describes it. If the home you live in aint yours, you can't be force out of your home, only removed from the property of your landlord. If you are in prison, you haven't many rights.
I'd have to look for some better sources, but I think your side is missing some details.
I'd have to look for some better sources, but I think your side is missing some details.
#56 to #54
-
theruinedsage (01/08/2016) [-] The details missing are that Ireland was occupied by the British at the time.
Which, other than reducing the population by HALF meant that very little the Irish did was voluntary.
Which, other than reducing the population by HALF meant that very little the Irish did was voluntary.
#73
-
PapaPalpatine (01/08/2016) [-]
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pi4qm/how_accurate_is_the_proclamation_that_irish/
Fact checking is important.
Fact checking is important.
#96 to #93
-
PapaPalpatine (01/09/2016) [-]
Figured it was the easier way to link all the links in the thread. I'm lazy.
#61
-
BraindeadBuddha (01/08/2016) [-] The Irish "slaves" (they were often more like indentured servants, not slaves as in get the whip and live in a shack) were treated better in virtually all cases, and I haven't been able to find a single (trustworthy) source saying that there were more white slaves. Please go away to /pol/ with your ******** unless you can find me some academic sources backing it up.
Doesn't mean anyone should forget that the English has always been happy to be absolute dickheads to the Irish, and the Scots etc.
Doesn't mean anyone should forget that the English has always been happy to be absolute dickheads to the Irish, and the Scots etc.
#106 to #61
-
gmarrox ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] Irish slaves were technically indentured servants and counted legally as people, but they were often treated far worse because part of this post that isn't ******** is that Africans were considered, bigger, stronger, and more valuable, whereas Irish slaves were expendable cheap labor. An employer was less likely to work an expensive slave to death as opposed to a cheap one.
